In Study on Heart Patients, Exercise as Effective for Depression as Antidepressant Medication

Considering the side effects and costs of taking the medication, exercise is by far the better choice.

From a Reuters story on an article published August 1, 2012 in the American Journal of Cardiology:

People with heart disease who are also depressed may get as much relief from their depression symptoms with regular exercise as with medication, according to a U.S. study.

Researchers writing in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology found that of 101 heart patients with signs of depression, those who exercised for 90 minutes per week and those who started taking Zoloft both improved significantly compared to participants assigned to drug-free placebo pills.

 

Milk, Particularly Skim Milk, Associated with Acne

In a finding that contradicts longstanding claims by the American Dairy Council, the Harvard Nurses health study has found an association between milk, particularly skim milk, and acne.  The most likely explanation is the hormone content in the milk, which is present in both organic and conventional milk.

From the accompanying editorial in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology:

“The papers…from the Harvard School of Public Health establish an association between milk consumption and acne. But how could milk cause acne? Because, drinking milk and consuming dairy products from pregnant cows exposes us to the hormones produced by the cows’ pregnancy, hormones that we were not designed to consume during our teenage and adult years. It is no secret that teenagers’ acne closely parallels hormonal activity…So what happens if exogenous hormones are added to the normal endogenous load? And what exactly is the source of these hormones? Consider that, in nature, milk is consumed from a mother, whether human or bovine, until weaning occurs. Normally, the mother then ceases lactation before the next pregnancy occurs—so that consuming milk from a mother pregnant with her next offspring is not a common occurrence. We’ve all seen nature films of animals chasing their offspring away to encourage weaning at the appropriate time. Further, in nature the offspring consumes only the milk of its own species—but both of these natural rules are broken by humans. Viewed objectively, human consumption of large volumes of another species’ milk, especially when that milk comes mainly from pregnant cows during the human’s normally post-weaned years, is essentially unnatural.”

Gambling with Our Genetic Future: GMOs and the World Food Supply

This interview with Jeffrey Smith appears in the June 2012 issue of Pathways, a Washington, DC, community quarterly. The web version here includes a list of references at the end which is not included in the print version.

Jeffrey M. Smith is a consumer advocate who has written extensively about genetically modified organisms (GMOs). As executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, he advocates against their inclusion in the food supply.

In this interview with Dr. Daniel Redwood, Smith describes the scientific studies that raise red flags about the safety of GMOs; several European nations’ current bans on GMOs in foods and how their regulatory processes differ from the United States; the British scandal in which veteran scientist Arpad Pusztai’s work was suppressed until revealed by a Parliamentary inquiry; court documents revealing that FDA scientists were overruled by a political appointee to allow the first introduction of GMOs into the U.S. food supply in the 1990s; and the revolving door that has allowed a top Monsanto official to rotate back and forth multiple times between corporate and regulatory positions of power in the U.S. federal government.

Smith also explains that as a non-scientist writer and advocate, he follows a policy of having his writing reviewed for accuracy by at least three scientists prior to publication.

Smith’s first book was Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating. His second, the comprehensively documented Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, covers research linking GMOs to a wide variety of health risks in humans and animals. In his foreword to Genetic Roulette, former UK Environment Minister Michael Meacher writes, “This is a brilliant book which combines shrewd dissection of the true nature of GM technology, a devastating critique of the health and environmental hazards of GM crops, and scarifying examples of the manipulation of both science and the media by the biotech industry.”

Jeffrey Smith has lectured in 30 countries and has been quoted in The New York Times, Washington Post, BBC World Service, Nature, The Independent, Daily Telegraph, New Scientist, The Times (London), Associated Press, Reuters News Service, LA Times, Time Magazine and Genetic Engineering News. His radio and TV appearances have included BBC, NPR, Fox News, Democracy Now and the Dr. Oz Show. He writes an internationally syndicated column, Spilling the Beans, and has a regular blog on The Huffington Post.

Pulitzer Prize winning ecological poet and essayist Gary Snyder was once asked what he feared most. This was a broad question—his answer could have been Alzheimer’s, starvation, fascism or anything else. His answer was, “Contamination of the gene pool.” You’ve devoted your life to this issue. To begin at the beginning, what is a genetically modified organism and how do these GMOs become part of the food supply?

GMOs are organisms—plant, animal, etc.—where genes from the DNA of one species are forced into the DNA of other species. In our food supply, foods like soybeans and corn have been genetically engineered with bacteria genes, allowing the crop to withstand doses of herbicide, or in the case of corn, to also produce their own toxic pesticide.

