It's never too late to start getting healthier.
Maintaining a healthy weight can help reduce the risk of heart disease. And a new study shows that older people who are obese can improve their heart health through diet and exercise.
It is often harder for elderly people to make lifestyle changes. But the study showed that it can be done. That's heartening news.
For more information on this, go here.
Tuesday, 16 January 2007
Monday, 15 January 2007
Diet Doughnuts
Doughnuts are not generally considered to be healthy food. Many of us know that, doughnut-lovers included.
Now, it seems that some doughnuts are getting a 'makeover', and being reinvented as "healthier" versions of the sugary, fat-loaded lump of dough. Makers of "all-natural" and "all-organic" doughnuts, say they do not contain trans fats, also known as partially hydrogenated vegetable oils.
Trans fats are thought to clog the arteries, boost "bad" cholestrol and lower "good" cholestrol, thereby increasing the risk of heart attack and stroke.
Enter the "new and improved" doughnuts. Despite being free of trans fats, these doughnuts are still, well, made from dough. Which means they contain a fair amount of calories, but not necessarily essential nutrients. I was impressed by the honest comment of one maker of "natural" doughnuts, quoted in this news article :
"I'm not saying this is good for you. But it's definitely not as bad."
I think that's putting it mildly.
Now, it seems that some doughnuts are getting a 'makeover', and being reinvented as "healthier" versions of the sugary, fat-loaded lump of dough. Makers of "all-natural" and "all-organic" doughnuts, say they do not contain trans fats, also known as partially hydrogenated vegetable oils.
Trans fats are thought to clog the arteries, boost "bad" cholestrol and lower "good" cholestrol, thereby increasing the risk of heart attack and stroke.
Enter the "new and improved" doughnuts. Despite being free of trans fats, these doughnuts are still, well, made from dough. Which means they contain a fair amount of calories, but not necessarily essential nutrients. I was impressed by the honest comment of one maker of "natural" doughnuts, quoted in this news article :
"I'm not saying this is good for you. But it's definitely not as bad."
I think that's putting it mildly.
Sunday, 14 January 2007
Benefits of a Bilingual Brain
I've always believed that being able to speak more than one language is beneficial in many ways.
Like being able to communicate with a wider audience, and gaining a better understanding of different cultures. And it's been my experience that learning a second language makes it easier to learn a third.
And now, it appears that being fully bilingual is good for the health. benefits. A study done in Canada found that using more than one language every day for most of one's life could delay the start of dementia by up to four years. Apparently, this protective effect can be attributed to the fact that speaking two languages engages parts of the brain that need constant exercise to stay robust and fight off dementia. There is no known cure for this illness.
You can read more about this research here.
Like being able to communicate with a wider audience, and gaining a better understanding of different cultures. And it's been my experience that learning a second language makes it easier to learn a third.
And now, it appears that being fully bilingual is good for the health. benefits. A study done in Canada found that using more than one language every day for most of one's life could delay the start of dementia by up to four years. Apparently, this protective effect can be attributed to the fact that speaking two languages engages parts of the brain that need constant exercise to stay robust and fight off dementia. There is no known cure for this illness.
You can read more about this research here.
Saturday, 13 January 2007
What's yoghurt got to do with pain relief?
I like yoghurt but I didn't know it could help relieve stomach ache. A "friendly" bacterium found in yoghurt and probiotic drinks may be used to treat serious abdominal pain. You can read more about this finding by a team of scientists here.
Friday, 12 January 2007
Weight gain between pregnancies
Preeclampsia is an illness that affects women during pregnancy, or straight after the baby is born. It can affect both the woman and her unborn baby. After a relative of mine was affected by this illness, I decided to see if research had shown a link between a woman's weight and her risk of developing preeclampsia. Here's what I found on the Action on Preeclampsia website.
A study of 150,000 women found that those who gained weight after their first baby risked serious complications during a second pregnancy.
Even women who were not overweight but who gained weight after their first baby were at risk if they had a second one.
The study looked at the body mass index or weight-height ratio (BMI) of the women both after their first and before their second pregnancy. Researchers found that a gain of one or two BMI units increased, by an average of 20 to 40 percent, a woman's risk of pregnancy-linked diabetes, high blood pressure, or babies with a high birth weight. An increase of three or more BMI units resulted in a 63% greater chance of stillbirth compared with a gain of less than one BMI unit.
The research was carried out by Eduardo Villamor, from the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, in collaboration with Sven Cnattingius, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. According to Dr Villamor, women do not need to become overweight or obese between pregnancies to increase their risk of serious complications. Even a moderate increase in weight between the first and second pregnancy could result in serious illnesses. Weight loss in overweight women seemed to lower their risk of pregnancy complications.
In The Lancet medical journal Dr Villamor said: “A key public health message from our study is that women of normal weight should avoid gaining weight between pregnancies. In addition, overweight and obese women are likely to benefit from weight loss if they are planning to become pregnant.”
A study of 150,000 women found that those who gained weight after their first baby risked serious complications during a second pregnancy.
Even women who were not overweight but who gained weight after their first baby were at risk if they had a second one.
The study looked at the body mass index or weight-height ratio (BMI) of the women both after their first and before their second pregnancy. Researchers found that a gain of one or two BMI units increased, by an average of 20 to 40 percent, a woman's risk of pregnancy-linked diabetes, high blood pressure, or babies with a high birth weight. An increase of three or more BMI units resulted in a 63% greater chance of stillbirth compared with a gain of less than one BMI unit.
