Skip to content

It seems like I can't stop writing about coffee (here and here). Coffee drinkers rejoice: another study (presented at the European Society of Cardiology) finds health benefits from drinking several cups of coffee daily. This study, like other previous studies, found an inverse relationship between drinking coffee and early death ("all-cause mortality") - meaning the more one drinks coffee, the less likely one is to have a premature death. The biggest effect was in drinking 4 cups daily in people aged 45 and older! It was an observational study, so can't prove it definitely - can only say there's an association. But still... it's looking good. From Medical Xpress:

Higher coffee consumption associated with lower risk of death

Higher coffee consumption is associated with a lower risk of death, according to research presented today at ESC Congress. The observational study in nearly 20,000 participants suggests that coffee can be part of a healthy diet in healthy people. 

The purpose of this study was to examine the association between coffee consumption and the risk of mortality in a middle-aged Mediterranean cohort. The study was conducted within the framework of the Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra (SUN) Project, a long-term prospective cohort study in more than 22,500 Spanish university graduates which started in 1999. This analysis included 19,896 participants of the SUN Project, whose average age at enrollment was 37.7 years old. .... Patients were followed-up for an average of ten years. 

During the ten year period, 337 participants died. The researchers found that participants who consumed at least four cups of coffee per day had a 64% lower risk of all-cause mortality than those who never or almost never consumed coffee. There was a 22% lower risk of all-cause mortality for each two additional cups of coffee per day.

The researchers examined whether sex, age or adherence to the Mediterranean diet had any influence on the association between baseline coffee consumption and mortality. They observed a significant interaction between coffee consumption and age. In those who were at least 45 years old, drinking two additional cups of coffee per day was associated with a 30% lower risk of mortality during follow-up. The association was not significant among younger participants.

Two recent studies, both done in California, looked at different aspects of pesticide exposure. They highlight how people can be exposed to pesticides in the air they breathe, especially if they live in areas where pesticides are heavily applied (such as farms). But keep in mind that even in suburbia, every time a neighbor applies pesticides on the lawn or trees - there is drift, and so you are also exposed (e.g., breathing it, droplets on the skin).

The first study found that pregnant women with high pesticide exposure (living in areas near farms using pesticides) had increases in adverse birth outcomes (low birth weight, shorter pregnancy length, preterm birth, birth defects or abnormalities). No effects were seen with low pesticide exposure. But note that these results are what could be seen at birth - they do not include effects that can only be seen later, such as delayed development, learning disabilities, lower intelligence, asthma, autism - all effects found in some studies.

The other was a California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) 2016 report on air monitoring results (from 6 sites) of 32 chemicals (pesticides and breakdown products) in California. Some pesticides were not detected, some were only at trace amounts, and some were detected at higher amounts  - and the amounts fluctuated over the year and from site to site. [NOTE: They did not monitor for 2 widely used pesticides: glyphosate, which is in Roundup, and 2,4-D. Hmm...]. A Kern County high school monitoring site showed levels of the pesticide chlorpyrifos more than 18 times higher than EPA's "level of concern for pregnant women" - but yet these levels are considered OK for the general public.

Chlorpyrifos is "controversial" in that scientists (including EPA scientists), medical professionals, and farmworker organiztions asked that its use be banned due to its serious health effects on humans, but this year EPA chief Scott Pruitt refused to do so (he gave in to pesticide industry lobbying). The bottom lineWhat effect do the mixtures of pesticides (at chronic low levels) that we're exposed to have on us? Unknown. 

From Medical Xpress: Researchers unravel the negative effects of pesticide exposure on birth outcomes

Although common opinion holds that exposure to pesticides increases adverse birth outcomes, the existing body of scientific evidence is ambiguous..... A new study by researchers at UC Santa Barbara addresses the issue in a novel way—by analyzing birth outcomes in California's San Joaquin Valley. With more than one-third of the country's vegetables and two-thirds of its fruits and nuts produced there, the San Joaquin Valley, not surprisingly, is a heavy pesticide-use region. The UCSB team investigated the effect of exposure during pregnancy in this agriculturally dominated area and observed an increase in adverse outcomes accompanying very high levels of pesticide exposure

"For the majority of births, there is no statistically identifiable impact of pesticide exposure on birth outcome," said lead author Ashley Larsen, an assistant professor in UCSB's Bren School of Environmental Science & Management. "Yet mothers exposed to extreme levels of pesticides, defined here as the top 5 percent of the pesticide exposure distribution, experienced between 5 and 9 percent increases in the probability of adverse outcomes with an approximately 13-gram decrease in birth weight."

