Skip to content

Author: Sima

Published on

This research suggests that emulsifiers (which are added to most processed foods to aid texture and extend shelf life) can alter the gut microbiota (the community of microbes that live in our gut) in such a way as to cause intestinal inflammation. Even though the study was done on mice, it is thought it also applies to humans. From Medical Daily:

You Are What You Eat: Food Additive Emulsifier Inflames Mouse Gut And Causes Obesity

Processed foods have changed the way we eat. Food can sit longer on shelves, but what does that mean for the stomach? In a new study published in the journal Nature, researchers from Georgia State University investigated how the widely used processed food additive emulsifiers played a role in the gut.

Emulsifiers are added to most processed foods in order to extend shelf life and add texture to the foods. The research team decided to feed mice a couple of the most common emulsifiers on the market — polysorbate 80 and carboxymethylcellulose — at doses comparable to a human’s consumption of processed foods. They watched the emulsifier change the mice’s gut microbiota, which is an individual’s personal 100 trillion bacteria inside the intestinal tract. Not only did this increase their chance of developing obesity-related disorders, but also inflammatory bowel disease. It’s no coincidence both conditions have been increasing since the 1950s.

"The dramatic increase in these diseases has occurred despite consistent human genetics, suggesting a pivotal role for an environmental factor," the study’s coauthor Benoit Chassaing, a researcher from GSU’s Institute for Biomedical Sciences, said in a press release. "Food interacts intimately with the microbiota, so we considered what modern additions to the food supply might possibly make gut bacteria more pro-inflammatory."

The emulsifiers, which are groups of oil-and water-friendly molecules, help to hold food together. Mayonnaise without emulsifiers, for example, will separate from an oily top layer to a thicker white layer that rests on the bottom of the jar. Once the emulsifiers were digested by the mice, their blood-glucose levels went awry, inflamed their intestinal mucus layer, which left them with weight gain, specifically concentrated in the abdomen. The bacterial changed triggered chronic colitis from causing intestinal inflammation and metabolic syndrome, which includes obesity, hyperglycemia, and insulin resistance.

Ultimately, microbiologists say you are what you eat. If your diet is smeared with margarine, mayonnaise, creamy sauces, candy, ice cream, and most other packaged and processed baked goods, you and your gut may be at risk. "We do not disagree with the commonly held assumption that over-eating is a central cause of obesity and metabolic syndrome," the study’s coauthor Andrew T. Gewirtz, a researcher from GSU’s Institute for Biomedical Sciences, said in a press release. "Rather, our findings reinforce the concept suggested by earlier work that low-grade inflammation resulting from an altered microbiota can be an underlying cause of excess eating."

Published on

It is surprising how beneficial short 30 minute naps are after sleep deprivation. From Medscape:

Napping Restores Immune System After Sleep Deprivation

Simply taking a couple of naps may counteract the impact of a sleep-restricted night on stress and immune markers, a finding that could potentially benefit night and shift workers or other chronically sleep-deprived populations, the results of a French study indicate.

Brice Faraut, PhD, from the Université Paris Descartes-Sorbonne Paris Cité, France, and colleagues found that, after a night with only 2 hours of sleep, taking two naps of just 30 minutes each appeared to normalize levels of cytokines and catecholamines.

"Napping as a countermeasure to sleep restriction could, in addition to benefits on alertness, improve neuroendocrine stress and immune recovery, with a potential prophylactic long-term effect on cardiovascular health," the researchers write.

They conducted their crossover, randomized study in which 11 healthy men aged between 25 and 32 years underwent two sessions of laboratory sleep testing in which their sleep–wake status, light environment, and caloric intake were strictly controlled.

In a "sleep-restriction" session, the participants slept for just 2 hours for one night after a baseline night of 8 hours of sleep, followed by a recovery night of sleeping. In the "sleep-restriction/nap" session, they repeated the protocol, but with two 30-minute naps after the sleep-restricted night. Salivary samples were taken every 2 hours and analyzed for interleukin (IL)-6 levels, an inflammatory cytokine known to have diurnal variations in concentration. In addition, urine samples were taken every 3 hours to measure levels of epinephrine, norepinephrine, and dopamine.

