According to the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), women may be limiting their birth control options unnecessarily.

The researchers believe that prior studies haven’t shown a substantial link between using the pill and gaining weight. They believe that many women are gaining weight simply because they’re getting older, regardless of whether they use the pill or not.

The same is true of the contraceptive patch and the contraceptive vaginal ring, according to IQWiG scientists.

Fluid retention and increased fat or an increase in appetite from birth control pills has been blamed for causing weight gain.

But I reviewed the reasons that IQWiG gives for disputing the link between using birth control pills and gaining weight. And they’re simply saying that prior studies haven’t been conducted in a way to definitively prove the link.

That doesn’t mean a link doesn’t exist. It just means it hasn’t been scientifically concluded that a link exists.

At least, that’s how I interpreted their arguments.

If you want to see what they’re saying for yourself, here’s the link to their website…

Do Birth Control Pills Cause Weight Gain?

In my opinion, without firm evidence either way, it’s just as misleading to say the link doesn’t exist as to say it does.

If you have questions about weight gain from using birth control pills or other hormonal contraceptives, you should consult your doctor.

Technorati Tags: birth control pills, hormonal contraception, weight gain

According to a new report from the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), you should keep your Body Mass Index (BMI) within the 20 to 25 range to minimize your cancer risk.

Most people have a BMI higher than this range.

The researchers also found that gaining weight can increase your risk of cancer even if you’re in the healthy BMI range.

So they advise you to avoid weight gain as an adult if you’re in the healthy range and lose weight if you’re already overweight.

Here are some of the other dietary conclusions they reached:

1. Alcohol consumption increases the risk of cancers of the breast, colorectum, larynx, mouth, oesophagus, and pharynx.

It also causes cirrhosis which is linked to liver cancer.

2. Eating processed and red meats significantly raises the risk of developing colorectal cancer.

People who eat the most processed or red meat have a 30% higher risk when compared to those who eat the least.

Processed meats include bacon and ham.

3. For new mothers, breastfeeding exclusively during the first six months protects you from breast cancer.

It also reduces the chance of your child becoming obese later in life.

4. Foods high in folate may reduce the risk of pancreatic cancer.

5. Diets rich in calcium may reduce the risk of colorectal cancer.

The researchers didn’t believe that dietary supplements were useful in preventing cancer.

They also didn’t find a protective effect from eating fruits and vegetables.

Even so, they recommend that people eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables each day.

Technorati Tags: obesity, diet, dieting, lose weight, weight loss, cancer

But are you risking your health to lose weight with aspartame?

An international panel of experts from 10 universities and medical schools reviewed over 500 studies from the 1970s until now to find out.

They evaluated the safety of aspartame for people of all ages.

But they didn’t just look at healthy people. They also reviewed the effects of aspartame usage on adults and children with diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and depression.

They also looked at the effects on hyperactive and sugar-sensitive children.

Here’s what this expert panel concluded from their study:

1. There’s no evidence to show that aspartame causes obesity. In fact, the experts believe that aspartame can help with long-term weight control when used with other weight loss programs.
2. Aspartame doesn’t cause cancer.
3. They found no proven adverse effects on reproduction or lactation.
4. Aspartame can be used safely by diabetics.
5. There isn’t any evidence of neurological effects, such as learning or memory problems.
6. Most of the evidence shows that aspartame doesn’t affect behavior, neural function, cognitive function, or seizures in any of the groups that were studied.
7. Aspartame isn’t linked to brain tumors, leukemia or lymphoma.

The study of this panel of experts is published in the September issue of Critical Reviews in Toxicology.

It was funded by a manufacturer of aspartame, Ajinomoto Company, Inc. Their website can be found at www.ajinomoto.com if you want to learn more about them.

Their site also has many links to information about aspartame.

Technorati Tags: aspartame, weight loss, lose weight, obesity, diabetes, depression, Parkinson’s disease, cancer

“I was very angry when I heard he died. He didn’t have to die. He knew he had prostate cancer and he did nothing about it. He deserved to die.”

I hope he was misquoted. But if he wasn’t…

Was he trying to be funny? I don’t know much about Jerry Lewis’ comedy. He wasn’t a comedian for my generation. But that comment doesn’t seem funny to me.

Was the remark taken out of context? I can’t think of a context in which it would be anything other than completely heartless to say that Merv Griffin (or anyone else) deserved to die from prostate cancer.

I could understand someone making the first 3 lines of that comment.

A lot of people get angry at loved ones when they die. It’s an emotion you don’t really want to feel. But you’re angry because they left you behind or because you believe their death was unnecessary.

It’s part of the grieving process.

But I can’t understand, “He deserved to die.”

