"Just Go For It"
Life is fleeting, it passes us all by incredibly quickly. So
what are you waiting for?
Get in the game. Go for it. Live the life of your
dreams. You have dreamt the dream for a reason. Your
subconscious mind, the real you wants you to live that
life.
You owe it to yourself and your family to give it your
best shot at making the dream a reality.
You will find that once you get in the game and start
moving forward that your dreams really are attainable.
The secret is getting started!
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Urine Test May Detect Stomach Cancer
(Medical Xpress) -- Early detection of cancer may eventually become as easy as taking a home pregnancy test, according to new University of Georgia research.
Biomarker Development - Human Sample Collection For Biomarker Research - www.precisionmed.com
Prostate Cancer Therapy - Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Excellent Results! Get Info Here. - protons.com
Two studies recently published in the journal PloS ONE identified for the first time that certain proteins excreted in urine can indicate the presence of gastric cancer.
The researchers initially studied stomach cancer because it is the number two cancer killer in the world. They hope that with further study, the detection of abnormally abundant proteins in urine will lead to diagnosis of many types of cancer and other diseases, said Ying Xu, lead author of the study and Regents-Georgia Research Allianceeminent scholar of bioinformatics and computational biologyin the UGA Franklin College of Arts and Sciences.
“In theory, the methodology that we developed should be applicable to other cancers,” said Xu, who also is a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology and director of the UGA Institute of Bioinformatics.
Xu and his colleagues, Celine Hong, Juan Cui and David Puett of the Institute of Bioinformatics, identified a protein called endothelial lipase that differed significantly in its abundance in urine samples of stomach cancer patients versus healthy people. Xu said the computational capability presented in the study for predicting which of the abnormally abundant proteins in diseased tissues can be excreted into urine is a key breakthrough in cancer detection. Using samples from already known excretory and non-excretory proteins, the study found that the classification system was more than 80 percent accurate.
Of the 21 urine samples of healthy people, only two did not have the protein. In the 21 urine samples of stomach cancer patients, only one sample was considered to have a relatively high level of the protein; levels in the rest were low or absent. “We are suggesting from this relatively small urine sample set that healthy people should have this protein in their urine,” Xu said.
The researchers are currently working on a larger urine sample set of 200 gastric cancer patients and 200 healthy people. “If the EL protein still has the 10 to 15 percent miscalculation rate as with the 21 versus 21 samples, I think we have found a good diagnostic marker for stomach cancer and potentially other cancers,” said Xu.
Cancer Research Studies - For People With Esophageal Cancer – And Your Kind Of Strength. - HNCstudies.com
Now that the researchers have identified a protein marker, Xu says they should be able to develop a method where urine can change the color of a piece of paper to indicate the presence or absence of the protein, similar to the way a home pregnancy test works. The researchers hope to find multiple protein markers for each cancer to increase the accuracy of the test.
Although the test is not yet 100 percent accurate, it can lead at-risk patients to seek a more comprehensive exam, said Xu. Current procedures such as endoscopy are invasive, uncomfortable and may be avoided by many people. “A person could go get a urine test, and if the marker protein is present, then they are generally stomach-cancer free,” said Xu. “If the protein is not present, we might suggest that they get their stomach checked.”
The researchers began by studying a set of 1,500 proteins known to be excreted in urine and identified a list of features that distinguish them from proteins that are not excreted into urine. Identifying these distinguishing features allowed them to develop a classification system that could predict which proteins in cancerous tissues are excreted into urine.
Xu and his colleagues then used microarrays—chips that are about the size of a stamp that contain nearly twenty thousand human genes—to identify which proteins varied in abundance in the cancerous versus non-cancerous tissues. Messenger RNA (mRNA) molecules extracted from the sample tissues are converted to complementary DNAs (cDNAs) and hybridize with their complement genes on the microarray and light up as spots when the corresponding mRNAs are abundant. The researchers then identified proteins corresponding to those genes that appeared at significantly different levels in the cancer and non-cancer samples. From there, the researchers were able to determine which of the abnormally abundant proteins were secreted into the blood and then excreted in urine using the classification method they developed.
The UGA researchers work in conjunction with a team of researchers led by Fan Li of Jilin University in China, where Xu spends two months a year working with medical doctors and researchers on sample collection and carrying out microarray experiments. This long-term collaboration has led to the establishment of the Jilin University/University of Georgia Joint Research Center for Systems Biology. The researchers are currently collecting tissues from patients with different types of cancer to identify more protein markers that can be detected in urine.
Biomarker Development - Human Sample Collection For Biomarker Research - www.precisionmed.com
Prostate Cancer Therapy - Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Excellent Results! Get Info Here. - protons.com
Two studies recently published in the journal PloS ONE identified for the first time that certain proteins excreted in urine can indicate the presence of gastric cancer.
The researchers initially studied stomach cancer because it is the number two cancer killer in the world. They hope that with further study, the detection of abnormally abundant proteins in urine will lead to diagnosis of many types of cancer and other diseases, said Ying Xu, lead author of the study and Regents-Georgia Research Allianceeminent scholar of bioinformatics and computational biologyin the UGA Franklin College of Arts and Sciences.
“In theory, the methodology that we developed should be applicable to other cancers,” said Xu, who also is a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology and director of the UGA Institute of Bioinformatics.
Xu and his colleagues, Celine Hong, Juan Cui and David Puett of the Institute of Bioinformatics, identified a protein called endothelial lipase that differed significantly in its abundance in urine samples of stomach cancer patients versus healthy people. Xu said the computational capability presented in the study for predicting which of the abnormally abundant proteins in diseased tissues can be excreted into urine is a key breakthrough in cancer detection. Using samples from already known excretory and non-excretory proteins, the study found that the classification system was more than 80 percent accurate.
