Skip to content

Category: Uncategorized

Published on

Interesting findings - that squirming and fidgeting in ADHD children may be how they learn best and actually aids them in learning. So don't try to stop or suppress the fidgeting and squirming, but instead embrace it. I know of an excellent science teacher who would hand out small chunks of beeswax modeling clay to children who couldn't stop squirming and fidgeting in class - and this helped them focus and learn. From Science Daily:

Kids with ADHD must squirm to learn, study says

For decades, frustrated parents and teachers have barked at fidgety children with ADHD to "Sit still and concentrate!" But new research conducted at UCF shows that if you want ADHD kids to learn, you have to let them squirm. The foot-tapping, leg-swinging and chair-scooting movements of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder are actually vital to how they remember information and work out complex cognitive tasks, according to a study published in an early online release of the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.

The findings show the longtime prevailing methods for helping children with ADHD may be misguided. "The typical interventions target reducing hyperactivity. It's exactly the opposite of what we should be doing for a majority of children with ADHD," said one of the study's authors, Mark Rapport, head of the Children's Learning Clinic at the University of Central Florida. "The message isn't 'Let them run around the room,' but you need to be able to facilitate their movement so they can maintain the level of alertness necessary for cognitive activities."

The study at the UCF clinic included 52 boys ages 8 to 12. Twenty-nine of the children had been diagnosed with ADHD and the other 23 had no clinical disorders and showed normal development. Each child was asked to perform a series of standardized tasks designed to gauge "working memory," the system for temporarily storing and managing information required to carry out complex cognitive tasks such as learning, reasoning and comprehension... A high-speed camera recorded the kids, and observers recorded their every movement and gauged their attention to the task.

Rapport's previous research had already shown that the excessive movement that's a trademark of hyperactive children -- previously thought to be ever-present -- is actually apparent only when they need to use the brain's executive brain functions, especially their working memory.The new study goes an important step further, proving the movement serves a purpose. "What we've found is that when they're moving the most, the majority of them perform better," Rapport said. "They have to move to maintain alertness." By contrast, the children in the study without ADHD also moved more during the cognitive tests, but it had the opposite effect: They performed worse.

Published on

Well worth reading in its entirety. In summary: Anyone who is physically capable of activity should try to reach at least 150 minutes of physical activity per week (walking is good) and have around 20 to 30 minutes of that be vigorous activity. This significantly lowers the risk of dying prematurely. (NOTE: the second study mentioned was in the April 8, 2015 post: Physical Activity That Makes You Sweat Is Good ) From the New York Times:

The Right Dose of Exercise for a Longer Life

Exercise has had a Goldilocks problem, with experts debating just how much exercise is too little, too much or just the right amount to improve health and longevity. Two new, impressively large-scale studies provide some clarity, suggesting that the ideal dose of exercise for a long life is a bit more than many of us currently believe we should get, but less than many of us might expect. The studies also found that prolonged or intense exercise is unlikely to be harmful and could add years to people’s lives.

The current broad guidelines from governmental and health organizations call for 150 minutes of moderate exercise per week to build and maintain health and fitness. But whether that amount of exercise represents the least amount that someone should do — the minimum recommended dose — or the ideal amount has not been certain.

In the broader of the two studies, researchers with the National Cancer Institute, Harvard University and other institutions gathered and pooled data about people’s exercise habits from six large, ongoing health surveys, winding up with information about more than 661,000 adults, most of them middle-aged. Using this data, the researchers stratified the adults by their weekly exercise time, from those who did not exercise at all to those who worked out for 10 times the current recommendations or more (meaning that the exercised moderately for 25 hours per week or more). Then they compared 14 years’ worth of death records for the group.

They found that, unsurprisingly, the people who did not exercise at all were at the highest risk of early death. But those who exercised a little, not meeting the recommendations but doing something, lowered their risk of premature death by 20 percent. Those who met the guidelines precisely, completing 150 minutes per week of moderate exercise, enjoyed greater longevity benefits and 31 percent less risk of dying during the 14-year period compared with those who never exercised.

The sweet spot for exercise benefits, however, came among those who tripled the recommended level of exercise, working out moderately, mostly by walking, for 450 minutes per week, or a little more than an hour per day. Those people were 39 percent less likely to die prematurely than people who never exercised. At that point, the benefits plateaued, the researchers found, but they never significantly declined. Those few individuals engaging in 10 times or more the recommended exercise dose gained about the same reduction in mortality risk as people who simply met the guidelines. They did not gain significantly more health bang for all of those additional hours spent sweating. But they also did not increase their risk of dying young.