Using individual birth certificate records for more than 500,000 single births between 1997 and 2011, coupled with pesticide use data at a fine spatial and temporal scale, the scientists were able to determine if residential agricultural pesticide exposure during gestation—by trimester and by toxicity—influenced birth weight, gestational length or birth abnormalities.

They found negative effects of pesticide exposure for all birth outcomes—birth weight, low birth weight, gestational length, preterm birth, birth abnormalities—but only for mothers exposed to very high levels of pesticides—the top 5 percent of the exposure distribution in this sample.... Numerous chemicals are used daily in close proximity to residential areas, making it difficult to ascertain a specific responsible agent. As a result, in this study, the researchers looked at the combined results from all pesticides used in the region[Original study.]

Excerpts from Beyond Pesticides: Neurotoxic Pesticide Detected in Air at High Levels in California County

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) released its 2016 air monitoring data where it was revealed that chlorpyrifos air concentrations for a one-month period at the air monitoring site on the campus of Shafter High School in Kern County was 39.4 nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3) – more than 18 times higher than EPA’s level of concern for pregnant women (2.1 ng/m3).  Shafter High School is some distance from fields in an area where chlorpyrifos use is not as high as in other parts of Kern County or elsewhere in California. 

High chlorpyrifos levels at a school means that children and unsuspecting teachers and parents, especially those that may be pregnant, are breathing in unusually high levels of chlorpyrifos. Children exposed to high levels of chlorpyrifos have developmental delays, attention problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and pervasive developmental disorders.

Image result for psoriasis wikipediaCould probiotics have a role to play in the treatment of psoriasis? A recent analysis and review of studies suggests that they might. Psoriasis is a non-contagious, chronic disease affecting about 2 to 4% of the population, and which is characterized by patches of abnormal skin. These skin patches are typically red, itchy, and scaly, and can cover small areas to covering the entire body. There is no cure for psoriasis, but various treatments can help control the symptoms, such as steroid creams, vitamin D3 cream, ultraviolet light, and immune system suppressing medications. 

What did the researchers find? They said that "new evidence suggests that the microbiome may play a pathogenic role in psoriatic disease" - meaning the community of microbes (microbiome) may be involved in this disease. There is dysbiosis of the skin microbiome (microbial community is out of whack) in areas of skin lesions or patches. Areas of skin lesions had a different microbiome ("lesional psoriatic microbiome") compared to healthy skin - and in these skin lesions or patches some microbial species increase which leads to a decrease or elimination of others. Not just differences in bacteria, but also in fungi and viruses.

in psoriasis the microbial community of the gut is also out of whack (dysbiosis of the gut microbiome). And the gut microbiome is different in those with psoriasis limited to just skin patches, and those with complications of psoriasis (e.g., psoriatic arthritis) - and several studies found that these shifts in the gut microbiome occurred before the psoriatic complications became evident. That suggests that probiotics might help. But which ones?

The researchers state: "Other changes observed in gut microbiome studies include a decrease in Actinobacteria. This may suggest a protective role of Actinobacteria, a phylum which includes Bifidobacterium species that have been shown to reduce intestinal inflammation, suppress autoimmunity, and induce Tregs." They go on to state that one 2013 study by Groeger et al demonstrated that eating Bifidobacteria infantis 35,624 for 6–8 weeks in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial reduced inflammatory markers (plasma CRP and TNF-a) in psoriasis patients. Bifidobacterium species, including B. infantis, are commonly found in many multi-strain supplements. So I wonder, what happens if people with psoriasis take them over an extended period? Will the skin psoriasis skin patches improve? This is currently unknown. But...If you've had success with probiotics as a  psoriasis treatment - please let me know. What microbes? And for what symptoms of psoriasis?

From Current Dermatology Reports : The Role of the Skin and Gut Microbiome in Psoriatic Disease

Our review of studies pertaining to the cutaneous microbiome showed a trend towards an increased relative abundance of Streptococcus and a decreased level of Propionibacterium in psoriasis patients compared to controls. In the gut microbiome, the ratio of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes was perturbed in psoriatic individuals compared to healthy controls. Actinobacteria was also relatively underrepresented in psoriasis patients relative to healthy individuals.

