Skip to content

Author: Sima

Published on Leave a comment on Check Personal Care Product Ingredient Lists During Pregnancy

More evidence linking endocrine disrupting chemicals such as butyl paraben, triclocarbon, propyl paraben. with negative health effects (here linked to effects on the pregnancy and baby). It is especially important to try to lower exposure to endocrine disruptors during pregnancy. So read labels on all personal care products and avoid all parabens, phthalates, triclocarban, bisphenol-A (BPA), and triclosan - because what you use on your body will get into your body, From Medical Xpress:

Use of personal care products during pregnancy linked to adverse effects in newborns

A study led by SUNY Downstate Medical Center's School of Public Health presents evidence linking personal care products used during pregnancy to adverse reproductive effects in newborns."The study found a link between women with higher levels of butyl paraben, which is commonly used as a preservative in cosmetics, and the following birth outcomes: shorter gestational age at birth, decreased birth weight, and increased odds of preterm birth," says Laura Geer, PhD, MHS, associate professor in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences in the School of Public Health at SUNY Downstate.

The antimicrobial compound, triclocarban, mainly added to soaps, was associated with shorter gestational age at birth. Another common chemical added to lotions and creams, propyl paraben, was associated with decreased body length at birth. The long-term consequences of this are not clear, and, Geer adds, "Findings must be reproduced in larger studies."

Dr. Geer says, "Our latest study adds to the growing body of evidence showing that endocrine-disrupting compounds can lead to developmental and reproductive problems in animals and in humans. Effects observed in previous studies mainly came from animal models only." This study presents evidence of potentially adverse impacts in humans. 

Regulations requiring removal of triclosan from various consumer care products have been in place since 2015 in the European Union, but broader regulatory action by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not ensued.

More on this same story from Environmental Health News:  Soap, makeup additives linked to preterm births, smaller babies

Pregnant women in Brooklyn with high levels of certain compounds used in makeup and soaps were more likely to have preterm births and babies that weighed less, according to a new study. The study, published online last week in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, provides the first evidence that germ-killing and preservative chemicals used in cosmetics and soaps might impact newborns’ health. It also bolsters suspicions that chemicals in soaps and lotions disrupt people’s endocrine systems, which are crucial for reproduction and babies’ development.

From 2007 to 2009, Geer and colleagues tested 185 mothers’ third trimester urine, as well as the umbilical cord blood of 34 of them, for a suite of different parabens, used mostly in cosmetics, and triclosan and triclocarban, which are used as antimicrobials in soaps. The mothers were from the University Hospital of Brooklyn’s Prenatal Clinic.

The chemicals, especially the parabens, are common: According to the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep database, butylparaben is used in 2,245 personal care products, propylparaben is used in 7,212, and triclocarban is used in 21.

The results don’t prove that the chemicals are behind the birth problems. While scientists know the chemicals have some biological activity, the amount of exposure that could cause problems remains unclear.  Animals exposed to the chemicals have had some reproductive impacts. In rats, triclocarban impacted male sex organ development in a 2008 study. Paraben exposure decreased male rat sperm counts and efficiency in a 2002 study. One of the most studied endocrine disrupting chemicals, bisphenol-A or BPA, has been linked to multiple birth defects....Except for some color additives, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not regulate cosmetic ingredients.

Published on Leave a comment on Early Research Says No Benefit to Probiotics For Healthy Adults

Many probiotic manufacturers say that their product has all sorts of wonderful health benefits in people eating that particular probiotic, but is the evidence there? Finally, now there is a review of the best existing studies looking at whether probiotics have any effect on the gut bacteria of healthy, normal individuals. In other words, are the probiotics even staying there (to have some beneficial effect) or do they just "pass through" without leaving anything behind?

The main finding: only one study out of 7 found any lasting effect on gut microbes (in healthy individuals) from the probiotics which had been ingested daily over varying times, but typically for one month. Note: RCTs are randomly controlled trials, which are the best way to test whether something has an effect - because people are randomly assigned to a group. In these studies no one knew who was getting a placebo (e.g., received capsule without the probiotic) or the probiotic (e.g., in the capsule) - this eliminates self-selection and bias. But perhaps the bacteria strains tested were the wrong ones? Or the time period wasn't long enough or the bacteria weren't given in sufficient amounts? Also, studies didn't test multi-strain probiotics (which people commonly take), but only 1 or 2 species of bacteria.