They were introduced into our food supply through deception and manipulation. The person in charge of policy at the FDA was Michael Taylor, the former attorney to biotech giant Monsanto, who claimed in the policy of the FDA that the agency was not aware of information showing that these foods were significantly different. Therefore, companies like Monsanto, who had previously told us that PCBs, Agent Orange and DDT were safe, were able to determine whether their GMOs were safe–no safety studies were required. They can introduce a new GMO without having to tell the FDA or consumers.

But documents made public from a lawsuit, Alliance for Biointegrity v. Shalala, revealed that the policy at the FDA was based on a lie. In fact, the overwhelming consensus among the FDA’s own scientists was that genetically modified foods were not only different but dangerous and could create hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. They had urged their superiors to require testing but were ignored.

Michael Taylor then went on to become Monsanto’s Vice President and chief lobbyist.  He is now back at the FDA as the U.S. food safety czar.

Supplements, Especially Those for Bodybuilding and Weight Loss, Linked to Liver Disease

Today’s MedPage includes a report on a study linking supplement use to liver damage.

A few comments…

I find it revealing that the study’s authors report a long list of drug company conflicts of interest and that “supplements” are to a large extent lumped into one overall category, which has the effect of creating a generalized anti-supplement narrative.

That said, the fact that bodybuilding and weight loss supplements seem to be the main culprits appears to be an important finding.

It would be most helpful to find out exactly which supplements we’re talking about. But all we’ve got at this point is an abstract from a poster presentation at a digestive diseases conference.

I will be interested to see if this results in a flurry of anti-supplement stories in major media in the coming days, despite the lack of publicly available data to analyze the findings and respond to the clearly anti-supplement narrative.

If certain supplements are dangerous, that’s definitely worth publicizing. But to tar all supplements with the same brush is disingenuous at best.

Lack of Sleep May Increase Diabetes Risk

Night shift workers are among those most affected.

From MedPage:

Your mother was right: regular bedtimes and a good night’s sleep are good for you — or at least, researchers reported, irregular bedtimes and not enough sleep are bad for you.

In a 39-day experiment with healthy volunteers, shortened sleep time and varying bedtimes — meant to mimic shift work — led to impaired glucose regulation and metabolism, according to Orfeu Buxton, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues.

Over time, the observed changes could increase the risk of obesity and diabetes, Buxton and colleagues reported online in Science Translational Medicine.

The findings support epidemiological studies linking disrupted sleep with an increased risk of metabolic syndrome and diabetes, the researchers noted — especially in workers on the night shift.

Bayer’s Neonic Pesticides Linked to Colony Collapse Disorder in Bees

Few things, if any, have the potential to cause the level of catastrophic health effects in humans that would attend a substantial spread of colony collapse disorder. Most of the food eaten by the world’s humans relies on pollination by bees. Without them, most of the grains and fruits we eat would only be available in far smaller quantities.

Thus, when three new studies in prestigious journals implicate Bayer’s neonic pesticides in colony collapse disorder, the implications are huge. Essentially the entire U.S. corn crop is grown using that pesticide. Organically grown corn is the exception; even then, however, if pesticides are blown by the wind or carried by water into organic fields, that safe haven vanishes.

Last year, the Whole Foods stores in my area carried no organic corn. Except for organic farmer’s markets or growing it yourself, there’s no other option around here. And this is in the heart of the Midwest.

As Tom Philpott notes at the end of this article from Mother Jones, this situation cries out for regulatory action. Thus far, the Obama Administration has shown no inclination to take on corporate agriculture. What would it take for that to change?

It’s springtime, and farmers throughout the Midwest and South are preparing to plant corn—and lots of it. The USDA projects this year’s corn crop will cover 94 million acres, the most in 68 years. (By comparison, the state of California occupies a land mass of about 101 million acres.) Nearly all of that immense stand of corn will be planted with seeds treated with neonicotinoid pesticides produced by the German chemical giant Bayer.

And that may be very bad news for honey bees, which remain in a dire state of health, riddled by large annual die-offs that have become known as “colony collapse disorder” (CCD). 

In the past months, three separate studies—two of them just out in the prestigious journal Science—have added to a substantial body of literature linking widespread use of neonicotinoids to CCD. The latest research will renew pressure on the EPA to reconsider its registration of Bayer’s products. The EPA green-lighted Bayer’s products based largely on a study funded by the chemical giant itself—which was later discredited by the EPA’s own scientists, as this leaked memo shows.

 

 

Study Confirms Weight Loss Surgery Benefit for Diabetics

This new research confirms what was strongly suggested by earlier studies — that bariatric surgery leads to major weight loss, and either directly or indirectly leads to major improvements in the diabetic status of these formerly obese individuals.

