A McDonalds website providing resources to its employees advises against eating hamburgers, fries and sodas. CNBC first noticed the latest in a series of strange pieces of advice provided by the fast food company to its employees. “While convenient and economical for a busy lifestyle,” McDonalds says of its primary product, “fast foods are typically high in calories, fat, saturated fat, sugar, and salt and may put people at risk for becoming overweight.”
It goes on: “In general, people with high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease must be very careful about choosing fast food because of its high fat, salt, and sugar levels.” CNBC notes that the content here comes from a third party, A.D.A.M., Inc., credited at the bottom of the page. You can browse similar advice from the company on eating healthy here. A spokesperson for McDonalds told CNBC that the company would examine the content in question. Here’s another sample:
Obesity is on the rise— as is the incidence of Heart Disease, Diabetes, Stroke and various forms of Cancer. And, shockingly, diseases that had in the past begun in old age are now appearing at much earlier ages.
A groundbreaking scientific study showed how easily (and inexpensively) the rate of occurrence of these and other serious illness could be greatly reduced— but this information is widely ignored.
In this new book, Dr. T. Colin Campbell addresses these issues. Here’s an excerpt from the review:
This gist of T. Colin Campbell’s new book, Whole, (with co-author Howard Jacobson) is this. After publishing his radical landmark The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted And the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-term Health in 2005, let’s suppose what he reported there is true. Eight years later, why hasn’t that information and perspective broken through to more widespread awareness? Why hasn’t your doctor or dietitian told you about it, or heard of it, or given it serious consideration? Why haven’t school lunches changed across the board? Whole gives answers.
Three p-words permeate Campbell’s thesis here: profits, power, and paradigms. Power and profits drive the big businesses of livestock and processed food, Campbell argues… (Read it all)
THE health studies that conclude that people should sit less, and get up and move around more, have always struck me as fitting into the “well, duh” category.
But a closer look at the accumulating research on sitting reveals something more intriguing, and disturbing: the health hazards of sitting for long stretches are significant even for people who are quite active when they’re not sitting down. That point was reiterated recently in two studies, published in The British Journal of Sports Medicine and in Diabetologia, a journal of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Suppose you stick to a five-times-a-week gym regimen, as I do, and have put in a lifetime of hard cardio exercise, and have a resting heart rate that’s a significant fraction below the norm. That doesn’t inoculate you, apparently, from the perils of sitting.
The research comes more from observing the health results of people’s behavior than from discovering the biological and genetic triggers that may be associated with extended sitting. Still, scientists have determined that after an hour or more of sitting, the production of enzymes that burn fat in the body declines by as much as 90 percent. Extended sitting, they add, slows the body’s metabolism of glucose and lowers the levels of good (HDL) cholesterol in the blood. Those are risk factors toward developing heart disease and Type 2 diabetes.
“The science is still evolving, but we believe that sitting is harmful in itself,” says Dr. Toni Yancey, a professor of health services at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Eating red meat is associated with a sharply increased risk of death from cancer and heart disease, according to a new study, and the more of it you eat, the greater the risk.
The analysis, published online Monday in Archives of Internal Medicine, used data from two studies that involved 121,342 men and women who filled out questionnaires about health and diet from 1980 through 2006. There were 23,926 deaths in the group, including 5,910 from cardiovascular disease and 9,464 from cancer.
New research suggests that beta-blocker pills don’t prevent heart attacks, strokes or cardiac deaths in patients with heart disease, but doctors are torn over whether there’s enough in the study to make them want to stop prescribing the drugs. Beta blockers have been a standard heart medication for decades.
The study, published in the Journal of American Medical Association, looked at nearly 45,000 patients with prior heart attacks, coronary artery disease or risk factors for coronary artery disease, and found that those on beta blockers didn’t show significantly lower rates of heart attack, stroke or cardiac death than those not on the medication.
“This is a very compelling study that has the potential to shake up the conventional wisdom that exists regarding the role of beta blockers in the management of patients with cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Randal Thomas, a cardiovascular specialist at the Mayo Clinic. “At a minimum, it will lead to new studies that address this issue once again.”
Beta blockers work by blocking adrenalin receptors in the brain that become activated when the body is stressed. Beta blockers are used to treat heart disease, high blood pressure, anxiety and other conditions.
Some doctors say they are glad beta blockers are being questioned because their use had been “written in stone” for so many years, but others say using a non-randomized data sample is not as reliable as a randomized drug trial.