However, other research has shown benefits from probiotics in individuals with "dysbiosis" (microbial communities out of whack) or certain illnesses. It'll be interesting to see what further research finds. These are still early days in this research. From MedicalXpress:

Do probiotics have an effect on healthy adults? It's too early to tell

There is little evidence to support any consistent effect of probiotics on the gut microbiota of healthy individuals, according to a systematic review published in the open access journal Genome Medicine. The World Health Organization defines probiotics as live microorganisms which confer a health benefit to the host if administered in adequate amounts and probiotics products are often marketed toward the general population. However, evidence for their effects on bacteria living in the guts of healthy adults remains elusive.

The study by researchers at the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research at the University of Copenhagen is a systematic review of seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of probiotic products on the fecal microbiota of healthy adults.

Nadja Buus Kristensen, PhD student and junior author, said: "According to our systematic review, no convincing evidence exists for consistent effects of examined probiotics on fecal microbiota composition in healthy adults, despite probiotic products being consumed to a large extent by the general population."...The authors found that of the seven original RCTs included in the study, only one observed significantly greater changes in the bacterial species composition of the fecal microbiota in individuals who consumed probiotics compared to those who did not.

Also, an international consensus on what defines a normal or healthy fecal microbial community is lacking....Study participants across the seven original RCTs included in this review were healthy adults between 19 and 88 years of age. Numbers of individuals ranged from 21 to 81 and the proportion of women was between 50 and 100%. Probiotic products were administered as biscuits, milk-based drinks, sachets, or capsules for periods of 21 to 42 days.

Oluf Pedersen, professor at the University of Copenhagen and senior author of the paper said: "While there is some evidence from previous reviews that probiotic interventions may benefit those with disease-associated imbalances of the gut microbiota, there is little evidence of an effect in healthy individuals. 

1

Published on 1 Comment on Why Are Very Young Children Given ADHD Meds?

This is so sad. Preschoolers should not be labeled as ADHD and drugged, but instead behavioral methods to deal with the child's behaviors should be used. They absolutely work. But...it takes effort and commitment on the part of the parents.

Just filling a prescription is soooo much easier. But all medicines have side-effects (and the side-effects are serious). These are young developing children (with developing brains) that are put on strong medicines for years. Currently we do not have a good understanding of long-term effects of these ADHD drugs when given at such a young age and continued for years.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is disturbed by the finding that 3 out of 4 very young children with an ADHD diagnosis are given medications and says behavior therapy is the recommended first-line treatment. Specifically: "Behavior therapy is an effective treatment that improves ADHD symptoms without the side effects of medicine."

And by the way, basically all children 2 and 3 years old (and older) exhibit behaviors that some can label as ADHD. No matter how one looks at it, the diagnosis is used too much in young children, behavioral methods to deal with problem behaviors are underused, and medicines are overused.

From Medical Xpress: CDC: Preschoolers with ADHD often given drugs before therapy

Too many preschoolers with ADHD still are being put on drugs right away, before behavior therapy is tried, health officials say. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Tuesday that three in four young kids diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are put on medicines. New CDC data shows that's continued, even after research found behavior therapy is as effective and doesn't give children stomach aches, sleep problems or other drug side effects. 

Why? Health insurance coverage for behavior therapy may vary from state to state and company to company. And in some areas, therapists are in short supply, some experts said. On Tuesday, CDC officials doubled down on its previous recommendations, calling on doctors and families to try behavior therapy first.

ADHD makes it hard for kids to pay attention and control impulsive behavior. More than 6 million U.S. children have been diagnosed with it. "By the time a parent comes to meet with me, they are tired and worried," Dr. Georgina Peacock, a CDC developmental pediatrician who works with ADHD families. "They are concerned their child might jump down a flight of stairs, that the child could get lost in a grocery store, or that the child could be kicked out of preschool."

There's no blood test for ADHD. Diagnosis is a matter of expert opinion. Studies have shown medications like ritalin help older children with ADHD. That success has fed a trend to treat younger kids the same way, but there's been less study of how effective and safe the drugs are for preschoolers. In behavior therapy, a therapist trains parents—commonly over eight or more sessions—how to guide a child's behavior through praise, communication, routine and consistent discipline. However, it can take longer and demand more of parents.

In its new analysis, the CDC looked at insurance claims data for children ages 2 to 5. ....The CDC found 75 percent of the children were on medicine. That was true both of Medicaid-covered children in low-income families, and kids covered by private insurance. In contrast, only around half of children had received psychological services that might include behavior therapy training, the CDC found.