Jerry Lewis is a man who’s come to symbolize compassion toward sick people, especially children, with all the years of his Jerry Lewis Muscular Dystrophy Association Telethon.

His telethon was always held on Labor Day weekend, as I remember.

How would he feel – or how would any of “his kids” feel – if someone said they deserved to die? For any reason.

Merv Griffin was an adult. He had the right to make his own medical decisions.

It’s also a bit presumptuous to claim that Mr. Griffin would’ve been cured with treatment.

Many people seek treatment for cancer, prostate or otherwise, and die anyway. Sometimes, cancer patients regret seeking treatment because the side effects can make their lives a living hell.

Sometimes, after cancer patients have been through a number of treatments, they knowingly decide to forgo any further treatments.

They choose to die.

And sometimes, cancer patients make that same decision before undergoing any cancer tests or treatment.

It’s their life, it’s their death, and it’s their choice to make.

Who is Jerry Lewis to decide how any of us should live our lives? Who is he to decide what any of us “deserve?”

I think his remark is heartless – especially because he had the nerve to say such a thing on a national TV show. He should’ve kept it to himself.

With friends like him…

Some scientists believe that infection with human adenovirus-36 may be a contributing factor.

Researchers from the Pennington Biomedical Research Center originally demonstrated that the virus could cause animals to become fatter.

Then The Scientists Turned To Humans

They found that when human stem cells were exposed to this virus, the stem cells turned into fat cells and stored fat, too.

They also identified a gene in the virus that seems to cause this obesity effect. Which could lead to the development of a medication or vaccine to battle viral obesity.

An earlier study showed that 30% of obese people had been infected with adenovirus-36 at some point. Only 11% of thin people had.

This new study shows that the virus can actually cause fat to accumulate in human cells.

The Researchers Couldn’t Ethically Infect Humans With This Virus

So they took adult stem cells from the fatty tissue of liposuction patients. Half of these stem cells were exposed to the virus.

About a week later, most of the virus-infected stem cells turned into fat cells and accumulated fat. Most of the non-infected cells didn’t.

The scientists don’t know exactly how this virus may cause obesity. They also don’t know how long the virus stays in the human body or how long the obesity effect lasts.

In animal studies, the infected animals remained obese up to 6 months after their infection went away.

Here’s My Question: How Long Has This Virus Been Around?

Because if it’s longer than a couple of decades, it doesn’t make sense to blame the obesity epidemic on a virus.

Can it be a contributing factor?

Sure, why not. So is lack of sleep.

But why do other cultures suddenly become fat when they adopt lifestyles similar to ours? Do they suddenly become infected with this virus?

If it’s the same virus that caused animals to become fat, then why don’t people lose their obesity within 6 months of the virus going away just like the animals did?

The Numbers In This Study Don’t Explain An Epidemic

Only 30% of obese people had been infected with this virus. That means 70% of obese people, the majority, weren’t infected. But they’re still overweight.

Obviously, you should always go to your doctor to rule out medical problems as a cause for obesity. Maybe this virus will become one more.

But I think we’re all grasping for a reason to overlook the main cause of obesity – our lifestyles.

I don’t believe you have to torture yourself to lose weight. But you do have to take responsibility for the actions that caused you to gain weight and change them.

In most cases, the answer is simple: eat less.

It’s the solution few people want to face.

Technorati Tags: obesity, lose weight, weight loss, adenovirus-36, obesity epidemic

In an 8-2 ruling, the court decided that it’s unacceptable to risk speeding up the deaths of terminally ill patients by using experimental drugs without proven benefits.

But shouldn’t someone facing a certain death have the right to try anything to save himself (as long as it doesn’t harm others)?

True, these patients may die faster by taking experimental drugs. But they may also be helped.

It’s Their Risk To Take

Or at least it should be.

You have to wonder what the court is thinking here. Are they really trying to protect the terminally ill?

I can’t understand how prolonging someone’s death helps him if you’re denying that patient a chance, however slim, at life.

So I don’t believe that this court decision is really aimed at protecting the terminally ill.

Then why would they make this ruling?

Perhaps to protect a larger population of healthier patients.

These healthier patients might never get access to drugs that could benefit them if the drugs make terminally ill patients die.

Drug Companies Also Benefit From This Decision

A lot of research and development money could be lost if the terminally ill have bad outcomes. They could shut down the clinical trials of new drugs before they’ve been fully investigated on a larger population of patients.

Still, it’s hard – and seemingly hardhearted – to argue that terminally ill patients don’t have the right to take any risk to save their lives.

I think one possible solution is to legally separate the data from clinical trials for FDA approval from the data on drug usage by terminally ill patients.