In the sleep-restricted session, there was a significant 2.5-fold increase in norepinephrine levels in the afternoon compared with the control day (P = .003). However, those differences were not seen when participants were able to take two 30-minute naps. No significant differences were seen either for epinephrine or dopamine, the researchers report.

After a sleep-restricted night, IL-6 levels were significantly lower at 10:00 am and 7:00 pm than levels measured at the same times after the control night's sleep (P = .01 and P = .05, respectively). Again, those differences were not observed when participants were able to take the two 30-minute naps.

Interestingly, daytime napping was associated with a significantly reduced amount of slow-wave sleep during the recovery night compared with sleep restriction alone (P = .01) and a trend toward decreased total sleep time."Our data suggest that napping has stress-releasing and immune effects," the researchers conclude.

Published on

Very exciting research. And it's the exact opposite advice that doctors used to tell parents - which was if there was a high risk for a specific allergy that ran in the family (peanuts, dogs, etc.) to have the young child try to avoid exposure to that item (or in the case of peanuts - until the age of 3). From NPR:

Feeding Babies Foods With Peanuts Appears To Prevent Allergies

Babies at high risk for becoming allergic to peanuts are much less likely to develop the allergy if they are regularly fed foods containing the legumes starting in their first year of life. That's according to a big new study released Monday involving hundreds of British babies. The researchers found that those who consumed the equivalent of about 4 heaping teaspoons of peanut butter each week, starting when they were between 4 and 11 months old, were about 80 percent less likely to develop a peanut allergy by their fifth birthday.

"This is certainly good news," says Gideon Lack of King's College London, who led the study. He presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. It was also published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

As many as 2 million U.S. children are estimated to be allergic to peanuts — an allergy that has been increasing rapidly in the United States, Britain and other countries in recent years. While most children who are allergic to peanuts only experience relatively mild symptoms, such as hives, some have life-threatening reactions that can include trouble breathing and heart problems.

Lack's study was launched after he noticed that Israeli kids are much less likely to have peanut allergies than are Jewish kids in Britain and the United States."My Israeli colleagues and friends and young parents were telling me, 'Look, we give peanuts to these children very early. Not whole peanuts, but peanut snacks,' " Lack says. Peanut snacks called Bamba, which are made of peanut butter and corn, are wildly popular in Israel, where parents give them to their kids when they're very young. That's very different from what parents do in Britain and the United States, where fears about food allergies have prompted many parents to keep their children away from peanuts, even though the American Academy of Pediatrics revised a recommendation to do so in 2008.

"That raised the question whether early exposure would prevent these allergies" by training babies' immune systems not to overreact to peanuts, Lack says. "It's really a very fundamental change in the way we're approaching these children." To try to find out, Lack and his colleagues got funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health to launch a study. They found 640 babies who were at high risk for developing peanut allergies because they already had eczema or egg allergy. They asked half of the infants' parents to start feeding them Bamba, peanut butter, peanut soup or peanut in some other form before their first birthday and followed them for about five years.

"What we found was a very great reduction in the rate of peanut allergy," Lack says. About 17 percent of the kids who avoided peanuts developed peanut allergies, compared with only 3.2 percent of the kids who ate peanuts, the researchers reported.

Based on the findings, Lack thinks most parents should start feeding their babies peanut products as early as possible — not whole peanuts or globs of peanut butter, but peanut mixed in some other food to avoid any possible choking hazard."We've moved, really, 180 degrees from complete avoidance to we should give peanuts to young children actively," Lack says. Other allergy experts hailed the results as an important advance. "This is a major study — really what we would call a landmark study," says Scott Sicherer, who advises the American Academy of Pediatrics on allergies. 

Published on

This article raises serious questions about the recently published American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association calculators to predict future cardiovascular events (heart attack, strike, etc) which then give recommendations for who needs to take daily statins while they are still healthy. This calculator (ACC/AHA risk calculator) has sparked much debate because many experts believe it overestimates risk. Now a study that looked at untreated people (MESA) showed that the calculator (as well as 3 other calculators) seriously overpredict the chance of a future cardiovascular event. In other words, many, many healthy people told they "may" have a chance of an event in the future are actually not at risk and so statins would not help them, but may harm them. Remember, all medicines have side-effects. Written by cardiac electrophysiologist Dr. John Mandrola (who has his own blog-site www,drjohnm.org) . From Medscape:

Statins in Primary Prevention: Welcome to the Gray Zone

A new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine confirmed something that ought to be obvious: predicting the future is hard—especially when it comes to cardiovascular events.