Of the 21 urine samples of healthy people, only two did not have the protein. In the 21 urine samples of stomach cancer patients, only one sample was considered to have a relatively high level of the protein; levels in the rest were low or absent. “We are suggesting from this relatively small urine sample set that healthy people should have this protein in their urine,” Xu said.
The researchers are currently working on a larger urine sample set of 200 gastric cancer patients and 200 healthy people. “If the EL protein still has the 10 to 15 percent miscalculation rate as with the 21 versus 21 samples, I think we have found a good diagnostic marker for stomach cancer and potentially other cancers,” said Xu.
Cancer Research Studies - For People With Esophageal Cancer – And Your Kind Of Strength. - HNCstudies.com
Now that the researchers have identified a protein marker, Xu says they should be able to develop a method where urine can change the color of a piece of paper to indicate the presence or absence of the protein, similar to the way a home pregnancy test works. The researchers hope to find multiple protein markers for each cancer to increase the accuracy of the test.
Although the test is not yet 100 percent accurate, it can lead at-risk patients to seek a more comprehensive exam, said Xu. Current procedures such as endoscopy are invasive, uncomfortable and may be avoided by many people. “A person could go get a urine test, and if the marker protein is present, then they are generally stomach-cancer free,” said Xu. “If the protein is not present, we might suggest that they get their stomach checked.”
The researchers began by studying a set of 1,500 proteins known to be excreted in urine and identified a list of features that distinguish them from proteins that are not excreted into urine. Identifying these distinguishing features allowed them to develop a classification system that could predict which proteins in cancerous tissues are excreted into urine.
Xu and his colleagues then used microarrays—chips that are about the size of a stamp that contain nearly twenty thousand human genes—to identify which proteins varied in abundance in the cancerous versus non-cancerous tissues. Messenger RNA (mRNA) molecules extracted from the sample tissues are converted to complementary DNAs (cDNAs) and hybridize with their complement genes on the microarray and light up as spots when the corresponding mRNAs are abundant. The researchers then identified proteins corresponding to those genes that appeared at significantly different levels in the cancer and non-cancer samples. From there, the researchers were able to determine which of the abnormally abundant proteins were secreted into the blood and then excreted in urine using the classification method they developed.
The UGA researchers work in conjunction with a team of researchers led by Fan Li of Jilin University in China, where Xu spends two months a year working with medical doctors and researchers on sample collection and carrying out microarray experiments. This long-term collaboration has led to the establishment of the Jilin University/University of Georgia Joint Research Center for Systems Biology. The researchers are currently collecting tissues from patients with different types of cancer to identify more protein markers that can be detected in urine.
Study: Cheaper Macular Degeneration Drug As Good As Pricier One
A much cheaper drug has proved just as good as a $2,000 monthly shot at treating a common eye disorder that can lead to blindness, a long-awaited study has found. It also shows that patients can be treated less often, sparing them a lot of pain and expense.
The results are expected to lead many doctors and patients to turn away from the pricier Lucentis and instead use $50 shots of Avastin for an age-related condition called wet macular degeneration.
Vision improvement after one year was the same for those given Avastin or Lucentis, the 1,200-patient study found.
The results are a blow to Roche's Genentech unit, which sells both medicines. Avastin is a cancer drug that doctors have used for many years to treat the eye disease even though it is not approved for that purpose. Genentech had been developing Lucentis specifically for the eye disease and won approval for it in 2006. A company spokesman said Thursday that the company had no plans to seek approval to sell Avastin for eye use or to lower the price of Lucentis.
Yet the results are a boon for patients and insurers — mostly Medicare — because nothing prevents use of the cheaper Avastin, eye specialists said. Doctors who use it for the eye disease must get a pharmacist to prepare lower doses for injection rather than the intravenous way it's used for cancer.
"It's always good news for patients when there are more than one option for a condition. It's good news for the country. Now we have potential for significant savings at a time when the cost of healthcare is skyrocketing," said Dr. Paul Sternberg, chairman of the Vanderbilt Eye Institute.
He had no role in the study, the results of which were published online Thursday by the New England Journal of Medicine and will be presented at an eye research conference on Sunday.
Anyone wanting to use Lucentis now will have to justify its cost to insurers and policymakers, Dr. Philip Rosenfeld of Bascom Palmer Eye Institute at the University of Miami wrote in an editorial with the study. He has no ties to Genentech but has consulted for several other companies developing eye treatments.
More than 250,000 Americans are treated for macular degeneration each year, mostly with Avastin, said Dr. Paul Sieving, director of the National Eye Institute, the federal agency that paid for the study. About 1.6 million Americans have advanced macular degeneration and another 7 million are at risk of developing it, he said.
The disease occurs when abnormal blood vessel growth damages the part of the retina responsible for central vision. Avastin and Lucentis aim at a protein that spurs blood vessel growth. They are injected through the white part of the eye into the central cavity. Numbing drops are used and patients generally feel pressure more than pain, Sternberg explained.
"The first time you tell a patient they're going to have to receive one they are taken aback and apprehensive, but they are remarkably tolerated," he said of the shots.
In the study, patients were given one of four treatments for one year: Avastin or Lucentis every four weeks, or either drug on an as-needed basis depending on response. Those on "as needed" dosing required four to five fewer shots over a year than the others.
