Skip to content

Exercise appears to protect against some cancers. Yes, something so simple as merely getting the recommended amount of 2 1/2 hours per week of exercise (e.g. brisk walks) really lowers the risk of 7 cancers: colon, breast, endometrial, kidney, myeloma, liver, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The researchers analyzed 9 studies for a total of 755,459 individuals (median age 62 years, 53% females) who were followed for 10.1 years, and found that 50,620 cancers developed. They specifically looked at 15 cancers and found that exercise lowered the risk of 7 cancers. Some, but not all, were lowered in a dose response manner, that is, the more exercise, the bigger the protective effect (e.g. breast, colon, endometrial cancer). How much the cancer risk was lowered with exercise varied by types of cancer: colon (8%-14% lower risk in men), breast (6%-10% lower risk), endometrial (10%-18% lower risk), kidney (11%-17% lower risk), myeloma (14%-19% lower risk), liver (18%-27% lower risk), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (11%-18% lower risk in women).

How much exercise was needed for a cancer protective effect? About 2 1/2 to 5 hours per week of moderate-intensity physical activity, such as brisk walking. The study looked at "leisure-time" exercise, which can include exercise, sports or any recreational activity which is typically "moderate to vigorous intensity".

The Physical Activity Guidelines from the US Department of Health and Human Services recommends that adults do at least 150 to 300 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity a week, or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous-intensity activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity activity. Brisk walking is moderate intensity physical activity. Bottom line: get out and move, move, move!

From Medical Xpress: Report links recommended physical activity levels to lower risk of seven cancers   ...continue reading "Exercise May Lower The Risk Of Some Cancers"

Adding fluoride to municipal drinking water has been controversial for years, with much debate over benefits (prevention of tooth decay) vs health concerns. Especially worrisome are recent studies finding that fluoride in drinking water may have negative effects on children's IQ, whether the fluoride exposure occurs during pregnancy or infancy.

Canadian researchers found that babies that drank formula mixed with fluoridated water had a lower IQ at age 3 to 4 than exclusively breastfed children. [Breastfeeding results in much lower levels of fluoride exposure, even when the mothers drink fluoridated tap water. This is because only limited amounts wind up in breast milk.]

As in the USA, some Canadian communities fluoridate their water while others don't. Exposure to increasing levels of fluoride in tap water (even at government recommended "optimal" levels) was associated with lower IQ scores (especially non-verbal intellectual abilities) in the children. The more the fluoride exposure, the bigger the effect. In other words, studies suggest that fluoride is a neurotoxicant in that it negatively affects the developing brain.

What to do? Try to breastfeed your baby for 6 months. But if using formula and your municipal water has added fluoride - try to mix the formula with unfluoridated bottled water, especially water in glass bottles (because plastic leaches and has more microplastics in it.

From Beyond Pesticides: Fluoride In Science News Again, This Time For Effects On Children's IQ  ...continue reading "Time To Reconsider Adding Fluoride To Drinking Water?"

Many, many women experience weight gain after menopause, with many experiencing "belly rolls" for the first time in their life. All women say that it is especially hard to lose weight after menopause, even though there are many health reasons to do so (e.g. postmenopausal weight gain is a cause of breast cancer).

A recent large study of women over the age of 50 (following them for 10 years) may offer extra inducement to try for weight loss. The main finding of the research was that weight loss after the age of 50, and especially if the weight is kept off, is linked to a lower risk of breast cancer.

The researchers found that the lower rates of breast cancer is linear - meaning the more weight is lost and kept off, the lower the risk of breast cancer. And even if some (but not all ) is gained back, they were still at a lower risk of breast cancer than a woman whose weight stays stable after 50. These findings of a lower risk apply to women who were not using postmenopausal hormones.

The lowest risk of breast cancer (32% lower) was in women who lost at least 20 pounds (9kg) or more, kept it off, and were not taking post-menopausal hormones - when compared to women who stayed at a stable weight after 50. The researchers said that the results were particularly striking for obese and overweight women.

It is thought that these good results occur because weight loss in postmenopausal women results in lower levels of sex hormone concentrations, as well as C-reactive protein, Interleukin 6, tumor necrosis factor alpha, insulin-like growth factor 1, and insulin-like growth factor binding protein.

In other words, even if you are over 50 and overweight - it is not too late to lose weight and lower your risk of breast cancer! View it as breast cancer prevention.

From Science Daily: Large study links sustained weight loss to reduced breast cancer risk  ...continue reading "Weight Loss After Age 50 Really Lowers Risk of Breast Cancer"

What is the best way for cleaning hands to prevent the spread of flu viruses? Advertisers would have you believe that only their hand sanitizers can do the job, but... guess what? That's not true! Hand washing with soap and water is the best. One study found that even skipping the soap and just rubbing the hands with plain water for 30 seconds is better than most hand sanitizers!

classroom study illustrated nicely how handwashing with soap and water is better than hand sanitizers or doing nothing (dirty hands) in spreading germs. The photos show it wonderfully.