That way, the effects on the terminally ill won’t stop beneficial drugs from reaching healthier patients who may have better outcomes.

Of course, there may be a public relations problem with continuing to investigate drugs that have harmed terminally ill patients.

But we wouldn’t have that information anyway under the current rules.

So patients in traditional clinical trials are not protected from harm by this court decision.

The only people who stand to lose are the terminally ill who have lost already.

Why not give them a chance at life?

Technorati Tags: terminal illness, experimental drugs, clinical trials

Dr. Ahmedna is now refining the process to remove allergens from other foods.

I hope it’s true. But as someone who’s suffered from “call 9-1-1″ allergies for years, the evidence isn’t strong enough for me to believe it yet.

Also, for sensitive individuals, how do we know his process won’t introduce new allergens?

I didn’t see any details on exactly how Dr. Ahmedna did it (not that I would necessarily understand it anyway), but he hasn’t actually tested his peanuts on people as far as I know.

His proof of an allergen-free peanut consists of:

1. Immunoassays that show complete inactivation of peanut allergens in whole roasted kernels…
2. In tests of the processed peanuts, no reaction on human serums from severely allergic individuals…

As anyone who’s had prick skin tests for food allergies probably knows, the allergy tests for foods can be notoriously inaccurate.

You may get false positives (showing an allergic reaction for a food you can safely eat) and false negatives (showing no reaction for a food you’re allergic to).

I realize it’s not exactly the same test, but the point is that allergic individuals can’t know for sure until they EAT the peanut. Until then, it’s theory.

A patent on the allergen-free peanut is pending. Food companies are showing strong interest in licensing the process.

But I think before anyone rushes this processed peanut to market, they’d better do the equivalent of a clinical trial to test it — just as you would with a new medicine.

In the past 5 years, the number of U.S. children suffering from peanut allergy has doubled.

Up to 150 deaths occur annually among the 3 million Americans affected by peanut and tree nut allergies.

If they bring this peanut to market without proper testing and they’re wrong, a lot of people could be hospitalized or even die.

Technorati Tags: peanut, peanut allergy, food allergy, allergen-free peanut

Despite federal spending of over $1 billion on these programs this year alone, the childhood obesity epidemic continues to grow.

Does anyone really expect the majority of kids to pick fruits and vegetables over junk food if they’re given a choice?

I think that’s the crux of the problem: “if they’re given a choice…”

If you let kids decide on their bedtime, most will stay up late.

If you let them determine their hygiene habits, most kids won’t take a bath often.

And if you let kids make all or most of their own food choices, they’ll choose what tastes best to them — junk food.

That’s why kids have parents. To make the healthy, responsible, and often unpopular choices.

It’s also not realistic to think you can control what your kids eat when they’re not with you.

I remember bringing my lunch to elementary school. It was usually a sandwich, a cupcake or some sweet snack, and an apple.

My mother always packed apples because she figured they were healthy.

And they would’ve been — except I pitched them into the garbage can. So did all the other kids.

Still, there was no childhood obesity epidemic when I was young… even though most of us ate junk food when we got home from school.

Here’s why:

Our parents made us eat good dinners with all those pesky vegetables. We didn’t eat fast food every day.

In the summer, we rode bikes and went swimming. In the winter, we built snowmen or ran around inside.

Even if we just sat around, we didn’t stuff our faces 24 hours a day. Our parents set limits. We didn’t get a choice.

It’s great to educate kids about nutrition. But they’re still kids. They just want to do what feels good. They don’t worry about developing heart disease or diabetes. That’s our job.

So I think this is less a problem of nutrition education and more a problem of parental oversight.

That doesn’t mean there will never be another obese kid. But an epidemic suggests a cultural problem, not just a food problem.

You don’t have to stop your kids from eating junk food altogether. But you can set limits and enforce them at home.

You can make your kids get exercise.

If you’re tempted to make excuses, then answer this: if you knew your child would die tomorrow or next week unless you controlled his eating, would work or any other excuse stop you?

Of course not. You’d find a way.

I know that sounds harsh. It’s not meant to place a guilt trip on anyone. But the health consequences for these kids are serious.

Maybe I’m wrong.  But I’m firmly convinced the answer to the childhood obesity epidemic starts at home.

Technorati Tags: obesity, childhood obesity epidemic, lose weight, weight loss, nutrition, nutrition education

Could their good intentions be bad medicine?

In a recent study by the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, actors posed as patients in secretly recorded medical visits to test this theory.

The researchers expected that chatty doctors would encourage patients to open up about their own problems. Supposedly, this would give the doctor valuable information to help in treating their patients.

But The Results Were Quite Different…

Out of 113 patient visits with primary care physicians, the doctors revealed personal information 34% of the time.

