Skip to content

Author: Sima

Published on

Research study after research study finds all sorts of health benefits from exercise. But what about the air quality in those stuffy crowded gyms, especially those in already polluted areas? From November 2014 NY Times:

The Bad Air in Our Gyms

But a new study of air quality in gyms raises some interesting questions about whether the places in which we work out are as healthy as they should be. Science and common sense tell us that exercising in polluted air is undesirable. People who frequently run alongside heavily trafficked freeways and breathe great lungfuls of exhaust have been shown to have an increased risk of heart disease, even if they are otherwise in admirably good shape.

...researchers at the University of Lisbon in Portugal and the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands decided that they would place air-quality monitoring equipment in gyms throughout Lisbon. Portuguese fitness sites are similar to those in the United States, said Carla Ramos, a graduate student at the University of Lisbon who led the new study. Most feature a weight room and multiple, smaller studio spaces for aerobics classes, yoga sessions and similar programs.

For the new study, Ms. Ramos obtained permission from 11 Lisbon gyms to position air-quality monitors in each site’s weight room and several studios. The machines were set to measure pollutants during the late afternoon or evening hours, when the gyms were at their most crowded. For about two hours at each gym, the monitors measured the levels of commonly found indoor pollutants. These include carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, ozone, airborne particulates such as dust, and various chemicals released by carpeting, cleaning products, furniture or paint, including formaldehyde.

To gain even more detailed readings, the scientists subsequently placed additional monitors in three of the gyms, which measured air quality throughout the building and throughout the entire day.Then they checked the pollutant levels from all of the gyms.

Their findings were disquieting. In general, the gyms showed high levels of airborne dust, formaldehyde and carbon dioxide. The concentrations of these substances generally exceeded most accepted standards for indoor air quality. (No government agency in the United States formally monitors air quality in gyms.) The levels were especially high during evening aerobics classes, when many people were packed into small studios, stirring up dust and fumes and puffing heavily, producing carbon dioxide with every breath.

The high concentrations of dust and chemicals like formaldehyde in the air at the gyms represent perhaps the greatest potential concern, Ms. Ramos said. In sufficient concentrations, these substances can contribute to asthma and other respiratory problems, she said. Almost all of the gyms in the study had levels of these substances that significantly exceed European standards for healthy indoor air standards.

Carbon dioxide, though not toxic to people, could also be cause for concern. In high concentrations, Ms. Ramos said, it has been found to contribute to bodily fatigue and cognitive fogginess, neither of which is desirable during a high-intensity aerobics class. Elevated levels of carbon dioxide can also indicate a poorly ventilated building, she said, especially if they remain inflated for hours, as they did in her study.

“We consider that the gymnasiums meet the criteria for a poor indoor quality,” Ms. Ramos said. Poor indoor air quality is a particular issue in gyms, of course, because people there tend to be breathing heavily. “When we exercise, we take in more air with each breath and most of that air goes through the mouth, bypassing the natural filtration system” in the nostrils, Ms. Ramos said. “The pollutants go deeper into the lungs compared to resting situations.”

The findings should not, however, discourage anyone from visiting a gym, Ms. Ramos said. None of the sites in the study had measurable levels of carbon monoxide, she pointed out, one of the most dangerous of known air pollutants.

Published on

Inactivity is more deadly than obesity. From Medscape:

Inactivity More Deadly Than Obesity, Large New Study Finds

Fresh evidence that just a little bit of exercise, such as 20 minutes walking a day, is extremely beneficial — regardless of whether people are overweight/obese or not — has emerged from a large European study.

In fact, the most pronounced reduction in premature death risk was observed among individuals who were normal weight/abdominally lean and "moderately inactive," compared with those of the same build who were completely inactive, which was defined as having a sedentary job with no reported recreational physical activity.

Looking at this another way, the study — in more than 330,000 men and women — showed that twice as many premature deaths may be attributable to lack of physical activity compared with the number of deaths attributable to obesity, the researchers say.

"This is a simple message: just a small amount of physical activity each day could have substantial health benefits for people who are physically inactive," said Dr Ekelund in a statement. "Although we found that just 20 minutes would make a difference, we should really be looking to do more than this — physical activity has many proven health benefits and should be an important part of our daily life," he added.

So they set out to examine the relationship between physical activity and all-cause mortality and to look at whether BMI and waist circumference modified these associations in a large sample of 334,161 men and women followed for more than 12 years... Just under a quarter (22.7%) of participants were categorized as inactive, reporting no recreational activity in combination with a sedentary occupation.

Over the 12 years of follow-up, 21,438 participants died.The greatest reduction in risk for premature death occurred in the comparison between inactive and moderately inactive groups. All-cause mortality was reduced by 16% to 30% in the moderately inactive group compared with those categorized as inactive, across all strata of BMI and waist circumference.

