Monday, June 29, 2015

Want to look younger and feel more healthy? Well it's not surgery, lotions, or supplements that are your answer, but rather the secret may simply be - move to a better neighborhood. The NY Times reports on a study that shows where you live may affect your genes.


Bad Neighborhoods May Be Bad for Your DNA



It has long been known that people who live in unsafe neighborhoods suffer poorer health and increased risk for death. Now researchers have found that living in these areas is associated with shorter telomere length, a marker of aging cells.

Telomeres, which lie at the ends of chromosomes, are structures involved in the replication of DNA molecules. Each time a cell divides, telomeres becomes shorter, a process associated with aging, illness and death.

Researchers studied 2,981 Dutch people aged 18 to 65, measuring telomere lengths in their white blood cells. They assessed neighborhood quality by asking residents about high noise levels, 
vandalism in the neighborhood, and feeling unsafe walking alone. The study is in PLOS One.

After controlling for a range of socioeconomic, health and lifestyle characteristics, they found that the greater the residents’ degree of unfavorable perceptions about their neighborhoods, the shorter the average telomere length in their cells.

The lead author, Mijung Park, an assistant professor of nursing at the University of Pittsburgh, said that the results should be interpreted cautiously — it is an observational study, and does not prove cause and effect.

Still, she said, “When we look at two people of the same age and gender and other characteristics, we find that those who live in bad neighborhoods are biologically older than those who do not by about 12 years.”

Monday, June 15, 2015

Eat well and exercise is what we always hear regarding how to diet. But now a new study says the eating part - meaning less calories - is more important than the exercise part. I still say it's better to do both for a number of reasons.

 

People working out on Manhattan's Lower East Side last week. Exercise is beneficial for numerous reasons, but it's not the best way to lose weight, many studies have shown. Credit Todd Heisler/The New York Times

One of my family’s favorite shows is “The Biggest Loser.” Although some viewers don’t appreciate how it pushes people so hard to lose weight, the show probably inspires some overweight people to regain control of their lives.

But one of the most frustrating parts of the show, at least for me, is its overwhelming emphasis on exercise. Because when it comes to reaching a healthy weight, what you don’t eat is much, much more important.

Think about it this way: If an overweight man is consuming 1,000 more calories than he is burning and wants to be in energy balance, he can do it by exercising. But exercise consumes far fewer calories than many people think. Thirty minutes of jogging or swimming laps might burn off 350 calories. Many people, fat or fit, can’t keep up a strenuous 30-minute exercise regimen, day in and day out. They might exercise a few times a week, if that.

Or they could achieve the same calorie reduction by eliminating two 16-ounce sodas each day.
Proclamations that people need to be more active are ubiquitous in the media. The importance of exercise for proper weight management is reinforced when people bemoan the loss of gym class in schools as a cause of the obesity epidemic. Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move program places the focus on exercise as a critical component in combating excess weight and obesity.

Exercise has many benefits, but there are problems with relying on it to control weight. First, it’s just not true that Americans, in general, aren’t listening to calls for more activity. From 2001 to 2009, the percentage of people who were sufficiently physically active increased. But so did the percentage of Americans who were obese. The former did not prevent the latter.

Studies confirm this finding. A 2011 meta-analysis, a study of studies, looked at the relationship between physical activity and fat mass in children, and found that being active is probably not the key determinant in whether a child is at an unhealthy weight. In the adult population, interventional studies have difficulty showing that a physically active person is less likely to gain excess weight than a sedentary person. Further, studies of energy balance, and there are many of them, show that total energy expenditure and physical activity levels in developing and industrialized countries are similar, making activity and exercise unlikely to be the cause of differing obesity rates.

Moreover, exercise increases one’s appetite. After all, when you burn off calories being active, your body will often signal you to replace them. Research confirms this. A 2012 systematic review of studies that looked at how people complied with exercise programs showed that over time, people wound up burning less energy with exercise than predicted and also increasing their caloric intake.

Other metabolic changes can negate the expected weight loss benefits of exercise over the long term. When you lose weight, metabolism often slows. Many people believe that exercise can counter or even reverse that trend. Research, however, shows that the resting metabolic rate in all dieters slows significantly, regardless of whether they exercise. This is why weight loss, which might seem easy when you start, becomes harder over time.

