Fewer sugary drinks may lower blood pressure: study

They found overweight people with high blood pressure who drank one less sugar-laden beverage a day significantly lowered their blood pressure over 18 months.

For most Americans this means cutting soft drink intake in half.

"We found if you lower your consumption of sugary drinks, it may help you reduce your blood pressure," said Dr. Liwei Chen of Louisiana State University Health Science Center, whose findings appear in the journal Circulation.

"If you reduce your consumption by two servings, you would probably lower your blood pressure even more," Chen said in a telephone interview.

The study adds to mounting pressure on U.S. food and beverage companies as newly passed health reform legislation shifts the nation's focus on ways to prevent disease as well as treat it.


Too much sugar not only makes people fatter, but is also a key culprit in diabetes, heart disease and stroke, according to the American Heart Association.

Several states, including New York and California, have weighed a tax on sweetened soft drinks to defray the cost of treating obesity-related diseases.

A report by the U.S. Institute of Medicine in February declared high blood pressure a "neglected disease" in the United States, accounting for one in six deaths and adding $73 billion a year in health costs.

Chen's study looked specifically at the effect of sugar intake on blood pressure. The team used data on 810 adults aged 25 to 79 with borderline high blood pressure -- readings of 120/80 to 139/89 -- and stage I hypertension -- readings of 140/90 and 159/99

At the start of the study, people drank 10.5 ounces (310 ml), or roughly one serving, of sweetened beverages a day. They included drinks sweetened with sugar or high-fructose corn syrup such as soft drinks, fruit drinks and lemonade.

After 18 months, average consumption had fallen by half a serving, and both the systolic blood pressure -- the "top number" blood pressure reading when the heart beats -- and diastolic blood pressure -- the "bottom number" reading between beats -- had fallen significantly.

They said drinking one less soft drink a day resulted in a 1.8 millimeters of mercury drop in systolic pressure and cut diastolic pressure by 1.1 millimeters of mercury.

"Weight loss is part of the reason but not all," Chen said, noting that even after controlling for that, the improvement in blood pressure was statistically significant.

She said American adults drink an average of 2.3 servings (28 ounces/828 ml) of sugar-sweetened beverages per day.

The American Beverage Association says sugar-sweetened drinks do not pose any particular health risk, and are not a unique risk factor for obesity or heart disease.

Vitamin E may protect lungs

People who take vitamin E supplements regularly for years -- whether they are smokers or nonsmokers -- may lower their risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the lung condition that is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States.

COPD includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis and is often, but not always, caused by smoking.

While the risk reduction is relatively small, 10 percent, COPD is a common and life-threatening condition in which a decline in lung function can be slowed down but not reversed. COPD symptoms include shortness of breath, coughing, and fatigue.

"The effect appears to be modest. But for something for which there isn't really any effective therapy and tends to be a degenerative condition, anything that would reduce the risk even somewhat is not an insubstantial benefit," says Jeffrey B. Blumberg, Ph.D., a professor of nutrition at Tufts University in Boston who was not involved in the study.

Exercise may keep cancer patients healthier during, after treatment

CHICAGO – Breast and prostate cancer patients who regularly exercise during and after cancer treatment report having a better quality of life and being less fatigued, according to researchers at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit.

"Using exercise as an approach to cancer care has the potential to benefit patients both physically and psychologically, as well as mitigate treatment side effects," says study lead author Eleanor M. Walker, M.D., division director of breast services in the Department of Radiation Oncology at Henry Ford Hospital.

"Plus, exercise is a great alternative to patients combating fatigue and nausea who are considering using supplements which may interfere with medications and chemotherapy they're taking during cancer treatment."

Dr. Walker will present a poster with the study's design and intervention methods June 7 at the 2010 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting in Chicago. The abstract is now available online at www.ASCO.org.

To study how exercise impacts cancer patients, Dr. Walker and her colleagues at Henry Ford's Josephine Ford Cancer Center and the Henry Ford Heart & Vascular Institute developed a unique program called ExCITE (Exercise and Cancer Integrative Therapies and Education).

ExCITE works with patients who are receiving cancer treatment to create individualized exercise programs. Some patients come into one of Henry Ford's fitness centers to workout, while others have plans that allow them to exercise at home during various stages of their care.

