Um, what do they say about it again?

Have you seen this commercial? Stupid know-it-all girlfriends! Who do they think they are?! And the Corn Refiners Association is the biggest proponent of these obnoxious women and their sassy opinions of High Fructose Corn Syrup, or HFCS.

Really though, it's the guy's fault. Who says, "Well you know what they say..." without actually knowing what they say? Amateur.

We've all heard a lot about HFCS, but personally, I've never taken the time to form an opinion of it. It's assumed that HFCS is bad, but very few people can actually tell you why, like the guy in the commercial. Since the appearance of the TV ads a few months ago, there has been a lot written about HFCS, from TIME to WebMD, and much more.

Most of the articles address the 3 assertions made by the know-it-all girlfriend in favor of HFCS.

1. It's made from corn, so it's "all natural."

TRUE, it is made from corn. However, it is not a naturally occurring substance. The extensive processing involved in producing HFCS is hardly easy, quick or painless. Linda Joyce Forristal of the Weston A. Price Foundation details the process here.

2. It has the same calories as sugar.

TRUE. Nutritionally, it's pretty much the same as sugar, which most support by citing the American Medical Associations' position that HFCS does not contribute more to obesity that sugar.

3. It's fine to consume in moderation.

TRUE. But the key word here is "moderation." It can be difficult to moderate your consumption of HFCS because it is in a huge number of foods and beverages, particularly processed products. The Mayo Clinic discusses how this impacts health and diet.

So, it's not like the Corn Refiners Association is selling blatant lies, but they are only telling a small part of the story. Check out their arsenal of marketing tools in their HCFS Facts Press Kit. You have to admit, the time and energy spent creating such a beautifully crafted half-truth is impressive. You're in for a sweet surprise indeed.

Furthermore, the Washington Post brings up a point that the know-it-all girlfriend (and most of the popular articles) fails to mention: the impact of producing HFCS on the environment, which is rather large. Michael Pollan has become the resident expert on this issue, and if you haven't already, I'd check out The Omivore's Dilemma.

So! Do you feel more capable of saying "Well, you know what they say about High Fructose Corn Syrup..." and having an actual answer to back it up?

Carbs are like, good for your smartness!

Could a Low-Carb Diet Make You Ditzy? presents recent research from Tufts University about how low- to no-carb diets can affect cognition and memory.

Oh boy. Did you know that Glamour has a health blog? It's called Vitamin G (I already don't get it). Responding to mainstream crap like this is the reason I started this blog. So here we go!

The study consisted of 19 female participants who were allowed to choose between a low-carb diet and a low-calorie diet to adhere to for three weeks. The ScienceDaily press release explains how a lack of carbohydrates affects the body and brain:

While the brain uses glucose as its primary fuel, it has no way of storing it. Rather, the body breaks down carbohydrates into glucose, which is carried to the brain through the blood stream and used immediately by nerve cells for energy. Reduced carbohydrate intake should thus reduce the brain’s source of energy. Therefore, researchers hypothesized that diets low in carbohydrates would affect cognitive skills.

And the researchers were right. The participants' cognitive skills were impaired after just a three weeks on a low carb diet. On memory tasks, low-carb dieters had slower reaction time and their visuospatial memory was not as sharp and the low-calorie group. However, low-carb beat low-cal on attention vigilance tasks, which sounds fantastically primal, although I'm not entirely sure what it means.

But how does Vitamin G interpret this information? They dumb it down so that their non-carb eating readers can process it. There is no mention of the reason that carbs are essential for optimal brain performance--only that if you never eat any like, bread and stuff, your memory might not be great.

I hate the lack of information! By assuming that women won't care to know (or won't be able to understand) the scientific bodily processes involved, Glamour squashes curiosity and makes it easy for women to remain ignorant about their bodies. What if they just threw in a short sentence about how carbs turn into glucose, and glucose fuels your brain? That's not hard.

Bottom line reporting is informative to an extent, but ultimately it's irresponsible and promotes misinformation.

Exhibits A-G: Check out the reader comments. Yikes.

The Healthiest Grocery Store?

From Fox News.



Yeah, the results are not surprising.

However, why is there no discussion of the quality of produce?

Eating fruits and vegetables is a bigger part of healthy eating than whether or not you're consuming organic granola bars or whatever. I'm sorry, but in my mind, if it's processed food, it's processed food, regardless if 100% of the ingredients are USDA Certified Organic. A lot of the same corn- and soy-based preservatives that are used in regular cereals and snacks are also allowed in their organic counterparts. (Sustainable Table has a pretty good overview here.)

Sure, I suppose organic snacks are somewhat healthier, but I think the attention should be focused on REAL FOOD, i.e. fruits, vegetables, meat, fish, dairy products, etc.

For me, that is what would make or break the "healthiness" of a grocery store.

P.S. Furthermore, is it safe to say that Whole Foods would top the list of "Most Expensive Grocery Stores" also? I bet you five bucks.

P.P.S. I didn't insert this website I came across in the main text, so here it is: Food Additives, where they explain:

Food additives have become a necessity of all types of food products and food industry. Right from the aroma of the beverage, the texture of the food and its visual appeal, has to be enriched to make it acceptable. (my emphasis)

Hahahahaha. I think someone is taking themselves a little too seriously...

No money in the bank, no gas in the tank and no healthcare either

The National Women's Health Resource Center recently published their 4th annual Women T.A.L.K. survey, which showed that many women have opted to forgo medical attention in the past year because of financial issues.

Forty-five percent of women aged 18 and over reported that they failed to seek medical care because the cost was too high. This includes skipping doctors visits and recommended medical procedures, as well as failing to fill prescriptions for themselves or family members. Yikes.

To read the full report in pdf, click here.

Overall, I think the NWHRC survey is interesting on the surface but it doesn't go far enough. Respondents were aged 18 and up, and while the survey did ask demographic information, it never breaks down the results by age, ethnicity, education or income.

I emailed the Director of Marketing and Communications at the NWHRC, Marisa Rainsberger, because of that oversight, and she sent me this information:

Percent Who Skipped Care in Past Year
Aged 55+ - has skipped care: 31%; has not skipped care 69%
Aged 35-54 ­ has skipped care: 53%; has not skipped care 47%
Aged 18-34 - has skipped care: 51%; has not skipped care 49%

She explained that there weren't enough respondents to break it down any further than these three ages groups; the numbers were too small to be statistically significant.

As for ethnicity, I couldn't find any specific information in the full report, but the press release indicates:

Hispanic women were most likely to have skipped health care in the past year (58%) versus white (43%) or African American (42%) women.

And the other indicators, education and income? There was no information that I could find.