The authors estimate that doing exercise equivalent to just a 20-minute brisk walk each day — burning between 90 and 110 kcal — would take an individual from the inactive to moderately inactive group and thereby reduce the risk for premature death by this same amount (ie, between 16% and 30%).

The impact was greatest among normal-weight individuals, but even those with higher BMI saw a benefit of physical activity.

Published on

This wonderful opinion piece is by Dr. John Mandrola, a cardiologist who also posts on his own blog at http://www.drjohnm.org/ . The bottom line: lifestyle is more important than drugs in preventing heart disease. The following is from Medscape:

Heart Disease and Lifestyle: Why Are Doctors in Denial?

I think and write a lot about the role of lifestyle choices as a treatment strategy. As an endurance athlete, I know that exercise, diet, sleep, and finding balance in life are the key components of success. It is the same in cardiology.

In a randomized controlled trial of primary prevention, no cardiologist would want to be compared against a good physical trainer or nutritionist. We would get trounced. Our calcium scores, biomarkers, pills, and procedures would not stand a chance. The study would be terminated early due to obvious superiority of lifestyle coaching over doctoring—which would blunt the true treatment effect and make us look less bad. (Wink to my epidemiology friends.)

I write a post about new oral anticoagulant drugs or statins or AF ablation, and people pay attention. You see it in the traffic. It's the same story at medical meetings: sessions on drugs and procedures draw the crowds. Late-breaking studies rarely involve the role of exercise or eating well. Exercise, diet, and going to bed on time have no corporate backing. The task of drawing attention to the basics is getting harder, not easier.

And this is our problem. I believe the collective denial of lifestyle disease is the reason cardiology is in an innovation rut. This denial is not active or overt. It is indolent and apathetic. Bulging waistlines, thick necks, sagging muscles, and waddling gaits have begun to look like normal. During the electronic medical record (EMR) click-fest after seeing a patient, I rarely click on "normal" physical exam. The general appearance is abnormal—either overweight or obese.

This is how I see modern cardiology. Our tricks can no longer overcome eating too much and moving too little. We approach health but never get there. If you waddle, snore at night, and cannot see your toes while standing, how much will a statin or ACE inhibitor or even LCZ696 help?

In fact, a reasonable person could make an argument that our pills and procedures might be making patients sicker.

When I started electrophysiology, I mostly treated people with fluky problems. My ablation procedures were on people with supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) due to aberrant pathways. My devices were mostly pacemakers in the elderly—a disease due to aging. These sorts of problems are (mostly) independent of how many sugar-sweetened beverages one drinks.

Now it is different. My practice is dominated by atrial arrhythmia—a disease now recognized as being due (in large part) to excesses of life, such as obesity, high blood pressure, sleep disorders, and overindulgence in alcohol. In other words: unnecessary. I make hundreds of dollars putting a hundred burns in a left atrium for a disease that a poorly paid physical trainer might prevent or treat. This has become cardiology writ large.

But the thing I cannot get over is that I am doctor, not a proceduralist. I am tasked with helping people be well. I fail in that task if I ignore the most effective and safest treatment option. I fail if I take the easy path. The prescription pad is easy. The EP lab is easy. The truth is hard... New anticoagulant drugs are easy. Ablation technology is easy. Statins are even easier. The truth—nutrition, exercise, balance in life—is hard.

Published on

Nowadays many medical societies do NOT recommend annual physicals for healthy adults.

From Medscape: Is the Annual Physical Past Its Prime...Again?

Few medical societies still recommend healthy adults undergo annual physicals, and some groups actively recommend against them, yet many physicians continue to offer the visits to their patients. This week, oncologist and health policy expert Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, has taken the debate to the opinion pages of the New York Times, where he explains again why the formerly prescribed practice should be proscribed. Once again, however, not everyone agrees the healthy patient exam should be a thing of the past.

According to Dr Emanuel, who is vice provost, global initiatives, and chair, Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, recent estimates say about 45 million Americans will have a routine general physical this year, which he likens to the human equivalent of the 15,000-mile check-up on their cars. "If you estimate the cost of the exam alone conservatively at $100, it's beginning to be a nontrivial amount of money," Dr Emanuel told Medscape Medical News.

And that is before you add in the costs of laboratory panels, follow-up tests, patient anxiety, and the overdiagnosis or overtreatment of conditions that, if left undetected, would never have become clinically significant. "We see this with prostate cancer and thyroid cancer," Dr Emanuel said.

As he writes, "If you screen thousands of people, maybe you'll find tens whose exams suggest they might have a disease. And then upon further tests, you'll find it is really only a few individuals who truly have something. And of those individuals, maybe one or two actually gain a health benefit from an early diagnosis."

From a health-promotion perspective, then, the annual physical exam is of little value, does not reduce morbidity and mortality from acute or serious chronic conditions, and may even lead to unwarranted complacency in "people who just want to make sure," he said to Medscape Medical News.