Summary: Although the field of the psoriatic microbiome is relatively new, these first studies reveal interesting differences in microbiome composition that may be associated with the development of psoriatic comorbidities and serve as novel therapeutic targets.

Image result for psoriasis medscape  Psoriasis.  Credit: Medscape

Surprised...is how I felt after reading this study. According to the study, activity levels and exercise in mid-life are not linked to cognitive fitness and dementia later on in life. Instead, higher levels of physical activity and exercise has a beneficial effect on the brain in the short term (e.g., within 2 years or so). This finding of no long-term benefits, but only short-term benefits to the brain from exercise, is contrary to some other (cross-sectional) studies, but is supported by another recent study ("no evidence of a neuroprotective effect of physical activity").

The beauty of this study is that it followed 646 people for 30 years (from a median age of 46 years in 1978 and 77 years in 2008). The negative is that according to this study, physical exercise in mid-life does not seem to delay or prevent the onset of dementia and Alzheimer's later on in life. Eh... From Medical Xpress:

Physical activity in midlife not linked to cognitive fitness in later years, long-term study shows

A study led by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health researchers that tracked activity levels of 646 adults over 30 years found that, contrary to previous research, exercise in mid-life was not linked to cognitive fitness in later yearsThe finding suggests that physical activity may not help maintain cognitive function, or help avoid or delay the onset of the debilitating conditions like dementia and Alzheimer's

The study, which appears online in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, did find that activity levels among study participants in the later years were associated with high cognitive function two years later. This supports earlier research findings that exercise may help to maintain cognitive fitness in the short term.

There is no known treatment or cure for Alzheimer's or dementia, syndromes that involves declining memory, confusion and eventually limited ability to perform daily tasks. To date, there are no preventive measures, such as physical exercise, brain games or a diet regimen, that have been proven to help delay or altogether prevent its onset. The researchers undertook the study because of a growing consensus that physical activity levels helps prevent Alzheimer's, however much of the evidence for this thinking is based on cross-sectional studies that compare responses from one group of participants with another at a given point in time or within a very short duration, typically several years..... That's where longitudinal studies, which look at the same group of participants over a long time, are more helpful.

The researchers used data from the Johns Hopkins Precursors study.... The researchers used responses from 1978 through 2008 from 646 participants (598 men, 48 women) to calculate so-called metabolic equivalents, which quantify physical activity levels. Participants were also asked whether they regularly exercise to a sweat. The team administered cognitive tests in 2008, and, using participants' medical records, scored for dementia through 2011. The researchers identified 28, or 4.5 percent of the cohort, to have Alzheimer's.

No physical activity measure in mid-life was associated with late-life cognitive fitness or onset of dementia. The study confirmed findings of other cross-sectional studies, that higher levels of physical activity and exercise measured close in time to the cognitive testing were associated with better cognitive functioning. The authors also looked at whether patterns of change in physical activity levels over the life span were associated with cognitive health and found no relationships.

The idea that exercise might play a role in preventing or limiting Alzheimer's makes sense, the researchers say, because physical activity, at least in mouse models, has shown less accumulation of B-amyloid plaques, which are thought to play a role in dementia, including Alzheimer's. In addition, physical activity improves blood flow to the brain, which is linked to better cognitive performance. This may explain why studies find that exercise may contribute to cognitive fitness in the short term.

Image result for calcium rich foods, wikipediaAgain, another study finds that taking supplements is not always best for health. Many studies find that eating foods with vitamin "X" is beneficial, but taking high dose supplements may be linked to health problems (here, here, and here). Now a new study finds that long-term high dose supplementation with vitamins B6 and B12 is associated with a 30 to 40% higher lung cancer risk in men (compared to men who didn't take these supplements). Smokers had the greatest increase in risk. But interestingly, long-term use use of  vitamins B6, folate, and B12 was not associated with lung cancer risk among women.

