Researchers found a correlation between a higher omega-6-to-omega-3 blood ratio and the occurrence of depression, as well as the occurrence of inflammation-promoting compounds in the blood, according to a small study published in the journal Psychosomatic Medicine.
Researchers from Ohio State University College of Medicine in Columbus looked at fatty acid intake, inflammation and depression levels in 43 senior citizens. Six of the participants were found to meet the criteria for major depression. These six participants had a significantly higher ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids than the participants who were not depressed, an average of 18:1 compared with 13:1.
Among those who were depressed, a higher omega-6-to-omega-3 ratio was found to correlate with the level of depressive symptoms.
The study authors said that the average hunter-gatherer diet provides a ratio of two or three to one, compared with the modern Western ratio of 15-17:1.
Participants who were depressed also had higher blood levels of tumor necrosis factor alpha, interleukin-6 and other compounds known to cause inflammation. These compounds have been linked to arthritis, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and other health problems. Researcher Janice K. Kiecolt-Glaser calls them "all-purpose 'nasties' for aging."
The exact nature of the relationship between inflammation, depression and fatty acid ratio is unclear. Prior studies have demonstrated that depression, in and of itself, causes inflammation, while other studies have shown that increased omega-3 intake helps prevent depression.
Omega-3 fatty acids naturally occur in foods such as flax seed oil, walnuts and fish. Omega-6 fatty acids are the kind found in the refined vegetable oils most commonly used for cooking. The spike in omega-6 intake in the West dates to the early 20th century, when refined vegetable oil use first became common.
In addition to eating foods rich in omega-3s, those wishing to achieve a healthier omega-6:omega-3 balance can also take steps to lower their omega-6 blood levels.
"If people actually had more fruits and vegetables in their diet, they probably would have less omega-6," Kiecolt-Glaser said.
20 March 2008
High-Fructose Corn Syrup Causes Severe Liver Damage
A diet high in fat and in high fructose corn syrup may cause severe liver problems in people with a sedentary lifestyle, according to a study conducted by researchers from Saint Louis University and presented this year at the Digestive Diseases Week meeting in Washington, D.C.
Researchers fed mice a diet that was 40 percent fat and high in high fructose corn syrup for 16 weeks. In contrast to other studies, where mice have been fed a regulated amount, the animals in the study were allowed to eat as much as they wanted. They were kept sedentary and prevented from exercising.
"We wanted to mirror the kind of diet many Americans subsist on, so the high fat content is about the same you'd find in a typical McDonald's meal, and the high fructose corn syrup translates to about eight cans of soda a day in a human diet, which is not far off with what some people consume," said Brent Tetri, M.D., an associate professor of internal medicine at Saint Louis University Liver Center.
To the researchers' shock, it took only four weeks for the first signs of serious health problems to emerge.
"We had a feeling we'd see evidence of fatty liver disease by the end of the study," Tetri said. "But we were surprised to find how severe the damage was and how quickly it occurred. It took only four weeks for liver enzymes to increase and for glucose intolerance -- the beginning of Type 2 diabetes -- to begin."
According to Tetri, preliminary research suggests that fructose actually suppresses the body's feeling of fullness, whereas foods rich in fiber activate it. This meant that the mice didn't know when to stop eating, even though their diet was exceptionally high in calories.
High fructose corn syrup is a widely used sweetener, particularly in the United States, where corn is cheap and sugar importation is expensive.
"A high-fat and sugar-sweetened diet compounded by a sedentary lifestyle will have severe repercussions for your liver and other vital organs," Tetri warned.
Researchers fed mice a diet that was 40 percent fat and high in high fructose corn syrup for 16 weeks. In contrast to other studies, where mice have been fed a regulated amount, the animals in the study were allowed to eat as much as they wanted. They were kept sedentary and prevented from exercising.
"We wanted to mirror the kind of diet many Americans subsist on, so the high fat content is about the same you'd find in a typical McDonald's meal, and the high fructose corn syrup translates to about eight cans of soda a day in a human diet, which is not far off with what some people consume," said Brent Tetri, M.D., an associate professor of internal medicine at Saint Louis University Liver Center.