This isn’t to say that exercise plays no role. There are many studies that show that adding exercise to diets can be beneficial. A 1999 review identified three key meta-analyses and other randomized controlled trials that found statistically significant, but overall small, increases in weight loss with exercise.
A meta-analysis published last year found that, in the long term, behavioral weight management programs that combine exercise with diet can lead to more sustained weight loss (three to four pounds) over a year than diet alone. Over a six-month period, though, adding exercise made no difference. Another systematic review from last fall found similar results, with diet plus exercise performing better than diet alone, but without much of an absolute difference.

All of these interventions included dietary changes, and the added weight-loss benefit from activity was small. Far too many people, though, can manage to find an hour or more in their day to drive to the gym, exercise and then clean up afterward — but complain that there’s just no time to cook or prepare a healthful, home-cooked meal. If they would spend just half the time they do exercising trying to make a difference in the kitchen, they’d most likely see much better results.

Many people think of dieting as a drastic and rigid change, with a high risk of putting the pounds back on. What is more likely to succeed is gradual change, made in a much more sustainable way. I also don’t mean to make it seem that weight loss with diet is easy and exercise is hard. They’re both hard. The challenge of a slowing metabolism, and the desire to eat more, occurs in both cases, although dietary change still works better than exercise.

But I can’t say this enough: Exercise has a big upside for health beyond potential weight loss. Many studies and reviews detail how physical activity can improve outcomes in musculoskeletal disorders, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, pulmonary diseases, neurological diseases and depression. The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges declared it a “miracle cure” recently, and while I’m usually loath to use that term for anything in medicine, a fairly large evidence base corroborates that exercise improves outcomes in many domains.

But that huge upside doesn’t seem to necessarily apply to weight loss. The data just don’t support it. Unfortunately, exercise seems to excite us much more than eating less does. After all, as a friend said to me recently, “The Biggest Loser” would be really boring if it were shot after shot of contestants just not overeating.

Friday, June 12, 2015

If it's able to clean rust from the bumper of a car, should you be drinking it? Apparently the City of San Francisco thinks that soda may be bad for your health and may soon be placing warning labels on the sugar filled bottles.





Warning: Soda May Be Bad for Your Health, San Francisco Says



    San Francisco could soon be the first city in the country to place health warnings on advertisements for sugary drinks.

    Lawmakers there voted unanimously this week in favor of a measure that would require a stark warning label – akin to the caution label on cigarettes – noting the link between sugary drink consumption and chronic disease. The warning labels would appear only on advertisements for sugary drinks, not on the products themselves, though a separate measure at the state level would require such warnings directly on soda cans and bottles.

    “Warning,” the new label on the advertisements would read. “Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. This is a message from the City and County of San Francisco.”




    A proposed warning label for two-liter soda bottles.Credit California Center for Public Health Advocacy

    The San Francisco Board of Supervisors will decide whether to approve the ordinance next week and, barring a veto by the city’s mayor, Ed Lee, the law would take effect this summer. Mr. Lee has not publicly taken a position on the measure, but its supporters say he is open to it.

    The measure was approved by San Francisco lawmakers on Tuesday along with two other proposals, one of which would ban all advertisements for sugary drinks on publicly owned property. The other would forbid the use of city funds for the purchase of sugary beverages.

    Scott Wiener, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which voted in support of the measure, said in a statement that requiring the health warnings on soda ads “makes clear that these drinks aren’t harmless – indeed, quite the opposite.”

    “San Francisco has sent a clear message that we need to do more to protect our community’s health,” he said.

    Mr. Wiener’s office said that in San Francisco, the financial impact of sugary drinks exceeded $50 million “even when only considering diabetes and obesity,” and that one in three children today are expected to develop diabetes in their lifetime.

    If it receives final approval next week, the new measure would require the health warning on billboards and posters in San Francisco, as well as on ads for sugary beverages displayed in stadiums, on bus stops and on vehicles. Advertisements in newspapers, magazines and on the Internet would not be included.

    The measure would apply to sugar-sweetened drinks with 25 calories or more, including sodas, sports drinks and iced teas. But milk and some natural fruit and vegetable juice drinks would be excluded. The warning labels would take up at least 20 percent of the ad space.

    Last year San Francisco failed to enact a tax on sugary drinks through a ballot initiative. The tax was fiercely opposed by industry groups, which spent millions fighting it. About 56 percent of voters supported the ballot initiative, but that figure fell short of the two-thirds majority required for the special tax to pass.

    Berkeley, San Francisco’s neighbor, enacted a soda tax last year, becoming the first city in the country to do so.

    A spokesman for the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, a nonprofit organization, hailed the new San Francisco measure and said that the “natural next step is to take similar policies to the state level by requiring warning labels on the products itself.”