We know cardiovascular disease is the number-one killer of humans; we know its first manifestation is often heart attack, stroke, or death; and we know all medical therapy comes with trade-offs. Medical treatment of healthy people in the name of preventing something that may or may not happen in the future is dicey. Think do no harm. That is where risk prediction comes in. You have to know the odds of something (or nothing) happening without treatment. The gamble of statins and aspirin, for instance, looks most favorable in patients who are most likely to have an event.

 But where to draw that line, at what future risk is it worth taking a chemical, is the issue at hand. The extreme cases are easy. Most everyone agrees that statins and aspirin provide enough benefit in patients who have suffered a cardiovascular event. For secondary prevention, future risk is high, so benefits outweigh harms. It's the opposite in very low-risk patients. The middle ground is not so easy.

Here is where we have to consider the tools—calculators—to predict future risk. We know certain conditions, such as age, gender, blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, biomarkers, family history, and coronary calcium, contribute to future risk. Numerous expert panels, including the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association, have compiled different calculators to predict the future. The ACC/AHA risk calculator for atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) has sparked debate because many experts believe it overestimates risk.

Dr Andrew DeFillippis (University of Louisville, KY) and a team of Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) coinvestigators used this community-based, sex-balanced, multiethnic cohort to compare the calibration and discrimination of the new ASCVD risk score with alternative risk scores.They compared the observed and expected events for the ASCVD score with three Framingham-based scores and the Reynolds risk score in 4227 MESA subjects aged 50 to 74 years over a 10-year follow-up. Using this real-world population, they found four of the five risk scores overestimated risk. Calibration was worse in men: overestimates ranged from 37% to 154%. In women, three of four scores overestimated risk by 46% to 67%, and the Reynolds Risk score underestimated risk by 21%. 

It's worth saying this another way: when the ACC/AHA ASCVD score predicted event rates of 7.5 to 10%—a range deemed above the statin-benefit cutoff—the actual events were just 3%.

Speaking by phone (we live in the same city), lead author Dr DeFillippis explained to me the important business of looking only at untreated patients. He described their sensitivity analysis, which excluded all patients who received aspirin or any lipid-lowering or antihypertensive drug. To lessen the chance of bias, they analyzed this drug-free group of 790 patients separately and found the same overprediction.The authors concluded that if these findings are validated, overestimation of ASCVD risk may have substantial implications for individual patients and the healthcare system.

On that modern theme, Dr DeFillippis made an interesting point to me about the overall best-performing Reynolds Risk score. He noted the Reynolds score uses genetics (family history) and CRP (inflammation) levels to predict the future. Bookmark that for the future—genetics and inflammation, that is.

These findings have major implications. Drugs are not free. Aspirin and statins come with side effects and dollar costs. The patient who takes these drugs in hopes of preventing future events makes the gamble that the costs are worth the benefit. Policy makers who recommend these drugs expose millions of people to a therapy that turns on delicate balance between future benefit and harm.

The final point to make is that the use of statins and other drugs for the prevention of future events is not a doctor's or professional society's decision. The human being who swallows a drug must ultimately decide whether the gamble is favorable.

Published on

I am starting to read more and more negative comments from physicians and researchers about the big pharma and medical society recommendations for treating currently healthy people with statins in the hope it may prevent a cardiovascular event in the future. Many point out that statin health benefits are overstated while negatives and side-effects have been minimized. Many are pointing out that instead of statins, there should be recommendations for lifestyle changes, such as reducing weight, increasing exercise, not smoking, reducing stress, and cutting back on alcohol consumption. After all, these lifestyle changes ONLY have positive effects, and zero negative side effects. From Medical Xpress:

Safety and life-saving efficacy of statins have been exaggerated, says USF scientist

Hailed as miracle drugs when they hit the market two decades ago, statins, the cholesterol-lowering drugs prescribed to prevent heart attacks, are not as effective nor as safe as we have been led to believe, say Dr. David M. Diamond, a professor of psychology, molecular pharmacology and physiology at the University of South Florida, and Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, an independent health researcher and an expert in cholesterol and cardiovascular disease.