Vision improvement was nearly identical for either drug. Giving either drug less often produced slightly less vision improvement — reading two fewer letters on a vision chart, something one researcher compared to a smudge on one's glasses.
"This is an extremely small difference," Sieving of the National Eye Institute said.
Study leader Maureen Maguire at the University of Pennsylvania agreed.
Giving either drug as needed "is certainly a viable option" that spares many elderly patients the burden of monthly shots, she said.
Adverse events, mostly hospitalizations, were more common among Avastin users, but many of these were for side effects not thought to be related to the drugs, and the study is too small to give a clear picture on these.
"We saw more adverse events when we gave less drug," and don't know what that means, said study co-leader Dr. Daniel Martin of the Cleveland Clinic's Cole Eye Institute.
No major differences were seen in big problems like heart attacks, strokes, and deaths.
In a statement, Genentech said that proving Avastin's benefit for the eye disease would take "substantial resources and years of clinical development," and that patients' best interests are better served by exploring new medicines.
"We still believe that Lucentis is the most appropriate treatment," because it was specifically designed for use in the eye, said Genentech's ophthalmology chief, Dr. Anthony Adamis.
Although Genentech sells both drugs, PDL BioPharma Inc. gets royalty payments on Lucentis, and Novartis AG has exclusive rights on it outside the United States.
The results are expected to lead many doctors and patients to turn away from the pricier Lucentis and instead use $50 shots of Avastin for an age-related condition called wet macular degeneration.
Vision improvement after one year was the same for those given Avastin or Lucentis, the 1,200-patient study found.
The results are a blow to Roche's Genentech unit, which sells both medicines. Avastin is a cancer drug that doctors have used for many years to treat the eye disease even though it is not approved for that purpose. Genentech had been developing Lucentis specifically for the eye disease and won approval for it in 2006. A company spokesman said Thursday that the company had no plans to seek approval to sell Avastin for eye use or to lower the price of Lucentis.
Yet the results are a boon for patients and insurers — mostly Medicare — because nothing prevents use of the cheaper Avastin, eye specialists said. Doctors who use it for the eye disease must get a pharmacist to prepare lower doses for injection rather than the intravenous way it's used for cancer.
"It's always good news for patients when there are more than one option for a condition. It's good news for the country. Now we have potential for significant savings at a time when the cost of healthcare is skyrocketing," said Dr. Paul Sternberg, chairman of the Vanderbilt Eye Institute.
He had no role in the study, the results of which were published online Thursday by the New England Journal of Medicine and will be presented at an eye research conference on Sunday.
Anyone wanting to use Lucentis now will have to justify its cost to insurers and policymakers, Dr. Philip Rosenfeld of Bascom Palmer Eye Institute at the University of Miami wrote in an editorial with the study. He has no ties to Genentech but has consulted for several other companies developing eye treatments.
More than 250,000 Americans are treated for macular degeneration each year, mostly with Avastin, said Dr. Paul Sieving, director of the National Eye Institute, the federal agency that paid for the study. About 1.6 million Americans have advanced macular degeneration and another 7 million are at risk of developing it, he said.
The disease occurs when abnormal blood vessel growth damages the part of the retina responsible for central vision. Avastin and Lucentis aim at a protein that spurs blood vessel growth. They are injected through the white part of the eye into the central cavity. Numbing drops are used and patients generally feel pressure more than pain, Sternberg explained.
"The first time you tell a patient they're going to have to receive one they are taken aback and apprehensive, but they are remarkably tolerated," he said of the shots.
In the study, patients were given one of four treatments for one year: Avastin or Lucentis every four weeks, or either drug on an as-needed basis depending on response. Those on "as needed" dosing required four to five fewer shots over a year than the others.
Vision improvement was nearly identical for either drug. Giving either drug less often produced slightly less vision improvement — reading two fewer letters on a vision chart, something one researcher compared to a smudge on one's glasses.
"This is an extremely small difference," Sieving of the National Eye Institute said.
Study leader Maureen Maguire at the University of Pennsylvania agreed.
Giving either drug as needed "is certainly a viable option" that spares many elderly patients the burden of monthly shots, she said.
Adverse events, mostly hospitalizations, were more common among Avastin users, but many of these were for side effects not thought to be related to the drugs, and the study is too small to give a clear picture on these.
"We saw more adverse events when we gave less drug," and don't know what that means, said study co-leader Dr. Daniel Martin of the Cleveland Clinic's Cole Eye Institute.
No major differences were seen in big problems like heart attacks, strokes, and deaths.
In a statement, Genentech said that proving Avastin's benefit for the eye disease would take "substantial resources and years of clinical development," and that patients' best interests are better served by exploring new medicines.
"We still believe that Lucentis is the most appropriate treatment," because it was specifically designed for use in the eye, said Genentech's ophthalmology chief, Dr. Anthony Adamis.
Although Genentech sells both drugs, PDL BioPharma Inc. gets royalty payments on Lucentis, and Novartis AG has exclusive rights on it outside the United States.
5 Slim-Down Tips for Your Pudgy Pet
Like their owners, many American pets are overweight. In fact, 55 percent of dogs and 53 percent of cats are overweight or obese, according to the Association for Pet Obesity Prevention. And similar to their owners, all that extra weight spells health trouble. Arthritis, back pain, kidney disease, and even diabetes afflict our pets just as they do heavy humans.
The reasons our pets are getting pudgier are similar to why we are: bad diets and too much sitting around, animal experts say. But Rex doesn’t have to live out his years overweight and gimpy from arthritis. Just like us, he can change his ways — from eating better to exercising more often. But he needs your help. Here’s how to get Rex from hefty and sluggish to lean and lively.