The study group thus far includes 30 female breast cancer patients and 20 prostate cancer patients, all ranging in age from 35 to 80. All were newly diagnosed when they began ExCITE. The study followed the patients during treatment and for one-year following completion of cancer treatment.

Before beginning the exercise program, Henry Ford's Preventative Cardiology Division measured the patients' exercise capacity, skeletal muscle strength and endurance. General blood work, metabolic screens, bone density and inflammatory biomarkers also were obtained at the start of the program.

Exercise and diet recommendation for each patient were based on their baseline exercise tolerances, weight, overall health, and type of cancer treatment they would receive. Acupuncture was used for patients who experienced hot flashes, pain, nausea/vomiting, insomnia and neuropathy as the result of cancer treatment.

Cheryl Fallen of Gross Pointe Park, Mich., was undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer while she took part in the ExCITE program. Through a mix of exercise, acupuncture and good nutrition, she didn't experiencing some of the more common side-effects from treatment – nausea, fatigue and trouble with memory.

"ExCITE offers cancer patients a way to holistically approach their cancer care by tailoring a specific exercise routine to fit the needs of the patient, whether it's rehabilitation after surgery, or to enhance circulation or improve the immune system prior to chemotherapy or radiation," says Fallen.

When her white blood cell count fell during chemotherapy, Fallen would work out at home using an exercise band or by walking outdoors. When she was well enough to return to the gym, her workouts consisted of using the exercise ball and treadmill, and doing other strength-training exercises.

"Overall, the program makes you feel better about yourself. It's a positive support for cancer patients, and I really think it's allowed me to be more productive during my treatment," says Fallen.

Study of the ExCITE program is ongoing, with Dr. Walker and her colleagues continuing to investigate the potential benefits of exercise for cancer patients.

Ginger May Ease Muscle Pain

Ginger root has been used as a folk remedy. Now researchers have found evidence that daily ginger consumption reduces muscle pain caused by exercise.

The study, which will be published in the September issue of the Journal of Pain, was funded by the McCormick Science Institute — yes, an offshoot of the company that makes and sells spices.

While ginger had been shown to exert anti-inflammatory effects in rodents, its effect on experimentally-induced human muscle pain was largely unexplored, said University of Georgia researcher Patrick O'Connor. It was also believed that heating ginger, as occurs with cooking, might increase its pain-relieving effects.

O'Connor directed two studies examining the effects of 11 days of raw and heat-treated ginger supplementation on muscle pain.

Participants in the studies, 34 and 40 volunteers, respectively, consumed capsules containing two grams of either raw or heat-treated ginger or a placebo for 11 consecutive days. On the eighth day they performed 18 extensions of the elbow flexors with a heavy weight to induce moderate muscle injury to the arm. Arm function, inflammation, pain and a biochemical involved in pain were assessed prior to and for three days after exercise.

The studies showed that daily ginger supplementation reduced the exercise-induced pain by 25 percent, and the effect was not enhanced by heat-treating the ginger.

The study involved a small number of individuals, however, and further study would be needed to confirm the results.

"The economic and personal costs of pain are extremely high," O'Connor said. "Muscle pain generally is one of the most common types of pain and eccentric exercise-induced muscle pain specifically is a common type of injury related to sports and/or recreation (e.g., gardening). Anything that can truly relieve this type of pain will be greatly welcomed by the many people who are experiencing it."

Study suggests processed meat a real health risk

Eating unprocessed beef, pork or lamb appeared not to raise risks of heart attacks and diabetes, they said, suggesting that salt and chemical preservatives may be the real cause of these two health problems associated with eating meat.

The study, an analysis of other research called a meta-analysis, did not look at high blood pressure or cancer, which are also linked with high meat consumption.

"To lower risk of heart attacks and diabetes, people should consider which types of meats they are eating," said Renata Micha of the Harvard School of Public Health, whose study appears in the journal Circulation.

"Processed meats such as bacon, salami, sausages, hot dogs and processed deli meats may be the most important to avoid," Micha said in a statement.

Based on her findings, she said people who eat one serving per week or less of processed meats have less of a risk.

