Skip to content

Category: healthy living

Published on Leave a comment on Save Bees – Don’t Treat Lawns With Weed Killers

Image result for lawns with weeds, wikipedia Conserving native bees for their vital pollination services is of national interest. It turns out that an excellent way to save bees is to not treat lawns with herbicides (weed-killers) or any other pesticides. It turns out that lawns with "flowering weeds" (think wildflowers or flowering plant species such as dandelions and clover) are valuable nectar and pollen sources for all sorts of species of bees (and also for butterflies).

And as much research shows, pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, fungicides) have all sorts of negative health effects - on humans, pets, and wildlife (here, here, here, and here).

Chemically treated lawns are "dead zones" with an absence of normally occurring plant species. In contrast, a study found 63 different flowering plant species in 17 suburban lawns that were NOT treated with any herbicides or pesticides over the 2 year study period. The bee species they found tend to travel only short distances and so lived within close proximity of the lawns with the flowering weeds.

So do your bit for both human health and to protect bees, and don't treat lawns with chemicals. View what we now call lawn weeds as "spontaneous flowering plants" and that they are wildlife habitats. Of course using an organic fertilizer is OK, but just "mowing and leaving grass clippings" is also an excellent way to fertilize the lawn.

From The University of Massachusetts at Amherst (press release): To Help Bees, Skip Herbicides and Pesticides, Keep Lawns Naturally Diverse

Declining populations of pollinators is a major concern to ecologists because bees, butterflies and other insects play a critical role in supporting healthy ecosystems. Now a new study from urban ecologists at the University of Massachusetts Amherst suggests that when urban and suburban lawns are left untreated with herbicides, they provide a diversity of “spontaneous” flowers such as dandelions and clover that offer nectar and pollen to bees and other pollinators. 

Private lawns make up a significant part of urban lands in the United States, an estimated 50 percent of city and suburbs, say Susannah Lerman and co-author Joan Milam, an adjunct research fellow in environmental conservation. They write, “Practices that support nesting and foraging opportunities for bees could have important implications for bee conservation in suburban areas.” 

Lerman, an adjunct UMass Amherst faculty member who is also with the U.S. Forest Service, says, “We are still surprised at how many bees we found on these untreated lawns.” In this study of lawns in suburban Springfield, Mass., she and Milam found that “spontaneous lawn flowers could be viewed as supplemental floral resources and support pollinators, thereby enhancing the value of urban green spaces.”

For this study, supported by the National Science Foundation, the researchers enlisted owners of 17 lawns in suburban Springfield. Between May 2013 and September 2014, the homeowners did not apply chemical pesticides or herbicides to lawns. “We documented 63 plant species in the lawns, the majority of which were not intentionally planted,” the authors report. Lerman and Milam visited each yard six times per year for two years, collecting a total of 5,331 individual bees representing 111 species, of which 97 percent were native to North America.

Conserving native bees for their vital pollination services is of national interest, Lerman and Milam point out.....Overall, one of their main findings, say Lerman and Milam, is that “when lawns are not intensively managed, lawn flowers can serve as wildlife habitat and contribute to networks of urban green spaces.” 

Further, “developing outreach to homeowners and lawn care companies to encourage, rather than eliminate, lawn flowers such as dandelions and clover and thin grass cover or bare spots could be a key strategy for urban bee conservation programs targeting private yards.”

Original study from the Annals of the Entomological Society of America: Bee Fauna and Floral Abundance Within Lawn-Dominated Suburban Yards in Springfield, MA

Private yards comprise a significant component of urban lands, with managed lawns representing the dominant land cover. Lawns blanket > 163,000 km2 of the United States, and 50% of urban and suburban areas. When not treated with herbicides, lawns have the capacity to support a diversity of spontaneous (e.g., not planted) flowers, with the potential to provide nectar and pollen resources for pollinators such as native bees.....We collected 5,331 individual bees, representing 111 species, and 29% of bee species reported for the state. The majority of species were native to North America (94.6%), nested in soil (73%), and solitary (48.6%).

We recorded 63 different flowering plant species in 17 lawns during 2013 and 2014. Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) was the most widespread flower, found in all lawns in both years (Table 4). White clover (Trifolium repens), purple violet (Viola sororia), yellow wood-sorrel (Oxalis stricta), Canadian horseweed (Conyza canadensis), annual fleabane (Erigeron annuus), dwarf cinquefoil (Potentilla canadensis), and Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum) were recorded in at least 60% of all sites for the two years (Table 4). In 2013, horseweed, hairy rock cress (Arabis hirsute), and white clover represented more than 67% of all flowers, whereas in 2014, white clover, yellow wood-sorrel, purple smartweed and purple violet were the most abundant species.

Published on Leave a comment on Eat Calcium Rich Foods, Not A Supplement

Image result for calcium rich foods, wikipedia Once again, research shows that a supplement is not beneficial and may have some health harms, while eating foods rich in the mineral or vitamin being measured has health benefits. A ten year study found that calcium supplements are not beneficial and linked to health harm - they raised the risk of atherosclerosis, as measured by "coronary artery calcification" or plaque buildup in arteries, while a diet high in calcium rich foods was linked with health benefits (a protective effect). Other studies have found a higher risk for other health problems with calcium supplements (heart attacks, kidney stones, death),

Currently an estimated 43 percent of American adults take a supplement that includes calcium. Instead, for health benefits, focus on eating calcium rich foods. Some calcium rich foods are: dairy products (milk, cheese, yogurt, kefir), sardines, salmon, broccoli, collard greens, kale, edamame, figs, oranges, white beans, okra, tofu, and almonds. From Science Daily:

Calcium supplements may damage the heart

After analyzing 10 years of medical tests on more than 2,700 people in a federally funded heart disease study, researchers at Johns Hopkins Medicine and elsewhere conclude that taking calcium in the form of supplements may raise the risk of plaque buildup in arteries and heart damage, although a diet high in calcium-rich foods appears be protective.

