Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    March 2024
    S M T W T F S
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘health’

The health hazards of burning ethanol

Posted by Richard on April 20, 2007

It seems that there's another downside to the latest fad for saving the planet, ethanol-powered vehicles:

Ethanol advocates say that it's a clean-burning fuel that is friendly to the environment. But a study by Stanford University atmospheric scientist Mark Z. Jacobson found that if all U.S. vehicles ran on ethanol, the number of respiratory-related deaths and hospitalizations would likely increase.

Jacobson's work, reported in Environmental Science & Technology, involved the simulation of atmospheric conditions throughout the United States in 2020, with a special focus on Los Angeles. According to Jacobson:

  • Research found that E85 vehicles reduce atmospheric levels of two carcinogens, benzene and butadiene, but increase two others — formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.
  • As a result, cancer rates for E85 are likely to be similar to those for gasoline; However, E85 significantly increased ozone, a prime ingredient of smog.
  • The simulations revealed that E85 would increase ozone-related mortalities by about 4 percent in the United States and 9 percent in Los Angeles.
  • In addition, the deleterious health effects of E85 will be the same, whether the ethanol is made from corn, switchgrass or other plant products.

''Today, there is a lot of investment in ethanol,'' Jacobson said.  ''But we found that using E85 will cause at least as much health damage as gasoline, which already causes about 10,000 U.S. premature deaths annually from ozone and particulate matter."

 More smog and respiratory illness aren't the only problems with ethanol fuel. As subsidies and mandates divert more and more corn into ethanol production, and more and more acres into corn, we'll see much higher food prices, with more hunger and famine in some parts of the world. And don't forget that planting more and more acres of corn leads to cutting — or not replanting — more and more acres of trees.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Health news updates

Posted by Richard on March 6, 2007

Back in September, I warned you to start taking vitamin D supplements as the days grew short. I hope you did, and I hope it helped you avoid the flu this winter. The February issue of Life Extension Magazine (yes, I’m a bit behind in my reading) has an article that goes into much greater depth regarding the connection between seasonally low levels of vitamin D and high rates of influenza. It includes information about how vitamin D helps protect you:

In the past few years, several independent researchers have shown that vitamin D significantly enhances the genetic expression of antimicrobial peptides in human monocytes (precursors to macrophages), neutrophils, and other immune system cells.15,1617-19

For Dr. Cannell, these various clues led to one inescapable conclusion: vitamin D—which is produced when the skin is exposed to summer sunlight, and which, conversely, declines in winter—plays a critical role in our vulnerability to influenza infection. In fact, vitamin D must surely be Hope-Simpson’s mysterious “seasonal stimulus.” Dr. Cannell consulted a number of leading vitamin D researchers, all of whom agreed with his conclusions. They include researchers from such venerable institutions as the National Institutes of Health and the Harvard School of Public Health. One of these scientists, Dr. Michael F. Holick, has been studying vitamin D for three decades.1,7,20

In an interview with Life Extension, Dr. Holick alluded to the special relationship between vitamin D and the body’s primary immune system defenders, the macrophages. “What intrigues me the most,” Dr. Holick noted, “is that we’ve always known that macrophages activate vitamin D.” The form of vitamin D generated through the skin’s interaction with ultraviolet B radiation (from sunshine or artificial sources) is a pre-hormone. It must be converted in the body to its active hormone form, called 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3. An intermediary form, known as 25-hydroxyvitamin D, is the major circulating form of vitamin D, and is measured to determine vitamin D status.20

Most of this activation of vitamin D occurs in the liver and kidneys. However, the fact that macrophages facilitate the conversion of circulating vitamin D to its active form,20 and that activated vitamin D in turn regulates the activity of macrophages, suggests an important relationship between the two. These antimicrobial proteins help to destroy invading infectious microbes. With their broad-spectrum activity, they are capable of killing everything from bacteria to viruses. They have been shown to be an important part of the respiratory tract’s defense against invaders, and likewise show promise in fighting the influenza virus.