The other new study of exercise and mortality reached a somewhat similar conclusion about intensity.  {NOTE: SEE APRIL 8, 2015 POST FOR DETAILS}

Published on

The following is a list of nutrients that some researchers (from the Institute of Food Technology) think of as especially beneficial to the brain. Other researchers may (or probably will) focus on other nutrients. I am posting it even though I generally dislike articles that talk about "superfoods" or an itemized list of foods that one should eat to the exclusion of others. Because, of course, focusing on some nutrients may leave out many just as important nutrients.

Also, medical thinking changes over time and what was once considered "unhealthy" may later be considered a wonderful food (remember when eggs, nuts, and coconuts were almost considered evil?). And vice versa (remember when margarine with partially hydrogeneated oils and trans-fats was considered healthier than butter?) And study after study says it is better to eat the foods, rather than take supplements. So keep in mind that the following nutrients are found in whole foods and in a varied diet. And when they mention a specific food such as blueberries, remember that ALL berries have benefits (though they vary), so eat a variety of berries. Same with nuts - eat a variety and not just walnuts. From Science Daily:

Eight nutrients to protect the aging brain

Brain health is the second most important component in maintaining a healthy lifestyle according to a 2014 AARP study. As people age they can experience a range of cognitive issues from decreased critical thinking to dementia and Alzheimer's disease. In the March issue of Food Technology published by the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), contributing editor Linda Milo Ohr writes about eight nutrients that may help keep your brain in good shape.

1. Cocoa Flavanols: Cocoa flavanols have been linked to improved circulation and heart health, and preliminary research shows a possible connection to memory improvement as well. A study showed cocoa flavanols may improve the function of a specific part of the brain called the dentate gyrus, which is associated with age-related memory (Brickman, 2014). {NOTE: good sources are cocoa and dark chocolate}

2. Omega-3 Fatty Acids: Omega-3 fatty acids have long been shown to contribute to good heart health are now playing a role in cognitive health as well....Foods rich in omega-3s include salmon, flaxseed oil, and chia seeds.

3. Phosphatidylserine and Phosphatidic Acid: Two pilot studies showed that a combination of phosphatidylserine and phosphatidic acid can help benefit memory, mood, and cognitive function in the elderly (Lonza, 2014). {NOTE: good sources are fish and meat}

4. Walnuts: A diet supplemented with walnuts may have a beneficial effect in reducing the risk, delaying the onset, or slowing the progression of Alzheimer's disease in mice (Muthaiyah, 2014).

5. Citicoline: Citicoline is a natural substance found in the body's cells and helps in the development of brain tissue, which helps regulate memory and cognitive function, enhances communication between neurons, and protects neural structures from free radical damage.... {NOTE: Citocoline is synthesized in the body from choline, so see foods high in choline}

6. Choline: Choline, which is associated with liver health and women's health, also helps with the communication systems for cells within the brain and the rest of the body. Choline may also support the brain during aging and help prevent changes in brain chemistry that result in cognitive decline and failure. A major source of choline in the diet are eggs. { NOTE: Good sources of choline are eggs, meat, fish, beans, and cruciferous vegetables.}

7. Magnesium: Magnesium supplements are often recommended for those who experienced serious concussions. Magnesium-rich foods include avocado, soy beans, bananas and dark chocolate.

8. Blueberries: Blueberries are known to have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity because they boast a high concentration of anthocyanins, a flavonoid that enhances the health-promoting quality of foods. Moderate blueberry consumption could offer neurocognitive benefits such as increased neural signaling in the brain centers.

Published on

Scientists warn about endocrine disruption from 4 common chemicals in an analysis just released. This is absolutely depressing because the 4 chemicals (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene) are so pervasive in indoor air. Especially that at levels considered "safe" by the EPA there may be disruption of our hormones (endocrine systems).

Of course the 4 chemicals are already known to have health effects on the human body other than what is discussed in this study. For example, toluene has a number of central nervous system effects. The EPA says toluene , which is found in highest concentrations in indoor air from the use of common household products (paints, paint thinners, adhesives, synthetic fragrances, and nail polish). Outside - the biggest source of toluene is from automobile emissions.

Some ways to lower exposure to these 4 chemicals: Read product labels. When using a product that says to use with proper ventilation - open the windows and let the room ventilate!  Don't smoke. (For example: the EPA says tobacco smoke contains benzene and accounts for nearly half the national exposure to benzene) The study researchers themselves said the EPA should be paying more attention to these air contaminants. I read this at Scientific American, but the following excerpts are from EHN.

From EHN: Scientists warn of hormone impacts from benzene, xylene, other common solvents.