In a report on the research....the researchers caution that their work only documents an association between calcium supplements and atherosclerosis, and does not prove cause and effect. But they say the results add to growing scientific concerns about the potential harms of supplements....But our study adds to the body of evidence that excess calcium in the form of supplements may harm the heart and vascular system.

"The researchers were motivated to look at the effects of calcium on the heart and vascular system because studies already showed that "ingested calcium supplements -- particularly in older people -- don't make it to the skeleton or get completely excreted in the urine, so they must be accumulating in the body's soft tissues," says nutritionist John Anderson, Ph.D., professor emeritus of nutrition at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Gillings School of Global Public Health and a co-author of the report. Scientists also knew that as a person ages, calcium-based plaque builds up in the body's main blood vessel, the aorta and other arteries, impeding blood flow and increasing the risk of heart attack.

Their study focused on 2,742 of these participants who completed dietary questionnaires and two CT scans spanning 10 years apart. The participants chosen for this study ranged in age from 45 to 84, and 51 percent were female. Forty-one percent were white, 26 percent were African-American, 22 percent were Hispanic and 12 percent were Chinese. At the study's onset in 2000, all participants answered a 120-part questionnaire about their dietary habits to determine how much calcium they took in by eating dairy products; leafy greens; calcium-enriched foods, like cereals; and other calcium-rich foods....The coronary artery calcium tests were repeated 10 years later to assess newly developing or worsening coronary heart disease.

Next, the investigators focused on the differences among those taking in only dietary calcium and those using calcium supplements. Forty-six percent of their study population used calcium supplements. The researchers.....found that supplement users showed a 22 percent increased likelihood of having their coronary artery calcium scores rise higher than zero over the decade, indicating development of heart disease....Among participants with highest dietary intake of calcium -- over 1,022 milligrams per day -- there was no increase in relative risk of developing heart disease over the 10-year study period.

Excerpts from the original study (Please note:  CVD = cardiovascular disease, CAC = coronary artery calcification) in the  Journal of the American Heart Association:  Calcium Intake From Diet and Supplements and the Risk of Coronary Artery Calcification and its Progression Among Older Adults: 10‐Year Follow‐up of the Multi‐Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA)

Recent evidence derived from randomized, controlled trials, including the Women's Health Initiative, have raised a concern for an association between calcium supplement use and increased risk for CVD events.12, 13, 14 Among calcium supplement users, a high intake of calcium greater than 1400 mg/day has been reported to be associated with higher death rates from all causes, including from CVD.15

The purported CVD risk associated with total calcium intake may depend on the source of calcium intake.3 Intake of calcium from food sources has not been shown to increase CVD risk, whereas a signal for increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI) among calcium supplement users has been reported.7 In a similar fashion, dietary calcium intake may decrease risk of kidney stones, whereas calcium supplementation may increase risk.16 One explanation for this apparent paradox may be that large boluses of calcium intake through supplements may transiently elevate serum calcium concentrations,17, 18 which, in turn, may lead to vascular calcification and other adverse health effects.

In summary, results from this long‐term study of 10 years showed a protective relationship between total calcium intake and incident coronary atherosclerosis, particularly among nonsupplement users. Even though mean total calcium intake in quintile 5 was greater than the upper limits of current recommendations, no increased risk of CAC progression was found, and the highest quintile of calcium intake actually had decreased risk of incident CAC among those without prevalent CAC at baseline. However, we found evidence that calcium supplement use was independently associated with incident CAC, whether or not we adjusted for total calcium intake.

Published on Leave a comment on An Important Bacteria For Women

Image result Today I read an interesting article about bacterial vaginosis and research on bacteria that could finally treat it effectively. Bacterial vaginosis (BV) appears to be a problem with the microbial community of a woman's vagina being out of whack (dysbiosis). Common symptoms include increased white or gray vaginal discharge that often smells like fish, there may be burning with urination and sometimes itching, and the discharge has higher than normal vaginal pH (alkaline).

One bacteria that seems to be very important and beneficial for vaginal health is Lactobacillus crispatus. Research suggests that L. crispatus may be a treatment for both bacterial vaginosis and urinary tract infections. Currently the treatment for BV is a course of antibiotics, but the problem recurs frequently.

In the US, the vaginal product Lactin-V (containing the freeze dried human vaginal strain of L. crispatus CTV-05, and used as an vaginal suppository) is currently being tested (with so far positive results in phase 2 clinical trials) for both bacterial vaginosis and recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs). But it may be years away from FDA approval. The biopharmaceutical company Osel Inc. is currently conducting research on this product, and as of May 2016 is recruiting women for a phase 2b clinical study of this product in the US.

Other sources that I know of for the bacteria L. crispatus are: the probiotic Ordesa DonnaPlus+Intimate Flora (manufactured in Spain) and NaturaMedicatrix LactoGyn Crispatus Bio (made in Luxembourg). However, these are different strains of L. crispatus than what has been successfully tested using Lactin-V. (It is unknown whether this makes a difference.) Both are meant to be taken orally (swallowed daily) - which may or may not be an effective way to get L. crispatus in the vagina (it is unknown which way works best).