Good food sources of vitamin B6 are: poultry, fish, organ meats, potatoes and other starchy vegetables, chickpeas, and fruit (but not citrus). Good food sources of B12 are:  Beef liver, clams, fish, meat, poultry, eggs, milk, and other dairy products.  Bottom line: if you take vitamin supplements (such as daily multi-vitamin supplements), take a "low-dose" one - one that aims for 100% of minimum daily requirements, but not mega-doses of vitamins.  From Medical Xpress:

Clear link between heavy vitamin B intake and lung cancer

New research suggests long-term, high-dose supplementation with vitamins B6 and B12—long touted by the vitamin industry for increasing energy and improving metabolism—is associated with a two- to four-fold increased lung cancer risk in men relative to non-users.

Risk was further elevated in male smokers taking more than 20 mg of B6 or 55 micrograms of B12 a day for 10 years. Male smokers taking B6 at this dose were three times more likely to develop lung cancer. Male smokers taking B12 at such doses were approximately four times more likely to develop the disease compared to non-users..... This is the first prospective, observational study to look at the effects of long-term high-dose B6/B12 supplement use and lung cancer risk. These supplements have been broadly thought to reduce cancer risk.

For this study, Theodore Brasky, PhD, of the OSUCCC - James, and colleagues analyzed data from more than 77,000 patients participants in the VITamins And Lifestyle (VITAL) cohort study, a long-term prospective observational study designed to evaluate vitamin and other mineral supplements in relation to cancer risk. All participants were aged between 50 and 76 were recruited in the state of Washington between the years 2000 and 2002. Upon enrolling in the study, participants reported information to researchers about B-vitamin usage over the past 10 years. This included dosage information.

Brasky notes these findings relate to doses that are well above those from taking a multivitamin every day for 10 years. "These are doses that can only be obtained from taking high-dose B vitamin supplements, and these supplements are many times the U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowance," he said. Two additional studies are underway at The OSUCCC - James to further evaluate high dose, long-term B6 and B12 supplementation and lung cancer risk. [Original study.]

 Could something as simple as giving a probiotic and a sugar for 7 days prevent sepsis in babies? Sepsis is a life-threatening infection that is a HUGE problem in developing countries such as India. It is a major cause of death in babies throughout the world, even with antibiotic treatment. So this new research (done in India) finding that giving newborn babies a probiotic plus the sugar fructooligosaccharide (FOS) for only one week had the result of lowering the incidence of sepsis and death by 40%, and also infections is huge news. A game changer.

The researchers found that the strain given to the babies was very important. They first tried Lactobacillus GG and Lactobacillus sporogenes, but didn't have success. But a strain of Lactobacillus plantarum was amazingly effective. They gave it together with a sugar - fructooligosaccharide (FOS) - which together worked as a synbiotic. Synbiotics are combinations of probiotics with an FOS supplement that promotes growth and colonization of the beneficial bacteria. FOS (which is naturally found in breast milk and such plants as onion, chicory, garlic, asparagus, banana, artichoke, agave, leeks, wheat, barley), is food for the probiotic bacteria.

It must be pointed out that other studies have tried other probiotics in the prevention of sepsis, but have not been successful. Probiotics that did not work work in other studies were Streptococcus thermophilus, Bifidobacterium infantis, Bifidobacterium lactis, and Bifidobacterium breve. However, they did not also use prebiotic supplements (the FOS) - just the probiotic alone - and studied premature or low birth weight babies (while this study focused on healthy babies of approximately normal weight.) This is why research now needs to be done looking at other groups of babies. From Medical Xpress:

Study shows probiotics can prevent sepsis in infants

A research team at the University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health has determined that a special mixture of good bacteria in the body reduced the incidence of sepsis in infants in India by 40 percent at a cost of only $1 per infant...... The special mixture included a probiotic called Lactobacillus plantarum ATCC-202195 combined with fructo-oligosaccharide (FOS), an oral synbiotic preparation developed by Dr. Panigrahi.

Probiotics are live bacteria and yeasts that are good for your health, especially your digestive system. Synbiotics are combinations of probiotics with an FOS supplement that promotes growth and sustains colonization of the probiotic strain. FOS, naturally found in breast milk and such plants as onion, chicory, garlic, asparagus, banana, artichoke and others, is food for the probiotic bacteria.

Sepsis is a severe complication of bacterial infection that results in around one million infant deaths worldwide each year, mostly in developing countries. It occurs when the immune system stops fighting germs and begins to turn on itself and can lead to tissue damage, organ failure and death. It is estimated that 40 percent of patients with severe sepsis in developing countries do not survive.