1. Be choosey about food
Just as we do when we shop for ourselves, we should read the labels on pets’ food. Many brands now contain less meat and more soy, corn, and wheat, which can help pack on the pounds. Brands that list meat as the first ingredient are best, veterinarian Ernie Ward tells LiveScience.com, and vegetables and barley are good sources of carbohydrates. Also, avoid foods listing meal or by-products as ingredients, as well those with the preservatives ethoxyquin, BHA, BHT, warns Prevention.com.
2. Offer veggie treats
A single, high-calorie treat like a packaged cheese or beef snack can contain one-fifth to one-fourth of a small dog’s daily recommended calories, according to WebMD.com. Substitute fatty treats by offering Fido whole foods like raw broccoli and carrots to crunch on instead. However, not all foods are safe for pets to eat so talk to your veterinarian. For example, garlic, onion, raisins, and grapes can prove toxic for canines.
3. Control portions
Don’t rely on food labels when trying to decide how much to feed your pet because his nutritional and caloric needs depend on how active he is, his size, and the type of food he is eating, Prevention.com says. Discuss the matter with your veterinarian. Be especially careful when feeding cats because they can become very ill if they are not getting enough food.
To make eating fun and make the meal last longer, consider packing food into a feeding toy that releases it little by little.
4. Exercise to boost mood
Inactive pets not only have more medical problems, shorter lifespans, and are more expensive to care for, but they also are more likely to become anxious or depressed because a sedentary lifestyle alters brain chemicals affecting mood, according to Prevention.com.
"Aerobic activity for as little as 20 to 30 minutes a day balances norepinephrine, dopamine, and serotonin levels, resulting in a better, more stable mood," veterinarian Ernie Ward says. Such activity also will make Spot less likely to tear up the sofa.
5. Walk with confidence
Walking your dog should be an enjoyable experience, and if it is, you and your dog are more likely to get regular exercise. Consider some of the walking tips dog behaviorist Tamar Geller shared with the Today show:
• Make it a positive experience. Screaming “heel” doesn’t help keep your dog at your side, but using the word “close” and offering a small treat when she follows will reinforce the good behavior.
• When teaching your dog to walk on leash, don’t use a retractable one and be sure to keep the leash at the same length all the time so she knows you are in control.
• Hold your ground when she pulls the leash and only resume walking when she stops pulling.
The reasons our pets are getting pudgier are similar to why we are: bad diets and too much sitting around, animal experts say. But Rex doesn’t have to live out his years overweight and gimpy from arthritis. Just like us, he can change his ways — from eating better to exercising more often. But he needs your help. Here’s how to get Rex from hefty and sluggish to lean and lively.
1. Be choosey about food
Just as we do when we shop for ourselves, we should read the labels on pets’ food. Many brands now contain less meat and more soy, corn, and wheat, which can help pack on the pounds. Brands that list meat as the first ingredient are best, veterinarian Ernie Ward tells LiveScience.com, and vegetables and barley are good sources of carbohydrates. Also, avoid foods listing meal or by-products as ingredients, as well those with the preservatives ethoxyquin, BHA, BHT, warns Prevention.com.
2. Offer veggie treats
A single, high-calorie treat like a packaged cheese or beef snack can contain one-fifth to one-fourth of a small dog’s daily recommended calories, according to WebMD.com. Substitute fatty treats by offering Fido whole foods like raw broccoli and carrots to crunch on instead. However, not all foods are safe for pets to eat so talk to your veterinarian. For example, garlic, onion, raisins, and grapes can prove toxic for canines.
3. Control portions
Don’t rely on food labels when trying to decide how much to feed your pet because his nutritional and caloric needs depend on how active he is, his size, and the type of food he is eating, Prevention.com says. Discuss the matter with your veterinarian. Be especially careful when feeding cats because they can become very ill if they are not getting enough food.
To make eating fun and make the meal last longer, consider packing food into a feeding toy that releases it little by little.
4. Exercise to boost mood
Inactive pets not only have more medical problems, shorter lifespans, and are more expensive to care for, but they also are more likely to become anxious or depressed because a sedentary lifestyle alters brain chemicals affecting mood, according to Prevention.com.
"Aerobic activity for as little as 20 to 30 minutes a day balances norepinephrine, dopamine, and serotonin levels, resulting in a better, more stable mood," veterinarian Ernie Ward says. Such activity also will make Spot less likely to tear up the sofa.
5. Walk with confidence
Walking your dog should be an enjoyable experience, and if it is, you and your dog are more likely to get regular exercise. Consider some of the walking tips dog behaviorist Tamar Geller shared with the Today show:
• Make it a positive experience. Screaming “heel” doesn’t help keep your dog at your side, but using the word “close” and offering a small treat when she follows will reinforce the good behavior.
• When teaching your dog to walk on leash, don’t use a retractable one and be sure to keep the leash at the same length all the time so she knows you are in control.
• Hold your ground when she pulls the leash and only resume walking when she stops pulling.
Are Diet Sodas Harming Your Health?
Just because a beverage has the word “diet” on the label doesn’t mean it’s good for you. Researchers are linking low-calorie drinks to a variety of medical issues, from brittle bones to stroke. Is this just another health scare? The Medical Detective gets to the bottom of this bubbling issue. Plus, are you diet soda savvy? Take our quiz to find out…
Choosing a diet drink over a high-calorie beverage feels good. Righteous even.