Other probiotics, especially Lactobacillus species, may also benefit vaginal health. One way to get an idea of products women find helpful is to look at user comments after products listed on Amazon. (By the way - douches, sprays, wipes, deodorizers, and special soaps will not help bacterial vaginosis.... Not at all.).

The following article was written by science journalist Kendall Powell. Do click on the link and read the entire article to get an idea of the complexity of the problem, the role of various bacteria in vaginal health, other health problems that occur with BV, ethnic differences, and how certain bacteria can alter vaginal mucus (leaving women vulnerable to infection). It is clear that much is unknown, but it looks like vaginal health depends on a "healthy microbial community". Excerpts from Mosaic:

The superhero in your vagina

The aisle is marked with a little red sign that says “Feminine Treatments”. Squeezed between the urinary incontinence pads and treatments for yeast infections, there is a wall of bottles and packages in every pastel shade imaginable. Feminine deodorant sprays, freshening wipes, washes for your “intimate area”.

Vaginal odor might be the last taboo for the modern woman.....The companies behind these products know that many women are looking for ways to counter embarrassing and debilitating symptoms such as vaginal odor and discharge. The culprit is often bacterial vaginosis, the most common vaginal infection you’ve probably never heard of. Nearly one-third of US women of reproductive age have it at any given time. The sad truth is that these sprays, soaps and wipes will not fix the problem. They will – in many cases – actually make it worse.

But while women try to mask embarrassing smells, a more sinister truth also remains under cover: the bacteria responsible are putting millions of women, and their unborn babies, at risk from serious health problems. All of which is making researchers look anew at the most private part of a woman’s body, to understand what it means to have a healthy – some prefer “optimal” – vagina and why that is so important for wider health.

Compared with those of other mammals, the human vagina is unique. As warm, moist canals exposed to all sorts of things including penises, babies and dirt, most mammalian vaginas harbour a diverse mix of bacteria. However, for many women, one or another species of Lactobacillus has become the dominant bacterial resident. Lactobacillus bacteria pump out lactic acid, which keeps the vaginal environment at a low, acidic pH that kills or discourages other bacteria, yeast and viruses from thriving. There are even hints that certain Lactobacillus species reinforce the mucus in the vagina that acts as a natural barrier to invaders.

For the most part, we’ve been happily cohabitating ever since, but it’s a delicate balancing act. Normal intrusions to the vaginal environment, such as semen (which causes vaginal pH to rise) or menstruation, can reduce numbers of Lactobacillus and allow other microbes, including those associated with bacterial vaginosis (BV), to flourish.

Her doctor explained that BV is a disturbance of the natural balance of bacteria that live inside the vagina. Sex with someone new, having multiple partners, and douching – rinsing out the vagina with a bag or bottle of liquid – can all contribute to getting BV, but it is not classified as a sexually transmitted disease. Mostly, how a woman develops BV is still a big mystery.

And if the embarrassment and discomfort weren’t enough, BV has a far more menacing side. Women affected have a higher risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections (STIs) like gonorrhoea and chlamydia, acquiring and transmitting HIV, and having pelvic inflammatory disease (which can lead to infertility) and other vaginal and uterine infections. During pregnancy, BV gives a woman a greater chance of having a preterm birth or passing infections to her baby, both of which can lead to lifelong problems for the baby.

Holmes felt the syndrome should be renamed bacterial vaginosis, which loosely translates to “too much bacteria”. And fulfilling three of the four Amsel criteria – thin vaginal discharge, vaginal pH greater than 4.5, positive whiff test and clue cells – is still used by many doctors today to diagnose BV.

They are realising that all Lactobacillus bacteria – long thought to keep vaginas healthy – are not created equal. For some researchers, L. crispatus is emerging as the vagina’s superhero. It not only pumps out the best mix of two different types of lactic acid to keep the vagina inhospitable to other bugs, but it also fortifies a woman’s vaginal mucus to trap and keep at bay HIV and other pathogens.

In 2011, Larry Forney, an evolutionary ecologist at University of Idaho in Moscow, and Jacques Ravel, a microbial genomicist from the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, sequenced the bacterial species found in the vaginas of nearly 400 North American women who didn’t have the symptoms of BV. They found five different types of bacterial community. Four of these were dominated by different Lactobacillus species, but the fifth contained a diverse mix of microbes (including Gardnerella, Sneathia, Eggerthella and Mobiluncus species), many of which have been associated with BV. 

The African studies leave researchers clamouring for better solutions for these women. Like others, van de Wijgert believes that the solution lies in getting the right bacteria to set up house in women’s vaginas. In 2014, she found that Rwandan sex workers with L. crispatus dominant in their vaginas were less likely to have HIV and other STIs. This bacterium may have even protected the clients of HIV-positive sex workers somewhat, because these women were also less likely to shed HIV in the vagina.

Image result Lactobacillus crispatus Credit: MicrobeWiki

Published on Leave a comment on Yoga For Chronic Back Pain?