To support that statement, Dr Emanuel points to evidence from a 2012 Cochrane Collaboration review of 14 randomized controlled trials involving 182,000 people followed for a median of 9 years. The unequivocal conclusion of the analysis was that routine general check-ups, not prompted by actual symptoms, are unlikely to yield much benefit. No matter what screenings and tests were administered, annual physicals did not reduce mortality overall or specifically from the big killers, cancer and heart disease.

More recently, data from the Danish Inter99 study, a large, randomized trial, supported the conclusion that general check-ups are ineffective. The community-based trial of almost 60,000 adults aged 30 to 60 years, with screening for ischemic heart disease risk and repeated lifestyle interventions over the course of 5 years, found no effect on ischemic heart disease, stroke, or mortality at the population level after 10 years.

Dr Emanuel noted that the US Preventive Services Task Force does not recommend routine annual check-ups, and the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination has recommended against the practice since 1979. "Those who preach the gospel of the routine physical have to produce the data to show why these physician visits are beneficial," he writes in his article.

So far, physicians' response to his op-ed piece "has been 90% supportive. They've looked at the data and are not convinced by the data [of the annual check-up's value]," he told Medscape Medical News... Many physicians, however, stand by an annual visit to the consulting room, including Peter C. Galier, MD, professor of medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine. "You can manipulate the data from these meta-analyses any way you want, but when you see patients regularly, you get important information that you may never get until there's an acute problem," he said.

252

Published on 252 Comments on The One Probiotic That Treats Sinusitis

[Please go to updated June 2022 version of this post.]

(Oct. 2018) Probiotics and sinusitis treatment go hand in hand. In the last few years researchers found that one probiotic (beneficial bacteria) that chronic sinusitis sufferers lack and that treats and cures sinusitis is Lactobacillus sakei.  And for many, major improvement may take only days!

The researchers Abreu et al found in their 2012 study that not only do sinusitis sufferers lack L. sakei, they have too much of some other bacteria, and they also don't have the bacteria diversity in their sinuses that healthy people without sinusitis have. In other words, the sinus microbiome (microbial community) is out of whack (dysbiosis). A number of studies since then also found that there is a depletion of some bacterial species, and an increase in "abundance" of other species in those with chronic sinusitis.

Luckily Lactobacillus sakei is found in some foods (such as some brands of live fermented kimchi), some sausage starter cultures (such as B-2), and recently in some probiotic supplements (e.g. Lanto Sinus). One reason it is used in sausage starter cultures is because L. sakei dominates over and inhibits growth of pathogenic bacteria, including Staphylococcus aureus. This post discusses these L. sakei products and other possible probiotic treatments for sinusitis.

Treating sinusitis with beneficial bacteria (rather than with antibiotics, corticosteroid nasal sprays, and surgery) is the future in sinusitis treatment.

BACKGROUND STORY: More than 5 years ago there were no probiotics containing L. sakei. None. So I experimented using a very easy kimchi sinusitis treatment (basically dabbing and smearing kimchi at certain stages of fermentation into my nostrils like a very messy eater) and found that it cured my chronic sinusitis of many years within two weeks. Obviously it contained L. sakei. Then the rest of my family also tried the kimchi treatment and were also quickly cured of chronic sinusitis! It felt miraculous, especially because it was so easy to do.

After 5 years we still feel great! Generally we only need to treat again with a product containing Lactobacillus sakei (we've been using refrigerated Lanto Sinus) after a virus which goes into sinusitis, or if for some other reason we feel like we're sliding into sinusitis. We've improved every year so need to do it less and more minimally.

Because we no longer have chronic sinusitis and can easily treat sinusitis if it occurs with L. sakei, we have NOT taken antibiotics or any other bacteria killing spray or product (such as xylitol) for over 5 years. We do not use cortisone or antihistamine nasal sprays either.

WHEN A TREATMENT WORKS: A number of you have contacted me to report your own progress with various sinusitis treatments. People used terms such as "miraculous", "transformative", and "fabulous" when they had positive results with a product containing L. sakei  -  and many with major improvement happening within a few days. I’ve also heard from a few people of some other beneficial bacteria species that may treat sinusitis.

When a treatment works, then all sinusitis symptoms go away  --sometimes within days, sometimes longer. This includes post nasal drip, sinus headaches, "clogged ears", bad breath, and sinusitis-related coughs. Even tonsil stones! (Please note that trying such products to treat sinusitis is self-experimentation - effects can be positive or negative. One should always be cautious.)

OVERALL RESULTS: The majority of people contacting me with results reported positive results (chronic sinusitis greatly improved or totally gone) from some form of L. sakei treatment. Successes have been reported to me from the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Africa. But since it's from self-experimentation and not a clinical trial, then I don't know the actual percentage of positive results.