The American Meat Institute objected to the findings, saying it was only one study and that it stands in contrast to other studies and the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

"At best, this hypothesis merits further study. It is certainly no reason for dietary changes," James Hodges, president of the American Meat Institute, said in a statement.

Most dietary guidelines recommend eating less meat. Individual studies looking at relationships between eating meat and cardiovascular diseases and diabetes have had mixed results.

But studies rarely look for differences in risk between processed and unprocessed red meats, Micha said.

She and colleagues did a systematic review of nearly 1,600 studies from around the world looking for evidence of a link between eating processed and unprocessed red meat and the risk of heart disease and diabetes.

They defined processed meat as any meat preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or with the addition of chemical preservatives. Meats in this category included bacon, salami, sausages, hot dogs or processed deli or luncheon meats.

Unprocessed red meat included beef, lamb or pork but not poultry.

They found that on average, each 1.8 oz (50 grams) daily serving of processed meat a day -- one to two slices of deli meats or one hot dog -- was associated with a 42 percent higher risk of heart disease and a 19 percent higher risk of developing diabetes.

They found no higher heart or diabetes risk in people who ate only unprocessed red meats.

The team adjusted for a number of factors, including how much meat people ate. They said lifestyle factors were similar between those who ate processed and unprocessed meats.

"When we looked at average nutrients in unprocessed red and processed meats eaten in the United States, we found that they contained similar average amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol," Micha said.

"In contrast, processed meats contained, on average, four times more sodium and 50 percent more nitrate preservatives," Micha added.

Last month, the Institute of Medicine urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate the amount of salt added to foods to help Americans cut their high sodium intake.

The FDA has not yet said whether it will regulate salt in foods, but it is looking at the issue.

Treating Neuromuscular Scoliosis with Chiropractics

Scoliosis іѕ thе kind οf ailment affecting thе spine thаt саn bе seen wіth thе naked eye. Referring tο аn aberrant curvature οf thе connected vertebrae, thіѕ condition mау present еіthеr bесаυѕе thеrе іѕ another condition whісh іѕ already affecting thе muscles οr bесаυѕе іt іѕ a birth defect. Sadly, scoliosis іѕ nοt thе kind οf condition thаt саn bе treated solely wіth chiropractic care, bυt instead іt іѕ a study іn trυе interdisciplinary cooperation.

Generally speaking, thе first indication thаt scoliosis іѕ apparent obviously comes wіth a curved spine. Thе curve mіɡht ɡο еіthеr tο thе left οr thе rіɡht, bυt іt іѕ painfully obvious. IntеrеѕtіnɡƖу, thіѕ condition іѕ nοt always a birth disorder bυt mау bе dormant until a later time, such аѕ adolescence, аt whісh point a sudden appearance οf a hump mау indicate thе problems thе spine іѕ experiencing. Adding tο thіѕ diagnosis іѕ thе fact thаt suddenly hips аnԁ shoulders аrе nο longer even bυt mау bе lacking symmetry.

At thіѕ time a physician іѕ usually sought out fοr hеƖр. WhіƖе ѕοmе patients wіƖƖ first ɡο tο a chiropractor, thе latter wіƖƖ generally emphasize thе need fοr another medical professional tο аƖѕο mаkе a diagnosis ѕіnсе oftentimes surgery іѕ necessitated bу thе presentation οf thе scoliosis. Whеn thе consultation wіth thе chiropractor occurs аftеr a diagnosis іѕ mаԁе bу a medical doctor, thе reason іѕ usually two-fold: thе goal іѕ еіthеr tο avoid surgery οr tο support thе surgeries thаt hаνе already occurred аnԁ thе medications thаt hаνе bееn prescribed. WhіƖе thе former generally speaking іѕ аn unlikely though nοt impossible scenario, thе latter іѕ a wise ԁесіѕіοn οn thе раrt οf thе patient.