None of these personal disclosures were focused on the patient. In fact, 85% were considered useless and 11% were actually disruptive.

Part of the problem may be today’s shortened office visits.

If a doctor interrupts the flow of your complaints with information about himself, the researchers found that 79% of the time, the conversation never returned to your problems.

So instead of helping you, the doctor may actually hurt you by failing to address your concerns.

Sometimes, The Doctors Were Just Selfish…

They were looking to have their own needs met… like when they complained about workplace stress or financial problems.

In those cases, the researchers suggested that doctors use support groups, not patient visits, to take care of their own needs.

I’ve occasionally noticed some one-upmanship when I’ve gone to a doctor.

One time, I had pain in my right side from my appendix.

Instead of trying to figure out what was wrong with me, the doctor kept telling me about pain he’d once experienced from a kidney stone.

He said I couldn’t possibly have anything serious until I’d had the kind of pain where you can’t move — like his kidney stone pain.

He never did diagnose me correctly. But I did feel his pain when I got the bill.

The researchers say this type of disruptive behavior occurs about 11% of the time. I say don’t pay the bill and see how quickly that 11% goes to zero.

But Usually, They Were Just Trying To Help…

In most cases, the doctors were genuinely trying to build better relationships with their patients through self-disclosure.

The problem was that their comments had nothing to do with their patients.

The researchers concluded that self-disclosures from doctors are ultimately misguided — and bad medicine.

Instead, they believe physicians should show compassion and understanding toward their patients as a means to deepen the doctor-patient relationship.

That way, you not only feel more trusting of your doctor, but you receive better health care, too.

Personally, I’d settle for the right diagnosis, the right treatment, and a bill that doesn’t bankrupt me — all on the first visit. Beyond that, I don’t care what the doctor talks about.

But that’s just me. What do you think?

Technorati Tags: doctors, health care

This could revolutionize cosmetic and reconstructive surgery.

It may also help to control diseases associated with obesity. And explain why stress can cause weight gain…

… if only the researchers can transfer their results to humans.

In a recent study published in the journal, Nature Medicine, scientists from Georgetown University Medical Center identified a biological switch through which stress can trigger obesity.

The Researchers Experimented On Mice

But they expect human studies to begin within 2 years.

Earlier research has shown that chronic stress, such as long-term marital problems or job insecurity, may cause some people to gain weight.

Using mice, researchers wanted to explore why this happens.

But it took more than stressing out the poor animals. The scientists found that a combination of stress AND a junk food diet was necessary to cause fat deposits around the abdomen.

This is the kind of apple-shaped obesity which can result in diabetes, heart disease and cancer in humans.

Without getting too technical, stress causes a chemical messenger in the body, called NPY, to go through a molecular doorway, called Y2R, to activate fat cells and produce unhealthy changes in metabolism.

The Fat Just Melted Away

When the researchers injected a drug to block Y2R — in essence, slamming the door shut on the stress-induced chemicals — the mice lost 40% of their abdominal fat.

Plus all signs of diabetes and other illnesses vanished.

So if you’re under stress, it may not be your fault if you’re gaining more weight than normal for what you’re eating.

Someday, a drug may be used to melt this fat away.

Although it isn’t expected to reverse gross obesity, the drug could be used in place of or in combination with liposuction.

The Fountain Of Youth?

The scientists also experimented with slow-release NPY pellets, the chemical that causes fat.

When these pellets were inserted under the skin of mice and monkeys, pockets of fat grew around the pellets.

Plastic surgeons could use this technique on humans to make faces more youthful or to enhance other areas such as breasts. It could also help with reconstructive surgery.

But while the research is promising, it isn’t an excuse to eat what you want until a shot is developed.

No one knows what the side effects will be. Or if it will work in humans at all.

Technorati Tags: obesity, stress, metabolic syndrome, weight loss, lose weight, cosmetic surgery, reconstructive surgery, liposuction

But when I heard that Pfizer, Inc., introduced an injectable diet drug for dogs last month, I saw red.

About 5% of American dogs are obese, which is defined as 20% or more over their ideal weight. Another 20% to 30% of dogs are simply overweight.

So now if you own an obese or overweight dog, your vet can inject the poor pooch with Slentrol, the diet drug from Pfizer.

Side effects include vomiting, diarrhea, loss of appetite, and lethargy.

They should also include a psychiatric exam for any owner who would do that to their dog. This is by far the most stupid, irresponsible piece of diet news I’ve ever heard.

These dogs aren’t feeding themselves.

As a society, how lazy have we become when we start giving diet drugs to our dogs instead of taking responsibility for their weight gain and their health?