To the researchers' shock, it took only four weeks for the first signs of serious health problems to emerge.
"We had a feeling we'd see evidence of fatty liver disease by the end of the study," Tetri said. "But we were surprised to find how severe the damage was and how quickly it occurred. It took only four weeks for liver enzymes to increase and for glucose intolerance -- the beginning of Type 2 diabetes -- to begin."
According to Tetri, preliminary research suggests that fructose actually suppresses the body's feeling of fullness, whereas foods rich in fiber activate it. This meant that the mice didn't know when to stop eating, even though their diet was exceptionally high in calories.
High fructose corn syrup is a widely used sweetener, particularly in the United States, where corn is cheap and sugar importation is expensive.
"A high-fat and sugar-sweetened diet compounded by a sedentary lifestyle will have severe repercussions for your liver and other vital organs," Tetri warned.
Do National Dietary Guidelines Do More Harm Than Good?
ScienceDaily (Jan. 23, 2008) — For nearly three decades, Americans have become accustomed to hearing about the latest dietary guidelines, which are required by federal regulation to be revised and reissued at five-year intervals. Mid-way to the drafting of the 2010 guidelines, researchers at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University raise questions about the benefits of federal dietary guidelines, and urge that guideline writers be guided by explicit standards of evidence to ensure the public good. The researchers, led by Paul Marantz, M.D., MPH, associate dean for clinical research education at Einstein, outline their argument in the January 22 online edition of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
"When dietary guidelines were initially introduced in the late 1970s, their population-based approach was especially attractive since it was presumed to carry little risk," says Dr. Marantz, who also is professor of epidemiology and population health, and of medicine at Einstein. "However, the message delivered by these guidelines might actually have had a negative impact on health, including our current obesity epidemic. The possibility that these dietary guidelines might actually be endangering health is at the core of our concern about the way guidelines are currently developed and issued."
Dr. Marantz and colleagues argue that if guidelines can alter behavior, such alteration could have positive or negative effects. They cite how, in 2000, the Dietary Guideline Advisory Committee suggested that the recommendation to lower fat, advised in the 1995 guidelines, had perhaps been ill-advised and might actually have some potential harm. The committee noted concern that "the previous priority given to a 'low-fat intake' may lead people to believe that, as long as fat intake is low, the diet will be entirely healthful. This belief could engender an overconsumption of total calories in the form of carbohydrates, resulting in the adverse metabolic consequences of high-carbohydrate diets," the committee wrote, while also noting that "an increasing prevalence of obesity in the United States has corresponded roughly with an absolute increase in carbohydrate consumption."
Dr. Marantz and colleagues present data that support these trends; however, they are careful to note that this temporal association does not prove causation. Instead, says Dr. Marantz, "it raises the possibility of a net harmful effect of seemingly innocuous dietary advice. These dietary recommendations did not necessarily cause harm, but there is a realistic possibility that they may have."
"As doctors, our first call is to do no harm," he adds. "That's why we recommend that guidelines be generous in providing information, but more cautious in giving direction. Any directions should be based on the very highest standards of scientific evidence. After all, we expect that much from pharmaceutical companies before they bring a new drug to market."
In a commentary published in the same issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, from Virginia Commonwealth University and Marion Nestle, PhD, MPH, of New York University, maintain that the guidelines are supported by decades of research. While they agree with Dr. Marantz that people often compensate for low-fat intake by consuming more calories, they disagree that the guidelines were wrong to encourage low-fat diets. "The guidelines were not the culprit," said Dr. Woolf, who believes that the government was right to share what was known about the dietary causes of disease.
Woolf and Nestle do not dispute that guidelines can have unintended consequences. However, they write, "When the prevailing message fails to achieve its intended aims or achieves the wrong ends, the solution is not to abandon the enterprise but to reshape the message to achieve desired outcomes."
Other Einstein researchers contributing to the paper are Michael Alderman, M.D., professor of epidemiology and population health and of medicine, and Elizabeth Bird.
Adapted from materials provided by Albert Einstein College of Medicine.