The team enrolled more than 4,500 newborns from 149 villages in the Indian province of Odisha and followed them for their first 60 days, the most critical period when they get sick and die. During their first days of life, the newborns were administered the oral preparation for seven days. Results of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study showed that sepsis and deaths in the first two months of infancy were reduced by 40 percent, more than twice the anticipated reduction of 20 percent. The synbiotic treatment also lowered respiratory tract infections. The effectiveness demonstrated in Dr. Panigrahi's study was so successful the study was halted early. 

An interesting article about this research from The Atlantic: At Last, a Big, Successful Trial of Probiotics

  Amazing if this holds up in larger studies - a treatment for peanut allergy! As the researchers said -  the treatment (2 grams of peanut protein plus a specific strain of the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus daily for 18 months) provided "persistent suppression of the allergic immune response to peanuts 4 years" after the treatment had ended This was a nicely done multi-year study in children - a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (to eliminate biases).

The researchers also wrote in the Discussion section of the study: "PPOIT [combined probiotic and peanut oral immunotherapy] was associated with long-lasting peanut tolerance 4 years after stopping treatment. Two-thirds of PPOIT treated participants were able to continue regular peanut ingestion, and more than half were ingesting moderate to-large amounts of peanut on a regular basis, compared with only one (4%) of 24 placebo-treated participants. Allergic reactions from intentional peanut ingestion were uncommon and all reactions were mild, suggesting that those who achieved PPOIT-induced sustained unresponsiveness can safely continue peanut ingestion." In other words - WOW! (Other posts on peanut allergies - here and here, and earlier progress report of this study.) From Medical Xpress:

Australian researchers in peanut allergy breakthrough

Australian researchers have reported a major breakthrough in the relief of deadly peanut allergy with the discovery of a long-lasting treatment they say offers hope that a cure will soon be possible. In clinical trials conducted by scientists at Melbourne's Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, children with peanut allergies were given a probiotic along with small doses of a peanut protein over an 18-month period. When the experiment ended in 2013 some 80 percent of the kids were able to tolerate peanutsThe research, published Wednesday in medical journal The Lancet, found that four years on, about 70 percent could still eat peanuts without an adverse reaction.

"The importance of this finding is that these children were able to eat peanuts like children who don't have peanut allergy and still maintain their tolerant state, protected against reactions to peanut," lead researcher Mimi Tang said. "These findings suggest our treatment is effective at inducing long-term tolerance, up to four years after completing treatment, and is safe. Food allergy affects one in 20 children and about two in 100 adults, with seafood, cow's milk, eggs and peanuts among the most typical triggers. Peanuts are one of the most common foods to cause anaphylaxis, a potentially fatal allergic reaction.

The researchers said the Murdoch study provides the "strongest evidence yet that a cure may be possible for peanut allergy"..... Ten-year-old Olivia May suffered a reaction when she tried to eat a peanut butter sandwich seven years ago. "We visited the allergist the first time [and] he said 'sorry, you're going to have to go home and empty your pantry out, clear it of all nuts, anything with nuts in it'," Oliver's mother Tanya told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. But after taking part in the trial, Oliva no longer suffers from her allergy.

Fifty-six children completed the study, with half receiving a placebo and half receiving the treatment, which encourages the immune system to develop a tolerance to the allergy. Researchers are now aiming to confirm the results with a larger study of the treatment they say "holds important implications for attacking the modern food allergy epidemic". [Original study.]

   Is "fat but fit" a myth or true? The results of this study suggest that it is a myth. That there is a higher risk of coronary heart disease, and even if everything looks OK initially, it is associated with an eventual metabolic changes (and problems). Just wait a while - as can be seen in the results of this study that followed people from 8 European countries over many years (about 12.2 years). The study found that being normal weight and fit is best, and that "metabolically healthy" obese people were more likely to go on to develop metabolic abnormalities (and become metabolically unhealthy obese people) over the years. Metabolically unhealthy signs included high blood pressure, low HDL-cholesterol, and hyperglycemia (high blood sugar).

Bottom line: aim for normal weight for a lower risk of heart disease (and of course, be physically active and eat a healthy diet - fewer processed foods, and more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, seeds, nuts, and legumes). From Science Daily:

'Fat but fit' are at increased risk of heart disease

Carrying extra weight could raise your risk of heart attack by more than a quarter, even if you are otherwise healthy.Researchers have found that being overweight or obese increases a person's risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) by up to 28 per cent compared to those with a healthy body weight, even if they have healthy blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol levels.The findings add to a growing body of evidence that suggests being 'fat but fit' is a myth, and that people should aim to maintain a body weight within a healthy range.

