According to a new research report, there are two types of meat consumption that are getting us into health-related trouble: red meat and processed meat. Those who eat more of these appear to have a modestly increased risk of death from all causes and also from cancer or heart disease over a 10-year period.
This new report has been published in the March 23 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives journals. In contrast, a higher intake of white meat appeared to be associated with a slightly decreased risk for overall death and cancer death.
In what is a very large piece of biostatistics, Dr. Rashmi Sinha and colleagues at the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., assessed the association between meat intake and risk of death among more than 500,000 individuals. All of them were part of the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study, which is ongoing. Participants were between 50 and 71 years old when the study began in 1995 and they provided demographic and food frequency information to estimate their intake of white, red and processed meats. They were then followed for 10 years.
Over the followup years, 47,976 men and 23,276 women died. Those men and women who ate the most red meat had a higher risk for overall death, as well as death from heart disease or death from cancer than the men and women who ate the least red meat.
The results for "white meat" were completely different; comparing the one-fifth of participants who ate the most white meat to the one-fifth who ate the least white meat, those with high white meat intake had a lower risk of death.
“For overall mortality, 11 percent of deaths in men and 16 percent of deaths in women could be prevented if people decreased their red meat consumption," the authors wrote. The impact on cardiovascular disease mortality was an 11 percent decrease in men and a 21 percent decrease in women if the red meat consumption was decreased to the amount consumed by individuals in the first quintile. “For women eating processed meat at the first quintile level, the decrease in cardiovascular disease mortality was approximately 20 percent.”
There are several mechanisms by which meat may be associated with death, the authors note. Cancer-causing compounds are formed during high-temperature cooking of meat. Meat also is a major source of saturated fat, which has been associated with breast and colorectal cancer. In addition, lower meat intake has been linked to a reduction in risk factors for heart disease, including lower blood pressure and cholesterol levels.
Because there are health benefits to eating some red and white (although not processed) meats, the consensus is not for a complete shift to vegan or vegetarian diets, according to Dr. Barry Popkin (UNC Chapel Hill) who added in an editorial that, “The need is for a major reduction in total meat intake, an even larger reduction in processed meat and other highly processed and salted animal source food products and a reduction in total saturated fat."
For the time being, the PDF (while available) of the original research article (quite a comprehensive piece) is linked to the headline of today's blog post. It may answer more of your questions.
Dave
Monday, March 23, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Call to Shut Down America's Only Research Center for Alternative Medicine
I'm concerned, and you should be as well. We are now seeing calls to stop funding the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicines (NCCAM). This center has been a part of the National Institutes of Health since it was funded in 1992, and today it is the only site where "official" U.S. research is being done on alternative therapies such as acupuncture, massage, herbal supplements, vitamins, mineral supplements, etc.
This is just another example of our need to take sides. In one corner you find allopathic medicine, and on the other, kooks. Can't we have a dialog about the many different therapies that seem to do some good for people, especially in painful, debilitating diseases where the available pharmaceutical medicines just don't do the job? It seems to me that having a national center for this discussion is a benefit to all.
Unfortunately, NCCAM has been most effective in running trials that disprove many of these theories about complementary medicines. You might remember the large and well-published Echinacea trial which was run using the wrong dosage of the herb and which then failed -- as of course it would. Even NCCAM has people running research studies who are just not knowledgeable about their subject matter.
Despite it's inherent problems, I think that some good can come out of keeping an open mind, and an NIH with a place to put ideas about alternatives is a better NIH. Click on the headline in today's blog post to link to a Washington Post article which describes the push to de-fund the NCCAM.
Dave
This is just another example of our need to take sides. In one corner you find allopathic medicine, and on the other, kooks. Can't we have a dialog about the many different therapies that seem to do some good for people, especially in painful, debilitating diseases where the available pharmaceutical medicines just don't do the job? It seems to me that having a national center for this discussion is a benefit to all.