From Medscape: Plain Water Better Than Hand Sanitizer for Influenza A

Simple handwashing — even without soap — is more effective than many hand disinfectants for killing influenza A virus (IAV) in typical clinical situations, new data show.

The researchers say the key factor that determines the effectiveness of ethanol-based disinfectants (EBDs) is whether there is wet mucus surrounding the virus. Wet mucus prevents the disinfectant from reaching the virus, which means the virus remained active after 120 seconds of EBD exposure.

By contrast, washing hands under plain water for 30 seconds inactivated the virus, regardless of whether it was initially surrounded by wet or dry mucus.  ...continue reading "Is Hand Washing Better Than Hand Sanitizers For the Flu Virus?"

Another great option for losing weight and better health may be to only eat within a 10 hour window, and then not eat for 14 hours (thus a nightly 14 hour fast). Many may find this easier than traditional dieting (counting calories and restricting eating). Just eat breakfast later, supper earlier, and no snacks in the evening. (But water is OK.)

Researchers from the Univ. Of California and Salk Institute conducted the 10-hour restricted eating study on persons with metabolic syndrome, most of whom were also on high blood pressure (anti-hypertensive) medicine and statins. After 12 weeks the people had lost weight, lost body fat, lowered blood pressure, reduced cholesterol, and decreased the size of their waist.

Since metabolic syndrome raises the risk for diabetes and heart (cardiovascular) disease, then 10-hour restricted eating can be an important tool to improve health. The researchers point out that in animal studies, time-restricted feeding can prevent and reverse aspects of metabolic diseases, and in healthy humans, it reduces the risks of metabolic diseases. Studies also found benefits with 9-hour restricted eating and 12 hour fasts.

From Science Daily: Clinical study finds eating within 10-hour window may help stave off diabetes, heart disease  ...continue reading "Improve Health and Lose Weight By Restricting Eating To A 10 Hour Window"

Once again a study finds an association between a Western diet (lots of processed meat, red meat, fried food, desserts, low fiber, high in refined grains, sugar sweetened beverages, and high-fat dairy) and a poor health outcome - this time a significantly higher incidence of late-stage age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

Interestingly though, a Western dietary pattern did not seem to be associated with whether a person developed early AMD - only with whether it would progress to late-stage AMD. And late-stage AMD is the one that results in loss of central vision (in the retina), which means a person will then be unable to drive.

This study followed 1278 people over an 18 year period. Those who ate a Western style diet (considered unhealthy) had a 3 times higher rate of late-stage AMD as compared to those who had a "prudent" (healthy) dietary pattern. Out of 1278 persons - 117 developed early AMD and 27 developed late AMD (20 of them progressed from no AMD to late AMD over the 18 years, and 7 progressed from early AMD to late AMD).

What kinds of foods seemed especially protective? The researchers said that eating the following  foods appeared protective: cruciferous (e.g. broccoli), foods high in carotene (e.g. carrots), dark green leafy and other vegetables, poultry, fresh fruits, legumes, fish and sea foods - what they called part of a "prudent" diet, but can also be thought of as a Mediterranean dietary pattern.

One thing I question is whether "high fat dairy" (which they said was margarine & butter) should have lumped together margarine and butter. After all, margarine is a concoction made with trans fats and linked to health problems, while butter (made from milk/cream) is very different.

From Science Daily: Poor diet linked to age-related macular degeneration  ...continue reading "A Person’s Diet And Age-Related Macular Degeneration"

Uh-oh, these research findings are not a surprise. A study conducted in 6 U.S. metro areas found that as income levels go up, peer pressure to apply pesticides on lawns increases. As well as to irrigate lawns and apply fertilizers. One can definitely see this in the NYC metro area - the wealthier the neighborhood, the more monochromatic fake-looking lawns. Some even keep their pesticide lawn signs on the lawn for days as a status symbol.

This has an incredibly large environmental impact because lawns can be thought of as the biggest crop in the USA. Lawns cover the most area (ahead of corn) and many lawns have intense chemical management (many have pesticides applied every month for most months of the year). Yikes!

Unfortunately, every year more evidence is accumulating of the harmful health effects of pesticides - in humans, pets, wildlife, water, air, and soil. Harmful effects include neurological and immunological effects, endocrine disruption, cancers, and birth defects. Fertilizers and water irrigation of lawns (sprinkler systems) also have a set of problems, including algae blooms in water and depletion of fresh water resources. [See posts on pesticides.]

And of course, last, but not least, pesticides disrupt the microbial life of the soil, as well as kill insects and worms. I will never forget young children in a classroom being shocked by all the worms found in good soil (in a bucket of organic dirt from my yard) - they had never seen them in their chemically managed yards.

Bottom line: Be a trend-setter in your neighborhood and embrace the natural wildflowers weeds in your lawn. Think of it this way: clover and dandelions can't give you cancer, but pesticides can. In addition, studies find that untreated lawns result in diversity of grasses growing in the lawn and are also important bee habitats for all sorts of bee species. All positive.