Some of the people reporting success have had multiple operations, some currently have deviated septums, some with nasal polyps, and all have had long-standing chronic sinusitis, some for decades. Interestingly,  Lactobacillus sakei works best when it is used only when needed, when there are sinus symptoms. Don't use when feeling healthy.

Those same chronic sinusitis sufferers also reported that the same treatments also worked to treat acute sinusitis or sinus infections. It seems that after colds or viruses may develop acute sinusitis again and need re-treatment (apparently the L. sakei frequently doesn't stay in the sinuses from earlier treatments). However, the sinuses do continue improving over time so fewer and more minimal treatments are needed over the years.

Another very small group reported that other probiotic strains helped, and a minority of people reported that nothing has helped and there could be a variety of reasons for this (see below). Some people reported that one product helped, but not another - whether kimchi or a L. sakei product. It also became clear that L. sakei does not treat seasonal allergies or allergy symptoms.

THREE MAIN PRODUCT CATEGORIES: The main categories of products containing live Lactobacillus sakei are:: kimchi (and some sauerkraut), refrigerated products, and frozen products. Note that at this time the FDA does not allow any probiotics to be sold as a medical treatment – they can only be sold as a supplement.

Using the following products to treat sinusitis is self-experimentation (results are unknown and can vary). Always be cautious when testing a new product. (See Sinusitis Treament Summary page for treatment methods.)

KIMCHI - Many people report that kimchi helped them. One person reported a homemade kimchi worked great (he was finally symptom free after 8 years). A few have even mentioned that kimchi has helped sinusitis with fungal problems.

Kimchi brands that people reported helping their chronic sinusitis: Sunja's Kimchi (mild white kimchi and medium spicy cucumber kimchi), Sinto Gourmet brand kimchi, Mama-O's Premium Kimchi, the white Napa kimchi and cabbage kimchi made by Choi's Kimchi Company (in Portland, Oregon), Farmhouse Culture Kimchi (in California), Ozuke Kimchi (in Colorado), Mother-in-law's Kimchi, in the United Kingdom the brand Mr Kimchi, and in Australia Kehoe's Kitchen white kimchi.

(Not all kimchi brands or types of kimchi within brands contain L. sakei - finding one that has it is due to self-experimentation. The kimchi must be live, and not pasteurized. We found that kimchi may contain L. sakei from about day 14 (or earlier) to about 2 to 2 1/2 months (from the day it's made).

When the kimchi contained L. sakei we felt the same or started feeling better within one or 2 days. If we felt more mucusy over the next 2 days, or the acute sinusitis kept getting worse, than it did not contain L. sakei.) Some researchers feel that it's the garlic in kimchi that encourages L. sakei growth.

SAUERKRAUT - Some people improved with sauerkraut made with garlic. Some researchers feel that it's the garlic in kimchi that encourages L. sakei growth, and sauerkraut typically doesn't contain garlic.

REFRIGERATED LACTOBACILLUS SAKEI PRODUCTS  – A refrigerated L. sakei product specifically meant for the sinuses is now available. The company Lanto Health has introduced a kimchi derived Lactobacillus sakei product called Lanto Sinus - to be used when needed (when there are symptoms). Lanto Sinus  is sold as a dietary supplement, holds up well in the refrigerator, is effective, quick-acting, and easy to use. This high-quality product ships well because it holds up for a while (days) without refrigeration.

People have reported success using it mixed with bottled water (dabbing, smearing, spooning a little in nostrils), or swishing it dry in the mouth. I’ve been a consultant with Lanto Health on this product and have been testing and using this product successfully for over a year (self-experimentation!).

FROZEN LACTOBACILLUS SAKEI PRODUCTS  – The main L. sakei products available in many countries throughout the world are various frozen sausage starter cultures. All L. sakei products needing to be kept frozen are generally reliable and effective for sinusitis treatment. They should only be used when needed. But negatives with all frozen L. sakei products are that they must be kept frozen, they don’t hold up well once the package is opened, and they can easily die off during shipping.

Sausage starter cultures include BACTOFERM F-RM-52 (many countries, made by Chr. Hansen), PRIMAL SK NATUR 50 (Europe, made by Van Hees), and BITEC LS-25 (Europe, made by Frusarum). These starter cultures contain 2 types of bacteria (L. sakei and Staphylococcus carnosus) – little is known about S. carnosus, but it is considered non-pathogenic, and no one has reported negative effects from it. B-2, which is only L. sakei (made by Chr Hansen), is available in New Zealand and some EU countries. The starter culture BACTOFERM  SM 160 (L. sakei, Staphylococcus carnosus and Debaryomyces hansenii) has also been used successfully for chronic sinusitis. But one should be very cautious because while the third bacteria is considered non-pathogenic, is common in food products, is used commercially to make B12 - it is a yeast species (fungi).