Unfortunately, NCCAM has been most effective in running trials that disprove many of these theories about complementary medicines. You might remember the large and well-published Echinacea trial which was run using the wrong dosage of the herb and which then failed -- as of course it would. Even NCCAM has people running research studies who are just not knowledgeable about their subject matter.
Despite it's inherent problems, I think that some good can come out of keeping an open mind, and an NIH with a place to put ideas about alternatives is a better NIH. Click on the headline in today's blog post to link to a Washington Post article which describes the push to de-fund the NCCAM.
Dave
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Tart Cherries and Osteoarthritis Pain Relief
There's a cherry that appears to promise some relief for the estimated 27 million Americans who suffer from osteoarthritis. These patients have searched for pain relief from many quarters, and it is interesting that a new natural product may indeed offer pain-relief for this common and debilitating form of arthritis.
A 2007 pilot study at the Baylor Research Institute (Houston) showed that more than half of those in the trial experienced a significant improvement in pain and function after taking tart cherry for eight weeks. Osteoarthritis, the most common type of arthritis, is considered degenerative and typically affects the hands, feet, spine, and large weight-bearing joints, such as the hips and knees. Patients with osteoarthritis of the knees were enrolled in this pilot study to assess potential efficacy of supplements made from Montmorency tart cherries. The preparation is made up of ground whole cherries and is provided to trial participants as a soft gelatin capsule.
“The current treatment of osteoarthritis is largely focused on controlling pain through use of over-the-counter acetaminophen or prescription pain medications as well as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,” explains John J. Cush, M.D., rheumatologist and principal investigator of the study. “These conventional medications are widely used, but have not been shown to alter the natural history of the disease. In some cases, overuse may contribute to significant gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, hematologic, renal and liver toxicity.”
That's why it is nice to see studies being conducted on a natural product for this problem; many people have had success with tart cherry long before this trial. Its surprising to me that every supplier of tart cherry has received warning letters from the FDA about their label claims. I would think that there is now enough evidence for tart cherry to allow some kind of supplement statement referring to pain relief in osteoarthritis.
Baylor Research Institute together with the Arthritis Care & Research Institute is currently enrolling patients in a second study, which will test cherry pills versus placebo in an eight week double blind study.
Dave
A 2007 pilot study at the Baylor Research Institute (Houston) showed that more than half of those in the trial experienced a significant improvement in pain and function after taking tart cherry for eight weeks. Osteoarthritis, the most common type of arthritis, is considered degenerative and typically affects the hands, feet, spine, and large weight-bearing joints, such as the hips and knees. Patients with osteoarthritis of the knees were enrolled in this pilot study to assess potential efficacy of supplements made from Montmorency tart cherries. The preparation is made up of ground whole cherries and is provided to trial participants as a soft gelatin capsule.
“The current treatment of osteoarthritis is largely focused on controlling pain through use of over-the-counter acetaminophen or prescription pain medications as well as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,” explains John J. Cush, M.D., rheumatologist and principal investigator of the study. “These conventional medications are widely used, but have not been shown to alter the natural history of the disease. In some cases, overuse may contribute to significant gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, hematologic, renal and liver toxicity.”
That's why it is nice to see studies being conducted on a natural product for this problem; many people have had success with tart cherry long before this trial. Its surprising to me that every supplier of tart cherry has received warning letters from the FDA about their label claims. I would think that there is now enough evidence for tart cherry to allow some kind of supplement statement referring to pain relief in osteoarthritis.
Baylor Research Institute together with the Arthritis Care & Research Institute is currently enrolling patients in a second study, which will test cherry pills versus placebo in an eight week double blind study.
Dave
Surgical Complications Dramatically Higher for Smokers
Wouldn't you think that if you were going into the hospital to have surgery, and your doc asked you to stop smoking in advance of the operation (and for a few weeks afterwards) that you might at least consider that request?
It turns out that in a study of exactly this, the great percentage of smokers who were told about prospective complications to their surgery declined to stop smoking for the operation. Still, more than a third of patients who took part in this eight-week smoking cessation program before and after their planned surgery were able to give up and most of them were still smoke free after a year.