Here’s my 2-step program for overcoming a doggie obesity problem:

1. Quit giving your dog so much food.
2. Get off your duff and walk the poor mutt.

I’d really like to say more, but I’m not sure I want it in writing.

By the way, this drug is not for humans. Any human who takes this doggie diet drug can look forward to the possibility of abdominal pain or distention, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, flatulence, and/or headache. 

End of rant.

Technorati Tags: diet drug, diet drug for dogs, obese dogs, dog, dogs

The U.S. government has issued a warning to consumers. Avoid all toothpaste made in China. It may contain a poisonous chemical used in antifreeze called diethylene glycol, or DEG.

If you own toothpaste that is labelled as made in China, throw it away. Chinese toothpaste is most often sold at bargain stores.

According to the FDA news release, here are at least some of the brands that the warning applies to: Cooldent Fluoride; Cooldent Spearmint; Cooldent ICE; Dr. Cool, Everfresh Toothpaste; Superdent Toothpaste; Clean Rite Toothpaste; Oralmax Extreme; Oral Bright Fresh Spearmint Flavor; Bright Max Peppermint Flavor; ShiR Fresh Mint Fluoride Paste; DentaPro; DentaKleen; and DentaKleen Junior.

The entire FDA News Release can be found at:

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2007/NEW01646.html

Original post below:

Tainted pet food killed or sickened many dogs and cats in the U.S. earlier this year. The lethal ingredient was wheat flour contaminated with melamine, a chemical used in plastics.

The FDA traced the source of this contamination to 2 companies in China.

Now there’s growing concern that the problem has moved beyond pet food. To imported products used by humans.

At least one man has been sentenced to die.

Inspections Can Only Do So Much

The FDA can’t inspect all imported food. The volume is so great, it wouldn’t be practical.

In March, the FDA stopped over 200 shipments of food from China. Oranges, dates, and plums all contained unsafe ingredients. There were other problems, too.

Last week, the FDA ordered that Chinese imports of toothpaste be tested for safety before entering the U.S.

Diethylene glycol, a dangerous chemical, has already been discovered in Chinese toothpaste in other countries.

The Chinese Response

China is adopting a food-recall system to deal with this problem. They want to restore confidence in their products at home and abroad.

They’ve also taken a more dramatic action.

The Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court has sentenced Zheng Xiaoyu, the former head of the State Food and Drug Administration, to death.

Technically, Zheng was convicted of taking at least $850,000 in bribes from 8 drug companies.

He was sentenced to death due to the bribes and the damage to the country caused by his dereliction of duty.

But it doesn’t take a political analyst to see that China is sending a message.

China has also had safety problems with its drugs.

Does This Man Deserve To Die?

It’s not unusual for a Chinese official convicted of corruption to get a death sentence.

By U.S. standards, that seems harsh.

But I can’t help but think of all the people and pets who suffered or even died because Zheng and others allowed contaminated ingredients to go into food and drugs.

Just so they could line their pockets with cash and other gifts.

Is this really any different than if Zheng had put the poison in the food and drugs himself? We’d consider that to be murder in the U.S. Possibly punishable by death.

So what do you think?

Does this man deserve to die?

Technorati Tags: pet food recall, melamine, food safety, FDA, China

Now I’m not a fan of low-carb.

I don’t believe in eliminating any food groups when you diet. Because I just don’t think it’s healthy.

But I know a lot of people swear by low-carb diets.

So Exactly What Did These Researchers Find?

Well, according to a study published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, researchers from the University of Athens in Greece analyzed the diets of almost 23,000 Greek adults.

Using questionnaires, the researchers looked at how much protein and carbohydrates the participants ate versus their rates of death.

The Conclusion…

Over a 10-year period, people who ate low-carb, high-protein diets were more likely to die — by about 22%. They suffered more cardiovascular and cancer deaths.

Now the researchers didn’t say their results applied to short-term use of a low-carb diet. They were talking about long-term diet habits.

So How Do You View The Results Of This Study?

For the people who’ve heard of the study, there seems to be something of a fight to the death.

Many low-carb dieters don’t want to hear anything negative about their weight loss choice. Especially if it’s working for them.

On the other side, the low-carb critics can latch onto this study as another reason that low-carb is inadvisable, if not downright dangerous.

I don’t know if the conclusions drawn by the researchers are valid or not.

But Here’s My Question:

If you’re obese and you want to use a low-carb diet over a long period of time, does the risk of dying from the low-carb diet outweigh (no pun intended) the risk of dying from the unhealthy effects of obesity?

As far as I know, no one’s studied that.

But what if low-carb is the diet that fits your lifestyle and personality? Do you think it’s worth the risk?

Or do you think this study is flawed?

If You’re On Low-Carb, Would This Study Make You Switch Diets?