The survey also covered aging issues, you know, how women feel about getting older, whether they are prepared for aging, and who their favorite 55+ female celebrity was (Tina Turner). Ok then.

Included in the Women T.A.L.K. online press package, is a pdf called Tips for Minimizing Healthcare Costs. Despite a couple questionable suggestions (right after "Exercise" is "Cancel the gym membership": look people, I'm not made of steel. I refuse to run outside in freezing weather.), most of the advice is practical and not just another tirade on "healthy living," which is nice. Suggestions include:

• Read medical bills carefully.
• Use all the services you pay for.
• Wash your hands.
• When you're sick, stay home!
• Educate yourself about your health.
• Use safety equipment when required.
• And floss!

Alright then, will do. Thank you. I suspect that if the NWHRC had a bigger budget, they'd be all over a more thorough survey, including more publicity to attract more respondents. But alas, it is what it is.

Scare tactics no good?

Mark Lindstrom, author of Buyology: Truth and Lies About What We Buy, contributed an interesting op-ed to today's NY Times.

Inhaling Fear briefly relates the results of a study Lindstrom conducted using brain imaging techniques to test the cognitive response in smokers brains to extreme anti-smoking labels on cigarette packages and ads, like the one pictured or like you might find at TheTruth.com. He explains that although smokers agreed that the health information was concerning, their brains weren't "scared straight".

We found that the warnings prompted no blood flow to the amygdala, the part of the brain that registers alarm, or to the part of the cortex that would be involved in any effort to register disapproval.

To the contrary, the warning labels backfired: they stimulated the nucleus accumbens, sometimes called the “craving spot,” which lights up on f.M.R.I. whenever a person craves something, whether it’s alcohol, drugs, tobacco or gambling.

The study was relatively small (only 32 subjects), but the results are pretty interesting. I wonder if the same would hold true for other kinds of addicts.

Also, I saw Mr. Lindstrom on the Today show awhile ago when his book came out and I was eating cereal in bed, being unemployed. Anyway, he was rather enjoyable to watch in the 3.5 minute segment devoted to him. Specifically, I remember he explained how product placement only goes so far to inspire us to want a similar product--not necessarily the brand name product we see. So, for example, if you saw one of those insanely annoying commercials for the Coke Side of Life, you might think, "Gee, that commercial was so terrible that I'm really thirsty... for a root beer!" Or something like that. I don't know really... read the book.

I checked out the comments because I've found that people tend to sound off more on the NY Times than other websites and it can be entertaining, if nothing else. Most of the comments were non-smokers saying how much that hated smokers blah blah blah join the club. But one from an ex-smoker seemed insightful to me:

I have not smoked in two years after 15 years of up to, ah, multiple packs a day. Now, the only time I truly crave a cigarette is not after a meal, or when drinking coffee or alcohol or even when around other people smoking but when those inane and insulting anti-smoking advertisements come on the television. Part of the joy of smoking (and there are many!) is the counter-culture aspect of the habit and these pro-conformity visual escapades make me want to stick a smoldering brown tipped finger up in the air. You tell me not to do something, or worse government tries to compel me to adapt my behaviour to its norms, and the 15 year old in me wants to do it even more!

— AFW, Greenwich, CT

You know, I'm no expert, but I think this guy is on to something. Isn't that how it is sometimes? The second someone tells you not to do something (without providing an immediately horrifying consequence) you want to do it!

Well, no. Not all the time. From that perspective though, it's interesting that people will resist conformity to the extent that they injure themselves, significantly and permanently. It's a completely passive response to whatever injustices smokers see and experience in the world.

Obviously, a lot more research is needed, which Lindstrom readily admits. If this phenomena checks out, though, this could have some interesting consequences for smoking prevention and cessation. Do smokers just need a forum to bitch about their issues? Would that help a person to quit? Can you tell I've been reading a book about psychoanalytic theory?

Bon digestif!

I've got some Big Things to blog about, but instead of working on those Things, I've been distracted by a new book I found at the library called The Experts' Guide to Doing Things Faster: 100 Ways to Make Life More Efficient. Generally speaking, I try not to buy into BS self-help books with a specific numbers of ways to make your life better (i.e. 12 easy steps, 8 secrets, etc.), but this one is entertaining.

Number 46 on the list? "Cure a Stomachache" by Crazy Legs Conti, Competitive Eater (pictured).

The following three methods are Conti's suggestions to get you "back to the table fast."

Digestives

Dense or rich foods you’ve regretted ingesting respond well to the digestive treatment. Skip drugstore tablets and grocery store biscuits. Also, ginger ale is good for neither stains nor stomachaches because these days it’s mostly corn syrup. Fake sugar will only ferment your agony. The carbonation will cause burping, which feels good, like a pressure valve releasing, but stick to seltzer, not soda, to enable short-term belching relief. Early versions of the golden soda contained ginger, the plant, hence the common beliefe in the ale’s restorative powers. What you actually need is fresh ginger, sliced, boiled,, and then served as tea. Digestives derived from roots, herbs and mints have long been a remedy for overindulgence.

Additionally, many are mixed with alcohol. The French digestif (Cognac, Armagnac, Calvados) is the most common; however I favor the Italian Fernet-Branca, which has a vague medicinal taste, hints of root beer, and overtures of dirt. Limiting your intake to three ounces won’t get you inebriated, but will alleviate your gurgling belly. Simply quaff, sit comfortably, and wait. After twenty minutes, you should notice your stomach settling. If not, drink another three ounces and continue to do so until you are pain-free (or drunk). One July Fourth, I maws musketball-loaded with twenty-three and a half Nathan’s hot dogs and buns when a beautiful woman asked me to ride the Cyclone roller coaster. I sipped Fernet-Branca until my stomach found the courage.

Fluids

We take for granted the advantages of modern plumbing, but would be wise to acknowledge the flushing mechanism in the human body. Get your system moving with lots of water. Drink a half gallon of water and the stop-and-go-rush-hour traffic of one’s lower intestines will find log-flume-like speedy relief in no time. If peristalsis (muscle contractions in your digestive tract) is the culprit, expulsion can be the hero and water the catalyst. I spent an evening in Alaska, my stomach wrestling with eighteen reindeer sausages. However, after the water method, by morning, I was able to mush on to pancakes and bacon (four and half pounds in ten minutes).

The Mind

Even if your eyes are bigger than you stomach, your mind is bigger still. Your stomach has the storage space of a small puddle, but your mind, with a great capacity than the Grand Coulee Dam, can never fill up. Putting all your mental energies toward something else, getting distracted, and ignoring the physical pain will often make it go away. It’s mind over stomach matter (I often daydream of salad) and it works for pro eaters and casual diners alike.

I usually go straight for the ginger ale or Tums, but I might invest in some Cognac if Crazy Legs swears by it.

