Skip to content

Author: Sima

1

Published on 1 Comment on Perhaps No Treatment Is Best For Tennis Elbow?

Suffering from "tennis elbow" ? A new study suggests that it may be best to just wait for the elbow to heal on its own.

Tennis elbow is the painful condition that develops after "overuse" - it's a repetitive stress injury, which typically occurs in the person's dominant arm. The medical name for tennis elbow is enthesopathy of the extensor carpi radialis brevis (eECRB), or lateral epicondylitis. There are many non-surgical alternatives available, such as ultrasound, laser therapy, botulinum toxin injection, corticosteroid injection, etc., but there has been controversy over what works best in reducing pain and improving grip strength (grip strength is diminished in tennis elbow).

Researchers at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center compared 11 non-surgical methods of treating tennis elbow, including a placebo group (which received a "sham treatment", such as a saline injection to mimic a treatment, but really was a no treatment group. They reviewed 36 high quality studies, and found that for persons receiving only a placebo - within four weeks most reported little or no pain, and by 26 weeks 99 percent reported little or no pain. Those who received no treatment (placebo) also had the fewest side-effects (e.g. worsened pain, reduced elbow movement, skin rash, nausea, allergic reaction). The odds of an adverse effect was significantly greater in all treatment groups than in the no treatment (placebo) group.

The researchers did mention that of all the treatments, only laser therapy improved both pain and grip strength more than placebo at one month. Some treatments, such as corticosteroid injections, while relieving pain short-term (in the first month), resulted in more pain at 26 weeks than individuals who received no treatment. The researchers wrote: " At best, all treatments provided only small pain relief while increasing the odds of adverse events." They also said that perhaps some people, such as manual laborers, may benefit by short term pain relief treatments. But long-term - doing nothing is best.

From Science Daily: Tennis elbow treatments provide little to no benefit, study finds        ...continue reading "Perhaps No Treatment Is Best For Tennis Elbow?"

Published on Leave a comment on Lower Cancer Risk By Eating Organic Food?

A recently published study was good news for those who eat organic foods. The large French study (about 69,000 people) found a  significantly lower risk of getting cancer (25% lower) in people who ate a lot of organic food - when compared to people who rarely or never ate organic food.

The participants in the study were followed for an average of 4.6 years. Cancers with the greatest decreased risk were breast cancer (especially in postmenopausal women) and all lymphomas, especially non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The researchers summarized the findings as:  "In a population-based cohort study of 68 ,946 French adults, a significant reduction in the risk of cancer was observed among high consumers of organic food." and "...if the findings are confirmed, promoting organic food consumption in the general population could be a promising preventive strategy against cancer." This could be an easy way to cut cancer risk! (Other organic food benefits.)

Of course the pesticide and conventional agriculture industry went nuts attacking the study - this finding goes against their message that pesticides are fine and necessary, don't worry about pesticide residues in food, and that antibiotics and other medicines are safe when given routinely to animals.

Unfortunately, research finds that a number of pesticides used in conventional farming are considered carcinogenic (cancer causing), and pesticide residues are found in conventionally grown foods. Eating conventional foods every day results in chronic low-dose pesticide residue exposure. The researchers suspect the pesticide residues in foods is the reason for the higher cancer risk. [Note: those pesticides are not allowed to be used in organic farming.]

What foods did the researchers ask about? They asked people about the consumption of 16 types of labeled organic food products: fruits; vegetables; soy-based products; dairy products; meat and fish; eggs; grains and legumes; bread and cereals; flour; vegetable oils and condiments; ready-to-eat meals; coffee, tea, and herbal tea; wine; biscuits, chocolate, sugar, and marmalade; other foods; and dietary supplements. In other words, all the foods we eat daily.

But what I found really interesting was a review of the study by Dr. Charles Benbrook (Visiting Scholar in the Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, and a Visiting Professor at the Univ. of Newcastle in the UK). He correctly points out that the results are big news and a big deal.

Excerpts from Environmental Health News: Charles Benbrook: New study showing organic diets cut cancer risk is a big deal. Let’s treat it that way.      ...continue reading "Lower Cancer Risk By Eating Organic Food?"

Published on Leave a comment on Increased Height Increases Risk of Cancer

Taller people have increased rates of cancer. Why? A study from a Univ. of California researcher found a link between height and cancer risk, and support for it being due to taller people having a greater number of cells. The more cells, the more mutations - which increases the risk of getting cancer. The study pooled data from 4 large studies (from the UK, the US, Norway, Sweden and Austria, and Korea). The researcher found that the increase in height and increased cancer relationship held for most cancers in both men and women. 18 out of 23 cancers (when combining male and female data) showed a "height effect".