"When dietary guidelines were initially introduced in the late 1970s, their population-based approach was especially attractive since it was presumed to carry little risk," says Dr. Marantz, who also is professor of epidemiology and population health, and of medicine at Einstein. "However, the message delivered by these guidelines might actually have had a negative impact on health, including our current obesity epidemic. The possibility that these dietary guidelines might actually be endangering health is at the core of our concern about the way guidelines are currently developed and issued."
Dr. Marantz and colleagues argue that if guidelines can alter behavior, such alteration could have positive or negative effects. They cite how, in 2000, the Dietary Guideline Advisory Committee suggested that the recommendation to lower fat, advised in the 1995 guidelines, had perhaps been ill-advised and might actually have some potential harm. The committee noted concern that "the previous priority given to a 'low-fat intake' may lead people to believe that, as long as fat intake is low, the diet will be entirely healthful. This belief could engender an overconsumption of total calories in the form of carbohydrates, resulting in the adverse metabolic consequences of high-carbohydrate diets," the committee wrote, while also noting that "an increasing prevalence of obesity in the United States has corresponded roughly with an absolute increase in carbohydrate consumption."
Dr. Marantz and colleagues present data that support these trends; however, they are careful to note that this temporal association does not prove causation. Instead, says Dr. Marantz, "it raises the possibility of a net harmful effect of seemingly innocuous dietary advice. These dietary recommendations did not necessarily cause harm, but there is a realistic possibility that they may have."
"As doctors, our first call is to do no harm," he adds. "That's why we recommend that guidelines be generous in providing information, but more cautious in giving direction. Any directions should be based on the very highest standards of scientific evidence. After all, we expect that much from pharmaceutical companies before they bring a new drug to market."
In a commentary published in the same issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, from Virginia Commonwealth University and Marion Nestle, PhD, MPH, of New York University, maintain that the guidelines are supported by decades of research. While they agree with Dr. Marantz that people often compensate for low-fat intake by consuming more calories, they disagree that the guidelines were wrong to encourage low-fat diets. "The guidelines were not the culprit," said Dr. Woolf, who believes that the government was right to share what was known about the dietary causes of disease.
Woolf and Nestle do not dispute that guidelines can have unintended consequences. However, they write, "When the prevailing message fails to achieve its intended aims or achieves the wrong ends, the solution is not to abandon the enterprise but to reshape the message to achieve desired outcomes."
Other Einstein researchers contributing to the paper are Michael Alderman, M.D., professor of epidemiology and population health and of medicine, and Elizabeth Bird.
Adapted from materials provided by Albert Einstein College of Medicine.
18 March 2008
Former Drug Sales Rep Tells All
Shahram Ahari, who spent two years selling Prozac and Zypraxa for Eli Lily, told a Senate Committee that his job involved "rewarding physicians with gifts and attention for their allegiance to your product and company despite what may be ethically appropriate."
Ahari claimed that drug companies often hire former cheerleaders and ex-models, as well as former athletes and members of the military, even if they have no background in science. "On my first day of sales class, among 21 trainees and two instructors, I was the only one with any level of college-level science education," said Ahari.
During their five-week training class, Ahari was taught sales tactics, including how to exceed spending limits for important clients, how to be generous with free samples to leverage sales, how to use friendships and personal gifts to foster a "quid pro quo" relationship, and how to exploit sexual tension.
Ahari claims that he's heard stories about sales reps helping to pay the cost of a doctor's swimming pool, or taking a doctor to a nightclub where a hostess was paid to keep him company.
Sources:
* ABC News March 12, 2008
Ahari claimed that drug companies often hire former cheerleaders and ex-models, as well as former athletes and members of the military, even if they have no background in science. "On my first day of sales class, among 21 trainees and two instructors, I was the only one with any level of college-level science education," said Ahari.
During their five-week training class, Ahari was taught sales tactics, including how to exceed spending limits for important clients, how to be generous with free samples to leverage sales, how to use friendships and personal gifts to foster a "quid pro quo" relationship, and how to exploit sexual tension.