I don’t know how many low-carb dieters read this blog. But if you’re out there, give me your opinion.

Even if you’re not a low-carb dieter, let me know what you think.

What If Your Diet Had Been The One Implicated In This Study?

Suppose you’re obese and on a diet that’s working for you. You’ve tried just about everything else with no success. Then a study comes out saying you have a greater risk of dying if you continue with your diet.

Would you stay on it or would you switch to a supposedly safer diet?

Technorati Tags: diet, dieting, lose weight, weight loss, low carb

Let’s talk about weight loss first.

A doctors’ group, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, complained to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that the milk ads about weight loss were false and misleading.

The FTC didn’t stop the ads.

But the groups behind the “Milk Your Diet. Lose Weight!” and the “3-A-Day. Burn More Fat, Lose Weight” campaigns have agreed to end them anyway — at least until research provides more evidence to support the weight loss claims.

Now About Those Spots…

Data from a study of over 47,000 U.S. nurses by the Harvard School of Public Health showed that drinking milk was associated with a greater risk of acne. Skim milk was even worse than whole milk.

For women with the highest total milk intake — over 3 glasses a day — the increase in severe acne was 22%. This is when compared to women who drank the least milk.

For women who drank the most skim milk, the increase in severe acne was a whopping 44%!

Why Would This Happen?

No one knows for sure.

But milk comes from pregnant cows. So it’s possible that when you’re exposed to the hormones produced by the cows’ pregnancy, it may overload the hormone levels in your system.

And acne erupts.

Hormonal activity, such as menstrual cycles and puberty, is already linked to acne. So this may be true for some acne sufferers.

Yet there’s clearly a genetic link as well. I know I always drank a lot of milk. But I never had acne, even as a teenager.

A Potential Problem With The Study

The nurses were asked to “remember” what they had consumed during their high school years. So if their memories are faulty, the conclusions from the study will be wrong, too.

To confirm their findings, the researchers are analyzing information from the sons and daughters of the nurses in the original study.

But as of now, the link between acne and milk is technically unproven.

So if you or your child has acne, you may want to talk to your doctor about reducing or eliminating dairy products in your diet. Just to see if it helps.

But don’t do it without professional medical advice. You’ll need guidance on how to get enough calcium and vitamin D from other sources.

You don’t want to risk your bone or nutritional health just to get rid of some spots.

Technorati Tags: milk, acne, spots, dairy products, milk ads, skim milk

Should the celebrity be held accountable for all claims about the drug, even those not made in his ad?

The latest controversy concerns Dr. Robert Jarvik, who designed the Jarvik-7 artificial heart. He stars in print and TV ads for Pfizer’s popular anti-cholesterol drug, Lipitor.

Dr. Jarvik has been subpoenaed in a lawsuit by several labor unions.

They allege that the drug is marketed illegally. Supposedly, their health benefit programs paid for Lipitor for patients who shouldn’t have received it.

The controversy concerns “off-label marketing.”

According to the lawsuit, the FDA approved Lipitor for use with only certain patients, including those whose levels of bad cholesterol, LDL, were 160 ml/dL or higher.

But supposedly Pfizer marketed the drug for use in patients with LDL of 130 or above.

That means more sales for Pfizer and higher expenses for health benefit programs.

I believe the subpoena requires that Dr. Jarvik reveal what Lipitor documents he saw before making the ads, how much money he was paid, and records of his communications with Pfizer and its ad agencies.

I don’t believe that Dr. Jarvik is a defendant in the lawsuit.

There isn’t even an allegation, as far as I know, that his ads mention the off-label marketing of Lipitor.

There’s no doubt that companies like Pfizer use celebrity endorsements to increase the sales of their drugs.

I’ve seen Dr. Jarvik’s ad several times in the last week or so. And I have to admit it made me stop and think — even before I heard of this lawsuit.

I wondered if he really used Lipitor or if he was just a paid spokesman?

I’m not convinced of the benefits of anti-cholesterol drugs. I think there are too many side effects. So I’d try to change my diet first.

But for people who aren’t as skeptical of these drugs as I am, would the presence of Dr. Jarvik spur them to ask their doctors about Lipitor?

I believe it would. But that’s not the issue.

The real question is whether Dr. Jarvik should be held responsible for Pfizer’s claims about Lipitor, especially if those claims weren’t made in his ads?

Maybe the real intent of this subpoena is to scare celebrities away from drug endorsements by appearing to hold them accountable for actions over which they have no control.

If celebrities stop endorsing drugs, sales will go down. And so will the expenses for health benefit programs.

I believe the entire concept of advertising drugs directly to the public is wrong. In my opinion, it drives up the costs of health care by artificially increasing the demand for drugs.