Debunking the Hunter-Gatherer Workout: Findings suggest inactivity is not the source of modern obesity
DARWIN isn’t required reading for public health officials, but he should be. One reason that heart disease, diabetes and obesity have reached epidemic levels in the developed world is that our modern way of life is radically different from the hunter-gatherer environments in which our bodies evolved. But which modern changes are causing the most harm?
Many in public health believe that a major culprit is our sedentary lifestyle. Faced with relatively few physical demands today, our bodies burn fewer calories than they evolved to consume — and those unspent calories pile up over time as fat. The World Health Organization, in discussing the root causes of obesity, has cited a “decrease in physical activity due to the increasingly sedentary nature of many forms of work, changing modes of transportation and increasing urbanization.”
This is a nice theory. But is it true? To find out, my colleagues and I recently measured daily energy expenditure among the Hadza people of Tanzania, one of the few remaining populations of traditional hunter-gatherers. Would the Hadza, whose basic way of life is so similar to that of our distant ancestors, expend more energy than we do?
Our findings, published last month in the journal PLoS ONE, indicate that they don’t, suggesting that inactivity is not the source of modern obesity.
Previous attempts to quantify daily energy expenditure among hunter-gatherers have relied entirely on estimation. By contrast, our study used a technique that calculates the body’s rate of carbon dioxide production — and hence the calories burned per day — by tracking the depletion of two isotopes (deuterium and oxygen-18) in an individual’s urine over a two-week period.
When transplanted into guinea pig hearts, human heart muscle cells (pictured) can beat in time with resident cells.
MEDIMAGE / SPL
Damaged skin and liver can often repair themselves, but the heart rarely heals well and heart disease is the world’s leading cause of death. Research published today raises hopes for cell therapies, showing that heart muscle cells differentiated from human embryonic stem cells can integrate into existing heart muscle.
“What we have done is prove that these cells do what working heart muscles do, which is beat in sync with the rest of the heart,” says Chuck Murry, a cardiovascular biologist at the University of Washington in Seattle, who co-led the research.
It has been difficult to assess cell therapies in animal models because human cells cannot keep up with the heart rates of some small rodents. Cardiomyocytes derived from human embryonic stem (ES) cells typically beat fewer than 150 times a minute. External electrical stimulation can increase that rate, but only up to about 240 beats per minute, says Michael LaFlamme, a cardiovascular biologist at the University of Washington and the other co-leader on the project. Rats and mice have heart rates of around 400 and 600 beats per minute, respectively.
However, guinea pigs have a heart rate of 200-250 beats per minute, near the limit for human cardiomyocytes. After working out ways to suppress guinea pigs’ immune systems so that they would accept human cells, Murry, LaFlamme and their co-workers began transplantation experiments. They also devised a way to make assessing electrical activity straightforward: using recent genetic-engineering technology, they inserted a ‘sensor’ gene into the human ES cells so that cardiomyocytes derived from them would fluoresce when they contracted.
The feature film Forks Over Knives examines the profound claim that most, if not all, of the degenerative diseases that afflict us can be controlled, or even reversed, by rejecting animal-based and processed foods.
President Bill Clinton started their diet for his Heart problem and lost 24 lbs, gained lots of energy and changed his life. These MD’s adds to the belief in the Holistic nutrition world of how much you can improve you health with dicipline and changing your diet in the correct non-orthodox way.
Who gets more respect: doctors or veterinarians? Veterinarians like to joke that physicians are vets who only know how to take care of one species. But that joke is only funny because of the usual pecking order: Doctors who treat humans are seen, and see themselves, as occupying the more knowledgeable and skilled position.
Barbara Natterson-Horowitz, a cardiologist at the University of California Los Angeles, wants to turn that assumption on its head. She believes that her fellow human physicians have much to learn from their veterinary counterparts—and that we shouldn’t see human and animal medicine as separate fields. During a stint moonlighting as a cardiologist for animals at the Los Angeles Zoo, she became fascinated with the similarities between veterinary diseases and human ones. Now she’s on a mission to raise the status of animal medicine and convince doctors to cross the species divide.
In a new book coauthored with science writer Kathryn Bowers, “Zoobiquity: What Animals Can Teach Us About Health and the Science of Healing,” Natterson-Horowitz details surprising similarities between human and animal disease. Animals get cancer, heart disease, and influenza, but they also get medical problems we think of as purely human. Fish faint, marmots get obese, stallions struggle with sexual performance problems, koalas get chlamydia, and animals of all kinds self-injure when faced with stress, isolation, and boredom.