Most use a frozen product by dabbing/smearing or spooning a little of the mixture (L. sakei and bottled water) into the nostrils. Sometimes a side effect on the day the product is used is a dry mouth and throat (and they can be very dry when overused - so it's important to use only a little in a treatment). The person who used the nasal aspirator reported a temporary decrease in her sense of smell.

[NOTE: I personally have overuse concerns (too strong a dose) with using L. sakei in a neti pot or nasal syringe, and so have never used any L. sakei product that way. My personal view: let the little suckers travel up to the sinuses on their own. And they do. And I always start first with the most cautious way to see if that works.]

SOME L.SAKEI ISSUES: I still think of L. sakei as fairly fragile – for example, it is killed off by antibiotics, by oxygen, and it only lives a limited amount of time at room temperature. [For ex.: the culture Bactoferm F-RM-52 package says that it dies off in less than 2 weeks at room temperature - therefore store in freezer.] On the other hand, many different Lactobacillus strains live and multiply in our bodies at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit - so L. sakei can handle warm temperatures just fine for a while.

Note that the L. sakei in any product can also die off during shipping if it takes too long, it’s too hot (e.g. inside hot postal vehicles in extreme heat), or some other reason. Thus we order 2 day shipping (if possible) and hope for the best. (Note: Consider overnight shipping during 100+degree Fahrenheit heat waves. Also, USPS delivers to mailboxes, while UPS typically delivers to the door.)

WHY DOESN'T L. SAKEI WORK FOR SOME PEOPLE? Some possibilities to explain why some people trying various L. sakei products has not resulted in their sinusitis improving is that perhaps some other "keystone species" (a very important microbial species for a normal healthy community) besides L. sakei is  missing in their sinus microbiomes. Or perhaps they have microbes that the L.sakei bacteria cannot overcome.

It is unclear whether the results are different if there are also nasal polyps. Researchers now suspect that those with nasal polyps also have a problem with "primary inflammation". We (modern medicine) know so little about the normal healthy sinus microbiome that there are many unanswered questions.

PROBLEM WITH A PRODUCT SUDDENLY NOT WORKING, OR OVERUSE - Several people reported that a kimchi brand or L. sakei product that originally worked for them suddenly stopped working or not as well, but usually it had been the only product used for a while. There may be a feeling of "imbalance" or on rare occasion some symptoms (e.g. more mucus, sore throat). We think this might be an issue of "too much of certain microbes".

Then we (family members) have found that immediately switching to another product (e.g., from one brand or type of kimchi to another), or from a L. sakei product to kimchi, or swishing an opened capsule (the dry powder) of multi-strain probiotics, or refrigerated L.sakei in the mouth (this last if switching from kimchi)  has corrected the situation for us. (Finding what works is self-experimentation, and varies from time to time.). And weeks later, we can use the original product once again. This is also why we only use a product when needed.

BOTTOM LINE: When feeling good or healthy, stop using the L. sakei product. Use L. sakei products sparingly - only as needed (e.g. when developing sinusitis). Using less is better than more over time – probably due to sinus microbial communities improving over the years. L. sakei seems to be necessary for sinusitis treatment for most people (a keystone bacteria), but there are also other important microbes in the sinuses - a whole community.

OTHER PROBIOTICS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BENEFICIAL EFFECTS - Rarely some people have reported that multi- strain probiotics (but they did not contain L. sakei) treated their sinusitis. They mixed the powder in the capsules with water and smeared or dabbed the mixture in the nose, or even used it in a saline rinse (this last was rare). Different brands containing different mixtures of bacteria (Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium) have been mentioned - but all were refrigerated probiotics - so nothing stands out.

On the other hand, other people (including my family members) reported trying various multi-strain probiotics containing various Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium species in the nostrils and found it did not help sinusitis. However, we found that when we feel a little “imbalanced” – perhaps a cough or mucusy – then swishing the dry powder from one capsule in the mouth and then swallowing it - frequently results in some improvement (perhaps with a cough).

I have concerns with products that also contain titanium dioxide – this is because it may be in nanoparticle form, and recent studies have raised concerns that the nanoparticles can travel to other organs in the body, and are also inflammatory. So read the ingredients!

STILL UNKNOWN: Some multi-strain probiotics now contain L. sakei, but may be problematic if they don’t need refrigeration (e.g. Multi-strain Probiotic by Innovix Labs). L. sakei products typically die after a few weeks without refrigeration, and die when exposed to oxygen (anaerobic).  So...while the L. sakei may be alive when the product is produced, is it alive weeks or months later at room temperature?

Also, will a multi-strain probiotic containing both L. sakei and S. salivarius K12 (such as Pro-Kids ENT by Hyperbiotics) help or make things worse for those with sinusitis?  S. salivarius K12 has caused problems for some people (scroll down to "Problems With BLIS K12?").