Life Extension Foundation has also taken aim at the shoddy supplement study I wrote about last week, issuing a consumer alert entitled "Another Flawed Attack against Antioxidants." Among other issues, LEF looked at the ridiculously wide range of nutrient dosages in the studies:

The JAMA review that attacked the value of antioxidants included vitamins A, C, E, and selenium and evaluated these very basic nutrients in a very wide & inconsistent dosage range:

Supplement

Dose range

Vitamin A (synthetic)

1,333200,000*** IU

Alpha Tocopherol (synthetic)

105,000 IU

Vitamin C (synthetic)

60 – 2,000 mg

Selenium (natural)

20 – 200 mcg

As an example of the strange decisions made by the JAMA authors as to which studies to exclude or include in their analysis, they selected a single dose study*** of patients using 200,000 IU of vitamin A, who were subsequently followed for 3 months.8

LEF also found that the authors misrepresented some of the included studies, attributing deaths that didn’t happen, and seem to have intentionally omitted a long list of studies that demonstrated positive benefits from antioxidants from their cherry-picked (68 out of 815) sample. LEF characterized the JAMA study as an "irrational and highly biased attack," and quoted several other respected scientists who dismissed this study as deeply flawed.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Best wishes, Bert

Posted by Richard on February 27, 2007

Bert Wiener is a very smart and funny man who never blogged enough, but did it well when he did. He just posted again after a five-month hiatus. I’m really, really sorry he did — well, what I mean is I’m sorry that this was the reason:

What I thought was a back problem since October turns out to be a return of my leukemia. It manifested as soft tumors on my spine. Just finished the first course of chemo, will have some more, and then a marrow transplant. With success I’ll be completely cured within 12 to 18 months. I’m staying optimistic and seeing this as a series of tasks to complete. That’s all for now.

That really sucks. I certainly wish Bert the best, and I’m sure he’ll get through this. He’s always struck me as a pretty tough guy, and he’s got a couple of things going for him. For one thing, he’s got a good attitude, and that’s so important. For another, he’s already bald. πŸ˜‰
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Successful losers

Posted by Richard on January 23, 2007

This time of year, many of us are trying to lose a few pounds. It’s become a cliché that losing weight is relatively easy, but keeping it off is hard. So, what are the secrets of the really successful losers — the people who’ve lost a lot and avoided gaining back the weight they’ve lost? The National Weight Control Registry is a good place to find out.  It’s tracking over 5,000 people who’ve lost at least 30 pounds and kept it off for at least one year, making it "the largest prospective investigation of long-term successful weight loss maintenance."

James O. Hill, NWCR’s co-founder and director of the Center for Human Nutrition at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, described the typical person in the registry as a middle-aged white woman who’s lost an average of 70 pounds and kept it off an average of seven years. Those numbers are a pretty good indication that the registry members are doing something right.

So what made the registry members successful? According to Hill, these five behaviors (emphasis added):

1. They eat breakfast. Unlike fat people, who typically skip breakfast but do have lunch and then eat virtually non-stop from about 4 p.m. until they go to bed,"these people almost never skip breakfast," Hill reports. "We think maybe that calories ingested in the morning have a greater satiating effect than calories eaten later in the day."

2. They monitor their weight. "These people use scales a lot," Hill says. "Almost all of them use a scale weekly, and some use it daily." Such regular checks enable them to catch weight regain early on, he says, so they can take action to get back on track as soon as they see their target number go up more than two or three pounds.

3. They get a lot of exercise. "Walking is huge," Hill reports. A survey of participants in the registry found that on average, they get 60 minutes of physical activity per day, with 28 percent mostly walking,49 percent combining walking with cycling, aerobics or lifestyle changes such as parking farther away, and 14 percent mainly doing activities other than walking. Meanwhile, 9 percent "do nothing" — i.e. they control their weight through diet alone.

4. They watch what they eat. Most successful losers report consuming 1300 to 1400 calories per day over the long term, with only about 25 percent of the total derived from fat, compared to 30 percent or more in the typical American diet. In addition, their eating habits are consistent from day to day — they don’t take "holidays" when anything goes.

5. They stay away from the tube. The formerly fat "watch much less TV than the national average" — about 10 hours a week, or less than half of the typical 28 hours or so. Presumably, they’re less likely to be snacking and more likely to be physically active during the non-watching hours.

Hmm. I guess I’m doing fine on #1 and #2, need to work harder on #3 (especially in the winter), and need to be more consistent about #4.