In any case, expect more excerpts from The Experts'... I'm picking up quite a few nifty tidbits.

Happiness & Television

Relevant, straightforward research is what I like. Because of that I've been meaning to post this for awhile, but I haven't had time to give this study the attention it deserved, until now.

But first I want to give you a brief background of the events leading up to this post. What Happy People Don't Do (11/19/08) piqued my interest while browing the NYTimes website, but if you look at the article, there isn't a lot of identifying information about the original study, if, for example, one wanted to find it and analyze it for oneself. I tried to email the columnist, but of course, she has no email. I tried to email NYT and got no response. So. Helpful.

Then I came across this random article Happy People Watch Less TV (11/24/08) on a site where the leading stories are "Britney's Ex in Jail" and "Katie Holmes Declares That She Wears The Pants". Unexpected!

FINALLY, I found the original article here, just waiting to be downloaded. I'm not even sure how that happened. I might have blacked out.

Anyway, the point is that it's found! And I read it and it's interesting. Both the NYT article and the other one gloss over the results, but the conclusions by researchers John Robinson and Steven Martin are more poignant.

Firstly, the methods are pretty fascinating. They looked at the data from the General Social Survey or GSS conducted in 1975 and 1985, which surveyed more than 45,000 people. However, researchers used two different kinds of methods to obtain information about people's happiness during daily activities. Some people recorded their relative happiness for each activity the following day, while others recorded their happiness throughout the day in a diary. It may not seem like much of a difference, but there is a lot of evidence showing that as we get farther away from our experiences, our constructed memories of events can alter/be altered by our remembered feelings. For a more thorough explanation, Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert is a good read.

After analyzing the results from two major studies, Robinson and Martin found that people who reported being "very happy" engaged in significantly more social activities, religious participation and newspaper reading.

"The major exception," they explain, "was for TV viewing." It was the only activity to correlate significantly lower with happiness, and actually could be seen as a predictor of general unhappiness.

The study couldn't affirmatively comment on causation, but it does offer two possible interpretations:

1. TV watching causes unhappiness: TV viewing is enjoyable enough, but it ultimately fills time that could be spent doing more productive activities--things that could increase long term happiness.
   
2. Unhappiness causes TV watching: "TV is not judgmental nor difficult, so people with few social skills or resources for other activities can engage in it." People who don't participate in many social activities or go to church or read the newspaper (random?) are more likely to be unhappy and watch TV to fill their time.

So really, it's a chicken and egg situation. Are we watching TV because we're unhappy, or is TV making us that way?

Robinson and Martin suggest that more specific studies look at TV viewing to answer the question. Personally, I'm not sure that there is going to be one answer. There are many different motivations for watching TV, which can change day to day as well.

If nothing else, it seems important to think about why we're watching TV. Is our favorite show on? Are we doing it because we're bored? Is it for a class?

Maybe just the simple act of evaluating our decision to turn on the TV can eliminate needless consumption and we can find more productive activities to occupy our time.

The benefits of red wine are virtually limitless

The Onion wins again. And so does Laura.

Study Finds Link Between Red Wine, Letting Mother Know What You Really Think

According to a study published Monday in The American Journal Of Medicine, a previously unknown ingredient in red wine has been shown to cause a marked improvement of vocal clarity and emotional acuity—while reducing overall inhibition—after only four glasses.

"It seems the benefits of red wine consumption are virtually limitless," said Dr. Susan Zheng, lead researcher on the study. "Many were unable to recall a single time their mother had paid more attention to their sister's soccer games than to their starring role in the school play. But after drinking only one bottle of standard Merlot, these participants could not only remember, but could actually sing whole stretches of Annie Get Your Gun, even while sobbing. It's extraordinary."

The positive effects of wine consumption were seen in as little as three hours, with 86 percent of participants showing greater resistance to unsolicited career advice, 77 percent displaying increased mental function in the area of the brain devoted to reminding you why Dad left you in the first place, and 60 percent demonstrating less concern to "play this little happy-happy game anymore."

What could be more true?? Actually this has never happened to me, and I pray to the Baby Jesus that it never does. I suspect that once the buzz wears off, the initial relief of spilling your guts would be replaced by an overwhelming sense of regret and dread... and not just that you're going to hurl, although I'm sure the hangover would be severe.

This article actually prompts several interesting concepts, but I'll have to save that for later.

WebMD: Making us smarter or stupid(er)?

This is part of the sidebar that appears on the Women's Health homepage on WebMD.

Yes, headlines are supposed to be snazzy and eye-catching. These, however, are down right absurd. Let's go through them one by one, shall we? (I know I've been numbering things a lot lately, but I like it.)

• How to Lose Weight Fast... oh, and also, How Do It Safely. So, the headline is kind of a misnomer. I got ready to be so annoyed! And then it turns out that the advice isn't so ridiculous. The problem is that Dr. Michael Dansinger, the doctor from Biggest Loser, describes the diet and exercise regimen that the show's contestants follow. Which is CRAZY. Dr. Dansinger recommends eating between 1050 and 1200 calories a day and exercising for one hour. (Most dieticians, the article notes, generally recommend 1200 calories a day as a minimum.) Alright, ambititious!

• Why Men Cheat, from Oprah.com. Marriage counselor M. Gary Neuman gives the ladies the 411 on why men mess around.

  What's the number one reason men cheat? Ninety-two percent of men said it wasn't primarily about the sex. "The majority said it was an emotional disconnection, specifically a sense of feeling underappreciated. A lack of thoughtful gestures," Gary says. "Men are very emotional beings. They just don't look like that. Or they don't seem like that. Or they don't tell you that."

Men are people?! Um... yeah. And guess what else? WOMEN CHEAT ALSO. Take a look at some of the statistics in a recent NYT Well blog post (More People Appear To Be Cheating On Their Spouses, Studies Find, 10/27/08) and you'll see that while the rate of men who cheat is higher, it's not that much higher. Sorry, it's just another Oprah doctor that I can't get behind*.

• What is a Gluten-Free diet? Slideshow of gluten filled products that you can't eat. Weird.
• 8 Things No One Tells You About Marriage from Redbook. This should be good.

  Waking up from a good dream to face the harsh morning daylight may not seem like a reason to celebrate. But trust me, it is. Because once you let go of all the hokey stories of eternal bliss, you find that the reality of marriage is far richer and more rewarding than you ever could have guessed. Hard, yes. Frustrating, yes. But full of its own powerful, quiet enchantments just the same, and that's better than any fairy tale.