This study was published in the March 2009 issue of Anaesthesia. In the article, the lead author, Dr. Omid Sadr Azodi of the Karolinska Institute (Stockholm) describes how they also experienced half as many complications after surgery as the patients who did not receive help to give up smoking, with 21 percent experiencing problems as opposed to 41 percent. While doctors have long suspected that smokers have a greater risk for complications of any surgery, this is the first published trial I've seen that confirmed it.
It's also the first published trial I've seen which shows just how difficult it is to get those smokers to stop temporarily for their hospital visit. Patients declined to take part in the research because they were unwilling to give up smoking or were stressed by their forthcoming surgery.
“Smokers are prone to developing a number of complications after surgery, ranging from impaired wound and bone healing to life-threatening pulmonary and cardiovascular problems” says Dr Sadr Azodi. “This is why it is so important to find feasible, financially attractive and effective ways to help patients stop smoking before surgery."
Dave
It turns out that in a study of exactly this, the great percentage of smokers who were told about prospective complications to their surgery declined to stop smoking for the operation. Still, more than a third of patients who took part in this eight-week smoking cessation program before and after their planned surgery were able to give up and most of them were still smoke free after a year.
This study was published in the March 2009 issue of Anaesthesia. In the article, the lead author, Dr. Omid Sadr Azodi of the Karolinska Institute (Stockholm) describes how they also experienced half as many complications after surgery as the patients who did not receive help to give up smoking, with 21 percent experiencing problems as opposed to 41 percent. While doctors have long suspected that smokers have a greater risk for complications of any surgery, this is the first published trial I've seen that confirmed it.
It's also the first published trial I've seen which shows just how difficult it is to get those smokers to stop temporarily for their hospital visit. Patients declined to take part in the research because they were unwilling to give up smoking or were stressed by their forthcoming surgery.
“Smokers are prone to developing a number of complications after surgery, ranging from impaired wound and bone healing to life-threatening pulmonary and cardiovascular problems” says Dr Sadr Azodi. “This is why it is so important to find feasible, financially attractive and effective ways to help patients stop smoking before surgery."
Dave
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Low G.I. Meals Affect Appetite Reducing Hormone Production
It's been discovered that eating a meal with a low GI (glycemic index) increases gut hormone production, which leads in turn to suppression of appetite and the feeling of fullness. This new research was presented at the annual Society for Endocrinology meeting in the U.K.
Researchers from King’s College (London) studied the effects of a low versus high GI meal on levels of gut hormones. It has long been known that eating low GI foods seems to provide a feeling of fullness, but this is the first study to provide clues as to how it works -- there actually appears to be a physiological effect going on.
Glycemic Index (GI) is a ranking assigned to carbs based upon their effect on the body’s blood sugar levels. It's already been shown that a low GI meal takes longer to digest and releases sugar into the bloodstream more slowly than a high GI meal. High GI foods include white bread, donuts and cornflakes, whereas multi-grain breads, soy milk and most fruit and vegetables are all classed as low GI foods.
Dr Reza Norouzy and colleagues at King’s College London looked at the effects of a single low GI meal and compared the gut hormone levels in twelve healthy volunteers with those who had eaten a single high GI meal. Blood samples were then taken every 30 minutes for 150 minutes, and levels of the gut hormone glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and insulin were measured. This particular hormone, GLP-1, is produced by the gut and it has been shown to cause a feeling of fullness and suppression of appetite.
Volunteers who ate a low GI breakfast had 20% higher blood plasma levels of GLP-1 compared to those who had consumed a high GI breakfast. These results show for the first time that eating a low GI meal increases GLP-1 production. This means that there is indeed a physiological response to the feeling of fullness you get after eating low GI foods. Click on the headline of today's post if you want to see a chart of various foods and their Glycemic Index positioning.