But don’t pat yourself on the back just yet. In recent years, many studies have suggested that diet sodas might harm your health, without even shrinking your waistline.
Do diet sodas really cause osteoporosis, heart disease, kidney problems and weight gain? That’s the $21-billion question – the amount Americans spend on low-calorie drinks annually.
“There’s a connection between diet soda and negative health outcomes,” says Susan Swithers, Ph.D., a professor of psychological sciences at Purdue University who studies food intake and body weight. What’s not clear is whether the drinks are directly responsible for those problems, or if people with health issues or unhealthy behaviors just happen to consume more of them, she says.
In other words, 59% of Americans who drink diet soda (according to a 2007 survey by the Calorie Control Council, a diet-food trade organization) should ponder the repercussions before gulping it down.
The Medical Detective found that women who drink these beverages daily could have reason to worry. Here’s the truth about how diet soda can affect your health.
Weight Gain
It seems illogical that zero-calorie beverages could make you pack on pounds, but that’s what a three-year study by the University of Texas Department of Medicine found in 2005. For each diet drink participants had per day, they were 65% more likely to become overweight in the next 6-7 years, compared with those who didn’t drink them at all, UT researchers found.
They were 41% more likely to become obese, defined as having a Body Mass Index (BMI) over 30, which for a 5’ 7” woman would mean weighing more than 190 pounds.
One reason could be biological programming. Our bodies associate sweet tastes with an intake of calories, says Swithers, who researched the subject in a 2008 study at Purdue’s Ingestive Behavior Research Center.
When you drink a diet soda with no calories, your body may get confused – either causing your metabolism to slow down or prompting a craving for more food to make up for the calories that never arrive, she says.
Another factor: Our bodies associate solid foods, more than liquids, with satiation (fullness), says Ramachandran Vasan, M.D., professor and chief of preventive medicine and epidemiology at Boston University School of Medicine.
Then there’s the “Big Mac, fries and a diet soda” theory. Wishful thinkers who believe they can have a high-calorie meal if they wash it down with a zero-calorie drink end up consuming more than they should.
“People use diet sodas as an excuse to eat poorly,” Vasan says.
Those who drink more low-calorie beverages tend to eat foods with more saturated and trans-fats, exercise less and eat fewer fruits and vegetables, he adds.
Osteoporosis
For many women, nothing refreshes after a workout like a diet drink.
“Knowing I get to enjoy a diet soda after exercising motivates me,” says Maddie Warner, a 36-year-old Los Angeles artist. “I burn off calories and get a zero-calorie reward when I’m done.”
But what’s the punishment? Possibly undoing that exercise’s benefit to her bones.
About 44 million people, 68% of whom are women, are at risk for osteoporosis, a condition in which bones become extremely porous and vulnerable to fracture, according to the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.
Middle-aged and older women who drank three or more 12-ounce servings of cola (either diet or regular) per day had almost 4% lower bone mineral density in the hip, according to a 2006 Tufts University study examining more than 1,400 women. That’s after researchers factored in conditions such as age, menopausal status, calcium and vitamin D intake, and alcohol and cigarette use. Women who drank non-colas weren’t affected.
“I’m convinced that cola is a risk factor for bone loss in older adults, particularly women,” says study leader Katherine Tucker, Ph.D., professor and chair of the Department of Health Sciences at Northeastern University Bouvé College of Health Sciences in Boston.
The culprit is phosphoric acid, a flavoring agent that increases blood acidity, she says. It’s a major component in many types of soda, but cola tends to have more.
Phosphorus itself is an important bone mineral, but excess amounts may lead to bone loss because the body tries to neutralize excess acid by taking calcium from bones.
Some experts also believe that people replace calcium-rich beverages like milk with diet sodas, leading women to take in lower levels of the bone-building nutrient.
“Your calcium requirements increase after age 50,” says osteoporosis expert Robert Heaney, M.D., a professor of medicine at Creighton School of Medicine in Omaha, Neb. Women of any age should have 3 servings of dairy products per day for optimal calcium intake, whether they drink soda or not, he advises.
Heart Disease
Controversy is still swirling around a February 2011 University of Miami study showing that people who drank artificially sweetened beverages daily had a 61% higher rate of heart attack and stroke than those who didn’t. (Read more about this study on our blog.)
Some nutrition, diet and vascular disease experts question the value of the findings because the study of 2,564 soda drinkers (63% were women) didn’t determine a direct relationship between diet soda and stroke. Also, the study was small, and soda consumption was self-reported by participants, according to detractors.
Still, Northeastern’s Tucker finds the results compelling.
“People know if they drink diet soda or not,” she says. “The behavior is clear.”
Those who consume diet sodas daily typically have a higher BMI and are more likely to have diabetes, a risk factor for heart disease, notes Ralph Sacco, M.D., the University of Miami’s chairman of neurology and senior author of the report.
Because this is such a serious issue, a larger study will shed more light on reasons for the heart disease connection, he says.
But based on current research, Tucker is firmly in the anti-soda camp. “Why not drink a glass of iced tea or sparkling water?” she says.
Metabolic Syndrome
Think limiting consumption gets you off the hook? Even drinking just one glass of diet soda per day puts you at risk for metabolic syndrome, a 2007 Boston University study found. This syndrome is a cluster of risk factors for heart disease and diabetes, including large waist circumference, high levels of triglycerides (blood fats), low levels of HDL (good) cholesterol, high blood pressure and high-fasting blood sugar.
About 23% of adult women have the syndrome, according to an extensive research study called the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III.