And also, you're drunk? This sounds like a Deep Thought to me. Honestly, I couldn't get past the first page of this crap. Maybe I am a completely atypical lady, but I would never enter into a legally binding relationship expecting hearts and flowers and poetry 24/7. No one would want that anyway! It would get so freaking annoying after awhile. Be realistic people. However, if you can imagine a long, fulfilling partnership and you've discussed major issues like finances, procreation, retiring to Florida, etc. you should be good to go! But I've never been married, so maybe I'll be scrambling in 10 years trying to find this article to help solve my life crises...

• 16 Cold and Flu Remedies Another slideshow. No groundbreaking remedies.
• 10 Gynecology Secrets Shhhh! Don't tell! I hate it when the word "Secret" is in headlines. This article offers some interesting information, but I wouldn't swear by this advice. And also I would ask my doctor before doing something like sticking my birth control pill in my vag. That just seems strange.
  
• The History of HIV Slideshow. Not that informative. Just watch And the Band Played On if you're curious.
• The Flat Belly Diet Shut up.
• The Cookie Diet Shut up again. Ok I didn't read either one of these, but I bet you they are stupid.
• What Does Gout Look Like? Random slideshow. The first picture is over John Barrymore, "relaxing his swollen gouty foot." Mmm uric acid.

So. Did you learn anything? Maybe. I learned that if you can say it in a slideshow, you should! And that orgasms can help ease headaches. And also "gouty" is a word.

Thanks, WebMD!


*That's what she said.

Obesity: Maybe it's not ALL your fault

Finally! Something interesting from this crazy community food list-serve I recently signed up for. Andrew Drewnowski contributed a fantastic article to the November 18 Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The dual burden of being overweight and undernourished breaks down and explains the issue of obesity in concise terms that make a lot of sense and are pretty hard to argue with (although there are plenty of opinions if you check out the comments).

Drewnowski, a professor of epidemiology and medicine at the University of Washington, is a pretty smart guy. I also think it helps that this is his life's work, as the director of the Center for Obesity Research and Nutritional Science Program. Plus, he is a prolific writer of all things edible, cheap and fatty.

In this particular article, Drewnowski dispels three common misconceptions about the American obesity issue:

1. Rising obesity rates are not due to an increasingly toxic food environment, but rather a consequence of a failing economy.
   
2. Obesity and diabetes may have a genetic component, but more importantly they follow a "social gradient"... meaning that economic class is a better indicator of obesity than whether or not your parents were.
   
3. Obesity is not the result of poor choices concerning diet and fitness: "The carefully fostered illusion of freedom of choice disguises the fact that most people have none."

It's pretty standard to blame the obese individual for the fact that they're overweight. People that have financial access to a gym and healthy foods are just lacking education and motivation, right?

Unfortunately, not every obese person is a great candidate for Biggest Loser. In fact, the vast majority of the cast are white, middle class adults. Typical? Maybe not.

As far as kids go, a Time article from June 2008 looks at obesity by demographic (It's Not Just Genetics, 6/12/08):

This [childhood obesity] tsunami, however, is a highly selective one. It discriminates by race: according to the CDC's 2006 figures, 30.7% of white American kids are overweight or obese, compared with 34.9% of blacks and 38% of Mexican Americans. It discriminates by income: 22.4% of 10-to-17-year-olds living below the poverty line--less than $21,200 for a family of four--are overweight or obese, compared with 9.1% of kids whose families earn at least four times that amount.

This is what Drewnowski is talking about. When we talk about obesity and malnutrition as a problem of genetics or "toxic food" or personal choices, we completely miss the bigger picture (and maybe on purpose). Once we're able to admit that obesity and malnutrition are just more consequences of poverty, maybe we'll actually take note of the ROOT of the problem and not just address the various symptoms. I believe thats called "preventative medicine."

"There's a whole anti-oxidant network"

"Young professionals don't eat particularly well", says Dr. Andrew Shao, Vice President of Scientific & Regulatory Affairs at the Council on Responsible Nutrition. "And there is need for supplementation." His association is currently working on initiatives for the research community, urging them not to study supplements in isolation. "When these vitamins are part of a diet, there's a whole anti-oxidant network. But we're setting up these massive, randomized trials where we're giving participants one nutrient and trying for crazy results--nutrition is just not that simple."

From "E said, C said: Talking vitamins," by Aarti Virani in the Boston Metro (for some reason I couldn't find the whole article on the website... probably because it's crap).

I love this quote for three big reasons:

1. It's a practical response to the recent results being reported that vitamins play no part in cancer prevention.
   
2. It's directed towards youngish people who are in the process of developing life-long habits, both good and bad.
3. It recognizes that it's stupid to even try to study one supplement at a time. I think my body would be offended by attempts to simplify the process by which it nourishes itself with the food I feed it. Which is not to say that we can't and will never be able to understand the process, but it seems disrespectful to break down such a wonderfully complex system and spew petty advice like, "Take vitamin A every day and you'll never develop cancer." Come on, now... really?
   

The problem with this advice is that it's COMMON SENSE. It's not new and shiny and impossibly complicated. There are no infomercials about the benefits of "Moderation!" and surely Marie Osmond will never be the spokeslady. It's a damn shame (about the infomercial).

The Cause of Aging... Really?

The LA Times reported that researchers have discovered new insights into the "cause" of aging (Rodent of the week: Finding the root cause of aging, 11/28). Really? You mean getting older is off the table as a cause??

Shari Roan, one of the Booster Shot's contributors, does a great job of trying to break down the results of the study for the common people. It's hard, though, when you're translating from this:

The yeast sirtuin (Sir2) is a histone deacetylase that modulates yeast replicative life span by suppressing genome instability through chromatin modification. In this issue, Oberdoerffer et al. (2008) report that SIRT1, the mammalian ortholog of Sir2, is involved in DNA damage-induced chromatin reorganization, which promotes genome stability in mammalian cells.

Right. What? Who's even talking?

Honestly, I don't understand this at all, and it creeps me out. When dense, science-y research like this is reported, I always wish that the article went that extra step to detail the implications of the discovery. Like, does this mean that in 20 years we'll be immortal? Or is this information more important for the cosmetic industry to develop better anti-aging eye creams? It's very hard/impossible to tell.

The first thing I thought of when I read this article was Tuck Everlasting. I'm afraid that these guys are going to be kidnapped just like Winnie after she found Jesse drinking from the spring.



So... good luck with that.

Get Well, Sucka!

In honor of flu season, I thought I'd suggest a few someecards to send out to those sick people surrounding you and spreading their germs.