But it’s up to the FDA and the FTC to stop this type of advertising.

I don’t believe it’s fair to hold people like Dr. Jarvik responsible for statements and marketing decisions they didn’t make.

The CEOs of the drug companies should be responsible for that.

Technorati Tags: celebrity endorsements, anti-cholesterol drugs, drug marketing

In another example of functional foods — which are foods that provide a health benefit beyond basic nutrition — The Heart Healthy Road Pizza may soon roll out to your grocer’s shelves or your local pizzeria.

If they agree to distribute this new product.

Road Pizza Company has applied for a patent for their new thin crust pizza which is supposed to lower LDL, the bad type of cholesterol.

The company has added plant sterols, called VitaSterols, to the cheese topping and the dough to help consumers to reduce their cholesterol.

I can’t comment on their cholesterol claims. And it’s too soon to say how the pizza will taste.

But I’m really concerned about all these enhanced functional and bioengineered foods. No one really knows what the long-term effects of tampering with our food will be.

Sure, we’re told it will benefit our health. But that’s what we were told when saturated fats were replaced by trans fats, too.

Now city after city across the U.S. is banning trans fats because the experts were wrong about their health claims.

But it took a decade before they realized their mistake. It turned out that trans fats increase LDL cholesterol (the bad one) and decrease HDL cholesterol (the good one).

So they actually increase your risk of heart disease.

Many people are unaware that interesterified fats — which are largely replacing trans fats — have been shown to significantly raise blood sugar and depress insulin. That’s a diabetes risk.

Worst of all, interesterified fats still reduce HDL (the good cholesterol). So there’s still a heart risk.

Want a non-food example? How about HRT, hormone replacement therapy?

That was touted for years as a way to not only stop hot flashes for older women, but also to protect their hearts. Years later, we find out it doesn’t protect your heart, but it may cause breast cancer.

So you see, this is why I’m skeptical of functional food claims. Again, I have no knowledge of whether The Heart Healthy Road Pizza will live up to the company’s claims or not.

And I certainly don’t want to single them out.

But I really wish we’d just go back to natural foods. Or at least, I’d like to see the results of long-term studies verifying health and safety claims before the public becomes guinea pigs in these modified food experiments.

What’s the big rush to market these functional and bioengineered foods? Is it really to benefit our health or is it just to increase company profits?

Technorati Tags: pizza, functional foods, cholesterol, HDL, LDL, bioengineered foods, trans fat, HRT, hormone replacement therapy

Instead, they say you should eat less and exercise more.

Huh? Isn’t that a diet?

Here’s what I think doesn’t work…

• Fad diets that restrict your calories too severely. Starvation, anyone?
• Diets that don’t let you eat from all the food groups. I know the low-carb dieters will disagree with me on that one. But if they stay on the diet long-term, I think they’ll find they’ve modified it so much that it isn’t truly low-carb any longer.
• Diets that expect you to give up all your bad habits at once and follow perfect eating and exercising habits. No one’s perfect. So that one’s destined to fail.
• Diets that don’t allow you to snack. I’ve noticed that more and more weight loss programs are beginning to allow controlled cheating. I guess they’re finally catching on.
• Diets that are just too darn hard. If you spend every moment of your life analyzing what you eat, when do you get to enjoy life?

And the list could go on and on.

There is no one diet that works for everyone. But I think people deserve better than a headline like “Diets Don’t Work.”

To just let the obesity epidemic continue is unhealthy. There has to be some answer to it.

I realize people will think I have a vested interest in saying that diets do work. But I actually believe most don’t for the reasons I listed above.

That’s why I created my own.

But I also don’t believe for a minute that everyone should be on my diet. It will work for some people and not for others.

In fact, I plan to talk about that subject in a future post — how to determine what type of diet will fit your lifestyle and your personality.

I think the most important factor is whether you can live with your new eating habits for a lifetime. If you can’t, the diet won’t work for you.

That’s why my diet doesn’t have a separate maintenance plan. Because either your eating habits work or they don’t.

But that’s not news. That’s common sense.

So what do you think? Do diets work? Yes or no?

If no diet works, then what do you suggest? And why do you think your suggestion will work for everyone?

Or do you think we just have to live with obesity?

Technorati Tags: diet, dieting, lose weight, weight loss, obesity

The latest news comes from scientists at the University of Bristol in the U.K.

They’ve published a study in the journal, Hypertension, suggesting that high blood pressure comes from inflammation in the blood vessels in your brain.

The researchers isolated a brain protein, JAM-1, which traps white blood cells.

They believe that the trapped cells may cause inflammation and restrict the oxygen supply to your brain. This supposedly causes high blood pressure.