Even factoring in levels of saturated fat and fiber in the diet, total calories consumed, smoking and the level of exercise among participants, the link between diet soda and metabolic syndrome was clear, says Boston University’s Vasan, author of the four-year study.
But once again, it was difficult to determine cause and effect.
Researchers don’t know if there’s a biological pathway in diet soda that causes problems, says Vasan, or “a behavioral pattern – that people who drink diet soda [also] eat more fast food.”
Kidney Problems
If you drink two or more diet sodas daily, you could double your risk of decreased kidney function, according to results from the Nurses’ Health Study, one of the largest and longest-running investigations of factors influencing women’s health. (It surveyed 3,000 nurses over 11 years.)
Your kidneys serve several important purposes, including filtering waste products from blood and regulating blood pressure. Kidney function decreases a bit with age, says researcher Julie Lin, M.D., an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and kidney specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
But in this study, the “rate of kidney function loss was three times faster in women who drank diet soda compared with aging alone.”
The link between the two is unclear, however, because “diet soda ingredients are proprietary – so we don’t know exactly what’s in them,” Lin says.
One theory: Diet sweeteners could lead to kidney scarring, she says. Further studies need to be done to corroborate that theory.
So what should you do when you feel the urge for a refreshing drink?
“If you can’t avoid soda, drink it in moderation – less than one a day,” Vasan says. “If you can’t do that, exercise more regularly and have your blood checked.”
Diet soda lover Warner is OK with that. “I’ll cut back, but I won’t give it up,” she says. “I don’t think I could ever cut it out entirely.”
Are You Diet Soda Savvy?
Most people assume it's what they're eating that packs on the pounds. But it might be what's at the other end of your straw, not fork, that's really to blame. And don't think you're exempt just because you drink all things diet.
Choosing a diet drink over a high-calorie beverage feels good. Righteous even.
But don’t pat yourself on the back just yet. In recent years, many studies have suggested that diet sodas might harm your health, without even shrinking your waistline.
Do diet sodas really cause osteoporosis, heart disease, kidney problems and weight gain? That’s the $21-billion question – the amount Americans spend on low-calorie drinks annually.
“There’s a connection between diet soda and negative health outcomes,” says Susan Swithers, Ph.D., a professor of psychological sciences at Purdue University who studies food intake and body weight. What’s not clear is whether the drinks are directly responsible for those problems, or if people with health issues or unhealthy behaviors just happen to consume more of them, she says.
In other words, 59% of Americans who drink diet soda (according to a 2007 survey by the Calorie Control Council, a diet-food trade organization) should ponder the repercussions before gulping it down.
The Medical Detective found that women who drink these beverages daily could have reason to worry. Here’s the truth about how diet soda can affect your health.
Weight Gain
It seems illogical that zero-calorie beverages could make you pack on pounds, but that’s what a three-year study by the University of Texas Department of Medicine found in 2005. For each diet drink participants had per day, they were 65% more likely to become overweight in the next 6-7 years, compared with those who didn’t drink them at all, UT researchers found.
They were 41% more likely to become obese, defined as having a Body Mass Index (BMI) over 30, which for a 5’ 7” woman would mean weighing more than 190 pounds.
One reason could be biological programming. Our bodies associate sweet tastes with an intake of calories, says Swithers, who researched the subject in a 2008 study at Purdue’s Ingestive Behavior Research Center.
When you drink a diet soda with no calories, your body may get confused – either causing your metabolism to slow down or prompting a craving for more food to make up for the calories that never arrive, she says.
Another factor: Our bodies associate solid foods, more than liquids, with satiation (fullness), says Ramachandran Vasan, M.D., professor and chief of preventive medicine and epidemiology at Boston University School of Medicine.
Then there’s the “Big Mac, fries and a diet soda” theory. Wishful thinkers who believe they can have a high-calorie meal if they wash it down with a zero-calorie drink end up consuming more than they should.
“People use diet sodas as an excuse to eat poorly,” Vasan says.
Those who drink more low-calorie beverages tend to eat foods with more saturated and trans-fats, exercise less and eat fewer fruits and vegetables, he adds.
Osteoporosis
For many women, nothing refreshes after a workout like a diet drink.
“Knowing I get to enjoy a diet soda after exercising motivates me,” says Maddie Warner, a 36-year-old Los Angeles artist. “I burn off calories and get a zero-calorie reward when I’m done.”
But what’s the punishment? Possibly undoing that exercise’s benefit to her bones.
About 44 million people, 68% of whom are women, are at risk for osteoporosis, a condition in which bones become extremely porous and vulnerable to fracture, according to the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.
Middle-aged and older women who drank three or more 12-ounce servings of cola (either diet or regular) per day had almost 4% lower bone mineral density in the hip, according to a 2006 Tufts University study examining more than 1,400 women. That’s after researchers factored in conditions such as age, menopausal status, calcium and vitamin D intake, and alcohol and cigarette use. Women who drank non-colas weren’t affected.
“I’m convinced that cola is a risk factor for bone loss in older adults, particularly women,” says study leader Katherine Tucker, Ph.D., professor and chair of the Department of Health Sciences at Northeastern University Bouvé College of Health Sciences in Boston.
The culprit is phosphoric acid, a flavoring agent that increases blood acidity, she says. It’s a major component in many types of soda, but cola tends to have more.
Phosphorus itself is an important bone mineral, but excess amounts may lead to bone loss because the body tries to neutralize excess acid by taking calcium from bones.
Some experts also believe that people replace calcium-rich beverages like milk with diet sodas, leading women to take in lower levels of the bone-building nutrient.