According to Diamond and Ravnskov, statins produce a dramatic reduction in cholesterol levels, but they have "failed to substantially improve cardiovascular outcomes." They further state that the many studies touting the efficacy of statins have not only neglected to account for the numerous serious adverse side effects of the drugs, but supporters of statins have used what the authors refer to as "statistical deception" to make inflated claims about their effectiveness.

Their paper is an analysis of the data in the statin trials which led them to conclude that "statin advocates have used statistical deception to create the illusion that statins are 'wonder drugs,' when the reality is that their modest benefits are more than offset by their adverse effects."

The paper also describes how the basis of the deception is in how authors of the statin studies present the rate of beneficial and adverse effects. The effect of the drugs on the population is called the 'absolute risk,' which has shown that statins benefit only about 1% of the population. This means that only one out of 100 people treated with a statin will have one less heart attack. Statin researchers, however, don't present the 1% effect to the public. Instead they transform the 1% effect using another statistic, called the "relative risk," which creates the appearance that statins benefit 30-50% of the population. The exaggeration of beneficial effects of statin treatment was illustrated in their analysis of a subset of statin studies, including the Jupiter Trial (Crestor), the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial Lipid Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA), and the British Heart Protection Study.

"In the Jupiter trial, the public and healthcare workers were informed of a 54 percent reduction in heart attacks, when the actual effect in reduction of coronary events was less than 1 percentage point," said Ravnskov and Diamond.... there were heart attacks and deaths in 3% of the placebo (no treatment) group as compared to 1.9% in the Lipitor group. The improvement in outcome with Lipitor treatment was only 1.1 percentage point, but when this study was presented to the public, the advertisements used the inflated (relative risk) statistic, which transformed the 1.1% effect into a 36% reduction in heart attack risk.

The adverse effects suffered by people taking statins are more common than reported in the media and at medical conferences" explains Diamond and Ravnskov. According to the authors, "Increased rates of cancer, cataracts, diabetes, cognitive impairments and musculoskeletal disorders more than offset the modest cardiovascular benefits of statin treatment."

The authors emphasized that low cholesterol levels related to statin use have frequently been associated with an increased risk of cancer. They also noted that most statin trials are terminated within two to five years, a period too short to see most cancers develop. Nevertheless, studies have shown a greater incidence of cancer in people who take statins, and one long-term study demonstrated a dramatic increase in the incidence of breast cancer among women who had used statins for more than 10 years.

They emphasized that the public needs to be wary of conflicts of interest in the medical community and pharmaceutical industry when it comes to touting the benefits of statins and skewing the data in such a way as to make the drugs seem more effective at lowering cardiovascular disease and heart attack risks than they may actually be.

The authors advocate other health beneficial strategies that are known to reduce cardiovascular risk, such as cessation of smoking, weight control, exercise and stress reduction. They also emphasized the great value of a low carbohydrate diet for normalizing all of the biomarkers of cardiovascular risk, with excellent outcomes, especially for people with type 2 diabetes.

Published on

Excellent for those who want to exercise more, but don't want something complex. This is so simple that there is NO excuse for not doing this: walk fast for 3 minutes, then 3 minutes of strolling, and repeat 5 times (total=30 minutes).

From NY Times: Walk Hard. Walk Easy. Repeat.

Intense, interval-style workouts — brief bouts of very hard exercise broken up by periods of recovery — have been shown to improve the health and fitness of people who exert themselves for only a few minutes a week. Such efficiency is alluring, and has helped this kind of conditioning attract widespread media attention in recent years (including in this column). But high-intensity interval training programs aren’t for everyone....That doubt is what makes some news out of Japan about a much-less-punishing form of interval training so welcome.