Image result for yoga wikipedia A recent study found that yoga is as good as physical therapy in reducing chronic back pain in a diverse group of low-income patients. In those sticking with the program and attending the most yoga classes, yoga was better in the long-term than physical therapy and much better than just receiving educational advice about back pain. Both physical therapy and yoga reduced pain medication use by 20% at 12 weeks. These findings are supported by other research finding that yoga improves pain, function, reduces medication use, and practicing yoga long-term results in positive brain changes (such as more gray matter in the brain). From Medscape:

Yoga as Good as Physical Therapy for Back Pain

Yoga is as good as physical therapy (PT) in reducing chronic low back pain, the most common pain problem in the United States, new research shows. "Our study showed that yoga was noninferior to physical therapy for a diverse group of low-income patients," said Robert B. Saper, MD, director of integrative medicine, Boston Medical Center, Massachusetts. "Its effectiveness was most obvious in the most adherent patients." Dr Saper presented his study at the American Academy of Pain Management (AAPM) 2016 Annual Meeting. 

Previous research has shown that yoga improves pain and function and reduces medication use. For example, a 2013 meta-analysis demonstrated small to medium effect sizes for yoga in short-term and long-term back pain–related disability. Research also shows that PT is effective in treating patients with back pain. PT is considered a conventional therapy and is the most common nonpharmacologic referral by physicians for chronic low back pain, Dr Saper said. 

For this new study, researchers enrolled 320 adult patients from Boston-area community health centers who had chronic back pain with no obvious anatomic cause, such as spinal stenosis. The patients were predominantly nonwhite and low income, with a relatively low education level. The patients had "quite high" pain scores (average of 7 out of 10 on a pain scale) and were "quite disabled" in terms of their back pain, said Dr Saper. Almost three quarters were using pain medication, with about 20% taking opioids....Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: yoga, PT, or education.

To develop the structured yoga protocol, Dr Saper and his colleagues organized an expert panel, which reviewed the literature on the topic. The final product was a 75-minute weekly class with a very low student-to-teacher ratio. The classes began with short segment on yoga philosophy (nonviolence, moderation, self-acceptance). Participants were then given mats on which to do the simple yoga poses. They received a DVD to practice these at home. The PT group had 15 one-on-one 60-minute sessions that included aerobic exercise. PT personnel were trained to help coach patients on fear avoidance. The education group got a comprehensive book on back pain.

Both the PT and yoga sessions continued for 12 weeks, after which patients were followed to 52 weeks. During this postintervention period, patients in both the yoga and PT groups were randomly assigned to maintenance (drop in yoga classes or more PT sessions) or just at-home practice. Overall adherence was not great. The mean number of yoga classes and PT sessions attended during the initial phase was 7.

The primary question being addressed was whether yoga is not inferior to PT at 12 weeks. The study showed that for function (score on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), yoga and PT "are exactly the same, ie noninferior," said Dr Saper, adding that, "they are not terribly different from education at 12 weeks...."What that means is that for every two patients who go to yoga, about 50% of them are going to have a clinical response."....comparing the various interventions, "yoga is actually superior" to PT and is "quite a bit" superior to education, said Dr Saper. At baseline, about 70% of participants were using medication. At 12 weeks, such use was down by about 20% in both the yoga and PT groups, and hadn't changed in the education group. A similar number of yoga and PT subjects reported being "very improved" and "very satisfied," said Dr Saper.

Yoga proved to be safe, with only mild, usually transient exacerbations of back pain.....Larger studies are needed to develop better strategies to enhance adherence, he said. The new study "adds to our knowledge in suggesting that a) yoga is as good as the standard of care, non pharmacologic therapy, and b) it can be done in a diverse population, including a low income, non-English speaking population in Boston. So it takes away some of those barriers to recommending it."

There's also evidence that yoga has a positive impact on the brain. According to M. Catherine Bushnell, PhD, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institutes of Health, long-time yoga practitioners have more gray matter than matched physically active controls. "Gray matter goes down with age, but yoga practitioners have a flat line; you don't see this age-related decrease in gray matter that you see in other healthy people,".... And there seems to be "quite a robust" relationship between how long a person has done yoga and positive brain changes, she said. "The number of years a person has practiced yoga, the more gray matter at multiple sites in the brain." Yoga influences areas of the brain that are important for pain modulation, said Dr Bushnell. It is a "complex activity" that involves not only exercise but also breath control and meditation.

Published on Leave a comment on Endocrine Disruptors In Fast Food

Recent research examined levels of endocrine disruptors called phthalates in people eating fast food. Researchers found evidence of a dose–response relationship between fast food intake and exposure to phthalates - the more one eats fast food, the more phthalates (actually metabolites of the phthalates) can be measured in the person's urine. Fast food consumers had higher urinary levels of the phthalates DEHP, DiNP, and BPA than those not consuming fast food (even though the differences in levels of BPA among groups were "non-significant"). This is of concern because these endocrine disruptors are linked to a number of health problems. (Earlier discussion of this research.)

DEHP, DiNP, and BPA are detected in over 90% of the population in the US, but since there are many health concerns - it is better to have lower levels than higher levels. (Zero levels would be best). Note that phthalates and BPA are quickly metabolized and excreted in urine, with elimination half-lives of less than 24 hr - which is why the study looked at what had been eaten in the last 24 hours. But this also shows that one can quickly reduce their levels in the body.