    The group helped sponsor legislation that would require warning labels on all sugary drink cans, dispensers and vending machines in California. The legislation passed the State Senate but died in the Assembly. A similar bill was introduced this year and will most likely be voted on in 2016.

    Monday, June 8, 2015

    Sleep is a problem for many, whether difficulty in falling asleep or waking up frequently. Good sleep helps performance, helps weight loss, and helps cellular regeneration. So how does one get more quality sleep? Simply...exercise.


    Science News
    from research organizations

    Study maps types of physical activity associated with better sleep

    Date:
    June 4, 2015
    Source:
    University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
    Summary:
    Physical activities, such as walking, as well as aerobics/calisthenics, running, weight-lifting, and yoga/Pilates are associated with better sleep habits, compared to no activity, according to a new study. In contrast, the study shows that other types of physical activity -- such as household and childcare -- work are associated with increased cases of poor sleep habits.

    Physical activities, such as walking, as well as aerobics/calisthenics, biking, gardening, golfing, running, weight-lifting, and yoga/Pilates are associated with better sleep habits, compared to no activity, according to a new study from researchers at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. In contrast, the study shows that other types of physical activity -- such as household and childcare -- work are associated with increased cases of poor sleep habits. The full results of the study (Abstract #0246) will be presented during the poster session on June 8, at SLEEP 2015, the 29th annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies LLC, June 6-10, in Seattle, WA.

    Physical activity is already well associated with healthy sleep, but the new study, led by Michael Grandner, PhD, instructor in Psychiatry and member of the Center for Sleep and Circadian Neurobiology at Penn, yields insight into whether specific types of physical activities may impact sleep quality.

    Using data on sleep and physical activities of 429,110 adults from the 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the Penn researchers measured whether each of 10 types of activities was associated with typical amount of sleep, relative to both no activity and to walking. Survey respondents were asked what type of physical activity they spent the most time doing in the past month, and also asked how much sleep they got in a typical 24-hour period. Since previous studies showed that people who get less than 7 hours are at greater risk for poor health and functioning, the study evaluated whether people who reported specific activities were more likely to also report sufficient sleep.

    Compared to those who reported that they did not get physical activity in the past month, all types of activity except for household/childcare were associated with a lower likelihood of insufficient sleep. To assess whether these effects are just a result of any activity, results were compared to those who reported walking as their main source of activity. Compared to just walking, aerobics/calisthenics, biking, gardening, golf, running, weight-lifting and yoga/Pilates were each associated with fewer cases of insufficient sleep, and household/childcare activity was associated with higher cases of insufficient sleep. These results were adjusted for age, sex, education level, and body mass index.

    "Although previous research has shown that lack of exercise is associated with poor sleep, the results of this study were surprising," said Grandner. "Not only does this study show that those who get exercise simply by walking are more likely to have better sleep habits, but these effects are even stronger for more purposeful activities, such as running and yoga, and even gardening and golf. It was also interesting that people who receive most of their activity from housework and childcare were more likely to experience insufficient sleep -- we know that home and work demands are some of the main reasons people lose sleep."

    "These results are consistent with the growing scientific literature on the role of sleep in human performance," said Grandner. "Lab studies show that lack of sleep is associated with poor physical and mental performance, and this study shows us that this is consistent with real-world data as well. Since these results are correlational, more studies are needed to help us understand whether certain kinds of physical activity can actually improve or worsen sleep, and how sleep habits help or hurt a person's ability to engage in specific types of activity."


    Story Source:
    The above story is based on materials provided by University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

    Monday, June 1, 2015

    Forget milk...Got Kids? Be they your own, or your children's children, sooner or later you'll have to deal with head lice. What a pain in the..head..it can be. But, here's an article on the latest approach to dealing with lice...just in case you feel the need to scratch.



    New Tactics for Battling Head Lice



    Relatively few school-age children escape the scourge of head lice, among the many organisms that show no respect for socioeconomic status or hygiene. Even though the insects do not endanger health or spread disease, head lice often provoke extreme anxiety and disgust among parents, and the time and money spent detecting and eradicating them costs consumers and schools an estimated $1 billion a year.

    In New York and other metropolitan areas, they have even spawned a grass-roots profession of nit-pickers, who for about $200 a treatment will help to rid affected children and adults of the hard-to-see wingless insects and their eggs (called nits).