A decade ago, scientists led by Dr. Hiroshi Nose at the Shinshu University Graduate School of Medicine in Matsumoto, Japan, started developing walking programs. They knew that walking was physically the easiest (and also the most practical) exercise for those in middle age and older, but the researchers suspected that people might need to push themselves to achieve the greatest health benefits. So they created a regimen consisting of three minutes of fast walking at a pace that Nose says approximates a 6 or 7 on a scale of exertion from 1 to 10. Each “somewhat-hard” three-minute spell was followed by three minutes of gentle strolling.

In their original experiment, the results of which were published in 2007, walkers between the ages of 44 and 78 completed five sets of intervals, for a total of 30 minutes of walking at least three times a week. A separate group of older volunteers walked at a continuous, moderate pace, equivalent to about a 4 on the same exertion scale. After five months, the fitness and health of the older, moderate group had barely improved. The interval walkers, however, significantly improved aerobic fitness, leg strength and blood-pressure readings.

In their latest study, which came out in December in the Journal of Applied Physiology, Nose and his colleagues report that most of the participants stayed with the walking program long after their original five-month commitment ended. Two years later, almost 70 percent of the walkers with whom the researchers remained in contact were still following their regimen at least three times a week and had retained or improved their health gains. Those who quit often cited “family, health and job issues,” says Dr. Shizue Masuki, the new study’s lead author, but they rarely complained about the complexity or difficulty of the training.

So those who have considered high-intensity interval training but have been apprehensive about its demands should go for a walk. “Perform the training for 10 minutes in the morning, 10 minutes in the afternoon and 10 minutes in the evening,” Masuki suggests. Three days of exercise per week is best, but if that’s too challenging, she says, “do it on the weekend” and cram the workouts into two days. Doing so, Masuki adds, “can have a profound effect on physiological regulation.”

Published on

U.S. government agencies (such as FDA) say phthalates are OK, but evidence is mounting that they definitely are not OK. It's impossible to totally avoid phthalates, but one can lower exposure amounts by eating whole unprocessed foods, not microwaving or storing food in plastic containers (best is glass), and read ingredient lists on labels, including personal care products. From Medical Xpress:

Plastics chemical tied to changes in boys' reproductive development

When expectant mothers are exposed to plastics chemicals called phthalates during the first trimester, their male offspring may have a greater risk of infertility later in life, a new study suggests.Boys exposed to the chemical diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) may be born with a significantly shorter anogenital distance than those not exposed to these chemicals. Anogenital distance is the distance between the anus and the genitals. A shorter anogenital distance has been linked to infertility and low sperm count, the researchers explained.

"We saw these changes even though moms' exposure to DEHP has dropped 50 percent in the past 10 years," said lead researcher Shanna Swan, a professor of preventive medicine and obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. "Therefore, we have not found a safe level of phthalate exposure for pregnant women," she contended.

Swan said that this study cannot prove that these boys will have fertility problems as adults or that DEHP causes these problems. However, animal studies have implicated the chemical in male reproductive problems. Based on the data from this study, Swan believes there is a strong association between exposure to DEHP and fertility in human males.

DEHP is used to soften plastics. Most exposure results from eating foods that pick up the chemical during processing, Swan said. "Since food is the largest source of DEHP for consumers, it is difficult for pregnant women to minimize exposure," she said. "Eating unprocessed food will likely help. However, eliminating DEHP from food really has to be done by food producers."The chemical is also found in medical tubing and in a variety of products, including flooring, wallpaper, lacquers and personal care products, Swan said.

For the study, Swan's team collected data on almost 800 pregnant women and their infants.Specifically, the researchers found that exposure in the womb to three types of DEHP was associated with a significantly shorter anogenital distance in boys, but not in girls.

A group representing the chemical industry took issue with the study, however. In a statement, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) stressed that the study only examined one type of phthalate, not all versions of the chemical... The ACC added that DEHP "is known to break down into its metabolites within minutes after it enters the body. 

But another expert says phthalate exposure may not be benign. Dr. Kenneth Spaeth, director of the Occupational and Environmental Medicine Center at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y., said, "virtually everyone in the U.S. experiences continual exposure to phthalates."And, a number of studies have tied the chemicals with changes in developing fetuses. "Phthalates, in particular, have been shown in both human and animal studies to interfere with normal fetal development," he said.