For that special someone in your life

For ditchers and argumentative family members

For a "it's funny because it's true but I still might get punched" moment

For your BFF, to show you still care

Avoiding Cancer: Just do these 3,045 simple things

Cancer is not something I think about every day. It is one of the few things I don't worry about. Only one of my family members has ever had cancer, and while it was debilitating to his health, it was not a factor in his death. I've known parents of friends with cancer, but I've never Raced for the Cure or volunteered to read to children with leukemia. Maybe it sounds insensitive to admit, but Cancer as a Concept is completely abstract to me. I just can't rap my head around it.

Which is why I read articles about vitamins and cancer (News Keeps Getting Worse For Vitamins, 11/20), or meat and cancer (Red meat raises risk for cancer of small and large intestines, 11/24), or even exercise and rest and cancer (More exercise, rest cut risk in women, 11/24), but the results mean very little to me. I don't know what to do with all of this of information! Eat this but never eat that except for sometimes you can do this on Thursdays and DEFINITELY swallow that pill but don't eat it with butter ever.

Alex Carnavale at Gawker explains how the dissemination of cancer research and other science and health news is getting even more ridiculous. (Everything You Do or Don't Do Gives You Cancer, 11/23)

Layoffs at newspapers tend to hit the less essential sections first. You're not going to see the sports page disappear, but you might no longer have a local science reporter. To fill in the blanks, editors use wire stories, and when it comes to science reporting, they'll apparently print anything they come across. Basing a story off whatever piece of research comes to light is the easiest way to write a science story, with "according to new research" the opening sentence of choice. Over the weekend, we learned that meat causes cancer, exercise stops cancer, sleep stops cancer and stress causes it. Is there any way to prevent newspapers from dumbing themselves into even more layoffs?

You know, I'd never thought I'd miss news media, but without that filter to interpret and regurgitate information, we're left with the bare bones. Bare bones (press releases) that are written by the organizations and companies themselves. We assume that the figures and recommendations are accurate, but who's checking? Everybody has an agenda, whether it's getting more hits on your website, more donors in your database, or more prescriptions written for your new drug. It's impossible to avoid. The only solution is balanced reporting and a fair view of the facts... which will never happen if science reporters keep getting axed and we let the companies write the news for us.

Britain putting end to cheap happiness and fun

The Associate Press reported today that Britain is considering a ban on “happy hour” discounts at bars and restaurants to curb youth drinking. The ban could go as far as to include drinking games and speed-drinking events in pubs. Sorry, British people! No more cheap pints at the pub!

The British Liver Trust, a national charity for adults with liver disease, summarized the statistics released by the Office of National Statistics. Over 40% more young people aged 25-29 have been killed by liver disease than in previous years.

The figures, just released for the year 2006, also show an increase in deaths from alcoholic liver disease of almost 7% - to 4,450. There is also more confirmation of the worsening picture with increased deaths from liver disease overall, up by 5.7% to 7,281. With liver cancer and other liver-related conditions included, 38 people die of liver disease each day.

Trust spokeswoman Imogen Shilito explains that , “This is the progression of the epidemic we and the medical profession have been predicting for several years… These figures reinforce our call for urgent work to improve early diagnosis and encourage prevention.”

The Trust website reports that liver damage is

often silent, taking up to 15 years to develop, but when symptoms appear it is often too late. Hepatologists (liver specialist doctors) are regularly seeing people in their 20s and 30s with cirrhosis caused by alcohol in much higher numbers, cases they would in the past have seen in much older people, in their 40s and 50s.

I checked out the stats for the US and the most recent numbers are at the National Center for Health Statistics from 2005. In that year, the death rate for all liver disease was 9.0, with a total of 27,530 deaths. Alcoholic liver disease, or cirrhosis, comprised 12,928 deaths at a rate of 4.2. Side note: Interestingly, the death rate for men was almost triple that for women (12.4 and 5.8, respectively).

So how do we measure up? For overall death from liver disease, the US has a raw number almost four times as great as Britain (27,530 vs. 7,281), but according to the 2006 revision of the World Population Prospects from the UN, the population of the US is nearly five times as large as Britain (299,846 vs. 60,245). The US has more people, but Britain has a higher rate of death by liver disease. Yes, I’d agree that’s something to be worried about.

I don’t think the issue is completely cut and dry, though. It sounds like young people in Britain drink more, but we should also consider the fact that the drinking age is lower (18 more or less), and that Britain has different cultural attitudes about alcohol consumption.

Personally, I had no idea that “happy hour” was so prevalent in Britain… and I think I should visit before this potential ban occurs. I’ve been complaining recently/always about the cost of cocktails at bars, but I never thought that “happy hour” could be a public health concern. Guess I’ve got a lot to learn.

Women who've had 'accidents' are likely to have more 'accidents'

The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology published a rather interesting study in the November 2008 issue which was picked up by Reuters Health.

The study Is a previous unplanned pregnancy a risk factor for a subsequent unplanned pregnancy? concludes, yes it is. The full text is only available by subscription, but you can find a PDF of the summary here.

The researchers found that although education and age emerged as the two risk factors most likely to predict an initial unplanned pregnancy, the strongest factor for a second unplanned pregnancy was the mere occurrence of the first. Reuters explains,

Researchers found that of 542 women and teenage girls enrolled in a study to encourage contraceptive use, those with a history of unplanned pregnancy were twice as likely as other women to have another unplanned pregnancy over the next two years.

The study followed women and teenage girls ages14 to 35 for two years. Over that period, 23% of all the women experienced an unplanned pregnancy, more than one in five. Of the women who had experienced a previous unplanned pregnancy, 27% became pregnant again during the two year period versus 17% of the women became pregnant who had never experienced a unplanned pregnancy.

So what's the big deal? The study explains,

Women experiencing unintended pregnancies often do not initiate early prenatal care and are more likely to engage in unhealthy behavior, such as binge drinking, smoking, illicit drug use, and lack of vitamin intake, during their first trimester of pregnancy. Consequently, birth outcomes for unplanned pregnancies place the newborn at increased risk for premature birth, low birthweight, infant abuse, and neonatal death.

Which makes sense, right? If you're not expecting to be pregnant, why would you stop going out, doing body shots and smoking crack?
(Side note: The effects of prenatal cocaine exposure have been hotly debated in the last decade, and it's more or less understood that nicotine, alcohol and the poor health practices that often accompany maternal cocaine usage pose much greater threats to prenatal development than the actual crack itself. See this Systematic Review from 2001.)

The researchers suggest that the key to tackling the issue of repeat unplanned pregnancies is

Figuring out which women are at particularly high risk of unplanned pregnancies is key to preventing them, Kuroki's team writes. Based on the current findings, they say, asking a woman about her history of unplanned pregnancy is a good way to estimate her risk of one in the future -- and whether she needs more help with family planning.