Some possible sources of phthalate contamination in fast food are: PVC tubing, vinyl gloves used for food handling, and food packaging, including beverage cans - the chemicals leach or migrate out into the food and then are ingested. (More on chemicals migrating from containers to food), Fast food was defined as food obtained from restaurants without waiter service and from pizza restaurants, as well as all carry-out and delivery food. Another excellent reason to cut back on fast food (like we don't have enough reasons already!). The following news report discusses the research. From Environmental Health Perspectives:

Phthalates in Fast Food: A Potential Dietary Source of Exposure

Many research studies have surveyed nutritional habits, but fewer have studied how food processing and packaging might introduce unwanted chemicals into foods. In this issue of EHP, researchers report that fast food consumption appears to be one source of exposure to the chemicals di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and diisononyl phthalate (DiNP).1

The authors used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to estimate the percentage of individuals’ calories that came from fast food, fat intake attributable to fast food consumption, and fast food intake by food group. During NHANES interviews, respondents had reported their diet from the preceding 24 hours. Fast food was defined as food obtained from restaurants without waiter service and from pizza restaurants, as well as all carryout and delivery food.2 ....The final study population included nearly 9,000 people aged 6 years or older. Approximately one-third of people surveyed had eaten fast food in the preceding 24 hours. Study participants who ate fast food were more likely to be male, under age 40, and non-Hispanic black, and to have higher total calorie and total fat intake from fast food, compared with the general population.1

Fast food consumers had higher urinary levels of DEHP, DiNP, and BPA than non-consumers, although the differences in average urinary levels were small and for BPA were non-significant. When fast food intake was categorized by food group, DEHP metabolites were associated with intake of grains and “other” (a category that included vegetables, condiments, potato items, beverages, and more). DiNP metabolites were associated with intake of meat and grains.1

The authors also found that the associations between phthalates and fast food were not uniform across the population.1They speculate that the pronounced association they saw between fast food consumption and DEHP in black consumers could reflect higher overall consumption of fast food and/or different food choices among this population. Prior research suggests that predominately black neighborhoods in urban areas have a greater density of fast food restaurants than white neighborhoods.3

The authors point to PVC tubing, vinyl gloves used for food handling, and food packaging as possible sources of phthalate contamination in fast food. DEHP is a ubiquitous high-molecular-weight phthalate that has been removed from some products due to concerns about potential adverse health effects.5 In some cases it is being replaced with DiNP.2

The related Environmental Health Perspectives research article:  Recent Fast Food Consumption and Bisphenol A and Phthalates Exposures among the U.S. Population in NHANES, 2003–2010

Experimental animal studies demonstrate that DEHP and DiNP have endocrine-disrupting properties because of their anti-androgenic effects on the male reproductive system (National Research Council 2008). Human exposure to DEHP has been associated with adverse reproductive, neurobehavioral, and respiratory outcomes in children (Braun et al. 2013; Ejaredar et al. 2015) and metabolic disease risk factors such as insulin resistance in adolescents and adults (James-Todd et al. 2012; Attina and Trasande 2015). Though epidemiologic evidence of DiNP is less complete, recent studies report associations between exposure and similar health outcomes including adverse respiratory and metabolic outcomes in children (Bertelsen et al. 2013; Attina and Trasande 2015). BPA is also a suspected endocrine disrupter, and experimental and human evidence suggest that BPA is a reproductive toxicant (Peretz et al. 2014). In addition, prenatal BPA exposure has also been associated with adverse neurobehavioral outcomes in children (Mustieles et al. 2015).

Given the concern over chemical toxicity, it is important to identify modifiable sources of exposure that may be targeted for exposure reduction strategies. Simulated exposure modeling, observational epidemiologic studies, and intervention studies all suggest that diet is an important exposure pathway for both high-molecular-weight phthalates and BPA.....Phthalates have been shown to leach into food from PVC in materials like tubing used in the milking process, lid gaskets, food preparation gloves, conveyor belts and food packaging materials (Cao 2010;Serrano et al. 2014). In fact, an intervention study reported that urinary BPA and DEHP were reduced by 66% and 53–56%, respectively, when participants’ diets were restricted to food with limited packaging (Rudel et al. 2011). Foods high in fat, such as dairy and meat, may be more contaminated by high-molecular-weight phthalates that are more lipophilic such as DEHP (Serrano et al. 2014). Fast food may be an important source of exposure to phthalates and BPA because it is highly processed, packaged, and handled.

Published on Leave a comment on Eating Foods With Turmeric May Be Good For You

The spice turmeric is very popular these days, especially because studies link it to various health benefits. But is this true? Is it better to eat turmeric in foods or take it in pill form as a supplement? Today's post is about a study that was done by the BBC teaming up with researchers at Newcastle University (in the UK) where they looked at whether modest doses of turmeric had health benefits when ingested daily for 6 weeks. Specifically, they looked at what turmeric does to various blood markers thought to be associated with inflammation and changes that could eventually lead to the onset of cancer. It is currently thought that many or turmeric's supposed health benefits come from the compound curcumin found in it.

The researchers took blood samples of 100 volunteers, who were then split up into 3 groups (turmeric powder, a turmeric pill, or a placebo pill daily). Only the group that ingested turmeric in powder form (1 teaspoon mixed in food) showed changes after 6 weeks, and they were exciting beneficial changes in the methylation of DNA. This is because "methylation of the DNA can ‘go wrong’ and this can cause cells to become cancerous".

It's still early days in this research, and more has to be done, but it is exciting. In the meantime, don't take turmeric in pill form, but eat it in foods. It seems that more of the turmeric gets absorbed when eaten with foods, especially foods with fat, and also with a little black pepper. Excerpts from the article written by Michael Mosley, one of the presenters of the broadcast show "Trust Me, I'm A Doctor", from the BBC News:

Could turmeric really boost your health?