Thе chiropractor wіƖƖ appreciate having access tο уουr x-rays simply tο confirm thе exact location οf thе problem. Additionally, аnу surgical procedures performed ѕhουƖԁ bе amply documented, preferably wіth a prognosis fοr results аnԁ a summary οf results actually obtained, аnԁ аƖѕο аn exact summary οf thе medications prescribed, thе frequency οf injections, аnԁ thе outlook fοr progression. Sadly, іn younger patients progression іѕ much more ƖіkеƖу thаn іn adult onset cases, уеt each case revolves οn іtѕ οwn facts аnԁ thеrе іѕ nο guarantee οf stemming thе effects οf scoliosis.

Quite οftеn chiropractors report thаt thеу hаνе ɡrеаt success whеn treating neuromuscular scoliosis, аnԁ іn addition tο mild manipulation thе stress іѕ рυt οn weight bearing exercises whісh аƖѕο focus οn maintaining аnԁ perhaps even increasing thе ability οf thе spine tο mονе. Thе goal іѕ tο avoid аn occurrence οf a slip whісh mау actually lead tο a decrease οf thе range οf motion instead οf аn increase. WhіƖе іt іѕ rare thаt thіѕ happens, іt іѕ a very real danger іf thе exercise regimen іѕ nοt strictly followed аnԁ thе patients spine іѕ permitted tο remain idle аnԁ without proper strength training. Thеrе аrе actually times whеn a chiropractor wіƖƖ suggest thе υѕе οf light muscle stimulation wіth thе hеƖр οf a low electric charge, уеt thіѕ іѕ rarely recommended without thе chiropractor аnԁ physician first communicating аbουt thе long term outlook аnԁ short term goal setting.

Vigorous exercise strengthens hip bones in young children

Researchers from Southhampton and Cambridge Universities in the UK have presented evidence that vigorous physical activity in young children results in stronger hip bones. The results were presented at the World Congress on Osteoporosis (IOF WCO-ECCEO10) in Florence, Italy.

More than 200 six-year olds participated in the study. Using advanced scanning technology, the researchers measured bone mass and analysed the structure of the femoral neck (hip) and thigh bone. Physical activity was assessed for seven continuous days.

The results showed that there was a relationship between time spent in vigorous activity and strength of the femoral neck, both in terms of shape and volumetric mineral density. This was independent of other factors such as diet, lifestyle and physical size.

This supports the argument that increasing physical activity in childhood is likely to improve childhood skeletal bone development, and is thus a potentially important public health strategy towards prevention of osteoporosis in later life.

Omega-3 linked to healthier, stronger bones: Rat study

Increased intakes of omega-3 fatty acids, and DHA in particular, may increase bone mineral content and produce healthier, stronger bones, suggest results from a study with rats.

Omega-3 is one of the stars of the nutrition industry, with the ingredients market valued at a whopping $1.6 billion by Frost & Sullivan. The fatty acids, most notably EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid), have been linked to a wide-range of health benefits, including reduced risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and certain cancers, good development of a baby during pregnancy, joint health, and improved behaviour and mood.

According to findings of a new study with rats, DHA “appears to be a vital constituent of marrow” and enhances bone mineral content (BMC). The findings did not extend to EPA, however.

Scientists from Purdue University, Indiana University School of Medicine, Korea Maritime University, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), report their findings in the British Journal of Nutrition.

Study details

Led by Purdue’s Dr Bruce Watkins, the researchers used dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry to assess the impact of DHA on bone mineral content, compared with the omega-6 DPA (docosapentaenoic acid) or DHA plus DPA.

Rat pups bred to be omega-3 deficient were randomly assigned to receive linoleic acid (LA)- enriched rat milk, or the LA milk supplemented 1 per cent DHA, 1 per cent DPA, or 1 per cent DHA plus 0.4 per cent DPA. Once the animals reached adulthood, the fatty acid levels in their tissues were measured, and their bone mineral density (BMD) determined.

Eating nuts can lower cholesterol, say experts

Eating nuts may help lower cholesterol levels, US research suggests.

The review of 25 studies, involving nearly 600 people, showed eating on average 67g of nuts - a small bag - a day reduced cholesterol levels by 7.4%.

The US Loma Linda University team believes nuts may help prevent the absorption of cholesterol.

UK experts said the research showed nuts were an important part of a healthy diet, but warned against eating nuts covered in sugar or salt.