Right, obviously. I wonder, though, who should be asking these questions? Is it the primary care physician? Planned Parenthood? Teachers? Friends? Family? Practically speaking, the study is vague, explaining only that

Efforts should focus on improving patient awareness of the associated risk factors, ensuring access to family planning services, promoting effective contraception use, and providing appropriate support and resources to women who experience an unintended pregnancy.

Ok then. It's somebody else's problem. I also wanted to highlight some of them more interesting statistics from the study:

• 49% of all US pregnancies are unintended (excluding miscarriages)
• 28% of women under 20 had an unplanned pregnancy, compared to 23% of women 20-24 and 12% of women over 24.
• 30% of African American women experienced an unplanned pregnancy, compared to 24% of Hispanic women and 17% of white women.
• 32% of women with less than a high school education experienced an unplanned pregnancy compared to 12% of women with a high school education or more.
  

I never would have guessed that the numbers would be so high. It would be interesting to look at the percentages over time to see if half of all pregnancies 50 years ago were unplanned... but I seriously doubt that data exists.

And speaking of unplanned pregnancies: Ashlee Simpson-Wentz gave birth to a baby boy today! Welcome, little Bronx Mowgli Wentz.

Wait, is that Mowgli as in The Jungle Book? Why, yes it is.

If Only I Could Have A Chair Made Out of Corn to Rest My Corn-Fed Hind Parts

If you’ve ever attempted to find and read a scholarly article online, you know that a username and password is required to access the vast majority of academic research. (Which is crap.) This is why I was too excited to find that the full text of a new study published by A. Hope Jahren and Rebecca A. Kraft of the University of Hawaii, Honolulu is available online! Share my excitement here.

Carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes in fast food: Signatures of corn and confin sounds thrilling, no? Basically, here’s what happened:

Fastfood was purchased from America’s top 3 chains: McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s; each restaurant was sampled at 3 locations within 6 major U.S. cities: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Detroit, Boston, and Baltimore. At each location, 9 items were purchased: 3 hamburgers, 3 chicken sandwiches, and 3 orders of fries.

Easy enough to follow. After doing a lot of analyzing, Jahren and Kraft concluded:

Fast food corporations, although they constitute more than half the restaurants in the U.S. and sell more than 1 hundred billion dollars of food each year, oppose regulation of ingredient reporting.

And we’re about to find out why…

Ingredients matter for many reasons: U.S. corn agriculture has been criticized as environmentally unsustainable and conspicuously subsidized. Of 160 food products we purchased at Wendy’s throughout the United States, not 1 item could be traced back to a noncorn source. Our work also identified corn feed as the overwhelming source of food for tissue growth, hence for beef and chicken meat, at fast food restaurants.

It’s ALL corn?! Well, yes, almost. For those of you who’ve read The Omivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan, this is not new information. Fortunately, this new study confirms Pollan’s assertions, renewing the interest in mainstream media.

Both Forbes Health (What’s Really In Your Fast Food?) and Wired Science (Fast Food: Just Another Name for Corn) covered the release of the study, both interviewing the articles authors and other prominent US experts in food policy and agriculture.

Interestingly, Forbes contacted the Big 3 for comment. None were too eager to gush about the results.

Burger King declined to comment on the study. A spokesman for Wendy's said the company has "very strict procedures in place" to protect animal welfare. A spokeswoman for McDonald's declined to comment and instead referred to a statement issued by the American Meat Institute, a trade association.

Janet M. Riley, senior vice president of public affairs for AMI, said that carbon and nitrogen isotopes are naturally occurring and are expected to be found in the environment and humans. She also said that while the study's authors had called for greater transparency regarding information about livestock feeding and production practices, consumers "appear satisfied" with the amount of information currently available.

The last part is particularly intriguing. The American Meat Institute basically refuses to become more transparent in their production practices because consumers are ok with being ignorant to the origin of their meat. Wow. Didn't your mothers ever tell you that just because you CAN get away with something, doesn't mean you SHOULD?!

I checked out the AMI website and they've got a nice little collection of fact sheets to answer all your extremely vague and surface questions about the meat industry. Apparently, AMI produced a "get to know you" type video and put it on YouTube last year, but when I went to check it out, I found that it no longer exists. Instead, I chose to include this chart. Enjoy!


Also this: US Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer schmoozing at the 2008 AMI Annual Hot Dog Lunch (albeit with his mouth full of Italian sausage).

Thighs and calves: A tortured relationship

Play this game.

I dare you to beat my 2.6 meters.

You can thank Simone.

FYI: "The Measure of America"

Madeline Drexler's op-ed in today's Boston Globe, The need to combine social and health policy, discusses a report by the Social Science Research Council called "The Measure of America". At $24.95, I was not about to order and read the entire thing, but information about the report can be found here.

Drexler explains that "The Measure of America" applies the United Nations human development model to the United States, which until now had never been done before... and for good reason. The results are less than flattering. Drexler says,

Underscoring how far we lag in our promise, the report documented how the roughly $5.2 billion we spend every day on healthcare yields a pitiable return on investment. For example, US life expectancy ranks below that of Chile, Costa Rica, and nearly every European and Nordic country. The US infant mortality rate is on par with that of Croatia, Cuba, Estonia, and Poland. Within the United States, stark health inequities persist along socioeconomic and racial/ethnic lines.

Yikes.
Drexler goes on to explain how most of the countries ranking above the USA provide universal health care, weighing the health consequences of policies in "taxation, business development, transportation, housing, agriculture, and so on". She considers a lack of health care the primary reason for the disparities.

The op-ed ends with this quote:

As Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, told me during the group's annual meeting last month: "I would love Barack Obama to declare that he wants America to be the healthiest nation in the world - in a generation. Americans need to rally around the idea of grappling not only with healthcare, but with health."

Interesting point. Right now the health care industry is exactly that--an industry. As in, for profit. When you consider in that way, its no wonder that our national health sucks.

Last thing--Along with "The Measure of America" report, the website offers some "Tools" to play around with. One is called the Well-O-Meter. The introduction says,

The formula used to calculate the American HD Index for large population groups cannot be used for individuals. However, you can get a general sense of your own human development level by using our well-o-meter.

I answered the 25 questions, but the results mean very little to me. If you can't use the test for individuals, why are they using it for individuals? It makes no sense.

Investing in health: Fat-O-Nomics

A blurb about gyms in USA Today caught my eye this morning. First of all, Gyms, spas stress value of fighting stress in hard times is a very terrible headline. I thought I had crossed my eyes when I read it the first time, but no, "Gyms stress stress" is really what they're calling this piece. There may be a section editor job opening up tomorrow at USA Today, if anyone's interested.

Anyway, this article looks at gyms with a different perspective than I was expecting. Since it is in the Money section of USA Today, fitness and health are discussed in a rather dry, cynical way, typical of the manner in which products or profitable services are considered. Which I suppose, makes sense for the assumed audience. We're in the Money section after all.