The research was carried out by Eduardo Villamor, from the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, in collaboration with Sven Cnattingius, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. According to Dr Villamor, women do not need to become overweight or obese between pregnancies to increase their risk of serious complications. Even a moderate increase in weight between the first and second pregnancy could result in serious illnesses. Weight loss in overweight women seemed to lower their risk of pregnancy complications.
In The Lancet medical journal Dr Villamor said: “A key public health message from our study is that women of normal weight should avoid gaining weight between pregnancies. In addition, overweight and obese women are likely to benefit from weight loss if they are planning to become pregnant.”
Thursday, 11 January 2007
False Formula
Whoever said advertising doesn't work?
According to the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an increasing number of Americans wrongly believe that infant formula is as good as breast milk, "despite widespread information on the benefits of breastfeeding". At the same time, it appears more Americans are uncomfortable with mothers breastfeeding in public. Seems to me, the same applies to breastfeeding in the UK.
[Full disclosure - I'm a breastfeeding mother myself and I do it in public sometimes.]
The Center's findings, reported in the January edition of the American Dietetic Association, "underscore the need to educate the general public that breastfeeding is the best way to feed and nurture infants".
Two nationwide surveys conducted in 1999 and 2003 showed that the number of Americans who agreed that formula is as good as breastmilk rose from 14.3% in 1999 to 25.7% in 2003. Although breastfeeding rates in the US have been on the rise since 1990, the percentage fell for the first time between 2002 and 2003, from 70% to 66%.
The CDC researchers attribute this drop in breastfeeding can be attributed partly to the introduction in 2002 of infant formulas that were advertised as "mimicking the positive influence of breastmilk" on brain and vision development. The researchers also pointed out that the amount spent on advertising infant formula increased from $29 million in 1999 to $46 million in 2004.
Advertising sure works. In this case it seems to have obscured the fact (for some people anyway) that there is a world of difference between the real thing and something that "mimicks" the real thing.
According to the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an increasing number of Americans wrongly believe that infant formula is as good as breast milk, "despite widespread information on the benefits of breastfeeding". At the same time, it appears more Americans are uncomfortable with mothers breastfeeding in public. Seems to me, the same applies to breastfeeding in the UK.
[Full disclosure - I'm a breastfeeding mother myself and I do it in public sometimes.]
The Center's findings, reported in the January edition of the American Dietetic Association, "underscore the need to educate the general public that breastfeeding is the best way to feed and nurture infants".
Two nationwide surveys conducted in 1999 and 2003 showed that the number of Americans who agreed that formula is as good as breastmilk rose from 14.3% in 1999 to 25.7% in 2003. Although breastfeeding rates in the US have been on the rise since 1990, the percentage fell for the first time between 2002 and 2003, from 70% to 66%.
The CDC researchers attribute this drop in breastfeeding can be attributed partly to the introduction in 2002 of infant formulas that were advertised as "mimicking the positive influence of breastmilk" on brain and vision development. The researchers also pointed out that the amount spent on advertising infant formula increased from $29 million in 1999 to $46 million in 2004.
Advertising sure works. In this case it seems to have obscured the fact (for some people anyway) that there is a world of difference between the real thing and something that "mimicks" the real thing.
Wednesday, 10 January 2007
The Thinnest Cut
Obesity operations have increased in the U.S.
A study released today reports that more than 120,000 Americans had some kind of surgery to lose weight in 2004. In 1998, 772 people aged 55-64 had a gastric bypass, stapling or a similar procedure known as bariatric surgery, but that number increased to 15,086 in 2004, according to the Agency for Healthcare Researcy and Quality.
One of the reasons for the increase in obesity surgery, according to the agency, is the reduction in deaths from surgery-related complications. The national death rate fell from 0.9% in 1998 to 0.2% in 2004. I guess that's good news. For those who are considering surgery, anyway.
The agency says that a growing number of younger people are undergoing obesity surgery. Of the over 120,000 people who had surgery in 2004, 103,000 were aged 18-54, and 349 were aged 12-17. The agency says that the health care system should be prepared for an increase in the rate of obesity surgery and its potential complications.
The average cost of an obesity operation, excluding physician fees, was over $10,000 in 2004.
Given the cost and the potential complications of weight-reducing surgery, I don't understand why many people neglect to control their weight through diet and exercise in the early stages of weight gain, before they start to feel desperate. I'm not keen on operations of any kind, not even a "minor" one. So, how could I understand why anyone would choose to have drastic obesity surgery?
A study released today reports that more than 120,000 Americans had some kind of surgery to lose weight in 2004. In 1998, 772 people aged 55-64 had a gastric bypass, stapling or a similar procedure known as bariatric surgery, but that number increased to 15,086 in 2004, according to the Agency for Healthcare Researcy and Quality.
One of the reasons for the increase in obesity surgery, according to the agency, is the reduction in deaths from surgery-related complications. The national death rate fell from 0.9% in 1998 to 0.2% in 2004. I guess that's good news. For those who are considering surgery, anyway.
The agency says that a growing number of younger people are undergoing obesity surgery. Of the over 120,000 people who had surgery in 2004, 103,000 were aged 18-54, and 349 were aged 12-17. The agency says that the health care system should be prepared for an increase in the rate of obesity surgery and its potential complications.
The average cost of an obesity operation, excluding physician fees, was over $10,000 in 2004.
Given the cost and the potential complications of weight-reducing surgery, I don't understand why many people neglect to control their weight through diet and exercise in the early stages of weight gain, before they start to feel desperate. I'm not keen on operations of any kind, not even a "minor" one. So, how could I understand why anyone would choose to have drastic obesity surgery?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