Turmeric is a spice which in its raw form looks a bit like ginger root, but when it's ground down you get a distinctive yellowy orange powder that's very popular in South Asian cuisine.....So we tracked down leading researchers from across the country and with their help recruited nearly 100 volunteers from the North East to do a novel experiment. Few of our volunteers ate foods containing turmeric on a regular basis.

Then we divided them into three groups. We asked one group to consume a teaspoon of turmeric every day for six weeks, ideally mixed in with their food. Another group were asked to swallow a supplement containing the same amount of turmeric, and a third group were given a placebo, or dummy pill. The volunteers who were asked to consume a teaspoon of turmeric a day were ingenious about what they added it to, mixing it with warm milk or adding it to yoghurt. Not everyone was enthusiastic about the taste, with comments ranging from "awful" to "very strong and lingering".

But what effect was eating turmeric having on them? We decided to try and find out using a novel test developed at University College, London, by Prof Martin Widschwendter and his team....There are at least 200 different compounds in turmeric, but there's one that scientists are particularly interested in. It gives this spice its colour. It's called curcumin. Thousands of scientific papers have been published looking at turmeric and curcumin in the laboratory - some with promising results. But they've mainly been done in mice, using unrealistically high doses. There have been few experiments done in the real world, on humans.

Prof Widschwendter is not particularly interested in turmeric but he is interested in how cancers start. His team have been comparing tissue samples taken from women with breast cancer and from women without it and they've found a change that happens to the DNA of cells well before they become cancerous. The change is in the "packaging" of the genes. It's called DNA methylation. It's a bit like a dimmer switch that can turn the activity of the gene up or down. The exciting thing is that if it is detected in time this change can, potentially, be reversed, before the cell turns cancerous.

So we asked Prof Widschwendter whether testing the DNA methylation patterns of our volunteers' blood cells at the start and end of the experiment would reveal any change in their risk of cancer and other diseases, like allergies. It was something that had not been done before. Fortunately he was very enthusiastic. "We were delighted," he said, "to be involved in this study, because it is a proof of principle study that opens entirely new windows of opportunity to really look into how we can predict preventive measures, particularly for cancer."

So what, if anything, happened? When I asked him that, he pulled out his laptop and slowly began to speak."We didn't find any changes in the group taking the placebo," he told me. That was not surprising. "The supplement group also didn't also show any difference," he went on. That was surprising and somewhat disappointing.

"But the group who mixed turmeric powder into their food," he continued, "there we saw quite substantial changes. It was really exciting, to be honest. We found one particular gene which showed the biggest difference. And what's interesting is that we know this particular gene is involved in three specific diseases: depression, asthma and eczema, and cancer. This is a really striking finding."

It certainly is. But why did we see changes only in those eating turmeric, not in those taking the same amount as a supplement? Dr Kirsten Brandt, who is a senior lecturer at Newcastle University and who helped run the experiment, thinks it may have something to do with the way the turmeric was consumed. "It could be," she told me, "that adding fat or heating it up makes the active ingredients more soluble, which would make it easier for us to absorb the turmeric.....She also told me, because our volunteers all tried consuming their turmeric in different ways, that we can be confident it was the turmeric that was making the difference and not some other ingredient used to make, say, chicken tikka masala. There is a lot more research that needs to be done, including repeating the experiment to see if these findings can be confirmed.

More information about the study and results from BBC News: Does turmeric really help protect us from cancer?

Published on Leave a comment on Time For Doctors To Prescribe Exercise

We all know that exercise is beneficial for health. Research suggests that exercising out in nature is best for several varied reasons -  including that it lowers markers of inflammation, and that it's good for our gut microbiome (community of gut microbes). The following excerpts are written by Dr. John La Puma encouraging other doctors to prescribe exercise for their patients and why.

An important message of his is that exercise is more important than a drug prescription for a number of conditions, including diabetes prevention, reducing the risk of recurrence of several cancers (he mentions breast cancer, but it also holds for prostate cancer). While exercising and walking out in nature may be best, any exercise anywhere is better than no exercise. (Other posts on exercise as prescription medicine are here and here; and check the category exercise for all exercise research posts).

From Medscape: Rx: Exercise Daily -- Outdoors. Doctor's Orders

With dazzling Olympic feats on display all summer, too many of my patients are still literally immobilized. Medically, sitting too long shuts off the enzyme lipoprotein lipase. In people who are sedentary, the enzyme doesn't break down fat to create energy, like it should. But medical prescription for exercise has lagged even the slowest runner. Why? Some reasons are time, training, and money. Time especially is a scarce commodity: The average clinician visit lasts just 20 minutes. Fitness is a shamefully small part of medical training. And as doctors, we don't get paid for discussing exercise, let alone monitoring a prescription and assessing the response. 

Finally, there are practical reasons. Clinicians find it difficult to persuade patients that exercise is more effective than medication for any number of conditions, including stroke recovery, diabetes prevention, and treatment of low back pain. Regular exercise reduces the risk for recurrent breast cancer by approximately 50%. Given all these reasons, it's easy to see why fitness prescriptions are seldom more than an afterthought. Yet even without formally prescribing the frequency, intensity, time, and type of exercise, clinicians can speak with patients and families about fitness in inspiring, life-changing ways.

Because clinicians have a secret weapon to use that most people don't even know about—location. Exercising in nature (in sight of and preferably near water or greenery, whether a deserted beach or an urban park) is better. Walking city streets and the office itself can be harder on your health than you think. In both environments, your attention is demanded and directed—sometimes by digital interruptions, sometimes by vehicles, toxins, or duties. In nature, your attention is drawn, not pushed, to a variety of often unexpected but not unpleasant sounds, colors, aromas, textures, and forms.