Published on Leave a comment on Enjoy Some Tart Cherry Juice

The researchers go overboard in their claims of what this study shows (after all, only 15 men were in the study, their blood pressure was only slightly elevated, and they were studied only for a short time). But.....what this study does show is that tart cherry juice seems to have some health benefits, such as lowering blood pressure for a while. Even though the researchers received funding from the Cherry Marketing Institute, it doesn't change the fact that cherries are considered healthy foods to eat. Montmorency tart cherries (MCs) are high in numerous phytochemicals (which have health benefits), including flavonoids (isorhamnetin, kaempferol, quercetin, catechin, epicatechin, procyanidins, and anthocyanins).

So check the ingredient list before you buy the tart cherry juice to make sure it is pure juice, and then enjoy a glass knowing that'll it'll benefit (if only temporarily) your blood pressure. From Medical Xpress:

High blood pressure lowers significantly after drinking tart Montmorency cherry juice

Drinking tart Montmorency cherry juice significantly reduces high blood pressure at a level comparable to that achieved by medication, according to new research from Northumbria University, Newcastle.The findings ....found that men with early signs of hypertension - more commonly known as high blood pressure - saw a 7% reduction in blood pressure after drinking Montmorency cherry concentrate when compared to drinking a fruit-flavoured cordial. 

This reduction is comparable to the level achieved by anti-hypertensive medication. High blood pressure affects over five million people in England and, if left untreated, increases risk of heart attack, heart failure, kidney disease, stroke or dementia. Normal blood pressure is around 120/80 mmHg.

Researchers from Northumbria University's Department of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation worked with fifteen participants who were displaying early hypertension with blood pressure readings of at least 130/90 mmHg....were given either 60ml of a Montmorency cherry concentrate or the same amount of a commercially available fruit-flavoured cordial. Blood pressure and blood samples were taken before the cherry concentrate was consumed and blood pressure was measured on an hourly basis thereafter. Blood samples and a series of other cardiovascular screening tests were taken again on a regular basis over the following eight hours.

The researchers found that the participants who were given the cherry concentrate saw a peak reduction in their blood pressure of 7 mmHg in the three hours after consuming the drink. 

Past studies have shown that a reduction of between 5-6 mmHg over a sustained period has been associated with a 38% reduced risk of stroke and 23% reduced risk of coronary heart disease. Interestingly, those participants with blood pressure levels at the higher end of the scale saw the most benefit. The greatest improvement in systolic blood pressure occurred when the phenolic acids, protocatechuic and vanillic, within the cherry concentrate reached their peak levels in the plasma. The researchers believe that these particular compounds are, at least in part, responsible for the reduction.  (Original study)

Published on Leave a comment on Cut Back or Avoid High Fructose Corn Syrup During Pregnancy

Another reason to cut back on soda and highly processed foods. Research in mice and women showed that a high-fructose diet during pregnancy may cause defects in the placenta and restrict fetal growth. But the advice in the article was disturbing - rather than giving a drug (allopurinol) to pregnant women with high fructose levels (which is what the researchers suggest), why not focus on giving them nutrition advice and strongly encourage them to avoid or cut back on high fructose products? Especially foods containing high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), such as soda and highly processed desserts.

Nutrition and why it's important should be discussed extensively with pregnant women, starting with the first prenatal care visit. Good advice is to read food labels and avoid products that list fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, or corn syrup solids. One easy first step would be to stop drinking soda and sweet drinks and juices. The researchers admit: "One of the best ways to ensure healthy maternal and fetal outcomes is by eating natural foods." Natural foods and good nutrition, not drugs, should be the focus. From Science Daily:

High-fructose diet during pregnancy may harm placenta, restrict fetal growth

Consuming a high-fructose diet during pregnancy may cause defects in the placenta and restrict fetal growth, potentially increasing a baby's risk for metabolic health problems later in life, according to research in mice and people by a team at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

However, giving the mice allopurinol, a generic drug frequently prescribed to treat gout and kidney stones, appears to mitigate the negative maternal and fetal effects. The findings suggest it may be possible to devise a prenatal screening test and treatment plan for pregnant women with high fructose levels. The study is available online in Scientific Reports, a journal affiliated with Nature Publishing Group.

Fructose, a sugar occurring naturally in fruits and honey, has been popular for decades among food manufacturers who process it into high-fructose corn syrup used to sweeten food and beverages. In fact, researchers have reported that the refined sugar accounts for more than half of all sweeteners used in the U.S. food-supply chain. And in recent years, there's growing concern that fructose in processed foods and sugary drinks may be linked to diabetes and obesity. "Since the early 1970s, we've been eating more fructose than we should," said Kelle H. Moley, MD,.....This study shows potentially negative effects of a high-fructose diet during pregnancy." 