Ahari claims that he's heard stories about sales reps helping to pay the cost of a doctor's swimming pool, or taking a doctor to a nightclub where a hostess was paid to keep him company.
Sources:
* ABC News March 12, 2008
The Danger of Excessive Childhood Vaccinations
By Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.
In 1976, children received 10 vaccines before attending school. Today they will receive over 36 injections. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Center for Disease Control assured parents that it was safe to not only give these vaccines, but that they could be given at one time with complete safety.
Is this true? Or are we being lied to on a grand scale?
The medical establishment has created a set of terms, which they use constantly to boost their egos and firm up their authority as the unique holders of medical wisdom -- the mantra is “evidence-based medicine”, as if everything outside their anointing touch is bogus and suspect.
A careful examination of many of the accepted treatments reveals that most have little or no scientific “evidence-based” data to support it. One often repeated study found that almost 80 percent of medical practice had no scientific backing.
I find it interesting that there exist an incredible double standard when it comes to our evidence versus theirs. The proponents of vaccination safety can just say they are safe, without any supporting evidence what-so-ever, and it is to be accepted without question.
Yet, let me, or anyone else, suggest that excessive vaccination can increase the risk of not only autism, but also schizophrenia and neurodegenerative diseases, and they will scream like banshees – Where is the evidence? Where is the evidence?
When we produce study after study, they always proclaim them to be insufficient evidence or unacceptable studies.
More often than not, they just completely ignore the evidence. This is despite the fact that we produce dozens or even hundreds of studies that not only demonstrate the link clinically and scientifically, but also clearly show the mechanism by which the damage is being done -- even on a molecular level. These include cell culture studies, mixed cell cultures, organotypic tissue studies, in vivo animal studies using multiple species and even human studies. To the defenders of vaccine safety -- our evidence is never sufficient and, if we face reality -- never will be.
The Autism Disaster: Is it Man Made?
In the early 1980s, the incidence of autism was 1 in 10,000 births. By 2005, the incidence had leaped to 1 in 250 births, and today it is 1 in 150 births and still climbing.
One of the strongest links to this terrible set of disorders was a drastic change in the vaccine programs of the United States and many other countries, which included a dramatic increase in the number of vaccines being given at a very early age. No other explanation has been forthcoming from the medical elite.
In this paper I shall present evidence, some of which has not been adequately discussed, that provides a connection between excessive vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders.
I urge you to read Dr. Blaylock’s full-length article, The Danger of Excessive Vaccination During Brain Development: The Case for a Link to Autism Spectrum Disorders, a Mercola.com exclusive, for a in-depth understanding of how childhood vaccinations can damage your child’s brain, resulting in autism.
In 1976, children received 10 vaccines before attending school. Today they will receive over 36 injections. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Center for Disease Control assured parents that it was safe to not only give these vaccines, but that they could be given at one time with complete safety.
Is this true? Or are we being lied to on a grand scale?
The medical establishment has created a set of terms, which they use constantly to boost their egos and firm up their authority as the unique holders of medical wisdom -- the mantra is “evidence-based medicine”, as if everything outside their anointing touch is bogus and suspect.
A careful examination of many of the accepted treatments reveals that most have little or no scientific “evidence-based” data to support it. One often repeated study found that almost 80 percent of medical practice had no scientific backing.
I find it interesting that there exist an incredible double standard when it comes to our evidence versus theirs. The proponents of vaccination safety can just say they are safe, without any supporting evidence what-so-ever, and it is to be accepted without question.
Yet, let me, or anyone else, suggest that excessive vaccination can increase the risk of not only autism, but also schizophrenia and neurodegenerative diseases, and they will scream like banshees – Where is the evidence? Where is the evidence?
When we produce study after study, they always proclaim them to be insufficient evidence or unacceptable studies.
More often than not, they just completely ignore the evidence. This is despite the fact that we produce dozens or even hundreds of studies that not only demonstrate the link clinically and scientifically, but also clearly show the mechanism by which the damage is being done -- even on a molecular level. These include cell culture studies, mixed cell cultures, organotypic tissue studies, in vivo animal studies using multiple species and even human studies. To the defenders of vaccine safety -- our evidence is never sufficient and, if we face reality -- never will be.