Storing too much fat in the body is associated with a number of metabolic changes, including increased blood pressure, high blood sugar and altered cholesterol levels, which can lead to disease and poor health. However, previous studies have revealed a subset of overweight people who appear to lack the adverse health effects of excess weight, leading to them being classified as 'metabolically healthy obese' in the medical literature, and 'fat but fit' in the media.

Now, a group led by researchers at Imperial College London and the University of Cambridge has shown that despite an apparent clean bill of health, this overweight group is still at increased risk compared to those with a healthy weight. In the largest study of its kind to date, scientists used data from more than half a million people in 10 European countries -- taken from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) -- to show that excess weight is linked with an increased risk of heart disease, even when people have a healthy metabolic profile.

In the study, published in the European Heart Journal, researchers looked at the link between excess weight and risk of CHD, a condition where not enough blood gets through to the heart due to clogged arteries, leading to heart attacks. After a follow-up period of more than 12 years, a total of 7,637 people in the EPIC cohort experienced CHD events, such as death from heart attack. Researchers then selected a representative group of more than 10,000 individuals as controls, for analysis. Body weight was classified according to definitions from the World Health Organization. Those with a body mass index (BMI) over 30 were classed as obese, while those with a BMI of 25-30 were classed as overweight, and 18.5-25 as normal weight. More than half of the control group (63 per cent) were female, with an average age of 53.6 and an average BMI of 26.1.

Participants were categorised as 'unhealthy' if they had three or more of a number of metabolic markers, including high blood pressure, blood glucose, or triglyceride levels, low levels of HDL cholesterol, or a waist size of more than 37" (94 cm) for men and 31" (80 cm) for women. .... the researchers found that compared to the healthy normal weight group, those classed as unhealthy had more than double the risk of CHD, whether they were normal weight, overweight or obeseHowever, analysis also revealed that within the apparently healthy group there was a significant difference in outcomes for people depending on their weight. The research found that compared to those at normal weight, people who were classified as healthy but were overweight had an increased CHD risk of 1.26 (26 per cent), while those who were healthy but obese had an increased risk of 1.28 (28 per cent). [Original study.]

Image result for back of hair, wikipedia There has long been concern over the chemicals in hair dyes and chemical hair straighteners or relaxers, and whether they are linked to various cancers. Studies have had mixed findings with regard to breast cancer, but a review paper concluded that there is evidence to support a role of hair product use in the risk of early onset breast cancer, especially in African-American women. Other studies found that long term users of dark hair dyes have a significantly increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and bladder cancer. 

A recent study done in the New York City and New Jersey area looked at both African-American women and white women and their use of various hair chemical products. They found that regularly chemically relaxing hair or dying hair dark brown or black is associated with an elevated risk of breast cancer in both African-American and white women. And women using both types of products had an even higher risk of breast cancer.From Medscape:

Dark Hair Dye and Chemical Relaxers Linked to Breast Cancer

African-American and white women who regularly chemically straighten their hair or dye it dark brown or black have an elevated risk of breast cancer, new research suggests. The study of 4,285 African-American and white women was the first to find a significant increase in breast cancer risk among black women who used dark shades of hair dye and white women who used chemical relaxers.

Black women who reported using dark hair dye had a 51 percent increased risk of breast cancer compared to black women who did not, while white women who reported using chemical relaxers had a 74 percent increased risk of breast cancer, the study found. The risk of breast cancer was even higher for white women who regularly dyed their hair dark shades and also used chemical relaxers, and it more than doubled for white dual users compared to white women who used neither dark dye nor chemical straighteners.

The study included adult women from New York and New Jersey, surveyed from 2002 through 2008, who had been diagnosed with breast cancer, plus women of similar age and race but without a history of cancer.....While the vast majority - 88 percent - of blacks had used chemicals to relax their hair, only 5 percent of whites reported using relaxers. For dark hair dye, the numbers flipped, though the differences were not as dramatic. While 58 percent of whites said they regularly dyed their hair dark shades, only 30 percent of blacks did.