Fructose is processed differently than other sugars such as glucose, which the body converts into energy. Instead, fructose is broken down by liver cells that turn the sugar into a form of fat known as triglycerides while also driving high levels of uric acid, a normal waste product found in urine and stool. Too much uric acid can create metabolic mayhem resulting in obesity, type 2 diabetes and other health conditions.

Studying mice, the researchers found elevated uric acid and triglycerides in otherwise healthy mice who were fed a high-fructose diet during pregnancy. Additionally, the mice developed smaller fetuses and larger placentas than those fed standard rodent chow.

Maternal health also may suffer. Metabolic problems caused by high levels of uric acid and fat increase a woman's risk of developing pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia -- a potentially serious condition in pregnancy often marked by high blood pressure, swelling and high protein levels in the urine -- and gestational diabetes, Moley said.

To assess the relevance of the mouse data in pregnant women, the researchers examined the association between fructose and placental uric acid levels in a small controlled group of 18 women who underwent scheduled cesarean sections. The women had no disorders that would have caused elevated uric acid. "We found a correlation suggesting similar maternal and fetal effects occur in humans," Moley said.

Published on Leave a comment on Medical Error Is the Third Leading Cause of Death In the US

The title of the article says it all.  The authors of this report calculate that 9.5% of deaths in the US or 251,454 deaths annually (which equates to nearly 700 deaths a day) are due to medical errors. Others have pointed out that the number of severe patient injuries resulting from medical errors are also overlooked, with some estimates saying that this number could be as high as 40 times the death rate.From Medscape:

Medical Error Is Third Leading Cause of Death in US

Medical error is the third leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease and cancer, according to findings published today in BMJ. As such, medical errors should be a top priority for research and resources, say authors Martin Makary, MD, MPH, professor of surgery, and research fellow Michael Daniel, from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

But accurate, transparent information about errors is not captured on death certificates, which are the documents the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) uses for ranking causes of death and setting health priorities. Death certificates depend on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for cause of death, so causes such as human and system errors are not recorded on them. And it's not just the US. According to the World Health Organization, 117 countries code their mortality statistics using the ICD system as the primary health status indicator.

The authors call for better reporting to help capture the scale of the problem and create strategies for reducing it....."Top-ranked causes of death as reported by the CDC inform our country's research funding and public health priorities," Dr Makary said in an university press release. "Right now, cancer and heart disease get a ton of attention, but since medical errors don't appear on the list, the problem doesn't get the funding and attention it deserves."

The researchers examined four studies that analyzed medical death rate data from 2000 to 2008. Then, using hospital admission rates from 2013, they extrapolated that, based on 35,416,020 hospitalizations, 251,454 deaths stemmed from a medical error.That number of deaths translates to 9.5% of all deaths each year in the US — and puts medical error above the previous third-leading cause, respiratory disease. In 2013, 611,105 people died of heart disease, 584,881 died of cancer, and 149,205 died of chronic respiratory disease, according to the CDC

The authors suggest several changes, including making errors more visible so their effects can be understood.....Another is changing death certificates to include not just the cause of death, but an extra field asking whether a preventable complication stemming from the patient's care contributed to the death.The authors also suggest that hospitals carry out a rapid and efficient independent investigation into deaths to determine whether error played a role. A root cause analysis approach would help while offering the protection of anonymity, they say. Standardized data collection and reporting are also needed to build an accurate national picture of the problem.

 

Jim Rickert, MD, an orthopedist in Bedford, Indiana, and president of the Society for Patient Centered Orthopedics, toldMedscape Medical News he was not surprised the errors came in at number 3 and that even those calculations don't tell the whole story."That doesn't even include doctors' offices and ambulatory care centers," he notes. "That's only inpatient hospitalization resulting in errors." ...."It's public pressure that brings about change. Hospitals have no incentive to publicize errors; neither do doctors or any other provider," he said.