It’s a controversial view.

The study involved rats only so there’s no guarantee that the outcome will be the same for humans.

But if the results can be replicated, it may lead to new ways of treating high blood pressure. Most likely, new drugs that reduce blood vessel inflammation and increase the blood flow to your brain.

Using today’s blood pressure drugs, many people still have hypertension. So I hope these scientists investigate their theory further.

But I wonder if instead of chasing the next big drug, the medical community should concentrate on a food-based solution.

I stumbled upon one in the 1990s which I detailed in I Love to Cheat.

A year or two after my discovery, the DASH diet was published. While I believe DASH is more restrictive than it needs to be, it does show that a food-based treatment can work for some people.

I know mine worked extremely well even if it was just one person. Our doctors didn’t believe we could do it. But the results were hard to deny.

As far as I can tell, there are no side effects with eating foods to reduce blood pressure. But there aren’t any big drug company profits, either.

So I suspect we’ll be looking at new drugs and new side effects in the future.

It’s a shame that profits so often drive medical research. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if our health and well-being were the priority instead?

Technorati Tags: high blood pressure, hypertension, diet

But is this truly an explanation for the obesity epidemic?

Or is everyone just looking for an excuse to shift the blame from our poor eating and exercise habits?

Published today in the journal, Science, the study says that if you carry one copy of the FTO gene variation, you have a 30% increase in obesity risk.

With two copies (meaning you got a copy from both parents), there’s a 70% increase in obesity risk and a 40% increase in Type II diabetes risk.

The researchers studied 38,000 adults and children in the U.K. and Europe.

But here’s where they lost me.

Their results showed that the people most at risk for obesity (i.e., with 2 copies of the FTO gene variation) weighed about 7 pounds more than people with no copies.

7 pounds is not obesity. It’s not even a full dress size.

In the U.S. during the 1990s, obesity skyrocketed from 12% to 18%. It’s even worse in the southern U.S. with a 67% surge. Georgia took the lead at 101%.

So how does the FTO gene variation theory explain this?

Did the genes suddenly appear in the 1990s? Are more overweight people getting together to spread 2 copies of their FTO gene variations?

I believe that some people are more prone to gain weight than others. There’s probably a genetic explanation for this.

But obesity? I’m more inclined to believe we’ve done that to ourselves.

If you look at how much and how often people eat today versus even a couple of decades ago, it’s hard to ignore a pattern of overindulgence.

People also get less exercise today. Even kids stay indoors playing sedentary computer games instead of playing outside and getting some exercise.

Sometimes, I think these studies are just another way of excusing the obesity epidemic and allowing all of us to avoid taking personal responsibility for our lifestyle choices.

What do you think?

Technorati Tags: FTO gene, obesity, overweight

City after city in the U.S. has banned trans fats like they’re trying to protect us. Of course, they neglect to tell us that trans fats are being replaced mostly by a type of fat that could be even worse.

But I’ve already blogged about that in Ban Trans Fats, Increase Diabetes?

Clogging your arteries is so yesterday.

No, today I’d like to talk about the dunderheads who decided it was healthy to put arsenic in our food.

Anyone who reads my blog probably knows I don’t believe in going to extremes to lose weight or eat healthy. I don’t cut the fat off pork chops or the skin off chicken.

Life’s too short.

If they keep putting arsenic in our food, it may get even shorter.

You’re safe if you live in the European Union. They don’t allow this foolish practice.

But here in the U.S., chicken producers use over 2 million pounds a year of roxarsone — an FDA-approved feed additive made from arsenic — to fight parasites, improve meat color, and produce bigger-breasted birds.

To me, common sense suggests that if you feed a potential POISON to chickens, there will be some negative health consequences down the road.

But why bother with common sense when we can spend millions of dollars studying the obvious: should we feed a potential poison to the chickens we eat?

About 95% of the arsenic passes through the birds. It can end up as fertilizer and possibly contaminate drinking water.

The rest of the arsenic settles into the chickens, including their meat.

The FDA believes the level of arsenic in the birds is safe. But the U.S. Department of Agriculture only tests chicken livers. They don’t test for arsenic in breast and thigh meat, which is what most of us eat.

They also don’t address the issue of cumulative human exposure. Chronic arsenic exposure may cause cancer, heart disease, and brain damage.

Tyson Foods and a few other chicken producers have stopped using arsenic in their feed. But most chickens in the U.S. still eat arsenic.

Yes, it’s nice to know the government is watching out for our health. We can chow down on arsenic in our chickens and mercury in our fish.

But hey, at least we’re protected from trans fats.

Technorati Tags: arsenic, chicken, nutrition, roxarson, FDA, trans fat