Previous work has indicated eating nuts regularly is beneficial, but the Archives of Internal Medicine study set out to put an accurate figure on the effect.

The people involved ate 67g of nuts a day on average, over a period of three to eight weeks.

As well as improving cholesterol levels, it also reduced the amount of triglyceride, a type of blood fat that has been linked to heart disease.

However, the impact was least pronounced among the overweight.

It is not yet clear why nuts have this effect, although one suggestion is that it is down to the plant sterols they contain, which are thought to interfere with cholesterol absorption.

Lead researcher Joan Sabate said increasing nut consumption as part of a healthy diet should be recommended.

He added: "The effects of nut consumption were dose related, and different types of nuts had similar effects."

Ellen Mason, senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, agreed, but she urged people to go for unsalted nuts.

"Apart from salted peanuts at the pub, nuts in sugary cereals or the traditional Christmas selection, nuts have been largely lacking in our diets in the UK," she added.

The study was carried out by independent researchers, although it was partly funded by the International Tree Nut Council Nutrition Research and Education Foundation.

Infants Need More Vitamin D

Why anyone listens to doctors when it comes to anything related to diet and environment is beyond me. They’re always getting it wrong. They were wrong on fiber and diverticular disease for decades. They were wrong on the impact of pesticides and xenoestrogens released into the environment for years, too. And of course they were wrong on trans fatty acids until just a couple of years ago. Now it looks like they’ve been wrong on exposure to sunlight and the use of vitamin supplements. Hardly surprising! Ever since we all began covering up, on their advice, to avoid getting skin cancer, vitamin D shortage has become a serious problem among both kids and adults. The problem is that there are only two ways to get vitamin D — exposure to ultraviolet light and supplementation. Without either enough sun exposure or adequate supplementation, we all face vitamin D shortage and the concomitant problems of weak bones and vulnerability to disease. And thanks to your doctor’s advice, you’re short on both.

Now, a new study has found that most infants, whether bottle or breast-fed, get far too little vitamin D. The study, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), surveyed nine groups of mothers of children aged one to 10.5 months old. Each group contained between 1,633 and 1,952 mothers. The results showed that only five to 13% of breastfed infants (you read that correctly) and 20% to 37% of formula-fed babies get enough vitamin D daily. Back in 2008, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the minimum daily requirement of vitamin D be doubled because children now get far less sun now than in the past. Well, the medical community missed on that one too. The new study reflects shortages even at those higher levels.

The news came as a surprise to many physicians and patients, who assumed that formula, at least, provided the requisite amount of vitamin D. But in order to get the required amount of vitamin D from formula, babies would need to drink a full liter (34 ounces) a day, and most don’t come close to drinking that much. Baby formula does provide a richer source of vitamin D than does breast milk (more on this later) — but, as it turns out, richer doesn’t necessarily mean rich enough, given that about 2/3 of all formula-fed babies are vitamin-D deficient (again, compared to 95 percent of breast-fed infants). And babies can’t make up the shortfall from food sources like eggs and fish. In fact, it’s virtually impossible for anyone to meet minimum requirements of vitamin D through food. Sun is the best source, but again experts recommend against exposing infants to sun without protection, given the risks.

The risks of vitamin D shortage are also considerable, particularly for infants. Historically, the possibility of rickets was the biggest concern, causing bowing of the legs bone deformities, slow growth, swelling of wrists and ankles, and possibly breathing problems. But as Dr. Carrie Drazba, M.D., a pediatrician at Rush University Medical Center, in Chicago, points out, “We’re finding out that there are other risks associated with vitamin D deficiency besides rickets. A lot of cells in our body have receptors for vitamin D.”

In fact, studies have found that vitamin D bolsters the immune system and may protect against heart disease, certain cancers, schizophrenia, autoimmune disorders, respiratory ailments, and type 1 diabetes in children. Several studies last year found that vitamin D shortages in childhood may lead to a host of heart-risk factors, including high blood pressure, high blood glucose, and low HDL (or good cholesterol), later in life.