NO EVIDENCE FOR JUST SWALLOWING PROBIOTIC SUPPLEMENTS: Evidence (my family, people writing in, research) so far has been that only directly dabbing/applying probiotics in the nose, or even swishing probiotics in the mouth may help treat sinusitis. I have not found any studies finding that just swallowing a probiotic pill has helped sinusitis (including a 2009 study looking at swallowing L. rhamnosus tablets 2 times daily for 4 weeks).

PROMISING PHAGE THERAPY - Some researchers in the USA and Australia are currently testing phage therapy to see if it could be used as a treatment for chronic sinusitis. A bacteriophage is a virus that infects bacteria, and the name literally means "bacteria eater". Phage therapy is the therapeutic use of bacteriophages to treat bacterial infections. See the June 3, 2016 post Phage Therapy May Help Sinusitis Sufferers for more information.

The authors of one study I posted said that they had found evidence for people having "virus-like particles" in their sinuses, which they thought were bacteriophages.

SNOT TRANSPLANTS IN THE FUTURE? – Currently a “snot transplant” study from healthy persons to sinusitis sufferers is going on in Europe to see if it works as a sinusitis treatment. This possibility may work great, but researchers have the same concerns as with fecal microbial transplants (stool transplant) for the gut. For example, are diseases also being transplanted?

PROBLEMS WITH BLIS K12 ? - Some people (and family members) tried the probiotic BLIS K12 bacteria (also known as Streptococcus salivarius BLIS K12), but found it brought on sinusitis-type symptoms. Scientific research finds it to be an immune booster and it lowers the incidence of upper respiratory infections. But not for us - from the first tablet (ate it by slowly dissolving it in the mouth) there were problems - feeling phlegmy and yellow mucus.

Several persons reported similar negative effects with PRO-dental tablets, which also contains BLIS K12. The message here is clear: these specific bacteria did not react well with our sinus and oral bacterial communities. Remember, whenever one introduces new bacteria into the human organism, there can be positive or negative effects.

PLEASE WRITE!  I would really like to hear how you are treating and curing your sinusitis, especially chronic sinusitis. Or even what hasn't worked. It all adds to the knowledge base. Write to me privately, or can comment after any post.

(Note that most comments are after this post, the SINUSITIS TREATMENT SUMMARY page, the CONTACT page, and other sinusitis posts - see category SINUSITIS).

Published on

Nice write-up of how what happens from the type of birth (vaginal vs cesarean) affects the baby's microbiome (community of microbes). Remember, it is very complicated and much is still unknown. (UPDATE: see January 16, 2015 post discussing research by Dr. Dominguez-Bello who is conducting a study in which babies born via C-section are immediately swabbed with their mother's vaginal secretions; these babies will then be followed for years). From Gastroenterology and Endoscopy News:

Delivery Mode Alters Newborn’s First Bacterial Exposure

 A baby’s first exposure to bacteria varies by the method of delivery, researchers have found. These differences could have health implications later in life, according to an emerging body of evidence that suggests gut bacteria may be important to the development of a healthy immune system (Arrieta MC et al.Front Immunol 2014;5:427). For example, evidence shows that alterations in gut bacteria early in life may increase the incidence of allergies later on (Bendiks M, Kopp MV. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2013;13:487-494).

In the new study, presented at the 2014 annual meeting of the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, a group at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, in Aurora, compared oropharyngeal aspirates taken from 12 infants born by cesarean delivery and 11 born vaginally, and their bacterial content by sequencing the bacterial genes in the samples (abstract 7). Samples taken from the mothers’ vaginal and rectal areas, and samples of the infants’ stool, were also analyzed for bacterial genes.

Bacteria in aspirates from newborns delivered vaginally were more similar to the bacteria found in samples from their mothers than the aspirates from infants born by cesarean delivery, the investigators found. Infants born vaginally had higher numbers of firmicutes (62.6% vs. 30.1%; P=0.0013), particularly lactobacilli typically found in the vagina.

Aspirates from infants born by cesarean delivery, in contrast, had higher levels of Actinobacteria (20.1% vs. 3.8%; P=0.045), which are found on the skin. Stool samples from vaginally delivered newborns also had greater numbers of Bacteroidetes than stool samples from infants born by cesarean delivery. This difference persisted through six weeks of life, the researchers said.

David Brumbaugh, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, in Aurora, said the finding of fewer Bacteroidetes in cesarean newborns is potentially alarming. Studies of mice raised in sterile conditions have shown that exposure to a specific type of Bacteroidetes, Bacteroides fragilis, suppresses the animals’ inflammatory response (Mazmanian SK et al. Nature 2008;453:620-625), he said. 

“The fact that this bacteria never gets established early in life [in babies born by cesarean delivery] is concerning,” he said. Some studies have suggested that infants born by cesarean delivery may be at greater risk for developing conditions such as asthma, type 1 diabetes and celiac disease (Cho CE, Norman M. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;208:249-254). But not all studies have supported such risks; other studies suggest that genetic factors or the reason for the cesarean delivery itself may contribute to disease later in the child’s life (Almqvist C et al.Clin Exp Allergy 2012;42:1369-1376).