    Given that head lice, companions of humans since antiquity, are not likely to become extinct anytime soon, last month the American Academy of Pediatrics updated its advice to doctors on how best to treat affected children and their families.

    Although the Internet is replete with home remedies like Pantene hair conditioner, Cetaphil skin cleanser, mayonnaise and tea tree oil, some of which can be effective with diligent use, none have been evaluated for safety and effectiveness by the Food and Drug Administration.

    An 18-month-old girl died in February when her caretaker applied mayonnaise to the child’s scalp and covered it with a plastic bag. “The child was left unattended, the bag slid over her face, and she suffocated,” said Dr. Mary Wu Chang, a reviewer for NEJM Journal Watch.

    Unlike the myriad childhood ailments that can be thwarted by vaccines, there is no surefire way to prevent a louse attack, primarily “because young children come into head-to-head contact with each other frequently,” the academy of pediatrics acknowledges.

    Daily bathing is not an effective preventive. The insects can survive submerged in water for 20 minutes, and their eggs, which glue themselves to hair shafts close to the scalp, are impervious even to pesticide chemicals. A more effective approach, albeit not a way to prevent all cases, is regular surveillance by parents “to detect and treat early infestations, thereby preventing the spread to others,” the academy advises.

    “It is prudent for children to be taught not to share personal items, such as combs, brushes and hats,” the academy states (good luck with that!), even though eggs remain glued to hair and adult lice found on combs are likely to be dead. The organization cautions against refusing to wear protective sports helmets for fear of head lice.

    It is easier to detect and treat lice when hair is short, the length of one’s hair and how often it is brushed or washed has little effect on the risk of an infestation.

    Lice can only crawl, not jump or hop, and pets play no role in spreading them from person to person. But combing a dry, louse-infested head can build up enough static electricity to eject live insects a distance of one meter. Adult lice die within a day off a person’s head, where they depend on blood meals for survival. Furthermore, their eggs cannot hatch at temperatures below those near the scalp. This would suggest that after treating affected family members and washing their bedding and head coverings, leaving home for a few days could substitute for fanatical household cleaning.

    A generation ago, both my sons were among first graders who acquired head lice, most likely transmitted from child to child during friendly tussles in the playground. Other youngsters have not been so lucky.

    One mother I know, rather than douse her daughter’s long thick hair repeatedly with a pesticide, engaged the services of a local nit-picker. Another Brooklyn mother, wanting to reduce her boys’ exposure to a toxic chemical after one treatment with a commercial pesticide, saturated their heads three days in a row with Pantene conditioner and baking soda to immobilize the lice and make them and their eggs easier to remove with a fine-toothed metal comb.

    Paranoia about lice among a child’s schoolmates can prompt some parents to undertake “preventive” treatment, but the academy warns, “Never initiate treatment unless there is a clear diagnosis with living lice.” People sometimes confuse dandruff, hair casts, sand, and even hair spray droplets with louse eggs, and needlessly expose children to a pesticide and engage in frantic household cleanups.
    After eggs hatch, they go through three nymph stages to become adults. Live eggs are dark and hard to see; empty egg cases are clear or white and often confused with a continuing infestation.

    Hatched insects feed by injecting small amounts of saliva to expand blood vessels and prevent clotting, then sucking tiny amounts of blood every few hours. Itching, caused by sensitization to the saliva, may not start until four to six weeks after a first infestation, which speaks to the value of weekly head checks.

    Effective over-the-counter remedies listed by the academy include a cream rinse called Nix applied to damp hair after it is shampooed (without conditioner) and towel dried. Nix, which contains 1 percent permethrin, is a synthetic pyrethroid that is “least toxic to humans” and “less allergenic” than its parent compound, pyrethrins. It is rinsed off with warm water after 10 minutes (over the sink, not in the shower or tub, to minimize skin exposure). Residue left on the hair can kill emerging nymphs as long as no shampoo is used. A second treatment nine days later is optimal, the academy states.

    Among prescription remedies, the newest, called Sklice, containing 0.5 percent ivermectin, requires only one application to dry hair and scalp that is rinsed off after 10 minutes. When treated eggs hatch, the nymphs cannot feed because the medication paralyzes their throat muscles. Another recent prescription treatment, Natroba (0.9 percent spinosad), derived from soil bacteria, kills both live lice and unhatched eggs, eliminating the need for retreatment and nit combing.

    Whichever product you may use, first check the age for which it is safe, and never exceed the amount recommended. And continue to check treated heads for two to three weeks to be sure all lice and nits are gone.