This study supports what has been demonstrated before, that phthalate exposure in the first trimester is linked to male reproductive development, Spaeth said. "This study is an important step forward in establishing this effect because the study included a much larger number of individuals than prior studies and helps identify one particular agent, DEHP, as an important contributor to this effect," he said.Additionally, this study shows the importance of exposure in the first trimester as a critical window for the effect of phthalates on the male reproductive system. 

Published on

Since people have abandoned using iodized salt and started using kosher salt or sea  salts, iodine deficiency has increased (especially during pregnancy when iodine needs are greater). The medical journal The Lancet noted in 2008: "According to World Health Organization, in 2007, nearly 2 billion individuals had insufficient iodine intake, a third being of school age. ... Thus iodine deficiency, as the single greatest preventable cause of mental retardation, is an important public-health problem." From Wikipedia : Iodine deficiency is the leading cause of preventable mental retardation, a result which occurs primarily when babies or small children are rendered hypothyroidic by a lack of the element. The addition of iodine to table salt has largely eliminated this problem in the wealthier nations. The article states that iodine deficiency typically lowers IQ by 10 to 15 points. So it's a big deal, a really big deal.  But don't overdo the iodine! Excess iodine also has serious problems.From Medscape:

New Recommendations Call for Iodine in All Prenatal Vitamins

Endocrinology groups are applauding a new recommendation from a dietary-supplement trade association that calls for iodine supplementation in all prenatal vitamins prescribed for pregnant and breastfeeding women.

In addition, the public health committee of the American Thyroid Association (ATA) recently published a statement reiterating the ATA recommendation that women take a daily multivitamin containing 150 μg of iodine during prepregnancy, pregnancy, and lactation. The statement also warns of the potential risks of excess iodine consumption and exposure, particularly through the use of unregulated kelp supplements.

The US Council for Responsible Medicine's new guidelines call for all dietary-supplement manufacturers and marketers to begin including at least 150 μg of iodine in all daily multivitamin/mineral supplements intended for pregnant and lactating women in the United States within the next 12 months.

In the past several years, removal of iodized salt from commercial products such as bread and milk, along with increased use of kosher salt and sea salt, which don't contain iodine, and the adoption of vegetarian and vegan diets have led to a reduction in dietary iodine consumption. "There never was a coherent US policy about iodization," Dr Stagnaro-Green noted.

Worldwide, about two billion people are iodine-deficient. While most of the US population has adequate iodine levels, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey suggest that more than half of pregnant women have urinary iodine concentrations below 150 mg/dL (Thyroid. 2011;21:419-427). 

Pregnant women actually need more iodine than other people because of increased thyroid-hormone production, renal losses, and fetal iodine requirements. Iodine deficiency during pregnancy can result in maternal and fetal goiter, cretinism, intellectual impairment, neonatal hypothyroidism, and increased pregnancy loss and mortality, Dr Stagnaro-Green and colleagues explained in a 2012 editorial (JAMA2012;308:2463-2464).

"So, women of childbearing age are the subpopulation of Americans with the lowest iodine levels yet have the greatest need during pregnancy and breastfeeding, for the neurodevelopment of the fetal and neonatal brain," he told Medscape Medical News. 

In 2009, a study found that only 51% of US prenatal multivitamin brands contained any iodine and, in a number of randomly selected brands, the actual dose of iodine contained in the supplements did not match values on the labeling.

However, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has not joined in these efforts. While the group does recommend the 150-μg dose for pregnant and lactating women, it does not currently endorse the prenatal-supplement recommendation, advising instead that women get their iodine through dietary sources.

In the ATA's public health committee statement, Angela M Leung, MD, from the University of California Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, and colleagues, including Dr Stagnaro-Green, note that iodine is a micronutrient required for normal thyroid function. The US recommended daily allowances (RDA) for iodine intake are 150 μg in adults, 220 to 250 μg in pregnant women, and 250 to 290 μg in breastfeeding women. Dietary sources such as iodized salt, dairy products, some breads, and seafood usually contain enough to meet the RDA for most people who aren't pregnant or lactating.