Adding fuel to the fire of the CDC study, simultaneous research from Boston Medical Center, just published in Pediatrics, also found high levels of vitamin D deficiency, this time in newborns and their moms. In this Boston study, 433 women and 376 newborns provided blood samples obtained within 72 hours of birth. Shockingly, 58 percent of the newborns had vitamin D deficiencies, as did 36 percent of mothers, with severe deficiencies showing up in about two-thirds of those cases. (More on this later.)

The solution, the experts contend, is to supplement. “We found that most infants, not just those who are breast-fed, may require an oral vitamin D supplement daily, beginning within their first few days of life, to meet the 2008 AAP recommendation that infants consume at least 400 IU/day of vitamin D,” said study director Dr. Cria G. Perrine. (More on this later.)

Apparently, most doctors still don’t recommend supplementation to their patients. In fact, as few as one percent of formula-fed babies and five-percent of breast-fed babies actually take vitamin D supplements. Frank R. Greer, MD, who headed the committee that came up with the new guidelines for vitamin D intake, says, “I am frankly surprised that more pediatricians are not recommending supplementation, especially to new moms who are breastfeeding.” (More on this later.) The study authors believe that many doctors are unaware that the recommendations have increased. They note, “Because physicians’ knowledge of the AAP [vitamin D] recommendations has been positively associated with the likelihood of their recommending vitamin D supplements, both healthcare providers and parents need to be educated about the AAP guidelines and the importance of vitamin D nutrition, including that infants should not be exposed to sunlight and, thus, need an alternate source of vitamin D.”

In fact, the Institute of Medicine is actively considering again raising its guidelines for vitamin D intake for adults as well as for children and will announce its decision in the coming months. I’ve written before that even with the higher levels of recommended intake, the guidelines for vitamin D are conservative, at best. Currently, the guidelines call for 400 IU a day for kids, but even a few minutes of sun exposure can generate 2000-4000 or more IU. Vitamin D toxicity does not usually develop below 10,000 units per day (for adults), so there’s plenty of room to increase the recommended dose. The second study found that even among those mothers who took prenatal vitamin D supplements in the last trimester of pregnancy, 30 percent remained vitamin-D deficient at the time of birth, showing that at current recommended levels, supplementing isn’t sufficient. (More on this later.)

“The most obvious way to correct deficiency is sensible sun exposure,” said the director of the second study, Dr. Anne Merewood. “While a sunburn should be avoided, even a small amount of time spent outdoors was protective against deficiency.” Most pediatricians insist that babies should not get sun exposure — period — unless they have on sunscreen and clothing that protects them, so this advice won’t help with doctor-abiding infants though it might help their moms.

Throughout this blog, I’ve been repeatedly saying, “More on this later.” And now we come to it. There is one simple reason that ties all of these problems together, that accounts for babies being born vitamin D deficient, for breast milk being deficient, and for infants being vitamin D deficient. Thanks to the medical community’s recommendations to avoid the sun and to restrict vitamin D supplementation to dangerously low levels, mothers themselves are vitamin D deficient. If mom is deficient, any baby is going to be born deficient by definition. The fetus can’t manufacture vitamin D from thin air. Likewise, if mom is deficient, then her breast milk will be deficient. Again, vitamin D can’t appear in the milk out of thin air. And finally, if vitamin D levels are insufficient in breast milk, then where is the infant going to get their vitamin D from — particularly if their doctor has banned them from the sun and is prescribing insufficient levels of supplementation.

The solution is for parents to supplement at higher levels (up to 2000 IU daily), enjoy short stints of 10 to 15 minutes in the sun (early morning or late afternoon), and lose weight to enhance vitamin D absorption. Doing these things should minimize the likelihood of passing on a deficiency to offspring. (Note: studies show that the dose required to achieve a healthy blood level of vitamin D is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000–4,000 IU per day — which is still less than that obtained through several minutes of sun exposure. Vitamin D toxicity does not usually develop below 10,000 units per day.) As for the babies, a few minutes of unprotected exposure to sunlight (again, early morning or late afternoon) is still your best bet. And keep in mind that the body’s production of vitamin D is self regulating. You cannot OD on vitamin D based on sun exposure alone. But if you feel more comfortable following your pediatrician’s advice to keep your baby out of the sun, then you’ll want to give your child up to a 1,000 IU a day of a high-quality vitamin D supplement.