*Side Note: USA Today doesn't even have a Health or Science section. The closest they get is Life, and the lead story on the website today is "Victoria's Secret brings sexy back to Fontainebleau; video." Yes, very relevant to my Life.

Gyms (and spas) in New York are slashing prices in order to retain membership and lure new members, the article relates. But that's not all they're doing in these tough economic times.

Beyond deep discounts, some are adopting a recession spin: touting services as stress reducers, not indulgences, and highlighting the economic benefits of "wellness."

Ah yes! Give gyms your money and not only will they make you skinny and give you "wellness", (Why is wellness in quotes? Why do the quotation marks seem so patronizing?) but they'll also put money back in your pocket! Some gyms even have catchy names to help the public put two and two together.

A Gold's Gym program — deemed "Fat-O-Nomics" — centers on money people can save by shedding excess weight. One stat: Being 50 pounds overweight burns nine extra gallons of gasoline per year.

Nine gallons of gasoline? Thats IT?! Since gas prices have fallen pretty dramatically since the summer, your yearly savings would be less than $25... that is after you lose the 50 pounds, which could take several months. When you figure that a membership to a decent gym will run you about $80-$100 a month, annualized at $900-$1200, saving $25 in gas is nice, but ultimately your wallet isn't impacted that dramatically. And besides, who wants to admit they're part of a program called "Fat-O-Nomics"? Lame.

It turns out that despite the unfortunate name and much to the chagrin of this USA Today columnist, Gold's Gym is onto something important that is about more than saving nine gallons of gas a year. The Fat-O-Nomics site details the ways in which obese Americans pay for carrying the extra weight. Some of the more interesting statistics:

• Obese men and women earn, on average, $3.41 per hour less than other Americans, which means $7,093 less income across the course of one calendar year.
• Americans spend 4% of their annual income on clothing each year, but obese people pay an extra 25% for their clothes. Obese clothing surcharge: $485
• Obese Americans lose, on average, one-half day of work due to obesity-related ailments. Total lost wages: $93.

When the issue is broken down and considered like this, some important things are highlighted. Why are obese people being paid less? Is it employer's size discrimination, or are obese people less likely to think they deserve (and therefore, ask for) raises? Are obese people poorer employees, or are they more likely to be sick and miss work?

I've read enough literature from overweight people to know that these situations are often more complex than they seem on the surface. Like most minority populations, the relationship that obese people have with mainstream culture is tortured and antagonistic. Society blames the individual for being fat and consequently makes them pay for the extra weight, whereas the individual blames the media, models, McDonald's, high fructose corn syrup, Snickers, etc. Few people on either side will take responsibility and no one wins.

The fact is that there are enormous lifetime health care costs related to obesity. It is commonly known that a sedentary lifestyle and being overweight begets a host of health problems. The US Department of Health and Human Services acknowledges this in the Health, United States, 2007 report.

Of concern for all Americans is the high prevalence of people with unhealthy lifestyles and behaviors, such as insufficient exercise and overweight, which are risk factors for many chronic diseases and disabilities including heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, and back pain. The rising number of overweight children and adults and the large percentage of those who are physically inactive raise additional concerns about Americans’ future health.

Like it or not, there are consequences for being obese. Some come from prejudicial BS, but others, the heart disease, diabetes and such, aren't discriminatory.

So despite the fact that USA Today is annoying and Gold's Gym is primarily in it for the profit, if the financial terms of Fat-O-Nomics appeals to people that have been sitting at home eating Pop Tarts and root beer for 15 years, then by all means, continue the campaign. Ultimately, "wellness" isn't some mystical concept: being healthy and taking care of yourself are practical, obtainable goals... whether or not you are stressed out by our nose-diving economy.

Your Gut's Mental Health

I was 9 when Kurt Cobain was found dead in 1994. As a white, suburban kid, I remember being mesmerized by Nirvana's naked-baby-in-the-pool cover (Nevermind, 1991), but I had no clue what the band was about or who the heck Kurt Cobain was. I related to "Smells Like Teen Spirit" only because I actually wore some version of the anti-perspirant in my teens until I decided that my pits should not smell like fruity candy perfume. Still, Cobain has always been a kind of dirty-blonde, weirdo-grungy, heroin-addicted, Courtney Love-obsessed mystery to me.

The mystery unfolded a bit when I came across "The Brain-Gut Connection" in Maclean's, Canada's weekly affairs magazine. The article details plans for a new study on the treatment of an array of gastrointestinal issues, which is set to begin in the coming year. Everything from severe diarrhea to gas and bloating to nausea and "chronic constipation where you have excruciating cramps [that feel] like labour pain" will be addressed.

The study is another to add to the growing body of research that not only considers the mind-body connection, but highlights it.

“Most of us, when we’re under stress, respond with a GI symptom,” says Brenda Toner [a psychologist and co-head of social equity and health research at the Centre for Mental Health and Addiction, who is leading the investigation], up to 70 per cent of people, in fact. Think about how sick to your stomach you felt before that big meeting or when you were worried about someone you love. Gut discomfort is one of the biggest reasons people miss school or work, second only to the common cold. And for people whose pain is persistent, which is typical because many GI disorders are chronic, the psychological impact can be devastating.

As a person who has recently developed (what I assume to be) an intolerance to lactose after having consumed a glass of milk with 90% of my dinners for 20 years, this hit home pretty hard. The more sensitive my stomach has become, the more painful and embarrassing eating is. Some days I can eat 20 slices of cheese pizza (or 3) and be completely fine; other days I have a teaspoon of milk in my coffee in the morning and I can barely eat the rest of the day.

In any case, people with severe irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) or similar disorders generally suffer from intense, persistent pain that may not be easily explained. Besides the toll on mental health that chronic pain can take, the social embarrassment and shame can be equally large, often leading to anxiety and depression. However, it's still unclear if gut problems lead to the anxiety, or if the anxiety leads to the gut problems.

A 2006 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine showed that people with mental disorders have double the chance of having a digestive illness; 20 per cent of patients suffering from a GI disorder have anxiety, compared to eight per cent of people with a healthy gut. One of the study’s authors, Jitender Sareen, thinks the relationship is bidirectional. “The anxiety leads to more GI problems, the GI problems lead to more anxiety,” says the University of Manitoba psychiatry professor. “It becomes a kind of cycle.”

So where does Kurt Cobain fit into this? Well it turns out that Cobain suffered from chronic GI problems that were never diagnosed. The issue was particularly debilitating to him emotionally, developing the problems as a teenager. Maclean's quotes Cobain as saying,

"It had been building up for so many years that I was suicidal. You know, waking up starving, forcing myself to eat, barfing it back up . . . just crying at times, ‘Urgh, I’m in pain all the time.’"