Four chemicals present both inside and outside homes might disrupt our endocrine systems at levels considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, according to an analysis released today. ...continue reading "More Problems With Four Common Chemicals"

Published on

There have been a number of studies over the years finding environmental links to testicular cancer (such as some pesticides, smoking, and endocrine disruptors). Now another one - muscle-building supplements with creatine and androstenedione . From Science Daily:

Testicular cancer link found for muscle-building supplements

Men who reported taking muscle-building supplements, such as pills and powders with creatine or androstenedione, reported a significantly higher likelihood of having developed testicular cancer than men who did not use such supplements, according to a new study in theBritish Journal of Cancer. Moreover, said study senior author Tongzhang Zheng, the associated testicular germ cell cancer risk was especially high among men who started using supplements before age 25, those who used multiple supplements and those who used them for years.

"The observed relationship was strong," said Zheng, who led the study at Yale University before joining the Brown University School of Public Health as a professor of epidemiology. "If you used at earlier age, you had a higher risk. If you used them longer, you had a higher risk. If you used multiple types, you had a higher risk." Testicular cancer incidence rose to 5.9 cases per 100,000 men in 2011, from 3.7 cases in 100,000 in 1975, Zheng said. Researchers aren't sure why. The work was inspired by mounting evidence that that at least some supplement ingredients may damage the testes.

To conduct the study, Zheng's research team conducted detailed interviews of nearly 900 men from Massachusetts and Connecticut -- 356 of whom had been diagnosed with testicular germ cell cancer, and 513 who had not. In the interviews, researchers asked the men not only about their supplement use but also about a wide variety of other possible factors such as smoking, drinking, exercise habits, family history of testicular cancer, and prior injury to their testes or groin....The researchers defined "use" as consuming one or more supplements at least once a week for four consecutive weeks or more.

Published on

Macular degeneration is a feared condition, so this study finding a link with calcium supplements and age-related macular degeneration in those 68 and older is a bit alarming. However, it shows association, not causation, because it looked at people only one time. But once again supplements are looking suspect.

Another reason to stick with whole foods, especially leafy greens and fish, and don't smoke. From Medscape:

Calcium Supplementation Associated With Macular Degeneration

Individuals who take more than 800 mg of calcium daily are almost twice as likely to be diagnosed with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) as those who did not, according to the results of a new study published online April 9 in JAMA Ophthalmology.

Caitlin L. M. Kakigi, BA, from the Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues evaluated 3191 participants in the 2007 to 2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) aged 40 years and older, including 248 patients with AMD diagnosed by fundus photography. Each participant was surveyed about consumption of dietary supplements and antacids during the 30-day period preceding trial enrollment.

The researchers found the odds of an AMD diagnosis were elevated among participants who reported taking 800 mg of calcium or more daily....The association was strongest in older people,  for those aged 68 years and older. In fact, there was no association between AMD diagnosis and calcium intake in participants younger than 68 years. The average age of participants with AMD in this study was 67.2 years compared with 55.8 years for those without an AMD diagnosis.

Rahul Khurana, MD, a clinical spokesperson for the American Academy of Ophthalmology and a partner at Northern California Retina Vitreous Associates in Mountain View, who was not involved in the study, cautioned that it is an exploratory analysis."It shows association but not causation."

Published on

People have asked me if it is healthy to exercise or ride a bicycle in the congested and polluted New York metro area. According to this much quoted in the past week study from the University of Copenhagen - it is better to exercise than not in polluted cities when looking at death rates. But is their air pollution even comparable to ours? What does it do to our lungs to bicycle daily behind smoke belching buses?

Even the researcher said:"It is also important to note that these results pertain to Denmark and sites with similar air pollution levels, and may not necessary be true in cities with several fold higher air pollution levels, as seen in other parts of the world." They also stated: "...we would still advise people to exercise and cycle in green areas, parks, woods, with low air pollution and away from busy roads, when possible." From Science Daily:

Exercise can outweigh harmful effects of air pollution

The beneficial effects of exercise are more important for our health than the negative effects of air pollution, in relation to the risk of premature mortality, new research shows. In other words, benefits of exercise outweigh the harmful effects of air pollution.The study shows that despite the adverse effects of air pollution on health, air pollution should be not perceived as a barrier to exercise in urban areas. "Even for those living in the most polluted areas of Copenhagen, it is healthier to go for a run, a walk or to cycle to work than it is to stay inactive," says Associate Professor Zorana Jovanovic Andersen from the Centre for Epidemiology and Screening at the University of Copenhagen.