Jean-Eric Ghia, PhD, assistant professor of immunology and internal medicine at the University of Manitoba, in Winnipeg, Canada, said the findings add to a body of evidence suggesting that gut bacterial colonization is affected by mode of delivery, and these altered gut bacteria might contribute to immune system–related disease later in life (Neu J, Rushing J.Clin Perinatol 2011;38:321-331). “The first colonization of the gut happens when the baby comes out,” he said. But he noted that long-term studies are needed to assess the effect of these gut differences on health in the long term. He noted that a multitude of exposures before and after birth can also influence gut biota (Munyaka PM et al. Front Pediatr. doi:10.3389/fped.2014.00109 [published online October 9, 2014]). “It’s really, really complicated,” he said.

Published on

I bet eating fresh blueberries daily instead of blueberry powder would not only be more delicious, but also have even more health benefits. From Science Daily:

Blueberries may help reduce blood pressure and arterial stiffness

Just one cup of blueberries per day could be the key to reducing blood pressure and arterial stiffness, both of which are associated with cardiovascular disease. .... Johnson said she is interested in looking at how functional foods -- foods that have a positive impact on health beyond basic nutrition -- can prevent and reverse negative health outcomes, particularly for postmenopausal women.

Over an eight-week period, 48 postmenopausal women with pre- and stage-1 hypertension were randomly assigned to receive either 22 grams of freeze-dried blueberry powder -- the equivalent to one cup of fresh blueberries -- or 22 grams of a placebo powder. Participants, meanwhile, continued their normal diet and exercise routines.

At the end of the eight weeks, participants receiving the blueberry powder on average had a 7 mmHg (5.1 percent) decrease in systolic blood pressure, which is the top number in the blood pressure reading that measures the pressure in the arteries when the heart beats. They also saw a 5 mmHg (6.3 percent) reduction in diastolic blood pressure, or the bottom number measuring the pressure in the arteries between heartbeats.

Additionally, participants in the blueberry-treated group had an average reduction of 97 cm/second (6.5 percent) in arterial stiffness.They also found that nitric oxide, a blood biomarker known to be involved in the widening of blood vessels, increased by 68.5 percent. That is important, Johnson said, because arterial stiffness and the narrowing of blood vessels are both a part of hypertension. This rise in nitric oxide helps explain the reductions in blood pressure.

Published on

So perhaps mother knew best - that you'd catch a cold easily if you didn't bundle up when going outside in the winter. Study was done on mice cells, so now need to study this in humans. From Science Daily:

Cold virus replicates better at cooler temperatures

The common cold virus can reproduce itself more efficiently in the cooler temperatures found inside the nose than at core body temperature, according to a new Yale-led study. This finding may confirm the popular yet contested notion that people are more likely to catch a cold in cool-weather conditions.

Researchers have long known that the most frequent cause of the common cold, the rhinovirus, replicates more readily in the slightly cooler environment of the nasal cavity than in the warmer lungs. 

To investigate the relationship between temperature and immune response, Iwasaki and an interdisciplinary team of Yale researchers spearheaded by Ellen Foxman, a postdoctoral fellow in Iwasaki's lab, examined the cells taken from the airways of mice. They compared the immune response to rhinovirus when cells were incubated at 37 degrees Celsius, or core body temperature, and at the cooler 33 degrees Celsius. "We found that the innate immune response to the rhinovirus is impaired at the lower body temperature compared to the core body temperature," Iwasaki said.

The study also strongly suggested that the varying temperatures influenced the immune response rather than the virus itself. Researchers observed viral replication in airway cells from mice with genetic deficiencies in the immune system sensors that detect virus and in the antiviral response. They found that with these immune deficiencies, the virus was able to replicate at the higher temperature. 

Although the research was conducted on mouse cells, it offers clues that may benefit people, including the roughly 20% of us who harbor rhinovirus in our noses at any given time. "In general, the lower the temperature, it seems the lower the innate immune response to viruses," noted Iwasaki. 

Published on

And the scary part is that they only tested for 32 chemicals, but there are thousands of others they didn't test for that could be lurking in the water, including pesticides used on the lawns and grounds around outdoor swimming pools. From Science Daily:

Pharmaceuticals, personal care products could taint swimming pools

A new study suggests pharmaceuticals and chemicals from personal care products end up in swimming pools, possibly interacting with chlorine to produce disinfection byproducts with unknown properties and health effects.

Chlorination is used primarily to prevent pathogenic microorganisms from growing. Previous research has shown that many constituents of urine including urea, uric acid, and amino acids, interact with chlorine to produce potentially hazardous disinfection byproducts in swimming pools. However, chemicals from pharmaceuticals and personal care products, or PPCPs, also could be interacting with chlorine, producing potentially harmful byproducts. There are literally thousands of chemicals from pharmaceuticals and personal care products that could be getting into swimming pool water.