1

Published on 1 Comment on Coal-tar Sealcoats Used on Driveways and Pavements Are More Toxic Than Suspected

The title says it all: coal-tar sealcoats used on drIveways and pavement are far more toxic than earlier suspected. The asphalt sealcoats are also toxic, but the coal-tar ones are far worse - so if you must use one, go with asphalt sealcoats. Or...better yet, skip either product and avoid breathing in toxic PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). From Science Daily:

Coal-tar based sealcoats on driveways, parking lots far more toxic than suspected

The pavement sealcoat products used widely around the nation on thousands of asphalt driveways and parking lots are significantly more toxic and mutagenic than previously suspected, according to a new paper published this week by researchers from Oregon State University. Of particular concern are the sealcoat products based on use of coal tar emulsions, experts say. Studies done with zebrafish -- an animal model that closely resembles human reaction to toxic chemicals -- showed developmental toxicity to embryos.

Sealcoats are products often sprayed or brushed on asphalt pavements to improve their appearance and extend their lifespan. Products based on coal tar are most commonly used east of the U.S. continental divide, and those based on asphalt most common west of the divide. The primary concern in sealcoats are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, which are common products of any type of combustion, and have been shown to be toxic to birds, fish, amphibians, plants and mammals, including humans.

The OSU program studying PAHs....can identify and analyze more than 150 types of PAH compounds. It found some PAHs in coal tar sealcoats that were 30 times more toxic than one of the most common PAH compounds that was studied previously in these products by the U.S. Geological Survey. The OSU study also showed that new PAH compounds found in coal tar sealcoats had a carcinogenic risk that was 4 percent to 40 percent higher than any study had previously showed. Among the worst offenders were a group of 11 "high molecular weight" PAH derivative compounds, of which no analysis had previously been reported.

By contrast, the study showed that sealcoats based on asphalt, more commonly used in the West, were still toxic, but far less than those based on coal tar. Use of coal tar sealcoats, which are a byproduct of the coal coking process, is most common in the Midwest and East..... "And if a decision is made to use sealcoats, we concluded that the products based on asphalt are significantly less toxic than those based on coal tar."

A 2011 report from the USGS outlined how PAH compounds from sealcoat products can find their way into soils, storm waters, ponds, streams, lakes, and even house dust, as the compounds are tracked by foot, abraded by car tires, washed by rain and volatilize into the air. They reported that the house dust in residences adjacent to pavement that had been treated with a coal tar-based sealcoat had PAH concentrations 25 times higher than those normally found in house dust. Some states and many municipalities around the nation have already banned the use of coal tar-based sealcoats, due to the human, wildlife and environmental health concerns. In the European Union, use of coal tar-based sealcoats is limited or banned.

Published on Leave a comment on Diet May Affect Body’s Biological Age

This study found that people with high red meat intake, combined with low fruit and vegetable intake and a poor overall diet (which was found most frequently in males of low socioeconomic status) had biological markers indicating accelerated aging and poor renal function (early indicators of chronic kidney disease). Bottom line: eat less red meat, more whole grains, more fruits and vegetables for your health. From Medical Xpress:

Too much red meat and too few vegetables may increase your body's biological age

A diet containing too much red meat and not enough fruit and vegetables could increase your body's 'biological age' and contribute to health problems. Research led by the University of Glasgow and published today in Aging, has found that a moderate increase in serum phosphate levels caused by red meat consumption, combined with a poor overall diet, increases biological age (miles on the clock) in contrast to chronological age (years of age).
The study, which looked at participants from the most deprived to the least deprived in the NHS Greater Glasgow Health Board area, also demonstrates that deprived males were the worst affected.

Data from the study suggests that accelerated biological ageing, and dietary derived phosphate levels among the most deprived males, were directly related to the frequency of red meat consumption. Researchers believe that excess red meat particularly affects this group because of their poor diet and "sub-optimal fruit and vegetable intake".
The research, led by the Institute of Cancer Sciences in collaboration with the Karolinska Institutet (Stockholm, Sweden), also found that high phosphate levels in deprived males correlated with reduced kidney function and even underlying mild to moderate chronic kidney disease.

Phosphate is naturally present in basic foodstuffs, including meats, fish, eggs, dairy products and vegetables. Intestinal absorption of naturally occurring phosphate is minimally regulated, as absorption is efficient, hence high supplementation results in markedly elevated levels of serum phosphate, which can have adverse health consequences. Indeed high phosphate levels, as a consequence of dietary intake, have already been linked to higher all-cause and cardiovascular mortality risk, premature vascular ageing and kidney disease.

The researchers observed significant relationships between serum phosphate and biological age markers, including DNA content and telomere length. (Original study.)

Published on Leave a comment on Eat A Chocolate Bar Daily For Health?