A recent Stanford study of nature therapy showed significantly reduced rumination after a 90-minute walk in nature, compared with a 90-minute walk through an urban environment. On MRI, "nature walkers" showed lower activity in an area of the brain linked to risk for mental illness, the subgenual prefrontal cortex, compared with "urban walkers." In other words, nature offers a sense of something bigger than ourselves on which to focus. MRIs show the way the brain changes when that sense occurs to us.

Exercising in nature may improve a person's immune system by enriching the diversity in the microbiota. Microbiota buffer the immune system against chronic stress-related disease. They appear to act as a hormone-producing organ, not simply a collection of beneficial bacteria. Microbiota are sensitive and responsive to physical environmental changes as well as dietary ones. So, exercise in nature may favorably boost microbiota.

And finally, exercise in nature is clinically preferred and calming. A Norwegian study showed that exercise in nature and in view of nature improves both mood and diastolic blood pressure vs exercise without nature. A Chinese study showed higher energy levels, and lower levels of interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor (both markers of inflammation), in a forest walking group compared with an urban exercising group. A British study showed significantly improved mood and self-esteem with "green" exercise, with the largest benefits from 5-minute engagements. Five minutes!

Of course, there are areas in our country and world in which it is dangerous to walk, never mind exercise. It may not be as easy to generate sweat and intensity with outdoor exercise as it is with indoor exercise. It may be stormy, or baking hot, or otherwise harsh outside, and the cool recesses of one's own bedroom or the gym may be just perfect for you today. And with the 2013 total cost of inactivity estimated at $24.7 billion for the United States, and with the public sector bearing almost one half of that expense, any exercise anywhere is better than none.  Yet physicians have a therapeutic tool few others in our culture wield—a prescription pad—and we have every patient's attention, at least for a few minutes. Patients try harder when doctors advise them about fitness. 

Published on Leave a comment on What’s In Your Household Dust?

Ten chemicals suspected or known to harm human health are present in more than 90% of U.S. household dust samples, according to a new study. The research adds to a growing body of evidence showing the dangers posed by exposure to chemicals we are exposed to on a daily basis. The chemicals come from a variety of household goods, including toys, cosmetics, personal care products, furniture, electronics, nonstick cookware, food packaging, floor coverings, some clothing (e.g., stain resistant), building materials, and cleaning products. How do the chemicals get into the dust? The chemicals can leach, migrate, abrade, or off-gas from the products, which winds up in the dust and  results in human exposure. (That's right:  vacuum a lot and wash your hands a lot, and try to avoid or cut  back use of products with these chemicals,)

What was found in the dust? The main chemicals were: phthalates — a group of chemicals that includes DEP, DEHP, DNBP and DIBP (these were present in the highest concentrations),  highly fluorinated chemicals (HFCs), flame retardants (both old and newer replacement ones), synthetic fragrances, and phenols. These chemicals are known to have various adverse health effects, including endocrine disruption, cancer, neurological, immune, and developmental effects. (See posts on endocrine disruptors and flame retardants) Studies typically study one chemical at a time, but household dust contains MIXTURES of these chemicals with effects unknown. How does it get into us? Inhalation, ingestion, and through skin contact. And while the levels we are exposed to may be low, research is showing that even low level exposure can have adverse health effects. From Medical Xpress:

Potentially harmful chemicals widespread in household dust

Household dust exposes people to a wide range of toxic chemicals from everyday products, according to a study led by researchers at Milken Institute School of Public Health at the George Washington University. The multi-institutional team conducted a first-of-a-kind meta-analysis, compiling data from dust samples collected throughout the United States to identify the top ten toxic chemicals commonly found in dust. They found that DEHP, a chemical belonging to a hazardous class called phthalates, was number one on that list. In addition, the researchers found that phthalates overall were found at the highest levels in dust followed by phenols and flame retardant chemicals....."The findings suggest that people, and especially children, are exposed on a daily basis to multiple chemicals in dust that are linked to serious health problems." ...continue reading "What’s In Your Household Dust?"

Published on Leave a comment on Reading Books Linked To Living Longer

 Image result for books wikipedia There are some things we can do that are linked to living longer, such as not smoking and exercising regularly, but could reading books also have such an effect? A study published in the journal Social Science and Medicine concludes that those who regularly read books add several years to their lives. They found this effect in both men and women, found that reading books are "protective regardless of gender, wealth, education", but the effect holds only for books and not magazines and newspapers. Since surveys show that 87% of book readers read fiction, then it is likely that most of the book readers were reading fiction.

In the long-term (12 years) study of 3,635 people, the researchers found that those that read books for more than 3.5 hours per week lived on average two years longer than non-readers, and that there was a dose-response effect (the more one reads, the better). This appeared to be linked to cognitive enhancement rather than any other associated factor, such as age, sex, education, race, health, wealth, etc. The research team from the Yale University School of Public Health divided their subjects into three groups: those who didn’t read at all, those who read for 3.5 hours per week or less, and those who read for more than 3.5 hours per week. They found that the occasional readers were 17 percent less likely to die during the follow-up period than those who did not. This beneficial effect of reading was only linked to books, and not other forms of reading material such as magazines or newspapers. From the journal Social Science and Medicine:

A chapter a day: Association of book reading with longevity

This study examined whether those who read books have a survival advantage over those who do not read books and over those who read other types of materials, and if so, whether cognition mediates this book reading effect. The cohort consisted of 3635 participants in the nationally representative Health and Retirement Study who provided information about their reading patterns at baseline.....based on survival information up to 12 years after baseline. A dose-response survival advantage was found for book reading by tertile.....Book reading contributed to a survival advantage that was significantly greater than that observed for reading newspapers or magazines. Compared to non-book readers, book readers had a 23-month survival advantage at the point of 80% survival in the unadjusted model. A survival advantage persisted after adjustment for all covariates (HR = .80, p < .01), indicating book readers experienced a 20% reduction in risk of mortality over the 12 years of follow up compared to non-book readers. Cognition mediated the book reading-survival advantage. These findings suggest that the benefits of reading books include a longer life in which to read them.