It is well known that physical activity reduces, while air pollution increases the risk of premature mortality. Physical activity amplifies respiratory intake and accumulation of air pollutants in our lungs, which may increase the harmful effects of air pollution during exercise."However, we would still advise people to exercise and cycle in green areas, parks, woods, with low air pollution and away from busy roads, when possible," she adds.

The Danish study includes 52,061 subjects, aged 50-65 years, from the two main cities Aarhus and Copenhagen, who participated in the cohort study Diet, Cancer and Health..,5,500 participants died before 2010, and the researchers observed about 20% fewer deaths among those who exercised than among those who didn't exercise, even for those who lived in the most polluted areas, in central Copenhagen and Aarhus, or close to busy roads and highways.

"It is also important to note that these results pertain to Denmark and sites with similar air pollution levels, and may not necessary be true in cities with several fold higher air pollution levels, as seen in other parts of the world," concludes Andersen.

Published on

After reading this article, I looked over my last year's posts and realized that the recent studies posted all found that eating fish showed health benefits (and they did not look at supplements). Once again, a food shows benefits while the supplement is debatable. Current advice: try to eat fish at least twice a week. From the NY Times:

Fish Oil Claims Not Supported by Research

Fish oil is now the third most widely used dietary supplement in the United States, after vitamins and minerals, according to a recent report from the National Institutes of Health. At least 10 percent of Americans take fish oil regularly, most believing that the omega-3 fatty acids in the supplements will protect their cardiovascular health. But there is one big problem: The vast majority of clinical trials involving fish oil have found no evidence that it lowers the risk of heart attack and stroke.

From 2005 to 2012, at least two dozen rigorous studies of fish oil were published in leading medical journals, most of which looked at whether fish oil could prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk populations. These were people who had a history of heart disease or strong risk factors for it, like high cholesterol, hypertension or Type 2 diabetes. All but two of these studies found that compared with a placebo, fish oil showed no benefit.

In theory at least, there are good reasons that fish oil should improve cardiovascular health. Most fish oil supplements are rich in two omega-3 fatty acids — eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) — that can have a blood-thinning effect, much like aspirin, that may reduce the likelihood of clots. Omega-3s can also reduce inflammation, which plays a role in atherosclerosis. And the Food and Drug Administration has approved at least three prescription types of fish oil — Vascepa, Lovaza and a generic form — for the treatment of very high triglycerides, a risk factor for heart disease. But these properties of omega-3 fatty acids have not translated into notable benefits in most large clinical trials.

Like many cardiologists, Dr. Stein encourages his patients to avoid fish oil supplements and focus instead on eating fatty fish at least twice a week, in line with federal guidelines on safe fish intake, because fish contains a variety of healthful nutrients other than just EPA and DHA. “We don’t recommend fish oil unless someone gets absolutely no fish in their diets,” Dr. Stein said.

But some experts say the case for fish oil remains open. Dr. JoAnn Manson, the chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said the large clinical trials of fish oil focused only on people who already had heart disease or were at very high risk. Fish oil has also been promoted for the prevention of a variety of other conditions, including cancer, Alzheimer’s and depression. Dr. Manson is leading a five-year clinical trial, called the Vital study, of 26,000 people who are more representative of the general population. Set to be completed next year, it will determine whether fish oil and vitamin D, separately or combined, have any effect on the long-term prevention of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, and other diseases in people who do not have many strong risk factors.

Dr. Manson says that although she recommends eating fatty fish first, she usually does not stop people from taking fish oil, in part because it does not seem to have major side effects in generally healthy people. “But I do think people should realize that the jury is still out,” she said, “and that they may be spending a lot of money on these supplements without getting any benefit.”

Published on

It is important to identify protective factors as well as risk factors for cataracts because cataract surgery is the only treatment for cataracts. Cataracts are a medical condition resulting in clouding of the normally clear lens of the eye, which results in blurred vision.

From Medscape: Physical Activity May Reduce Cataract Risk

High levels of total and long-term physical activity, as well as specific types of physical activity, may decrease the risk for age-related cataract later in life, researchers report in an article published in the February issue of Ophthalmology. Of 52,660 men and women 45 to 83 years of age who completed questionnaires to assess physical activity as part of two large population-based cohorts, 11,580 developed age-related cataract during a 12-year follow-up period...

Participants with the highest quartile of physical activity had a 13% decreased risk of developing cataracts relative to those with the lowest levels of physical activity, after adjustments for multiple factors including fruit and vegetable intake, antioxidant supplement use, and alcohol intake ...In addition, increased amounts of long-term total physical activity both at 30 years of age and at the beginning of the study (mean age, 59.4 years) decreased the risk for cataract by 24% compared with low levels of activity, according to the researchers .