But, oh boy, do I fail badly on #5! Sigh. Anybody want to buy a nice Samsung 46" HDTV?
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Tell her it’s for her own good

Posted by Richard on January 2, 2007

Men, if you have a wife or female significant other, pay attention. In fact, you might want to print out a few copies of this. Stick one on the fridge. Keep one handy for the next time she nags you to help more with the housework. Tell her you’re leaving the housework for her because you care about her and want to safeguard her health. Tell her you’re willing to lie on the couch while she dusts and vacuums if it will help protect her from breast cancer. According to a just-published study, it will (emphasis added):

Doing housework can cut substantially a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer, according to researchers.

A study comparing the beneficial effects of different types of exercise found that moderate housework had the biggest obvious effect.

The researchers analysed data from 218,169 women from nine European countries, with an age range of 20 to 80 years.

They followed the women for an average of 6.4 years, during which time there were 3,423 cases of breast cancer. The average age at which the disease developed in the participants was 47.6 years for pre-menopausal women and 65.6 years for post-menopausal.

All forms of activity combined was found to reduce the risk in the post-menopausal women participants, but had no obvious effect in the pre-menopausal women.

But the researchers found that all women, both pre-menopausal and post-menopausal, who undertook housework had a “significantly” reduced risk of getting the disease.

The research, published in the January edition of the journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, concluded: “In this large cohort of women , . . increased non-occupational physical activity and, in particular, increased household activity, were significantly associated with reduced breast cancer risk, independent of other potential risk factors.

“Our results . . . provide additional evidence that moderate forms of physical activity, such as household activity, may be more important than less frequent but more intense recreational physical activity in reducing breast cancer risk in European women.”

I’m thinking of contacting the Susan G. Komen Foundation and offering to make my house available for women who suffer from a shortage of housework. I think my dump lovely home could meet the housework needs of a significant number of women for quite some time. I wouldn’t even charge them anything — it would be my contribution to a good cause.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Have a hot cocoa and go to bed

Posted by Richard on December 6, 2006

This is another installment in my occasional series of posts about things that are good for you without being boring, unpleasant, or painful (see here, here, here, and here). This time, I have two pieces of advice: eat more chocolate and sleep more.

The first recommendation comes from a Johns Hopkins study. I’ve expressed skepticism about Johns Hopkins data in the past (here and here), but I doubt that there’s any political bias in this study. πŸ™‚

More than 1200 people participated in the study of aspirin’s effects on blood platelets. The finding was the serendipitous result of some study participants’ failure to comply with instructions. They admitted to being "chocoholics" who continued to indulge in their vice even though told not to. Rather than discard their data, researchers compared non-aspirin-taking chocolate-eaters’ results with those from the compliant aspirin-takers, and were surprised. The chocolate-eaters had slower clotting times and less platelet activity byproducts in their urine than the aspirin-takers. The potential health benefit of their modest chocolate consumption is significant (emphasis added):

Their “offense,” say researchers at Johns Hopkins led to what is believed to be the first biochemical analysis to explain why just a few squares of chocolate a day can almost halve the risk of heart attack death in some men and women by decreasing the tendency of platelets to clot in narrow blood vessels.

“What these chocolate ‘offenders’ taught us is that the chemical in cocoa beans has a biochemical effect similar to aspirin in reducing platelet clumping, which can be fatal if a clot forms and blocks a blood vessel, causing a heart attack,” says Diane Becker, M.P.H., Sc.D., a professor at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health.

“Eating a little bit of chocolate or having a drink of hot cocoa as part of a regular diet is probably good for personal health, so long as people don’t eat too much of it, and too much of the kind with lots of butter and sugar,” says Becker.

My second recommendation is based on recent findings based on analysis of data from the long-running Nurses’ Health Study:

Middle-aged women may be able to sleep their way to a trimmer body, new study findings suggest.

In a study that followed more than 68,000 U.S. women for 16 years, researchers found that those who caught more zzz’s each night tended to put on less weight during middle-age.

What’s more, women who typically clocked 5 hours of sleep were one third more likely than those who slept for 7 hours to have a substantial weight gain — 33 pounds or more — during the study period.

The findings, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology and presented earlier this year at a medical conference, add to evidence that sleep habits affect a person’s weight.

Although the reasons aren’t clear, some research suggests that sleep deprivation alters hormones involved in appetite control and metabolism.

It’s also possible that people who sleep fewer hours either eat more or, because of fatigue, exercise less often.

Actually, the AJE article said that the results "were not affected by adjustment for physical activity or dietary consumption." Whatever the reason, more sleep seems to be good for middle-aged women, and may help offset the caloric impact of eating those healthy doses of chocolate.