Image result for dark chocolate  Another yes to daily chocolate consumption -  a 3.5 oz. chocolate bar a day! This study looked at 1,153 people aged 18-69 years old and found an inverse relationship between daily chocolate consumption and levels of insulin and liver enzymes. This suggests that chocolate consumption may improve liver enzymes and protect against insulin resistance (risk factors for cardiometabolic disorders such as diabetes, heart disease, or stroke). From Science Daily:

Eating chocolate each day could reduce heart disease, diabetes risk

A new study published in the British Journal of Nutrition appears to back up the adage that a little of what you fancy does you good. Including a small amount of chocolate each day could help prevent diabetes and insulin resistance. That's one of the research findings from the Luxembourg Institute of Health (LIH), the University of Warwick Medical School, the University of South Australia and the University of Maine.

Data of 1,153 people aged 18-69 years old who were part of the Observation of Cardiovascular Risk in Luxembourg (ORISCAV-LUX) study were analysed. It was found that those who ate 100 g of chocolate a day -- equivalent to a bar -- had reduced insulin resistance and improved liver enzymes. Insulin sensitivity is a well-established risk factor to cardiovascular disease.

The academics hypothesised that chocolate consumption may have a beneficial effect on insulin sensitivity and liver enzymes and therefore decided to analyse a national sample of adults, taking into account lifestyle and dietary factors, including the simultaneous consumption of tea and coffee. This is because both drinks can be high in polyphenol, the substance which may provide chocolate with its beneficial cardiometabolic effects.

More than 80% of participants claimed to eat an average of 24.8 g of chocolate a day. The study also found that those who claimed to eat chocolate were younger, more physically active and had higher levels of education than those who claimed not to eat chocolate on a daily basis. Dr Ala'a Alkerwi, the Principal Investigator of the study at LIH said: "It is also possible that chocolate consumption may represent an overall marker for a cluster of favourable socio-demographic profiles, healthier lifestyle behaviours and better health status. This could explain, at least in part, the observed inverse associations with insulin and liver biomarkers."

Published on Leave a comment on One Season of High School Football Results In Brain Changes

Study after study finds negative effects on the brain from playing football - here it is one season of high school football resulting in measurable brain changes. None of these players had a concussion during the season, and so the negative effects were from subconcussive head impacts or hits. Interestingly, those special helmets they wore to measure impacts showed no relationship with what the brain scans showed - so the helmets were basically useless in measuring subconcussive impacts. From Science Daily:

Head impacts from single season of high school football produce measurable change in brain cells

Repeated impacts to the heads of high school football players cause measurable changes in their brains, even when no concussion occurs, according to new research. Researchers gathered data from high school varsity players who donned specially outfitted helmets that recorded data on each head impact during practice and regular games. They then used experimental techniques to measure changes in cellular microstructure in the brains of the players before, during, and after the season.

"Our findings add to a growing body of literature demonstrating that a single season of contact sports can result in brain changes regardless of clinical findings or concussion diagnosis," said senior author Dr. Joseph Maldjian, Chief of the Neuroradiology Division and Director of the Advanced Neuroscience Imaging Research Lab, part of the Peter O'Donnell Jr. Brain Institute at UT Southwestern.

In the study, appearing in the Journal of Neurotrauma, a team of investigators at UT Southwestern, Wake Forest University Medical Center, and Children's National Medical Center evaluated about two dozen players over the course of a single football season.....During the pre-season each player had an MRI scan and participated in cognitive testing, which included memory and reaction time tests. During the season they wore sensors in their helmets that detected each impact they received. Post-season, each player had another MRI scan and another round of cognitive tests. 

Researchers then used diffusional kurtosis imaging (DKI), which measures water diffusion in biological cells, to identify changes in neural tissues. ....DKI also allowed the researchers to measure white matter abnormalities. White matter consists of fibers that connect brain cells and can speed or slow signaling between nerve cells. In order for the brain to reorganize connections, white matter must be intact and the degree of white matter damage may be one factor that limits the ability of the brain to reorganize connections following TBI.

Football has the highest concussion rate of any competitive contact sport, and there is growing concern -- reflected in the recent decrease in participation in the Pop Warner youth football program -- among parents, coaches, and physicians of youth athletes about the effects of subconcussive head impacts, those not directly resulting in a concussion diagnosis, researchers noted. Previous research has focused primarily on college football players, but recent studies have shown impact distributions for youth and high school players to be similar to those seen at the college level, with differences primarily in the highest impact magnitudes and total number of impacts, the researchers noted.