When the investigators looked at specific activities, they found that walking or bicycling 60 minutes per day or more decreased the risk for cataract by 12% compared with hardly ever walking or bicycling, and work or occupational activity requiring heavy manual labor decreased the risk for cataract by 16% compared with mostly sedentary occupations. Compared with individuals reporting less than 1 hour of leisure time inactivity per day, those who were physically inactive for 6 or more hours of leisure time daily were 27% more likely to develop age-related cataract, they write.

"Our results on different types of physical activity suggest that being physically active on a regular daily basis may contribute to decreased risk of cataract, rather than short weekly episodes of exercising/training," Selin explained in an interview with Medscape Medical News.

Keep in mind that statin use is linked to increased risk of cataracts. From Science Daily:

New study strengthens evidence of connection between statin use and cataracts; any risks should be weighed against benefits

Published on

There are a number of very good health reasons to cut back or totally eliminate soda from your diet. The following articles and earlier posts discuss some of the ways both diet and regular soda are linked to health problems. Note in the second article that there's currently no federal limit for a byproduct of some types of caramel color called 4-MEI (a carcinogen) in food or beverages. California's Proposition 65 Law (aimed at reducing consumers' exposure to toxic chemicals) requires a  health-warning label on sodas with too high levels of 4-MEI resulted in manufacturers producing soda with lower levels of that chemical in the state. But sodas out of California may have higher levels! From Science Daily:

Diet soda linked to increases in belly fat in older adults

Increasing diet soda intake is directly linked to greater abdominal obesity in adults 65 years of age and older. Findings raise concerns about the safety of chronic diet soda consumption, which may increase belly fat and contribute to greater risk of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular diseases. Metabolic syndrome--a combination of risk factors that may lead to high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke--is one of the results of the obesity epidemic.

The San Antonio Longitudinal Study of Aging (SALSA) enrolled 749 Mexican- and European-Americans who were aged 65 and older at the start of the study (1992-96). Diet soda intake, waist circumference, height, and weight were measured at study onset, and at three follow-ups in 2000-01, 2001-03, and 2003-04, for a total of 9.4 follow-up years. At the first follow-up there were 474 (79.1%) surviving participants; there were 413 (73.4%) at the second follow-up and 375 (71.0%) at the third follow-up.

Findings indicate that the increase in waist circumference among diet soda drinkers, per follow-up interval, was almost triple that among non-users: 2.11 cm versus 0.77 cm, respectively. After adjustment for multiple potential confounders, interval waist circumference increases were 0.77 cm for non-users, 1.76 cm for occasional users, and 3.04 cm for daily users. This translates to waist circumference increases of 0.80 inches for non-users, 1.83 inches for occasional users, and 3.16 inches for daily users over the total 9.4-year SALSA follow-up period.

From Medical Xpress:

Popular soda ingredient poses cancer risk to consumers, new study suggests

Public health researchers have analyzed soda consumption data in order to characterize people's exposure to a potentially carcinogenic byproduct of some types of caramel color. Caramel color is a common ingredient in colas and other dark soft drinks. The results show that between 44 and 58 percent of people over the age of six typically have at least one can of soda per day, possibly more, potentially exposing them to 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI), a possible human carcinogen formed during the manufacture of some kinds of caramel color.

"Soft drink consumers are being exposed to an avoidable and unnecessary cancer risk from an ingredient that is being added to these beverages simply for aesthetic purposes," says Keeve Nachman, PhD, senior author of the study and director of the Food Production and Public Health Program at the CLF and an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. ."

In 2013 and early 2014, Consumer Reports partnered with the CLF to analyze 4-MEI concentrations of 110 soft drink samples purchased from retail stores in California and the New York metropolitan area...While the 2014 study of the 110 samples of soda brands was not large enough to recommend one brand over another or draw conclusions about specific brands, results indicated that levels of 4-MEI could vary substantially across samples, even for the same type of beverage. 

Researchers also found sharply contrasting levels of 4-MEI in some soft drinks purchased in the New York metropolitan area, versus California. "Our study also found that some of the soft drink products sold in California that we sampled had lower levels of 4-MEI than the samples we looked at of the same beverages sold outside the state, particularly in our earlier rounds of testing. It appears that regulations such as California's Proposition 65 may be effective at reducing exposure to 4-MEI from soft drinks, and that beverages can be manufactured in ways that produce less 4-MEI," suggests Nachman. ."

From Medical Daily: Bye-Bye Sugary Drinks: This Is What Happens To Your Body When You Stop Drinking Soda