The most striking results showed increased risk in the minority of black women who used dark hair dye and white women who used chemical relaxers. Black women who used chemical straighteners and white women who used dark hair dyes were also at higher risk for breast cancer, but that might have been due to chance. James-Todd said that because so many of the black women used chemical relaxers and so many of the white women used dark hair dye, links would have been hard to detect. There’s no reason to believe that chemical relaxers and hair dyes would increase the risk for women of one race and not of another, she said. 

Previous studies have shown that long-term users of dark dyes have a four-fold increased risk of fatal non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and fatal multiple myeloma, the authors write. Prior research also has associated dark hair dye use with an increased risk of bladder cancer. A 2016 report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that breast cancer rates are generally similar for black and white women, at around 122 new cases for every 100,000 women per year, although black women with the disease are more likely to die from it.  [Original study.]

Mediterranean Diet is Healthy Eating – A Good Option for Seniors So, how many of you have had doctors discuss nutrition with you? How about your cardiologist? "No"...many of you answer. Well, that shouldn't be surprising according to a new survey of 930 cardiologists, cardiologists-in-training, and cardiovascular health professionals. Among practicing cardiologists, fully 90% reported that they received either no or minimal nutrition education during their cardiology training. And currently there is no requirement that nutrition needs to be taught in cardiology training. Most also reported that they spend less than 3 minutes discussing nutrition per appointment. What does that really mean? Is it just a few words like: lose weight, eat better, and eat less salt? That's not enough to be real nutrition advice.

Why is nutrition important? Among the top 17 risk factors, poor diet quality has been identified by the US Burden of Disease Collaborators as the leading cause of premature deaths and disability in the United States. Heart health is influenced by the diet. Many studies have shown that people following such healthy diets as the Mediterranean diet (with an emphasis on fruits, vegetables, whole grains, seeds, nuts, legumes, and olive oil) have a significantly lower incidence of heart disease and major cardiovascular events (especially strokes). One recent study (an analysis of other studies) linked eating 8 to 10 portions of fruits and vegetables daily with a lower risk of early death, cancer, heart disease, and stroke. From Medscape:

Cardiologists Are Hungry for Knowledge on Nutrition

Hello. My name is Dr Stephen Devries and I'm a cardiologist and executive director of the nonprofit Gaples Institute for Integrative Cardiology. It's a pleasure to have an opportunity to share with you some interesting findings related to a new study I was involved in regarding nutrition education in cardiology. I'm sure you are aware that patients increasingly want to take more charge of their own health. In order to do so, they are asking their doctors more questions about nutrition. But how prepared are physicians to address those questions? Specifically, we asked: How prepared are cardiologists to deal with nutrition questions in their own practice?

In order to get at that question, my colleagues and I, members of the Nutrition Working Group of the American College of Cardiology, surveyed[1] over 900 practicing cardiologists, cardiologists-in-training, and cardiovascular health professionals and asked them a wide range of questions relating to their experience with nutrition education, their attitudes about nutrition and practice, and a little bit about their own personal nutrition habits.

What did we find? Among practicing cardiologists, fully 90% reported that they received either no or minimal nutrition education during their cardiology training. When we inquired a bit about their attitudes regarding nutrition and practice, 95% of cardiologists reported that they believed it was their personal responsibility to deliver at least basic nutrition education to their patients. We were a bit surprised. We had wondered whether cardiologists felt that it was someone else's job to do; but no, they felt that it was their own personal responsibility to at least deliver basic diet counseling to their patients.

We then asked cardiologists about their own personal health habits and inquired about their personal intake of vegetables and fruit. We found that only 20% of practicing cardiologists reported eating a total of five or more servings of vegetables and fruit per day. That is an important finding, not only because it speaks to opportunities to improve cardiologists' own health, but also because there are data[2] showing that physicians who adopt healthy lifestyle practices are more likely to counsel patients to do so as well.

Where do we go from here? It's paradoxical that nutrition and lifestyle are identified in many of our clinical care guidelines as the foundations of good cardiovascular care, yet how can our cardiologists implement those guidelines without receiving adequate nutrition training? Obviously, we need to address that problem by providing meaningful nutrition education in all phases of medical training, beginning in medical school through internal medicine residency, and extending into cardiovascular training itself. Currently there is no requirement that nutrition needs to be taught in cardiology training—and that needs to change. We also should include more nutrition content on board exams so that there will be additional motivation to teach nutrition to help pass the exam.