Dave
Researchers from King’s College (London) studied the effects of a low versus high GI meal on levels of gut hormones. It has long been known that eating low GI foods seems to provide a feeling of fullness, but this is the first study to provide clues as to how it works -- there actually appears to be a physiological effect going on.
Glycemic Index (GI) is a ranking assigned to carbs based upon their effect on the body’s blood sugar levels. It's already been shown that a low GI meal takes longer to digest and releases sugar into the bloodstream more slowly than a high GI meal. High GI foods include white bread, donuts and cornflakes, whereas multi-grain breads, soy milk and most fruit and vegetables are all classed as low GI foods.
Dr Reza Norouzy and colleagues at King’s College London looked at the effects of a single low GI meal and compared the gut hormone levels in twelve healthy volunteers with those who had eaten a single high GI meal. Blood samples were then taken every 30 minutes for 150 minutes, and levels of the gut hormone glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and insulin were measured. This particular hormone, GLP-1, is produced by the gut and it has been shown to cause a feeling of fullness and suppression of appetite.
Volunteers who ate a low GI breakfast had 20% higher blood plasma levels of GLP-1 compared to those who had consumed a high GI breakfast. These results show for the first time that eating a low GI meal increases GLP-1 production. This means that there is indeed a physiological response to the feeling of fullness you get after eating low GI foods. Click on the headline of today's post if you want to see a chart of various foods and their Glycemic Index positioning.
Dave
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Dangerous Antibiotic Resistant Microbes - Now Spread by Flies
Recently, researchers at Johns Hopkins (Baltimore, MD) found evidence that houseflies collected near broiler poultry operations may contribute to the dispersion of drug-resistant bacteria and thus increase the potential for human exposure to drug-resistant bacteria. In fact, there is a great concern now about these resistant strains, and a lot can be learned about what not to do based on a study of the commercial poultry industry.
Dr. Robert Lawrence of the Center for a Livable Future (Johns Hopkins) believes that confined animal feeding operations—where thousands of birds are crowded together and fed antibiotics—create the perfect environment for new strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. Although he didn't state it in the release from JHU, I believe that this same issue is seen in commercial production of hogs and other animals as well.
“Antimicrobials are among the most important developments of the twentieth century in managing infectious diseases in people. We can’t afford to squander them by using them as growth promoters in industrial food animal production. The increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a major threat to the health of the public, and policymakers should quickly phase out and ban the use of antimicrobials for non-therapeutic use in food animal production,” said Lawrence.
In the work done by Johns Hopkins, Graham and his colleagues collected flies and samples of poultry litter from poultry houses along the coastal region shared by Maryland, Delaware and Virginia, which has one of the highest densities of chickens per acre in the United States. The research team isolated antibiotic-resistant enterococci and staphylococci bacteria from both flies and litter. These flies, of course, have a large radius from where they are discovered, with lots of human interactions along the way.
“Flies are well-known vectors of disease and have been implicated in the spread of various viral and bacterial infections affecting humans, including enteric fever, cholera, salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis and shigellosis,” said lead author Jay Graham, PhD, who conducted the study as a research fellow at JHU. "Our study found similarities in the antibiotic-resistant bacteria in both the flies and poultry litter we sampled. The evidence is another example of the risks associated with the inadequate treatment of animal wastes.”
Dave
Dr. Robert Lawrence of the Center for a Livable Future (Johns Hopkins) believes that confined animal feeding operations—where thousands of birds are crowded together and fed antibiotics—create the perfect environment for new strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. Although he didn't state it in the release from JHU, I believe that this same issue is seen in commercial production of hogs and other animals as well.
“Antimicrobials are among the most important developments of the twentieth century in managing infectious diseases in people. We can’t afford to squander them by using them as growth promoters in industrial food animal production. The increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a major threat to the health of the public, and policymakers should quickly phase out and ban the use of antimicrobials for non-therapeutic use in food animal production,” said Lawrence.