A research group led by Ching-Hua Huang, a professor in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has developed an analytical technique that identifies and quantifies 32 pharmaceuticals and personal care products in water... Water samples were taken from indoor swimming pools in Indiana and Georgia.

Of the 32 chemicals investigated, the researchers detected three: N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide, known as DEET, the active ingredient in insect repellants; caffeine; and tri(2-chloroethyl)-phosphate (TCEP), a flame retardant.

"The other 29 could have been present at concentrations below the detection level," Blatchley said. "And because there are literally thousands of pharmaceuticals, this is just a small subset of compounds that could be present in swimming pools. The main issue is that the release of chemicals into a place like a swimming pool is completely uncontrolled and unknown. I don't want to be an alarmist. We haven't discovered anything that would be cause for alarm right now, but the bottom line is we just don't know."

Some chemicals are volatile, which means they can escape into the air to be inhaled. Others can be ingested or absorbed through the skin."Swimmers are exposed to chemicals through three different routes: You can inhale, you can ingest and it can go through your skin. So the exposure you receive in a swimming pool setting is potentially much more extensive than the exposure you would receive by just one route alone," Blatchley said.

His previous research has shown that certain airborne contaminants are created when chlorine reacts with sweat and urine in indoor swimming pools. Pharmaceuticals may get into swimming pool water from personal care products applied to the skin such as insect repellant, makeup and sunscreen. Many pharmaceuticals that are ingested are not fully metabolized by the body and are excreted in sweat and urine.

"Urine, I think, is really the primary mode of introduction," Blatchley said. "When it comes to pharmaceuticals, these are chemicals designed to be biologically active at pretty low concentrations. Birth control pills, for example, contain hormones. If those chemicals and others are present, especially in a mixture in a water sample that humans are going to be exposed to, then what are the consequences of that? That is a largely unanswered question."...The previous research suggested that about 93 percent of uric acid introduced to pools comes from human urine.

Published on

Exercise is the Fountain of Youth? Note that they could not come up with a biomarker of aging in these active people. From Medical Xpress;

Exercise allows you to age optimally

Staying active allows you to age optimally, according to a study by King's College London and the University of Birmingham. The study of amateur older cyclists found that many had levels of physiological function that would place them at a much younger age compared to the general population; debunking the common assumption that ageing automatically makes you more frail.

The study, published in The Journal of Physiology, recruited 84 male and 41 female cycling enthusiasts aged 55 to 79 to explore how the ageing process affects the human body, and whether specific physiological markers can be used to determine your age.

Cyclists were recruited to exclude the effects of a sedentary lifestyle, which can aggravate health problems and cause changes in the body, which might appear to be due to the ageing process. Men and women had to be able to cycle 100 km in under 6.5 hours and 60 km in 5.5 hours, respectively, to be included in the study...Participants underwent two days of laboratory testing at King's. For each participant, a physiological profile was established which included measures of cardiovascular, respiratory, neuromuscular, metabolic, endocrine and cognitive functions, bone strength, and health and well-being. Volunteers' reflexes, muscle strength, oxygen uptake during exercise and peak explosive cycling power were determined.

The results of the study showed that in these individuals, the effects of ageing were far from obvious. Indeed, people of different ages could have similar levels of function such as muscle strength, lung power and exercise capacity. The maximum rate of oxygen consumption showed the closest association with age, but even this marker could not identify with any degree of accuracy the age of any given individual, which would be the requirement for any useful biomarker of ageing.

In a basic, but important test of function in older people, the time taken to stand from a chair, walk three metres, turn, walk back and sit down was also measured. Taking more than 15 seconds to complete the task generally indicates a high risk of falling. Even the oldest participants in the present study fell well below these levels, fitting well within the norm for healthy young adults.

Overall, the study concluded that ageing is likely to be a highly individualist phenomenon...The main problem facing health research is that in modern societies the majority of the population is inactive. A sedentary lifestyle causes physiological problems at any age. Hence the confusion as to how much the decline in bodily functions is due to the natural ageing process and how much is due to the combined effects of ageing and inactivity."

"In many models of ageing lifespan is the primary measure, but in human beings this is arguably less important than the consequences of deterioration in health. Healthy life expectancy - our healthspan - is not keeping pace with the average lifespan, and the years we spend with poor health and disabilities in old age are growing."

Emeritus Professor Norman Lazarus, a member of the King's team and also a cyclist, said: "Inevitably, our bodies will experience some decline with age, but staying physically active can buy you extra years of function compared to sedentary people. Cycling not only keeps you mentally alert, but requires the vigorous use of many of the body's key systems, such as your muscles, heart and lungs which you need for maintaining health and for reducing the risks associated with numerous diseases."