But I don’t think there’s any scientific evidence in support of this strategy.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

World Heart Day

Posted by Richard on September 25, 2006

Today was World Heart Day, and I missed all the festivities. It’s intended to promote awareness of heart disease and its prevention. The World Heart Federation sponsors the annual world-wide event:

World Heart Day is run by the World Heart Federation’s member organizations in more than 100 countries. Activities on the day include health checks, walks, runs, jump rope, fitness sessions, public talks, stage shows, scientific forums, exhibitions, concerts and sports tournaments. Last year in Singapore for example, a World Heart Day heart fair attracted over 60,000 participants who took part in health screenings, aerobics classes, health quizzes, exhibits, school performances, nutritional counselling and food sampling. Similar events will be taking place this year asking participants: "How Young is Your Heart?"

The "How Young Is Your Heart?" theme encouraged people to think about how their lifestyle choices affect the effective "age" of their heart and their heart health. According to the World Health Federation, the three major risk factors — physical inactivity, unhealthy diet, and tobacco use — account for 80% of heart disease and stroke.

Personally, I’m doing OK on two out of three. I’m still an ex-smoker (closing in on two years), and I’ve been walking pretty regularly. Diet — well, that could be better. But I take about 3 dozen nutritional supplements a day to counteract some of the harm from my diet — and from 40 years of smoking.

In honor of World Heart Day, today I ran a 10k, ate an arugula salad with fat-free dressing for dinner, and then worked out on the rowing machine.

Just kidding!

Actually, I cleaned out the garage, ate a pizza, and hit the recliner to watch the Broncos spank the Patriots. Again! We’ve got your number, Brady!
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Why the flu strikes in winter and what you can do about it

Posted by Richard on September 18, 2006

The days are getting shorter and the nights are getting cooler. Fall begins this Friday. That means that any day now, we’ll start seeing news stories about "flu season" and getting vaccinated. But why is there a flu season in the winter? The influenza virus is around all year, and there are people catching it throughout the year — just not very many. So why are so many more of us susceptible when the days get short? Well, it’s because the days get short:

Now a group of researchers has come up with a novel answer to the conundrum. The "seasonal stimulus" behind the annual winter flu epidemics is a lack of vitamin D due to shorter days and lack of sunlight.

And they have even suggested that by taking a mega-dose of the vitamin at the first sign of the illness, its worst symptoms might be alleviated – which could prove to be a potential life-saver in the event of the threatened avian flu pandemic.

The traditional explanation for the winter flu epidemics is that we tend to crowd indoors in the winter months, which aids the spread of the virus. Fifty years ago, when millions of manual labourers earned their living working outdoors, that may have been true.

But in the modern world, where most people work in offices and factories, travel on buses and trains, and share the same indoor spaces in summer and winter, the explanation rings hollow. Some of the people most vulnerable to flu – elderly people living in nursing homes – are there all year round yet are at greatest risk from the virus in winter, much like everybody else.

A glass of milk contains about 100 units of vitamin D, and the RDA (recommended daily allowance) is 400 units. But twenty minutes in the summer sun can produce up to 20,000 units in your body, and levels like that were the norm for humans until very, very recently:

Throughout evolutionary history, humans obtained tens of thousands of units every day from the sun. Even after migrating to temperate latitudes, where skin colour rapidly lightened to allow for more rapid vitamin D production, humans worked outdoors. Only in recent decades as we have increasingly lived and worked indoors, travelled in cars and lathered on sunblock have levels of vitamin D sunk chronically low, according to Dr Cannell.

It may not replace the flu shot, but I strongly recommend a hefty daily dose — say, 2,000 units or more — of vitamin D during the fall and winter months. It’s not just to ward off the flu and bolster your immune system — vitamin D plays many other important roles. The U.S. government’s RDA is enough to prevent rickets, but woefully inadequate for optimum health. That, by the way, is true of many vitamin RDAs — they’ll keep you from having clinical signs of deficiency, but that’s far below the optimum levels for health.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Living longer by getting high

Posted by Richard on September 13, 2006

It’s possible that one of the secrets to a long life is to adopt the slogan "Life’s a mountain, not a beach." According to the Rocky Mountain News, you can improve your odds of surviving to a ripe old age by moving to the Colorado high country:

Way up high in Colorado, where tourists get nauseous, the locals live and keep on living – longer than virtually any other place in the United States.