In the work done by Johns Hopkins, Graham and his colleagues collected flies and samples of poultry litter from poultry houses along the coastal region shared by Maryland, Delaware and Virginia, which has one of the highest densities of chickens per acre in the United States. The research team isolated antibiotic-resistant enterococci and staphylococci bacteria from both flies and litter. These flies, of course, have a large radius from where they are discovered, with lots of human interactions along the way.
“Flies are well-known vectors of disease and have been implicated in the spread of various viral and bacterial infections affecting humans, including enteric fever, cholera, salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis and shigellosis,” said lead author Jay Graham, PhD, who conducted the study as a research fellow at JHU. "Our study found similarities in the antibiotic-resistant bacteria in both the flies and poultry litter we sampled. The evidence is another example of the risks associated with the inadequate treatment of animal wastes.”
Dave
Monday, March 16, 2009
Frankincense Oil Shown as Possible Bladder Cancer Treatment
Over many centuries, Frankincense oil has been found to have medicinal benefits. Now, an enriched extract of the Somalian Frankincense herb (Boswellia carteri) has been shown to kill off bladder cancer cells growing in culure. Research presented in the journal BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine demonstrates that this herb has the potential to become an alternative therapy for bladder cancer.
Originating from Africa, India, and the Middle East, this herb has a variety of sub-species types, and the oil tested in this research study was that originating from B. carteri. There is quite a history of using Frankincense oil in Ayurvedic medicine as well.
Bladder cancer is twice as common in males as it is in females and it is the fourth most frequently diagnosed type of cancer (in the USA) in men, while in the UK it is the seventh most common cause of death amongst males.
Dr. H.K. Lin and his team, from the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center and Oklahoma City VA Medical Center, set out to evaluate Frankincense oil for its anti-tumor activity in bladder cancer cells growing in culture. The authors investigated the effects of the oil in two different types of cells: human bladder cancer cells and normal bladder cells. What was most interesting was that the team found frankincense oil is able to discriminate between normal and cancerous bladder cells in culture where it specifically killed cancer cells.
Gene expression analyses were performed to determine how Frankincense oil affects bladder cancer cell survival. The team found that the oil suppresses cancer cell growth by arresting cell-cycle progression and induces bladder cancer cell death by activating multiple cell death (apoptosis) pathways. In other words, it tricks cancer cells into killing themselves.
“Frankincense oil may represent an inexpensive alternative therapy for patients currently suffering from bladder cancer,” said the author, Dr. Lin. Knowing that cells in culture do not always operate the same way in the body, I expect that there will need to be considerably more work before practitioners are using this alternative remedy or pharmaceutical companies are developing a chemical spin-off which they can patent.
Dave
Originating from Africa, India, and the Middle East, this herb has a variety of sub-species types, and the oil tested in this research study was that originating from B. carteri. There is quite a history of using Frankincense oil in Ayurvedic medicine as well.
Bladder cancer is twice as common in males as it is in females and it is the fourth most frequently diagnosed type of cancer (in the USA) in men, while in the UK it is the seventh most common cause of death amongst males.
Dr. H.K. Lin and his team, from the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center and Oklahoma City VA Medical Center, set out to evaluate Frankincense oil for its anti-tumor activity in bladder cancer cells growing in culture. The authors investigated the effects of the oil in two different types of cells: human bladder cancer cells and normal bladder cells. What was most interesting was that the team found frankincense oil is able to discriminate between normal and cancerous bladder cells in culture where it specifically killed cancer cells.
Gene expression analyses were performed to determine how Frankincense oil affects bladder cancer cell survival. The team found that the oil suppresses cancer cell growth by arresting cell-cycle progression and induces bladder cancer cell death by activating multiple cell death (apoptosis) pathways. In other words, it tricks cancer cells into killing themselves.
“Frankincense oil may represent an inexpensive alternative therapy for patients currently suffering from bladder cancer,” said the author, Dr. Lin. Knowing that cells in culture do not always operate the same way in the body, I expect that there will need to be considerably more work before practitioners are using this alternative remedy or pharmaceutical companies are developing a chemical spin-off which they can patent.
Dave
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