However, there is an upper safety limit, with ingestion of more than 1100 μg/day not recommended due to the risk for thyroid dysfunction. In particular, infants, the elderly, pregnant and lactating women, and people with preexisting thyroid disease are at risk for adverse effects of excess iodine on the thyroid.

Many iodine, potassium iodide, and kelp supplements contain hundredfold greater amounts of iodine than the recommended upper limit, Leung and colleagues caution."Given the increasing popularity of iodine and kelp supplements, recommendations cautioning against excess iodine were indicated. The potential result of iodine-induced thyroid dysfunction, which may be particularly harmful during pregnancy and breastfeeding and in the elderly, may not be well-known," she told Medscape Medical News.

Published on

Chronic inflammation can have a variety of negative health effects. From Time:

13 Ways Inflammation Can Affect Your Health

You can't live without inflammation, but it can also be hazardous to your health. You’ve heard of anti-inflammatory medications and anti-inflammatory diets, but do you really know what inflamation is? In short, it’s the body’s response to outside threats like stress, infection, or toxic chemicals. When the immune system senses one of these dangers, it responds by activating proteins meant to protect cells and tissues. “In a healthy situation, inflammation serves as a good friend to our body,” says Mansour Mohamadzadeh, PhD, director of the Center for Inflammation and Mucosal Immunology at the University of Florida.” “But if immune cells start to overreact, that inflammation can be totally directed against us.” This type of harmful, chronic inflammation can have a number of causes, including a virus or bacteria, an autoimmune disorder, sugary and fatty foods, or the way you handle stress. Here are a few ways it can affect your health, both short-term and long.

It fights infection.Inflammation is most visible (and most beneficial) when it’s helping to repair a wound or fight off an illness...It prepares you for battles Another type of inflammation occurs in response to emotional stress. Instead of blood cells rushing to one part of the body, however, inflammatory markers called C-reactive proteins are released into the blood stream and travel throughout the body.

It can harm your gut Many of the body’s immune cells cluster around the intestines, says Denning. Most of the time, those immune cells ignore the trillions of healthy bacteria that live in the gut. “But for some people, that tolerance seems to be broken,” says Denning, “and their immune cells begin to react to the bacteria, creating chronic inflammation.” The immune cells can attack the digestive tract itself, an autoimmune condition known as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which includes ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. 

It can harm your joints When inflammation occurs in the joints, it’s can cause serious damage. One joint-damaging condition is rheumatoid arthritis(RA)—another example of an autoimmune disorder that appears to have a genetic component, but is also linked to smoking, a lack of vitamin D, and other risk factors.

It’s linked to heart disease Any part of your body that’s been injured or damaged can trigger inflammation, even the insides of blood vessels. The formation of fatty plaque in the arteries can trigger chronic inflammation. The fatty plaques attract white blood cells, grow larger, and can form blood clots, which can cause a heart attack.Obesity and unhealthy eating increases inflammation in the body.

It’s linked to a higher risk of cancer Chronic inflammation has been linked to cancers of the lung, esophagus, cervix, and digestive tract, among others..The inflammation may be due to obesity, a chronic infection, a chemical irritant, or chronic condition; all have been linked to a higher cancer risk....It may sabotage your sleep In a 2009 study from Case Western Reserve University, people who reported sleeping more or less than average had higher levels of inflammation-related proteins in their blood than those who said they slept about 7.6 hours a night.

It’s bad for your lungs When inflammation occurs in the lungs, it can cause fluid accumulation and narrowing of the airways, making it difficult to breathe...Smoking, exposure to air pollution or household chemicals, being overweight, and even consumption of cured meats have been linked to lung inflammation... It damages gums Inflammation can also wreak havoc on your mouth in the form of periodontitis, a chronic inflammation of the gums caused by bacteria accumulation. 

It makes weight loss more difficult Obesity is a major cause of inflammation in the body, and losing weight is one of the most effective ways to fight it. But that’s sometimes easier said than done, because elevated levels of inflammation-related proteins can also make weight loss more difficult than it should be.... Inflammation can also increase insulin resistance (which raises your risk for diabetes) and has been linked with future weight gain.