A new Harvard University longevity study puts seven high-country Colorado counties in the top 10 in the nation, with an average lifespan of 81.3 years.

"I don’t let the grass grow under my feet," said Shirley Willis, 83, of Dillon, one of those Rocky Mountain octogenerians. "I’m busy, and I’m interested in what’s going on in my community. We have good air and pure, clean water."

The Colorado counties sharing the top spot for average life expectancy were Summit, Park, Eagle, Clear Creek, Gilpin, Jackson and Grand.

Tied for 24th place among the thousands of counties in the U.S. were six other high-country counties in the state: Archuleta, Mineral, Ouray, San Miguel, Gunnison and Hinsdale, with an average longevity of 80.8 years.

It also helps if you’re an Asian-American; they live 6 years longer than average. The lowest lifespan groups are American Indians, rural southern whites, and rural and inner-city blacks. The lowest lifespan states are in the South, and the District of Columbia ranks at the bottom. (To be fair, the "life’s a beach" folks can point to the fact that Hawaii is the longest-lived state. The story didn’t offer an explanation; my guess is a high Asian-heritage population.)

The statistics suggest that longevity depends a lot on lifestyle choices — smoking, drinking, diet, and exercise. That’s probably the main reason that the Colorado mountain counties rank so high, not anything related to the environment. Colorado has the lowest obesity rate in the nation, one of the lowest smoking rates, and people tend to be much more physically active, especially in the mountain communities.

People out here tend to eat healthier, too, which I’m reminded of every time I return to Tennessee. "Try some of this battered, deep-fried pork sausage smothered in cheese sauce, with some fried okra, fried potatoes, and fried green tomatoes. You want sweet tea with that?"

Another factor in the mountain counties’ high life expectancy may be self-selection:

Colorado’s high-country residents have long noted that their neighbors tend to move to Grand Junction, Florida or Arizona when they grow old to escape the cold winters or because the thin air is tough on their lungs and heart.

It could be simply that retired people who choose to move to the mountains may be a hardier group than those who choose to move to Florida or Arizona.

Nonetheless, the numbers at least suggest that there are no significant environmental factors that are harmful to lifespan associated with the high mountain counties, and perhaps there are factors that are beneficial. I’m thinking in particular of ionizing radiation — people living at high altitudes are exposed to much more radiation than those at lower altitudes. That goes double for people living in former mining communities with tailings piles full of mildly radioactive minerals scattered about.

There’s been a long-standing dispute about low doses of radiation. The proponents of the "linear response" (no threshold) theory, led by John Gofman and supported, I’m sorry to say, by my friends at Life Extension Foundation, insist that there is no safe dose of radiation and we should strive to reduce our exposure as close to zero as possible. The proponents of the "hormesis" theory argue that not only is the linear response theory nonsense, but low doses of radiation have proven benefits.

I’m convinced that both logic and the empirical data support the idea that — up to a point — radiation is at least harmless and probably good for you. The long lifespans of people living in the Colorado mountains are just another set of data supporting this idea.

So, book that Vail (Eagle County) ski trip or buy that vacation home near Keystone (Summit County) — it’ll be good for your health!
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 6 Comments »

Turn off the night light, ladies!

Posted by Richard on June 22, 2006

According to a National Cancer Institute study, women who sleep with a light on, stay up late, or work night shifts face an increased risk of breast cancer.

The researchers exposed human breast cancer tumors, grafted to mice, to blood collected from women under three different conditions: in the middle of the day, after spending the night in darkness, and after being expose to light during the night. The blood collected after darkness suppressed the tumors, while the blood collected after night-time light exposure stimulated tumor growth.

The study suggests the importance of a critical hormone:

The research by the American scientists showed that exposure at night to artificial light could stimulate the growth of human breast tumours by suppressing the levels of the key hormone melatonin.

Melatonin is secreted by the pineal gland at night and helps to regulate a person’s sleeping and waking cycles. Light, however, stops the body from producing it, making the body think that it is daytime.