I’ve lectured on this topic in my clinical nutrition class and it generally stimulates fruitful class dicsussion. Essentially, we’re looking at a dangerous condition that is almost entirely preventable through diet and exercise. We then see tens of millions of people failing at prevention and then finding themselves in a terrible situation. Once they’ve reached that point, this surgery clearly leads to much improved outcomes. It’s a classic example of radical measures being offered at a late stage for something that should never have reached that point.

It concerns me that we are now seeing, for what to my knowledge is the first time, a serious suggestion that bariatric surgery be provided to diabetics who are even slightly overweight. Again, where is the prevention?

The following quotes are from the National Public Radio coverage of the story, which I’m citing because unlike the MedPage story cited above, this one mentions recommending this surgery for diabetics with a Body Mass Index as low as 26, which is just barely overweight. (Obesity starts at a BMI of 30, and morbid obesity, which is usually when bariatric surgery is provided, starts at a BMI of 40).

This research raises an important question: Should diabetics start getting this operation more often? Paul Zimmet of the International Diabetes Federation, who co-authored an editorial accompanying the studies, thinks they should.

“Diabetes coupled with obesity is probably the largest epidemic in human history. At the moment, bariatric surgery is seen as a last resort. And it should be offered earlier in management,” Zimmet said in a telephone interview.

But others aren’t so sure. The new studies followed only about 200 patients. And while the operations appear to be pretty safe, there can be complications. And the complications can be serious.

“I think we need longer-term follow-up than what was done in these studies to make sure you’re not trading one problem for another,” said Vivian Fonseca of the American Diabetes Association.

Researchers are now testing whether the surgery works on diabetics who aren’t even obese — people with BMIs as low as 26. And doctors and patients are waiting to see if insurance companies will pay for the operations just to treat diabetes.

Earlier this year, I attended (and spoke) at a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services listening session here in Kansas City that focused on what services should be included in an essential benefits package under health reform. For me, the most unexpected part of the event was that of perhaps 30 presenters, four were bariatric surgeons. I was surprised, in part, because I was aware of the research supporting bariatric surgery and had assumed they were in no danger of being excluded.

Now, in light of this new research that was certainly in the pipeline at the time of the hearing, it occurs to me that their presence (which I assume will be duplicated in many other venues), may have been part of a concerted push for a major expansion of their services into the non-obese market.

Interesting Findings But at What Cost? How Massage Heals Sore Muscles

This study is revealing on more than one level.

First, it clearly documents for the first time that a specific anti-inflammatory process is triggered by massage, involving suppression of pro-inflammatory cytokines and stimulation of the mitochondria, which play a role in cellular repair. For the researchers and the New York Times writer reporting the story, that’s the bottom line.

But after reading it through twice, I find myself appalled at the protocol they used. Taking muscle biopsies on healthy people in order to understand a bodiliy mechanism goes against the grain for me. In essence, what’s being done is to intentionally injure the body in order to understand how it responds to injury. From my perspective, it’s a strange set of bioethics that considers this par for the course. I don’t like this when it’s done to animals and I don’t like it any better when it’s done to consenting humans.

Tiffany Field of the University of Miami Medical School, who is quoted in the article, has for decades been the acknowledged leader in massage research. She’s quite happy with the findings. Much as I would like to be, I find the method through which they were gained to override the benefits they represent.

Their experiment required having people exercise to exhaustion and undergo five incisions in their legs in order to obtain muscle tissue for analysis. Despite the hurdles, the scientists still managed to find 11 brave young male volunteers. The study was published in the Feb. 1 issue of Science Translational Medicine.

On a first visit, they biopsied one leg of each subject at rest. At a second session, they had them vigorously exercise on a stationary bicycle for more than an hour until they could go no further. Then they massaged one thigh of each subject for 10 minutes, leaving the other to recover on its own. Immediately after the massage, they biopsied the thigh muscle in each leg again. After allowing another two-and-a-half hours of rest, they did a third biopsy to track the process of muscle injury and repair.

Vigorous exercise causes tiny tears in muscle fibers, leading to an immune reaction — inflammation — as the body gets to work repairing the injured cells. So the researchers screened the tissue from the massaged and unmassaged legs to compare their repair processes, and find out what difference massage would make.

They found that massage reduced the production of compounds called cytokines, which play a critical role in inflammation. Massage also stimulated mitochondria, the tiny powerhouses inside cells that convert glucose into the energy essential for cell function and repair. “The bottom line is that there appears to be a suppression of pathways in inflammation and an increase in mitochondrial biogenesis,” helping the muscle adapt to the demands of increased exercise, said the senior author, Dr. Mark A. Tarnopolsky.