The average heights for women  were 162 cm (64 inches) and 175 cm (69 inches) for men - and beyond that for every 10 cm (4 inches) increase in height, there was a 10% increase in cancer risk. The cancers that did not show a height effect were pancreas, esophagus, stomach, mouth/pharynx, as well as cervical cancer in women. From Medical Xpress:

Study finds taller people more likely to get certain cancers due to cell numbers

A researcher at the University of California's Department of Evolution, Ecology and Organismal Biology has found evidence that taller people are more prone to getting cancer due to their larger number of cells. In his paper published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Leonard Nunney describes his study, involving comparing height with cancer risk and factoring in the total number of cells in the body. 

...continue reading "Increased Height Increases Risk of Cancer"

Published on Leave a comment on We Are All Eating Microplastics

It turns out that we're all eating tiny bits of plastic in our food. Yes, teeny tiny bits of plastic that are smaller than 5 mm and are called microplastics. Why are there tiny plastic pieces in our food? Is it doing anything to us, to our health? What can we do about it? After all, it's not normal or desirable to eat plastic.

Most of us have heard of the "garbage patches" in the oceans - consisting of many pieces of plastic debris, both big and small. But the reality is that tiny pieces of plastic are all around us, not just far away in the ocean. Microplastics can be found in our drinking water, bottled water, in the seafood we eat, in honey and sugar, in beer, table salt, even in our house dust (which includes tiny synthetic fibers, such as polyester, that are constantly being shed from soft furnishings, clothing, and carpet fibers), and outside air (e.g. from tires). This is microplastic pollution, and unfortunately this pollution is increasing each year because we are increasing our use of plastics. [Other posts on this topic here, here, here.]

Every time we eat a meal we ingest any plastics that are in the food, as well as any plastic particles floating in the air that settle on our food and which we then ingest. One recent study found that about 80 to 100 pieces of tiny plastic particles are eaten over the course of each meal in this way!

Currently no one knows what ingesting all these microplastics is doing to us, if anything. The research hasn't been done. However, there are questions and concerns, especially because toxic chemicals (carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, etc) used in plastic manufacturing are in the microplastics, as well as any contaminants that the plastics were exposed to in the environment. There may  even be microbes (including pathogens) on the plastics. A recent study found that we excrete microplastics  in our feces.

A 2017 United Nations report about microplastics and food safety said that while much remains unknown, microplastics in our food doesn't appear to be health threat: "It is thought that only the smallest particles (1.5 µm or less) will penetrate into the capillaries of the organs and the remaining will be excreted." and "Based on the available scientific evidence, it is safe to state that microplastics neither seem to pose a significant food safety threat and the health benefits associated with the intake of fishery products will exceed the potential risks.Nonetheless, there are many knowledge gaps..."

From National Geographic: Microplastics found in 90 percent of table salt ...continue reading "We Are All Eating Microplastics"

Published on Leave a comment on Can Pesticides Be Detected In Your Home?

Can pesticides be detected in your home? A Cornell University study found that every single home they studied in different areas of upstate New York had detectable pesticide residues in the homes. Every single one of the 132 rural homes.

Pesticides are colorless and odorless, but they still may be in your home from applications in the home or around the home from long ago. Pesticides can also be tracked in by your shoes or bare feet, on fur and clothing, or come in on the air (drift from pesticides being applied nearby), even off-gassing from soil. They stay in the dust in homes, and are absorbed by soft materials (such as rugs and upholstery, and even stuffed toys). Pesticides stay around so long (some even years) inside homes because they are not broken down easily (as they can be outdoors in the sun and rain).

The researchers pointed out that Americans use over 1 billion pounds of pesticides each year. Pesticides have health risks, even at low doses - for example, higher risks of various cancers, birth defects, neurological and immunological problems. Pregnant women (developing babies) and children are especially vulnerable to pesticide effects. For example, children are playing and crawling around on the floor sticking objects and their hands into the mouth. Pets also have health risks from pesticides, such as cancer.

While the pesticide residue samples in this study were taken in 2001 to 2002, the findings should apply today because pesticide use has risen tremendously since then - both on farms and elsewhere. And they tested for pesticides that are still commonly used today - such as 2.4-D (a commonly used herbicide, e.g. weed & feed for lawns, and on crops genetically modified to resist 2,4-D). The researchers didn't test for all the possible pesticides commonly used - just 15 of them. Unfortunately they didn't test for glyphosate , which is in Roundup, and heavily used nowadays - in crops and elsewhere as an herbicide (weed killer).