According to the Wikipedia article, Cobain was never able to find an effective remedy in the medical field, so after years of using drugs recreationally, he turned to heroin as a way to self-medicate and ease the GI pain.

Ultimately, it was this "self-medication" that contributed to his death, which was deemed a suicide.

Cobain is an extreme example of the effects of chronic GI problems, which were undoubtedly exacerbated by anxiety and depression, stress, fatigue and substance abuse. It also appears that his condition was never completely taken seriously, and the present study aims to address this issue in the medical community. Which is where a type of talk therapy called cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) comes in.

A few years ago, she and colleagues discovered that CBT was more effective in helping patients cope with moderate to severe gut problems than no talk therapy at all. CBT sees the patient work with a psychologist to identify triggers that set off the worst symptoms. Patients talk about what’s going through their mind when they are in the throes of pain or feeling overcome by anticipatory anxiety and figure out techniques to reduce symptoms such as relaxation exercises. “It’s not magical or mysterious,” says Toner. “It’s practical, and that’s why people like it.”

Talking about diarrhea will make it go away? Well alright then. Can you guys just talk about it amongst yourselves... please? I kid, I kid. A big part of the shame that those with GI problems experience is because of the stigma and unwillingness to talk about these issues (Maclean's says especially in women). Everyone can understand the need to have a sympathetic ear, and the relief (no pun intended) a person feels when they're able to find a confidant.

Maclean's guides readers to the Irritable Bowel Syndrome Self Help and Support Group at www.ibsgroup.com which offers forums and groups to share experiences, articles, videos and books to gather more information, and even a section to sign up for a Pen Pal! Fantastic!

So please, "Come as you are, as you were, as I want you to be..." I'm 99% sure that song IS NOT about GI problems, but it seemed appropriate.

Improved mental health in only 2 minutes!

Psychological studies have demonstrated that expressive writing, or "writing therapy", can have positive effects on a number of mental and biological disorders. This kind of therapy offers curious insight into the relationship between mental and biological health.

While expressive writing is know to help to sort through emotions and improve optimism, it has also been found to increase immune function, accelerate recovery from illness and decrease the severity of asthma and arthritis symptoms.

But how much expressive writing is necessary to reap the benefits? Do I have to compose a memoir after a crap day to feel better? If that's the case, then I'd rather watch Office re-runs for the 432nd time with a pitcher of gin & tonics.

Fortunately, a new study suggests that you can achieve results in as little as 120 seconds a day! That's right... just TWO minutes!

The study, mentioned in the Boston Globe's Sunday column Uncommon Knowledge: Surprising insights from the social sciences, explored the lower boundary necessary to garner the health benefits of written emotional expression.

College students were given just two minutes on two consecutive days to write about a traumatic experience, a positive experience, or a prosaic topic. A month later, the students were asked to report symptoms of ill health. Students who had written about emotionally charged experiences -either positive or negative - reported fewer health complaints than the others.

Personally, I don't think these results are that surprising. Anyone who has done any journaling or similar activity knows that you don't have to re-cap the events of your ENTIRE day in order to feel better.

Sometimes I have sat down to write when I am particularly upset and I end up just scribbling a few sentences that would seem incoherent to the average reader. Then I get distracted and move on with my life. In college, when classmates would say obnoxious or strange things during a discussion, I learned to write them in my notes with a little "WTF?!" next to it so I could make fun of it later, and save my attention for the issues at hand.

So! Consider writing down your thoughts if you need to get something off your chest. Sure, its easier to talk about a stressful situation if you've got someone around to listen, but I think its also important to take a little time to be quiet and introspective. It might be good to practice in the event that there isn't anyone around to yell at.

*Disclaimer: It should also be noted that writing therapy does not benefit everyone, particularly sufferers of PTSD. You should seek medical attention if you suspect you are at risk!

Stretching: The Truth?!

The New York Times published an article last week called Stretching: The Truth. The "truth", of course, is not what is seems.

Columnist Gretchen Reynolds explains that the commonly held belief that static stretching (aka, normal bend-over-and-touch-your-toes) before a workout warms up muscles is dead wrong. Not only is static stretching not an ideal warm up, Reynolds asserts that pre-workout stretching can actually weaken muscles, ultimately hindering performance.

“There is a neuromuscular inhibitory response to static stretching,” says Malachy McHugh, the director of research at the Nicholas Institute of Sports Medicine and Athletic Trauma at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. The straining muscle becomes less responsive and stays weakened for up to 30 minutes after stretching, which is not how an athlete wants to begin a workout.

Instead, Reynolds proposes that the athlete cut the pre-workout static stretching completely and include "dynamic" stretching instead.

Stretching muscles while moving, on the other hand, a technique known as dynamic stretching or dynamic warm-ups, increases power, flexibility and range of motion. Muscles in motion don’t experience that insidious inhibitory response. They instead get what McHugh calls “an excitatory message” to perform.

Great, fantastic. Dynamic stretching can be an alternately great way to warm up the muscles and joints before an intense workout or competition. I find it curious though, that the article claims to tell the "truth" yet it includes so little empirical evidence. It mentions one study done by the University of Nevada, quotes two experts in the field, and adds something about ripping the legs off rabbits. Helpful! Thank you for that.

In actuality, there are a lot of studies currently being done on the acute effects of stretching, but the data do not completely support one school of thought over another.

A 2007 review article in Sports Medicine by Rubini, Costa and Gomes suggests that the jury is still out on the effects of stretching at any time, before or after, physical activity.

Although most studies have found acute decreases in strength following stretching, and that such decreases seem to be more prominent the longer the stretching protocol, the number of exercises and sets, and the duration of each set have, in general, exceeded the ranges normally recommended in the literature. Consequently, the duration of the stimuli were excessively long compared with common practice, thus making evident the need for further studies.

So basically, while decreases in muscle strength have been reported in some studies (a la the results report by Reynolds), many times those studies required participants to stretch for excessively long times--presumably much longer than an average person would spend during pre-workout stretching.

Moreover, Rubini, Costa and Gomes add that

when recommending flexibility exercises, one should consider other underlying issues, such as the safety of the participants, possible increases in injury risks and the unnecessary time expenditure.

The Moral of the Story: Obviously it's pretty commonplace for the popular media to give fitness recommendations, but it was a bold move for the NYT to claim the "truth" about stretching based on such insubstantial evidence.

Newspaper and magazines can be great places to find new ideas to jazz up a tired workout routine, but be wary of excessive self-assuredness: it's usually symptomatic of a lack of journalistic integrity!