Saturday, November 29, 2008

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.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

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

Monday, November 24, 2008

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.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

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.

Friday, November 21, 2008

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.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

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).


Tuesday, November 18, 2008

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.

Monday, November 10, 2008

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.

Sunday, November 9, 2008

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!

Friday, November 7, 2008

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!

To Whom It May Concern:

I'm 24 years-old and my health and wellness are important yet elusive to me. My day-to-day physical and mental health varies little, but when it varies a lot without reason, it can scare the bejesus out of me.

I want more information! Between my high school health classes, WebMD, and the sketchy diagnoses my mother makes, I feel like I am completely and utterly unqualified to maintain the precarious balance required of my physical and mental states.

I was not destined to go to medical school and become a physician (not that I'm certain that would solve my problems), but I do have a liberal arts degree. Yes! I learned the Art Of Thinking About Things and Issues In A Somewhat Competent and Coherent Manner. Therefore, I consider myself a reasonable candidate to draw attention to articles, studies and other tidbits of relevant information concerning the health and well-being of my peer group.

I mean, come on. Where else would you find this? Cosmo?!

Sincerely,

Chloe

B.A. Psychology (but it might as well be English)
Liberal Arts College
Coastal State, USA