“Your calcium requirements increase after age 50,” says osteoporosis expert Robert Heaney, M.D., a professor of medicine at Creighton School of Medicine in Omaha, Neb. Women of any age should have 3 servings of dairy products per day for optimal calcium intake, whether they drink soda or not, he advises.
Heart Disease
Controversy is still swirling around a February 2011 University of Miami study showing that people who drank artificially sweetened beverages daily had a 61% higher rate of heart attack and stroke than those who didn’t. (Read more about this study on our blog.)
Some nutrition, diet and vascular disease experts question the value of the findings because the study of 2,564 soda drinkers (63% were women) didn’t determine a direct relationship between diet soda and stroke. Also, the study was small, and soda consumption was self-reported by participants, according to detractors.
Still, Northeastern’s Tucker finds the results compelling.
“People know if they drink diet soda or not,” she says. “The behavior is clear.”
Those who consume diet sodas daily typically have a higher BMI and are more likely to have diabetes, a risk factor for heart disease, notes Ralph Sacco, M.D., the University of Miami’s chairman of neurology and senior author of the report.
Because this is such a serious issue, a larger study will shed more light on reasons for the heart disease connection, he says.
But based on current research, Tucker is firmly in the anti-soda camp. “Why not drink a glass of iced tea or sparkling water?” she says.
Metabolic Syndrome
Think limiting consumption gets you off the hook? Even drinking just one glass of diet soda per day puts you at risk for metabolic syndrome, a 2007 Boston University study found. This syndrome is a cluster of risk factors for heart disease and diabetes, including large waist circumference, high levels of triglycerides (blood fats), low levels of HDL (good) cholesterol, high blood pressure and high-fasting blood sugar.
About 23% of adult women have the syndrome, according to an extensive research study called the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III.
Even factoring in levels of saturated fat and fiber in the diet, total calories consumed, smoking and the level of exercise among participants, the link between diet soda and metabolic syndrome was clear, says Boston University’s Vasan, author of the four-year study.
But once again, it was difficult to determine cause and effect.
Researchers don’t know if there’s a biological pathway in diet soda that causes problems, says Vasan, or “a behavioral pattern – that people who drink diet soda [also] eat more fast food.”
Kidney Problems
If you drink two or more diet sodas daily, you could double your risk of decreased kidney function, according to results from the Nurses’ Health Study, one of the largest and longest-running investigations of factors influencing women’s health. (It surveyed 3,000 nurses over 11 years.)
Your kidneys serve several important purposes, including filtering waste products from blood and regulating blood pressure. Kidney function decreases a bit with age, says researcher Julie Lin, M.D., an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and kidney specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
But in this study, the “rate of kidney function loss was three times faster in women who drank diet soda compared with aging alone.”
The link between the two is unclear, however, because “diet soda ingredients are proprietary – so we don’t know exactly what’s in them,” Lin says.
One theory: Diet sweeteners could lead to kidney scarring, she says. Further studies need to be done to corroborate that theory.
So what should you do when you feel the urge for a refreshing drink?
“If you can’t avoid soda, drink it in moderation – less than one a day,” Vasan says. “If you can’t do that, exercise more regularly and have your blood checked.”
Diet soda lover Warner is OK with that. “I’ll cut back, but I won’t give it up,” she says. “I don’t think I could ever cut it out entirely.”
Are You Diet Soda Savvy?
Most people assume it's what they're eating that packs on the pounds. But it might be what's at the other end of your straw, not fork, that's really to blame. And don't think you're exempt just because you drink all things diet.
Depression reported by 25 percent of caregivers
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - One in four caregivers for ill or elderly relatives and friends said in a survey released on Tuesday that they suffer from depression, a figure far higher than for the U.S. population in general.
By comparison, 9 percent of all Americans are estimated to suffer from depression, according to a study released last year by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.
The California-based company Caring.com, a website for caregivers that commissioned the online survey of 400 respondents, said the high level of depression reported by those attending to a loved one comes as many face their own health issues.
The survey also found that a third of family caregivers spend more than 30 hours a week in that role, and 77 percent are concerned about the impact of their duties on their savings.
Most of the caregivers were attending to an infirm parent, while the rest were caring for a spouse, relative or friend.
By comparison, 9 percent of all Americans are estimated to suffer from depression, according to a study released last year by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.
The California-based company Caring.com, a website for caregivers that commissioned the online survey of 400 respondents, said the high level of depression reported by those attending to a loved one comes as many face their own health issues.
The survey also found that a third of family caregivers spend more than 30 hours a week in that role, and 77 percent are concerned about the impact of their duties on their savings.
Most of the caregivers were attending to an infirm parent, while the rest were caring for a spouse, relative or friend.
Should hysterectomy mean the ovaries come out too?
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Women who are having a hysterectomy should consider also getting their ovaries removed, suggests a new study.
The report showed that women who had their ovaries taken out had lower rates of ovarian cancer and were not more likely to get heart disease or a hip fracture - which had been a worry in this group because of the quick drop in hormones that happens once the ovaries are gone.
That doesn't mean that all women who are getting a hysterectomy before menopause should also have their ovaries out.
"I've always said to my own patients, this is a woman's individual decision," Dr. William Parker, a gynecologist affiliated with the University of California, Los Angeles, told Reuters Health.
"Ovarian cancer is a terrible disease, but an extremely rare disease," said Parker, who was not involved in the current study. "I think it's important (to consider the options), and I don't think there's a pat answer."