The Autism Disaster: Is it Man Made?
In the early 1980s, the incidence of autism was 1 in 10,000 births. By 2005, the incidence had leaped to 1 in 250 births, and today it is 1 in 150 births and still climbing.
One of the strongest links to this terrible set of disorders was a drastic change in the vaccine programs of the United States and many other countries, which included a dramatic increase in the number of vaccines being given at a very early age. No other explanation has been forthcoming from the medical elite.
In this paper I shall present evidence, some of which has not been adequately discussed, that provides a connection between excessive vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders.
I urge you to read Dr. Blaylock’s full-length article, The Danger of Excessive Vaccination During Brain Development: The Case for a Link to Autism Spectrum Disorders, a Mercola.com exclusive, for a in-depth understanding of how childhood vaccinations can damage your child’s brain, resulting in autism.
Meat Packer Admits Slaughter of Diseased Cows
At first, Steve Mendell, president of the Westland/Hallmark Meat Company, denied under oath that his company had apparently introduced sick cows into the hamburger supply. But then he grudgingly admitted it was the case.
Mendell said, “I was shocked. I was horrified. I was sickened,” by video that showed employees kicking or using electric prods on “downer” cattle that were too sick to walk.
Mr. Mendell first told lawmakers that sick animals were not slaughtered for food, so no safety issue existed. But he retracted the statement when shown a second video in which a “downer” cow was shocked and abused by workers trying to move it to the “kill box.” They finally shot it with a bolt gun and dragged it by a chain to the processing area.
Sources:
* New York Times March 13, 2008
Mendell said, “I was shocked. I was horrified. I was sickened,” by video that showed employees kicking or using electric prods on “downer” cattle that were too sick to walk.
Mr. Mendell first told lawmakers that sick animals were not slaughtered for food, so no safety issue existed. But he retracted the statement when shown a second video in which a “downer” cow was shocked and abused by workers trying to move it to the “kill box.” They finally shot it with a bolt gun and dragged it by a chain to the processing area.
Sources:
* New York Times March 13, 2008
Breast-Feeding Curbs Type 2 Diabetes
Breast-fed babies are less likely to develop type 2 diabetes when they reach adolescence, according to recent findings.
The researchers used a subset of data from a larger study. Their analysis included 80 subjects with type 2 diabetes who were matched to more than twice as many control subjects who were free of the disease.
The breast-feeding rate was lower in subjects with type 2 diabetes. The protective effect was in large part attributable to the ability of breast-feeding to moderate childhood weight.
Sources:
* Reuters March 13, 2008
The researchers used a subset of data from a larger study. Their analysis included 80 subjects with type 2 diabetes who were matched to more than twice as many control subjects who were free of the disease.
The breast-feeding rate was lower in subjects with type 2 diabetes. The protective effect was in large part attributable to the ability of breast-feeding to moderate childhood weight.
Sources:
* Reuters March 13, 2008
Antibiotics Are No Good for Sinusitis
About 90 percent of people with sinusitis are prescribed antibiotics. But an analysis of nine trials has shown the drugs make no difference, even if the patient has been ill for more than seven days.
Sinusitis is very common, with 1 to 5 percent of adults diagnosed every year. It can cause high temperature, pain and tenderness in the face and forehead, and a blocked or runny nose.
It had been thought that a lengthy illness of this type could indicate a bacterial, rather than viral, infection -- which could presumably be cured with antibiotics. But the research showed that 15 patients would need to be treated before even one would be cured with antibiotics.
Sources:
* BBC News March 14, 2008
Sinusitis is very common, with 1 to 5 percent of adults diagnosed every year. It can cause high temperature, pain and tenderness in the face and forehead, and a blocked or runny nose.
It had been thought that a lengthy illness of this type could indicate a bacterial, rather than viral, infection -- which could presumably be cured with antibiotics. But the research showed that 15 patients would need to be treated before even one would be cured with antibiotics.
Sources:
* BBC News March 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)