It damages bones Inflammation throughout the body can interfere with bone growth and even promote increased bone loss, according to a 2009 review study published in the Journal of Endocrinology.  It affects your skin The effects of inflammation aren’t just internal: They can also be reflected on your skin. Psoriasis, for example, is an inflammatory condition that occurs when the immune system causes skin cells to grow too quickly. .... It’s linked with depression 

Published on

It seems that currently it is a case of buyer beware - because supplements may NOT even contain the desired ingredients! Excerpts from two articles from the NY Times that discuss this issue:

Knowing What’s in Your Supplements

Last week, the New York State attorney general’s office uncovered another example of what appeared to be widespread fraud in the dietary supplement industry. The office accused four of the country’s biggest retail stores of selling herbal products that in many cases were contaminated or did not contain any of the herb listed on the label.

For many readers, the news raised an urgent question: Which supplements can I trust? Experts say that there is no guarantee that supplements will do what they say they do, or that they are safe or won’t interact with any medications you may be taking. But there are several steps people can take to give themselves some reassurance that at least some of the supplements they buy actually contain what they advertise on the label – and nothing else.

For one, you can look for products that receive a seal of approval from the United States Pharmacopeial Convention, an independent, nonprofit organization of scientists that sets high standards for medicine, food ingredients and dietary supplements. The United States Pharmacopeia has a voluntary program through which supplement companies can have their products and facilities tested and reviewed. Companies whose supplements meet the group’s standards – which ensure purity, identity and potency, among other things – are allowed to carry an official “USP Verified” seal on their labels. The group maintains an evolving list of the brands that have received its seal and the places where they can be purchased. That list can be found on the group’s website.

But keep in mind that there are some companies that print the letters “USP” on their labels without the official USP Verified seal... But it is not the same as the distinctive black and yellow “USP Verified” seal, which means that the product has actually been vetted by the United States Pharmacopeia. Only a handful of brands carry the seal. A few of them are Nature Made, Kirkland Signature and TruNature, for example.

Another nonprofit group that independently certifies some supplements and their ingredients is NSF International. The group certifies such supplements as fish oil and multivitamins. It also has an “NSF Certified for Sport” program that is especially useful for athletes and other people who use sports supplements such as protein powders, amino acids and creatine. These products have been found in some cases to be deliberately spiked with steroids and prescription drugs. The blue and white NSF seal means that a product has been independently vetted to ensure that it is not adulterated and that it contains the ingredients listed on its label.

Lastly, there are at least two independent laboratories that routinely test a range of dietary supplements and then publish full reports with their findings. One is ConsumerLab.com, which frequently tests products and maintains an archive of reports on its website. Another testing company is LabDoor. On its website, you can find reports and rankings of protein powders, fish oil, probiotics, vitamin D and multivitamins. Both websites charge a fee for access to their reports.

Consumer testing groups such as these are necessary, many experts say, because the 1994 federal law that applies to supplements does more to protect companies than consumers. That law – the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Actor DSHEA – was spearheaded by legislators with strong financial ties to the industry. It allows companies to attach general health claims to their products without providing evidence of their effectiveness, and it protects supplements from the strict premarket approval rules that apply to prescription drugs. 

Although companies are required to follow an established set of manufacturing practices, policing the industry has been a special challenge for the federal government because DSHEA essentially created an environment in which companies operate on the honor code.

From the NY Times: What’s in Those Supplements?

The New York State attorney general’s office accused four national retailers on Monday of selling dietary supplements that were fraudulent and in many cases contaminated with unlisted ingredients.

The authorities said they had run tests on popular store brands of herbal supplements at the retailers — Walmart, Walgreens, Target and GNC — which showed that roughly four out of five of the products contained none of the herbs listed on their labels. In many cases, the authorities said, the supplements contained little more than cheap fillers like rice and house plants, or substances that could be hazardous to people with food allergies.

At GNC, for example, the agency found that five out of six samples from the company’s signature “Herbal Plus” brand of supplements “were either unrecognizable or a substance other than what they claimed to be.” In pills labeled ginkgo biloba, the agency found only rice, asparagus and spruce, an ornamental plant commonly used for Christmas decorations.