Think about it - at least in in the northeast, more people are using lawn pesticide services to get that "perfect, carpet-looking lawn" (really a monoculture that is environmentally horrible -  to bees and butterflies, soil organisms, birds, and anyone walking on it).

How many people do you know get monthly or annual pesticide treatments in or around their homes "just in case"? In every instance  people are getting exposed to pesticides - breathing them in, getting them on their shoes, feet, clothing, bodies. Besides this study, other studies have also found pesticides in household and daycare center dust. How do studies measure pesticides in people? Typically by measuring their levels in blood and urine.

So what can one do to lower the amount and number of pesticides in the home?

1) First of all, don't use pesticides casually or routinely in your him. Use non-toxic alternatives instead - this is called least toxic IPM (Integrated Pest Management), which emphasizes monitoring the problem, looking for what causes the pest problem (moisture getting into the house, holes in the wall, etc.) and then treating the cause. It uses alternatives to "just spraying a pesticide" such as baits, traps, vacuuming of pests!, caulking where needed, fixing wet areas. It means thinking like a pest and what attracts the pest (the cause), and using the most non-toxic way possible to correct the problem.

2) Very important: take off shoes when entering your home.

3) Wipe up dust and vacuum frequently in the home. Other contaminants are also in the dust, such as lead and fire retardant chemicals.

4) Use organic approaches to gardening and taking care of your lawn. [Click on category PESTICIDES for all posts on pesticides, including their health effects. All 2,4-D posts. All pregnancy and pesticide posts.]

The study by Laquatra et al in JSM Health Education & Primary Health Care: Common Pesticide Residues in Rural Homes of New York State

Excerpts from Beyond Pesticides discussion of this study in its Daily News Blog: Study of New York State Homes Finds Pesticides In Every Sample Tested ...continue reading "Can Pesticides Be Detected In Your Home?"

Published on Leave a comment on Are You Both A Good Navigator And Have A Good Sense of Smell?

Do you have a good sense of smell and are also good at navigation? A series of studies by Canadian researchers found that they are linked - and that these abilities are located in overlapping brain areas - the orbitofrontal cortex and hippocampus. The Canadian researchers found that both the cortical thickness of the left orbitofrontal cortex and the right hippocampus were bigger in the better smellers and better navigators (the subjects had MRI scans).

The researchers say the findings support the view that olfaction (the sense of smell) evolved to aid navigation - this hypothesis is called the olfactory spatial hypothesis. For example, all animals use chemical cues to navigate, to find food, to avoid being preyed upon, while in contrast vision and hearing are not present in all animals. In humans, good navigators have what the researchers call "spatial memory". From Laura Sanders at Science News:

People who have a good sense of smell are also good navigators ...continue reading "Are You Both A Good Navigator And Have A Good Sense of Smell?"

6

Published on 6 Comments on Another Probiotic That Treats Infections?

I'm always on the lookout for probiotics (beneficial bacteria) that can somehow  suppress or dominate Staphylococcus aureus  - because that bacteria is implicated in many illnesses, including sinusitis. Some strains of S. aureus are antibiotic resistant and the cause of serious illnesses, such as MRSA  (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). However, S. aureus is also found in the microbiomes (microbial communities) of healthy people - including on the skin, nose, and gut - but it appears to reside there harmlessly in healthy people.

So finding species of bacteria that suppress or controls S. aureus is noteworthy. Researchers (from National Institute of Health and Thailand) found that in both humans and mice strains of Bacillus, especially B. subtilis, which is already added to many probiotic products, suppressed all strains of S. aureus. Interestingly, the researchers found no S. aureus in any of the gut and nasal samples from humans where Bacillus species were present.The researchers think that the Bacillus species eradicate S. aureus - in both the gut and nasal passages. So the researchers tested further using mice - they gave B. subtilis to the mice every 2 days, and it eliminated S. aureus in the guts of the mice.

But why did I title this post '"another probiotic" ? Because from research and personal experiences told to me - Lactobacillus sakei seems to have the same effect against S. aureus (a frequent problem in sinusitis). Studies find some strains of L. sakei (such as Lactobacillus sakei proBio65 - found in Lanto Sinus) to be especially effective against Staphylococcus aureus.

Stay tuned for more research with B. subtilis and other probiotics versus S. aureus. [UPDATE: Since I posted this, I've read some concerns over B.subtilis. Be careful.]  From Science Daily:

Probiotic bacillus eliminates staphylococcus bacteria  ...continue reading "Another Probiotic That Treats Infections?"