From Beyond Pesticides: High Income, Peer-Pressure Correlated With Chemical Intensive Yard Care Practices  ...continue reading "As Income Levels Rise, Chemical Use On Lawns Increases"

A new study has nicely illustrated how extreme air pollution gets quickly into a person and has negative health effects, but improvement occurs when the exposure to the air pollution ends.

It has long been known that long-term exposure to air pollution is associated with increased heart disease and death from heart disease (cardiovascular morbidity and mortality). But now University of California researchers showed that even relatively short term exposure to high levels of air pollution has negative health effects, such as an increase in inflammation and systemic oxidation (which are linked to heart disease).

The researchers looked at 26 healthy young adults from Los Angeles who visited Beijing for a 10 week period during the summers of 2014 and 2015. They looked at both health effects (such as levels of inflammation) and also what pollutants are found in their bodies. And yes, they found both markers for inflammation and heart disease, as well as high levels of pollutants after being in Beijing for 10 weeks.

Beijing is much more polluted than Los Angeles. For example, levels of small particles in the air (PM2.5) was on average 371% higher in Beijing than Los Angeles, and concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and ozone were also at higher levels in Beijing than Los Angeles. [Note: PAHs are a group of combustion-originated air pollutants.]

Interestingly, Los Angeles air used to be much more polluted, but environmental policies and regulations resulted in the air becoming cleaner. In other words, steps can be taken to lower levels of air pollution, with would result in health benefits for everyone.

Excerpts from Medical Xpress: Study finds even a short-term visit to a severely polluted city is bad for your health  ...continue reading "Even Short-term Exposure to High Levels of Air Pollution Is Bad For Your Health"

Back in 2015 I posted about Rogan Brown's amazing paper sculptures of microbes. I just looked at some of his latest work and it is still amazing and gorgeous!

He designs, then cuts by hand or laser thousands of paper microorganisms, including cell structures, bacteria, coral, fungi, pathogens, and diatoms.

Rogan Brown wrote an article in the March-April 2017 American Scientist about his work and the process he goes through in creating his incredibly detailed paper sculptures.

All of the photos on this page are from Rogan Brown's site:

 

Cytokinesis - paper sculpture by Rogan Brown of cell division (2019). 47 x 46"

 

 

 

 

 

Magic Circle Variation 2017 -  this paper sculpture by Rogan Brown refers to petri dish, microscope lens, coral, bacteria, fungi, etc. (2017)

 

 

 

Magic Circle Colour Variation (2018) - this paper sculpture by Rogan Brown refers to petri dish, microscope lens, coral, bacteria, fungi, etc. 38 x 37"

 

 

 

Magic Circle Colour Variation detail 

Several recent studies have highlighted the negative effects of air pollution on the brain, specifically from the tiniest particles in polluted air (called PM 2.5). These tiny particles get to the human brain and cause all sorts of damage. Even at levels within government guidelines.

Two studies found that with higher chronic (daily) exposure to PM2.5 air pollution there were structural changes to the brain. Which is negative to brain health, of course.

With chronic exposure to higher levels of  PM2.5 air pollution: one study found greater declines in memory and more Alzheimer's-like brain atrophy in older women in the USA; and the second study found that higher prenatal exposure was associated with a smaller corpus callosum (a part of the brain) later in childhood. Thus structural changes in the brain!

The tiniest particles are 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter, about 1/30th the width of human hair - and referred to as PM2.5. These fine particles are produced by all sorts of combustion, including motor vehicles, power plants, residential wood burning, agricultural burning, some industrial processes, and forest fires. Typically there is much more exposure to PM2.5 in busy urban streets, and less in quiet suburban streets.

Researchers in Barcelona, Spain found that long-term higher prenatal exposure to PM2.5 particulate matter, especially during the last trimester of pregnancy, is associated with a smaller corpus callosum in children between the ages of 8 and 12 years. This is an important finding because a smaller (reduced volume) corpus callosum is found in ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), ASD (autism spectrum disorder), and hyperactivity. So here we see a structural change in the brain from air pollution at PM2.5 levels that are considered acceptable (within guidelines) by the European Union!

A report called The State of Global Air/2018 stated that studies show that long-term exposure to PM2.5  particles in the air "is the most consistent and robust predictor" of death from heart disease and stroke, lung cancer, and respiratory illnesses. And then there are nitrogen oxides and ozone, which are also linked to death. There are also nanoparticles (e.g., from friction of tires being used) that penetrate deep into the human body.

A 2018 The Guardian article called air pollution "the new tobacco". And that it's time to tackle this epidemic. Yup. Unfortunately, current air pollution standards are being relaxed in all sorts of ways under the current U.S. administration. Beware!

First study. Excerpts from Medical Xpress: Exposure to PM 2.5 pollution linked to brain atrophy, memory decline  ...continue reading "Air Pollution and the Brain, Part 1"