Led by Dr. Vanessa Jacoby from the University of California, San Francisco, the researchers used data from the Women's Health Initiative study to compare women who had their uterus and ovaries removed with those who just had their uterus taken out.
Hysterectomies are often performed in women who haven't hit menopause but have heavy bleeding or are bothered by benign tumors growing in the uterus. More than half a million women have the surgery every year in the U.S.
The current study included more than 25,000 women age 50 to 79. Researchers followed the women for an average of 7 to 8 years to determine how many were diagnosed with ovarian cancer, heart disease, or a hip fracture.
Ovarian cancer was very rare in both groups of women -- 1 in 300 women who only had a hysterectomy were diagnosed with the disease, compared to 1 in 5,000 women who had their ovaries removed with the hysterectomy.
The authors calculated that 323 women would have needed to have their ovaries removed to prevent each case of ovarian cancer.
Both groups of women were diagnosed with heart disease and hip fractures at similar rates, and about the same amount of women in both groups died during the study - 8 of every 1,000 women each year.
Those findings differ from a previous study, co-authored by Parker, which found that women who had their ovaries removed were more likely to be diagnosed with heart disease and die than women who didn't.
Two reasons for the difference, researchers say, may be that Parker's study followed women for a longer period of time and included women who were younger, on average, than the women in the current study.
That makes the studies difficult to compare, said Lauren Arnold of Washington University in St. Louis, who wrote an editorial accompanying the new research in Archives of Internal Medicine.
"It just underscores that there's a lot that goes into the decision about whether to remove the ovaries," Arnold told Reuters Health. "Sometimes the decision is fairly clear cut," such as for women who have a gene that puts them at a high risk for ovarian cancer.
In that case, most doctors recommend women have their ovaries out because the survival rate for ovarian cancer is so low - most women aren't diagnosed until the cancer is advanced, and then fewer than one in three will survive another 5 years, the researchers report.
"But if you don't have an ovarian cancer risk, you have a lot of different factors to weigh," Arnold said.
Parker said that women should also consider if they or anyone in their family has a history of heart disease - which his study suggested would mean that leaving in the ovaries is a good idea.
Jacoby said the question of whether or not to remove the ovaries can be based on a woman's personal feelings about ovarian cancer, heart risks, and her own body.
"The main message that I hope women get is this is a very personal decision and they should really talk to their doctor about the risks and benefits of removing their ovaries," Jacoby told Reuters Health. "There's no right answer."
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/dIJMdR Archives of Internal Medicine, online April 25, 2011.
The report showed that women who had their ovaries taken out had lower rates of ovarian cancer and were not more likely to get heart disease or a hip fracture - which had been a worry in this group because of the quick drop in hormones that happens once the ovaries are gone.
That doesn't mean that all women who are getting a hysterectomy before menopause should also have their ovaries out.
"I've always said to my own patients, this is a woman's individual decision," Dr. William Parker, a gynecologist affiliated with the University of California, Los Angeles, told Reuters Health.
"Ovarian cancer is a terrible disease, but an extremely rare disease," said Parker, who was not involved in the current study. "I think it's important (to consider the options), and I don't think there's a pat answer."
Led by Dr. Vanessa Jacoby from the University of California, San Francisco, the researchers used data from the Women's Health Initiative study to compare women who had their uterus and ovaries removed with those who just had their uterus taken out.
Hysterectomies are often performed in women who haven't hit menopause but have heavy bleeding or are bothered by benign tumors growing in the uterus. More than half a million women have the surgery every year in the U.S.
The current study included more than 25,000 women age 50 to 79. Researchers followed the women for an average of 7 to 8 years to determine how many were diagnosed with ovarian cancer, heart disease, or a hip fracture.
Ovarian cancer was very rare in both groups of women -- 1 in 300 women who only had a hysterectomy were diagnosed with the disease, compared to 1 in 5,000 women who had their ovaries removed with the hysterectomy.
The authors calculated that 323 women would have needed to have their ovaries removed to prevent each case of ovarian cancer.
Both groups of women were diagnosed with heart disease and hip fractures at similar rates, and about the same amount of women in both groups died during the study - 8 of every 1,000 women each year.
Those findings differ from a previous study, co-authored by Parker, which found that women who had their ovaries removed were more likely to be diagnosed with heart disease and die than women who didn't.
Two reasons for the difference, researchers say, may be that Parker's study followed women for a longer period of time and included women who were younger, on average, than the women in the current study.
That makes the studies difficult to compare, said Lauren Arnold of Washington University in St. Louis, who wrote an editorial accompanying the new research in Archives of Internal Medicine.
"It just underscores that there's a lot that goes into the decision about whether to remove the ovaries," Arnold told Reuters Health. "Sometimes the decision is fairly clear cut," such as for women who have a gene that puts them at a high risk for ovarian cancer.
In that case, most doctors recommend women have their ovaries out because the survival rate for ovarian cancer is so low - most women aren't diagnosed until the cancer is advanced, and then fewer than one in three will survive another 5 years, the researchers report.
"But if you don't have an ovarian cancer risk, you have a lot of different factors to weigh," Arnold said.
Parker said that women should also consider if they or anyone in their family has a history of heart disease - which his study suggested would mean that leaving in the ovaries is a good idea.
Jacoby said the question of whether or not to remove the ovaries can be based on a woman's personal feelings about ovarian cancer, heart risks, and her own body.
"The main message that I hope women get is this is a very personal decision and they should really talk to their doctor about the risks and benefits of removing their ovaries," Jacoby told Reuters Health. "There's no right answer."
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/dIJMdR Archives of Internal Medicine, online April 25, 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)