I’ve been taking melatonin supplements at bedtime for years. It’s cheap, and there’s a wealth of data suggesting it has significant anti-cancer, anti-aging, and anti-oxidant properties. Not to mention that it enhances sleep and cures jet lag.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

Hops for health

Posted by Richard on June 12, 2006

As you contemplate whether to join us for next Saturday’s "Get Dr. Cutter Drunk" Mini Blogger Bash, be sure to factor in the possible health ramifications of attending. For instance, if you’re a male, you might want to consider that drinking lots of good, hoppy beer (like India Pale Ale or Pilsner) can protect you from both prostate enlargement and prostate cancer, according to Oregon State University researchers:

The research, published in a recent issue of Cancer Letters, shows that xanthohumol, a compound found in hops, inhibits NF-kappaB protein in cells along the surface of the prostate gland, said Emily Ho, assistant professor of nutrition and exercise sciences in OSU’s College of Health and Human Sciences and a researcher with OSU’s Linus Pauling Institute. The protein acts like a signal switch that turns on a variety of animal and human malignancies, including prostate cancer.

"We’ve shown that the addition of xanthohumol in a cell culture blocks the signal of NF-KappaB protein and works to slow down the growth of benign prostatic hyperplasia and malignant prostate cancer cells," Ho said.

Xanthohumol, which belongs to a group of plant compounds called flavonoids, can also trigger programmed cell death, which plays a role in cancer prevention, as uncontrolled cell reproduction is a cause of cancer.

But don’t rush out to stock the refrigerator. Xanthohumol, is present in such small amounts that a person would have to drink more than 17 beers to consume the same amount found effective in the study, Ho said.

I don’t get Ho’s cautionary note. Beers vary by more than an order of magnitude in how much hops — and therefore xanthohumol — they contain, so I’m not sure how meaningful the number 17 is. If that’s 17 Buds or Millers, then you could replace them with 3 or 4 American IPAs — or maybe 1 or 2 double IPAs. Besides, what’s the problem with drinking more than 17 beers? I mean, Ho didn’t specify a time constraint. πŸ™‚

You say you’re not into beer? Well, fear not — according to researchers in Seattle (what is it about scientists in the Pacific Northwest and alcohol research?), you can protect your prostate with some red wine instead:

Drinking a glass of red wine a day may cut a man’s risk of prostate cancer in half, and the protective effect appears to be strongest against the most aggressive forms of the disease, according to a new study led by investigators at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

"We found that men who consumed four or more glasses of red wine per week reduced their risk of prostate cancer by 50 percent," Stanford said. "Among men who consumed four or more 4-ounce glasses of red wine per week, we saw about a 60 percent lower incidence of the more aggressive types of prostate cancer," said Stanford, senior author of the study. "The more clinically aggressive prostate cancer is where the strongest reduction in risk was observed."

As for those of you of the female persuasion, you can benefit from the xanthohumol in beer and the resveratrol in red wine, too:

In more news from the Experimental Biology 2004 meeting, held April 17 to 21 in Washington, DC, S. Pinheiro-Silva, I. Azevedo, and C. Calhau from the Universidade do Porto, in Portugal have shown that the phenolic phytochemicals epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), xanthohumol, and resveratrol slow breast cancer growth in human cell cultures. The compounds are found in tea, beer, and wine respectively, a fact that appears to contradict the results of previous research that established an association between alcohol consumption and an increased risk of breast cancer in women. …

It was discovered that all of the compounds possessed an inhibitory effect on breast cancer cell growth, with xanthohumol eliciting an antiproliferative effect more rapidly and at a lower concentration than the other compounds.

Of course, alcohol does have negative health consequences, too. So you may want to order some of this. Then, drink up — to your health!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Cancer immunity

Posted by Richard on May 11, 2006

Three years ago, researchers at Wake Forest University stumbled upon a mouse that was extremely resistant to cancer. They subsequently bred a highly cancer-resistant strain of mice. In their latest study, they injected white blood cells from the cancer-resistant mice into mice susceptible to cancer. None of the susceptible mice got cancer:

"We were surprised," said Dr. Zheng Cui, a co-investigator of the new finding that appears today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "The powerful resistance was transferred through the animal’s white blood cells," which are immune system cells. Cui, Dr. Mark Willingham and colleagues found that the animal’s innate immune system turns on to protect against cancer or to kill cancer that already exists.
. . .

Dr. Alan Houghton, a cancer researcher at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan, observed that the research "nails it down to a cell of the immune system, and that is mediating this resistance. It may not get you closer to a gene, but it gets you closer to the mechanism."

The Wake Forest researchers are working with their university to make the novel mouse strain available to other scientists.