Published on Leave a comment on What Is Optimal Amount Of Sleep For Our Cognitive Processes?

So many of us seem to not get enough sleep, and then there are those that sleep and sleep. But .. it seems the sweet spot for sleep and our brain health (cognitive performance) is about 7 to 8 hours - at least according to a large study from Canadian researchers at Western University. People reporting typically sleeping 4 hours or less a night had the most impairments in how they performed on a variety of cognitive tests - equivalent to aging 8 years.

Reasoning, verbal skills, and overall cognition were impaired by less than 7 hours or more than 8 hours of sleep. But not short term memory. Actual age of the person made no difference on the results - everyone performed best at 7 to 8 hours of sleep. (Volunteers completed a series of 12 tests online which measured a broad range of cognitive abilities.) By the way, about half of the 10886 persons participating in the study reported typically sleeping 6.3 hours or less a night. Not enough. The good news is that just one night of sleeping a little more than the usual too little had a positive effect on cognitive abilities - thus cognitive improvement. From Science Daily:

World's largest sleep study shows too much shut-eye can be bad for your brain  ...continue reading "What Is Optimal Amount Of Sleep For Our Cognitive Processes?"

Published on Leave a comment on Research Suggests Not Taking Probiotics After Antibiotics

Many people take probiotics in the belief that the probiotics will help their gut microbiome (microbial community) recover after taking antibiotics. This is because antibiotics kill both beneficial and pathogenic bacteria, and research shows it may take months for the gut to recover (it depends on the antibiotics taken). However, 2 studies (in both mice and healthy humans) conducted by a group of researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel challenge that belief. The researchers used both mice and healthy humans in both well-done studies. They found that taking probiotics after a week of antibiotics actually delayed recovery of the gut microbial community in humans - months longer!

In summary: As expected, taking antibiotics had a big effect on the gut microbiome - the researchers wrote "a dramatic impact"  and "profound microbial depletion" (after taking one week of standard doses of "broad-spectrum antibiotics").  However, they found large differences among the 3 groups in gut microbial recovery after antibiotics. The spontaneous recovery group (they did not take probiotics after antibiotics) showed recovery of gut microbes within 3 weeks. The fecal transplant group (of their own fecal microbes which was collected before they took antibiotics) showed gut microbial recovery within 1 day of the fecal microbial transplant. In contrast, the group taking daily  probiotics for 28 days did not show full recovery (to where they were before antibiotics) by day 28, and the gut microbial community was still out of whack (dysbiosis) even 5 months after stopping probiotics (actually even at 180 days when the study ended).

What species were in the probiotics? Eleven species commonly found in ordinary probiotics: Lactobacillus acidophilus, L. casei, L. casei subsp. paracasei, L. plantarum, L. rhamnosus, Bifidobacterium longum, B. bifidum, B. breve, B. longum sbsp. infantism, Lactococcus lactis, and Streptococcus thermophilus.  These are all considered beneficial species. But keep in mind that the human gut has hundreds of microbial species - not just the few found in probiotics.

Bottom line: Eat well after taking a course of antibiotics so as to feed beneficial microbes, and do not routinely take probiotics thinking it will help the microbes in the gut.

What was also interesting was that in the first study where healthy individuals took the probiotics (and no antibiotics), they found that the probiotic species did not colonize the gut in everyone - only some species and in some people. It's as if there is a "resistance to colonization". This resistance is perhaps what other studies show - that within one week of discontinuing probiotics, they are gone from the gut.

From Science Daily - Human gut study questions probiotic health benefits  ...continue reading "Research Suggests Not Taking Probiotics After Antibiotics"

Published on Leave a comment on Study Finds Mammogram Screening Doesn’t Reduce Breast Cancer Deaths

There has been a lot of discussion in recent years about whether mammogram screening actually cuts the risk of death, with some studies finding that it does and others that it doesn't (here and here).  It's tricky to figure out because during the last few decades in which more women were screened, there have also been major improvements in breast cancer treatments.

A recent large Danish-Norwegian study came to the conclusion that breast cancer screening (mammograms) does not reduce mortality. Instead, the researchers found that there have been similar reductions in deaths from breast cancer in all women - from both unscreened women and those receiving mammograms (screening) - and this is due to better cancer treatments. From Science Daily:

Breast cancer screening does not reduce mortality

Fewer and fewer women die from breast cancer in recent years but, surprisingly, the decline is just as large in the age groups that are not screened. The decline is therefore due to better treatment and not screening for breast cancer.  ...continue reading "Study Finds Mammogram Screening Doesn’t Reduce Breast Cancer Deaths"