While most sedentary behaviors are well-established risk factors for mortality in older individuals (Wullems et al., 2016; de Rezenade et al., 2014, Katzmaryk & Lee, 2012; Muennig, Rosen, & Johnson, 2013), previous studies of a behavior which is often sedentary, reading, have had mixed outcomes....We speculated that books engage readers’ minds more than newspapers and magazines, leading to cognitive benefits that drive the effect of reading on longevity. 

Reading books tends to involve two cognitive processes that could create a survival advantage. First, it promotes "deep reading,” which is a slow, immersive process; this cognitive engagement occurs as the reader draws connections to other parts of the material, finds applications to the outside world, and asks questions about the content presented (Wolf, Barzillai, & Dunne, 2009). Cognitive engagement may explain why vocabulary, reasoning, concentration, and critical thinking skills are improved by exposure to books (Stanovich, West, & Harrison, 1995; Stanovich & Cunningham, 1998; Wolf, Barzillai, & Dunne, 2009). Second, books can promote empathy, social perception, and emotional intelligence, which are cognitive processes that can lead to greater survival (Bassuk, Wypij, & Berkmann, 2000; Djikic, Oatley, & Moldoveanu 2013; Kidd & Castano 2013; Shipley, Der, Taylor, & Deary 2008; Olsen, Olsen, Gunner-Svensson, & Waldstrom, 1991).

The final sample consisted of 3635 individuals that were followed over 34,496 person years, with 27.4% of the sample dying during an average 9.49 years of follow-up. Consistent with the older population, the sample was predominantly (62%) female.....The average time spent reading per week was 3.92 hours for books and 6.10 hours for periodicals. The two types of reading were not strongly correlated, and 38% of the sample (n=1390) read only books or only periodicals; this allowed them to be treated as separate constructs.....Cognitive engagement was assessed with total cognitive score (available in the supplemental Imputation of Cognitive Function Measures) which is a summary variable based on 8 items, including immediate recall, delayed recall, serial 7s, backwards count from 20, object naming, President naming, Vice President naming, and date naming.

A 20% reduction in mortality was observed for those who read books, compared to those who did not read books. Further, our analyses demonstrated that any level of book reading gave a significantly stronger survival advantage than reading periodicals.....The mediation analyses showed for the first time that the survival advantage was due to the effect that book reading had on cognition....This finding suggests that reading books provide a survival advantage due to the immersive nature that helps maintain cognitive status.

Published on Leave a comment on Avoid Lavender and Tea Tree Oils In Personal Care Products?

Over the years I have read about some oils, especially lavender and tea tree oils,  as having hormone altering (endocrine disrupting) effects when used over prolonged periods of time or when someone is "chronically exposed". Especially worrisome was the possible estrogenic effects of lavender oils in shampoos, lotions, and soaps on developing children - especially boys (prolonged use leading to the development of breasts in some boys!). I just read a recently published journal study (with very interesting comments at the end), and an article in WebMD about this same topic. The condition of early breast development is called prepubertal gynecomastia in boys and thelarche in girls.

As you can imagine, the industry (Australian Tea Tree Industry Association and Research Institute for Fragrance Materials Inc) calls such research  "poor science". Of course industry sponsored "research" never ever finds any problems (because any "problems" would impact the big $$ from the sale of those products). In fact, I would be skeptical of any industry sponsored research in this area - it is not truly independent, unbiased research if they "have to" and "want to" find no problems. So when you do read industry research, also read the rebuttals by independent scientists and doctors.

Bottom line: No matter the age, avoid prolonged use of lavender and tea tree oil in personal care products, including "aromatherapy" -  especially important for children and pregnant women. The good news is that the development of breasts in young children is reversible when use of the product is stopped. But better to avoid such products (including Agua de Violetas) on children in the first place. Instead use unscented personal care products.

From WebMD:  Are Tea Tree and Lavender Oils Safe for Kids?

Tea tree and lavender essential oils are popular ingredients in personal care and household products, including many aimed at children. But can the ingredients, often promoted as “natural” alternatives, trigger abnormal breast growth in boys and girls? A few small studies suggest that frequently using lotions, shampoos, styling gels, and even a certain cologne containing lavender and tea tree oils may cause breast growth in boys, also known as gynecomastia, along with breast growth in girls as young as 4 or 5. 

Other studies have not reached the same conclusions, and the cases appear to be rare. In addition, scientific research into most natural products is scant. The FDA doesn’t oversee essential oils unless they are intended for use in a drug, making it challenging to know how safe and effective these products are....Lavender and tea tree oils are among the most commonly used essential oils used. Although research is inconclusive, lavender is often used for aromatherapy and calming lotions, while tea tree oil is promoted for acne, nail fungus, and other skin conditions. 

...continue reading "Avoid Lavender and Tea Tree Oils In Personal Care Products?"