"The observation needs to be replicated and confirmed," Cui said. "If this turns out to be what we hope it is, it will be a gift to mankind."

No kidding. The cancer-resistant mice have already been shared with researchers at Scripps Research Institute in California, the University of Michigan, and Washington University in St. Louis. If someone figures out the mechanism by which white blood cells are switched into cancer-killing mode — well, can you imagine a time when you add cancer to the list of standard childhood immunizations? When the nurse asks you, "How long has it been since your last tetanus and cancer booster?"

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

They call this science?

Posted by Richard on March 31, 2006

In the past few months, several studies have been widely reported that supposedly discredited some widely-used nutritional supplement or alternative treatment. The fine folks at the Life Extension Foundation (LEF) have had enough of the shoddy studies, misleading press releases, and terrible reporting, and they’re preparing a full-fledged response. A preliminary article is available on their website now:

Over the past several months, the media has questioned the efficacy of several popular dietary supplements. In the upcoming June 2006 issue of Life Extension magazine, we dissect these negative media reports down to the bone to reveal the hard scientific facts.

In doing so, we expose the absurdity of the headline-hungry media making proclamations such as “another natural remedy bit the dust” when describing the recent glucosamine study. We also reveal the inappropriateness of conventional doctors, with little knowledge about the proper use of nutrients, but with strong financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, conducting studies that contain so many flaws that their findings are largely irrelevant.

As usual for LEF, this article is footnoted to a fare-thee-well — 181 references, most to studies published in peer-reviewed medical and scientific journals. If you print the article, it runs about 6 pages, depending on margin settings, etc. The references add about 6 more pages. The article provides brief preliminary critiques — scathing ones — of studies claiming that:

  • Eating a low-fat diet doesn’t reduce women’s risk of heart attacks, strokes, breast cancer, or colon cancer.
  • Calcium and vitamin D don’t protect women’s bones.
  • Glucosamine and chondroitin aren’t effective for osteoarthritis of the knee.
  • Saw palmetto is ineffective in treating prostate enlargement.

Each of those four claims is easily shown to be false. In fact, a couple of them are even contradicted by the studies, which were mischaracterized in press releases and media reports.

My favorite is the calcium and vitamin D study, which appeared in February’s New England Journal of Medicine. LEF’s Bill Faloon said it may be  "one of the most poorly designed studies in the history of modern medicine."

In theory, one group of women was assigned to take a calcium – vitamin D supplement and another group was assigned to take a placebo. Reportedly, the supplement group had just as many hip fractures as the placebo group.

Actually, the study did find a 29% reduction in hip fractures among the subset of the supplement group who actually took the supplements. You see, about 40% of the supplement group didn’t "achieve a standard rate of compliance," meaning they took less than 80% of the calcium and vitamin D they were supposed to take. But that didn’t matter to the MDs and PhDs conducting the study (emphasis and footnote from article):

This meant that women in the active group (the one given the calcium-vitamin D supplements) were counted as having taken the calcium-vitamin D, whether they really took the supplement or not. According to the scientists who conducted this study:

“Participants were followed for major outcomes, regardless of their adherence to the study medication…”

The “study medication” mentioned above is the calcium-vitamin D supplement. The fact that a study could be published in a medical journal “regardless” of whether the participants actually took the active ingredient defies logic.

Presumably, the placebo group had the same poor rate of compliance (since participants didn’t know whether it was the supplement or the placebo they were failing to take). So what we really have here is a $10 million federally-funded study proving that women who fail to take their calcium and vitamin D are just as likely to break a hip as women who fail to take a placebo. Unbe-frickin-lievable.

There’s more. That’s only one of several serious flaws with the calcium study. And the other studies are equally unimpressive. Read the whole thing — it’s your tax dollars at work and your health at stake.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

News you can use

Posted by Richard on May 13, 2005

I almost missed this important post at PolySciFi Blog:

Drinking whisky protects you from cancer. (h/t Daily Pundit)

The effect appears to be similar to the one provided by red wine, but better. So drink up!

Other Recent Panglossian News
Drinking beer induces neuron growth
Being a little overweight (by BMI) is good for your health (statistically)
Mastrubation fights prostate cancer

Jeez, I’ve been living a healthier life than I realized.

UPDATE: For the benefit of those who want to explore their cancer protection options, this site should help.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »