Study Suggests Hormones May Be Responsible for Failure to Keep Off Lost Pounds

By Denise Mann
WebMD Health News

Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD

Oct. 26, 2011 — Just ask anyone who has ever tried to shed extra pounds: Losing weight can be hard, but it’s keeping this extra weight off that is often most daunting.

Now new research in the New England Journal of Medicine sheds some light on why, and the answer is not lack of willpower. It seems that our hormones — at least those involved in appetite regulation — may be setting us up to fail.

In a new study, 50 overweight or obese people went on a low-calorie diet for 10 weeks. Researchers measured levels of several key hormones involved in appetite control before they started the diet, after they completed the diet, and then again 62 weeks later.

They found that changes in the hormonal mix tip the scale toward hunger and weight regain. Up to a year after weight loss, there are increases in the "hunger hormone" ghrelin and reductions in other hormones such as leptin that could promote weight gain.

Hormones and Eating

Gherlin is the "go" hormone that tells us to eat. Leptin is the hormone that tells us to stop eating. More ghrelin and less leptin set the stage for weight regain. Reductions in other hormones such as peptide YY and cholecystokinin also help favor weight regain after weight loss.

From an evolutionary standpoint, these changes are supposed to prevent starvation when food is hard to come by. But "in an environment in which [high-calorie] food is abundant and physical activity is largely unnecessary, the high rate of relapse after weight loss in not surprising," the researchers state.

"The findings explain why most people find it difficult to maintain weight loss long term," study researcher Joseph Proietto, MBBS, PhD, tells WebMD in an email. Proietto is a professor of medicine at University of Melbourne, Australia. "It may also explain why public health measures adopted so far have generally failed to reduce obesity prevalence."

Does this mean weight regain is inevitable? No, Proietto says, "but published evidence shows that most people have regained lost weight by five years."

Several medications are being studied that may help combat some of these hormonal changes. "Until we have appetite suppressants that are safe to use long term, studies show that the following behaviors are associated with better weight loss maintenance: weigh yourself regularly; eat breakfast; exercise at least one hour per day; and eat a low-fat diet," Proietto says.

Second Opinion

"This is a really important study," says Scott Kahan, MD, an obesity expert at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. "It is clear from this study and many others that weight regain is not a problem of willpower."

"Things change hormonally, metabolically, and otherwise after you gain weight so even if you take it off, things don’t go always go back to baseline," he says.

These findings further stress the importance of trying to prevent weight gain and obesity in the first place.

"It is not enough to throw a lot of resources at treating obesity, we need to focus on prevention," he says.

Louis Aronne, MD, founder and director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Program at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, agrees.

"[Weight regain] is not your fault," he says. "Achieving weight loss and maintaining that loss is really complex and we need new approaches to treatment including medications."

SOURCES:

Sumithran, P. New England Journal of Medicine, 2011.

Louis Aronne, MD, founder and director, Comprehensive Weight Control Program, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center.

Scott Kahan, MD, obesity expert, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Joseph Proietto, MBBS, PhD, professor of medicine, University of Melbourne, Australia.

© 2011 WebMD, LLC. All rights reserved.

©2005-2007 WebMD, Inc. All rights reserved.
WebMD does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Is It Good For You…Or Not?

By Michael Shaw, Contributing Columnist

Sep 5, 2011 – 6:01:37 AM

(HealthNewsDigest.com) – Older Baby Boomers will likely remember that in the 1950s, and at least through the mid-1960s, meat—and plenty of it—was the foundation of just about every "good" meal. Grains were generally viewed as lowly side dishes, and potatoes, despite their low caloric value, were perceived as "fattening." Virtually every family restaurant featured a "diet plate," which was inevitably a hamburger with all the trimmings…minus the bun.
Green salads existed, of course, but fruits and vegetables were usually championed only by "health nuts," such as Jack LaLanne and Gypsy Boots. The nation was cautioned that for proper nutrition they needed their "three square meals a day," and that milk was good for "every body." In these days before Kenneth Cooper’s Aerobics, exercise mainly consisted of calisthenics, and few people even cared about oxygen uptake or aerobic capacity. Despite overwhelming public knowledge of the health effects, a large number of people smoked.
Few authorities thought that overeating would become a major issue, and essentially no one gave a second thought to the role of stress in causing disease—except for ulcers. The widely-used tropical oils (palm and coconut) being saturated were eventually deemed to be very bad indeed, and chocolate was a harmful junk food that causes acne.
Fast forward to today:

While low carb advocates may debate the precise details, whole grains—"our forgotten friends," as they were called by David Reuben, MD in 1979—have certainly made a comeback, and everyone now talks about the importance of fiber, a subject curiously absent from the popular health lexicon until some time in the late 1970s.
It was Reuben, among others, who pointed out that if meat were so essential, then vast segments of the human population have been defying the odds for centuries. Perhaps there were alternative sources of protein that should be considered. Individuals are abandoning meat to improve their health. Meanwhile, legions of folks with previously unexplained chronic stomach distress discovered that they were lactose intolerant, and that milk was not necessarily good for their body.
Any workout program worth its salt contains a sizable amount of cardiovascular exercise, and smoking is so stigmatized that it is sometimes enough of a factor to gain the upper hand in child custody battles.
Obesity (from overeating) is widely regarded as the biggest single health problem in the United States, and we hear about the damaging effects of stress every day. It took some time, but it was finally established that the major cause of ulcers is not stress, but bacteria, and the sales of Tagamet—once the biggest-selling drug—diminished.
As to tropical oils, they were condemned earlier in a rather foolish and simplistic rush to judgment—not to mention a smear campaign waged by purveyors of competitive fats. Coconut and palm kernel oils are saturated fats all right, but belong to a special class called medium chain fatty acids (MCFA). MCFAs not only do not adversely affect serum cholesterol, but they have been found to actually lower the risk of both atherosclerosis and heart disease.
Regarding chocolate, the health benefits of flavanols, contained in cocoa, have long been known. However, extensive processing of the raw ingredients—on their way to becoming a chocolate bar—can limit these positive effects. I recently spoke with Christopher Angell, CEO of Solana Beach, CA based Angell Organic Candy Bars. [http://www.angellbar.com/]
Angell bars are certified organic and fair trade, and represent chocolate in pretty much its least-processed form. This being back-to-school season, we briefly touched on how the quality of snacks sold at school can be improved.

This issue is approached in different ways around the country. For example, in California, they have a formula whereby products cannot contain more than a specified amount of saturated fat, sugars, and sodium. Good intentions, for sure, but maybe this is too broad-brush. Oversimplification can often be a barrier to a more rational approach.
Also, most school districts deal with large food service companies, who, in turn, don’t often handle small independent suppliers like us.
Still, on an individual level, for parents who are concerned about ingredients, and avoiding such things as corn syrup and gluten, they tend to find us.

Regarding acne, the chocolate connection was always a myth of uncertain origin, but designing a comprehensive enough study to prove this to everyone’s satisfaction—as well as getting someone to pay for it—is a knotty problem.
Maybe we should call Willy Wonka.

Michael D. Shaw
Exec VP
InterscanCorporation
mds1@gasdetection.com
© Copyright by HealthNewsDigest.com

Posted by lavanyas013 |  28. June 2011

Olive oils have numerous health benefits

Besides being an excellent condiment to enhance the flavor of foods, olive oil is a complete food and essential for keeping your body in shape at any age. It is rich in antioxidants and beneficial substances, it has a high nutritional value and helps prevent many diseases, increasing life expectancy. Olive oil, the quintessential part of the Mediterranean diet, is slowly but surely finding its place in Indian kitchens. Clinical Nutritionist, Ishi Khosla who was in Bangalore recently at the Oliveitup campaign to promote olive oil, explains the nutritional aspects of olive oil and its importance in a healthy and balanced diet. Ishi Khosla has been writing extensively and has authored two books –‘The Cholesterol Facts’ and ‘Is Wheat Killing You?’ published by Penguin and the third book ‘Diet Matters’, also with Penguin publishers is on its way.

Talking about the benefits of olive oil, she says “It is high time, Indians start taking their health concerns more seriously. The country is sitting on a health time bomb and is now number one in cardiac patients with over 10% population affected; 31% of urban Indians are either overweight or obese and over 100 million people in India have high blood pressure. Clearly there is something drastically wrong between what we eat and how we live. Incorporating olive oil in our cuisines will be a perfect start.”  
She adds “All healthy properties are particularly enhanced in the Extra Virgin Olive oil, the highest category of quality in the family of olive oils. The American nutritionist Ancel Keys, who died at age 101, with his studies showed that the Mediterranean area had a lower prevalence of these diseases thanks to Extra Virgin Olive Oil. People should start using Olive Oil in traditional local and daily cuisine and as it helps in preventing cardiovascular diseases and obesity, reducing the risk of cancer and improves the overall health.”
She also says that  olive oil is very resistant to heat and is suitable for use in Indian cooking. "Most of us tend to think that you can’t use olive oil when you are making Indian delicacies but it’s not true. The main feature of the oil in cooking is to transfer heat to food in stages. For this slow cooking over low heat is the best way to enhance its characteristics. Olive oil during cooking plays as an antioxidant, an injection of aromas and create new flavors and aromas."

A diet rich in olive oil, particularly extra virgin olive oil, may increase life expectancy because:
1. It can strengthen the immune system
2. It may have an anti-inflammatory effect
3. It can prevent cardiovascular diseases
4. It reduces cholesterol levels
5. It decreases the formation of free radicals and cellular aging correlated infarction
6. It reduces the risk of thrombosis and atherosclerosis
7. It can lower blood pressure
8. It may reduce the incidence of some cancers
9. It can improve the operating capacity of the pancreas
10. It can have a positive impact on the emergence of diabetes
Varieties of Olive oil
1) Extra virgin is extracted from freshly picked olives mechanically, under controlled temperatures and without any chemical treatment, and retains large proportion of good fats, vitamins and anti-oxidants.
2) It is also low in acid, resulting in a fruity flavor and aroma, so you don’t need to use as much to enjoy the flavor. The light green colour is because of the presence of chlorophyll.
3) Pomace, it’s a refined version of olive oil, which does not provide the same benefits as the traditional cold pressed oils.
4) Olive oil has great viscosity and flavour and hence less is needed to enhance the natural taste of any dish.

Myths about Olive oil
1) Olive oil doesn’t lend itself well to Indian Food
2) Extra Virgin cannot be used for cooking
Some facts about Olive oil
1) Olive oil is versatile, healthy and suitable equally for raw use in salads, dressings, stir frying and regular cooking.
2) Olive oil – high biological and nutritional value, resulting in good human health.

Copyright © 2008-2010 Double Spring Media (India) Pvt. Ltd All rights reserved.

By Mary Agnes Welch, Winnipeg Free Press , March 1, 2011

New research by an Israeli scientist suggests vitamin A could act almost like an antidote to the effects of alcohol on very early embryos during the critical development of the head and central nervous system. That’s when the worst effects of FASD start.

WINNIPEG — It’s too early to call it a cure, but plain old vitamin A could curb the devastating effects of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

New research by an Israeli scientist suggests vitamin A could act almost like an antidote to the effects of alcohol on very early embryos during the critical development of the head and central nervous system. That’s when the worst effects of FASD start.

"Scientifically, this is a very interesting story," said Abraham Fainsod, a professor of genetics and biochemistry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. "If we can continue our research, we could do some good."

On Monday, Manitoba pledged $750,000 to help set up a joint FASD research consortium between the Hebrew University and the University of Manitoba. Sorting through the vitamin A issue will be among the projects earmarked for funding.

"This has the possibility of being a relatively simple solution," said Geoff Hicks, Fainsod’s counterpart at the University of Manitoba. "That’s why everyone is so excited."

What research Fainsod has done on frogs, Hicks will now try to reproduce using mice, which are the model for mammals.

They’ll be looking at retinoic acid, one of the main biological forms of vitamin A and a critical element in cell development and revitalization. That’s why so many wrinkle creams tout vitamin A as a key ingredient.

Alcohol prevents the conversion of vitamin A to retinoic acid because both compete for one particular enzyme and the alcohol usually wins. While the body is processing alcohol, it’s not making any new retinoic acid, which, in embryos, interrupts the normal development of the head and brain cells.

Fainsod’s research suggests adding more vitamin A to the equation — rebalancing the amount of alcohol and retinoic acid — can reverse or curb brain defects caused by alcohol.

But Fainsod is quick to say vitamin A can never be seen as a licence to drink while pregnant. Too much vitamin A can cause birth defects that mimic the effects of alcohol. And scientists haven’t yet figured out what the correct balance might be.

But vitamin A could one day be added to food as folic acid was added to white flour to reduce birth defects like spina bifida.

Or it could be given to at-risk populations or chronic alcoholics who are unable to quit drinking but who risk having multiple children with FASD.

© Copyright (c) Winnipeg Free Press

New research by an Israeli scientist suggests vitamin A could act almost like an antidote to the effects of alcohol on very early embryos during the critical development of the head and central nervous system. That’s when the worst effects of FASD start.

Photograph by: Ian Waldie, Getty Images

Moderate exercise increases the size of part of the brain that controls memory, researchers suggest

By Peter Russell
WebMD Health News, February 1, 2011

Reviewed by Dr Rob Hicks

Article Link: http://www.webmd.boots.com/healthy-ageing/news/20110201/exercise-reverses-memory-loss

1^st February 2011 – Exercising for 40 minutes three times a week can boost memory in older people, a new study suggests.

Researchers in the US say a year’s worth of moderate physical activity was enough to increase the size of the brain’s hippocampus, leading to the improvement in spatial memory.

820,000 people in the UK have dementia, a number forecast to rise as our population ages. Although the study did not look at people with the condition, it could have important implications for an ageing society.

Exercise regime

Teams led by scientists from the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Illinois recruited 120 inactive people aged between 55 and 80 without dementia and assigned them at random to two groups. Half began an exercise regime in which they walked around a track for 40 minutes a day, three times a week. The remainder acted as a ‘control’ group for the experiment and were limited to stretching and toning exercises.

Magnetic resonance images of the brains of all those taking part were collected before the experiments began, after six months and at the end of the one year study.

The researchers found that in the aerobic exercise group they were able to measure an increase in volume of the left and right hippocampus of 2.12% and 1.97%, respectively.

The same regions of the brain in those who did stretching exercises decreased in volume by 1.40 and 1.43 percent, respectively.

Reversing age-related loss

Writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the authors note that the size of the Hippocampus shrinks by 1-2% each year in older adults who do not have dementia, and that this loss of volume increases the risk of losing brain function. They write, “Exercise training increased hippocampal volume by 2%, effectively reversing age-related loss in volume by one to two years.”

Spatial memory tests were carried out on all participants at the three intervals. Those in the aerobic exercise group showed improved memory function, when measured against their performance at the start of the study, the researchers report.

"We think of the atrophy of the hippocampus in later life as almost inevitable," Kirk Erickson, professor of psychology at the University of Pittsburgh and the paper’s lead author said in a statement. "But we’ve shown that even moderate exercise for one year can increase the size of that structure. The brain at that stage remains modifiable."

Art Kramer from the University of Illinois, and lead author of the research, said in a statement: "The results of our study are particularly interesting in that they suggest that even modest amounts of exercise by sedentary older adults can lead to substantial improvements in memory and brain health."

Never too late to exercise: Dementia charity

Dr Simon Ridley, Head of Research at the Alzheimer’s Research Trust, said in an emailed statement: “Although this study doesn’t look at memory loss in Alzheimer’s or dementia, it suggests it’s never too late to start exercising to help keep our brains healthy. Even modest exercise may improve memory and help protect the brain from normal decline caused by ageing.”

“Increasing evidence suggests regular exercise and a healthy diet may help reduce our risk of developing dementia as well as reaping numerous other benefits from living a healthy lifestyle.”

View Article Sources

SOURCES:

Press release, University of Pittsburgh.

‘Exercise training increases size of hippocampus and improves memory’, Arthur F Kramer et al, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, doi/10.1073/pnas.1015950108.

Dr Simons Ridley, Alzheimer’s Research Trust.

© 2011 WebMD, LLC. All rights reserved.

Why Almost Everything You Hear About Medicine Is Wrong

by Sharon Begley, January 24, 2011

Illustration by Jacob Thomas

If you follow the news about health research, you risk whiplash. First garlic lowers bad cholesterol, then—after more study—it doesn’t. Hormone replacement reduces the risk of heart disease in postmenopausal women, until a huge study finds that it doesn’t (and that it raises the risk of breast cancer to boot). Eating a big breakfast cuts your total daily calories, or not—as a study released last week finds. Yet even if biomedical research can be a fickle guide, we rely on it.

But what if wrong answers aren’t the exception but the rule? More and more scholars who scrutinize health research are now making that claim. It isn’t just an individual study here and there that’s flawed, they charge. Instead, the very framework of medical investigation may be off-kilter, leading time and again to findings that are at best unproved and at worst dangerously wrong. The result is a system that leads patients and physicians astray—spurring often costly regimens that won’t help and may even harm you.

Joe Raedle / Getty Images

Gallery: Medical Breakthroughs: The Good and the Bad

Breakthroughs and Breakdown

It’s a disturbing view, with huge im-plications for doctors, policymakers, and health-conscious consumers. And one of its foremost advocates, Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis, has just ascended to a new, prominent platform after years of crusading against the baseless health and medical claims. As the new chief of Stanford University’s Prevention Research Center, Ioannidis is cementing his role as one of medicine’s top mythbusters. “People are being hurt and even dying” because of false medical claims, he says: not quackery, but errors in medical research.

This is Ioannidis’s moment. As medical costs hamper the economy and impede deficit-reduction efforts, policymakers and businesses are desperate to cut them without sacrificing sick people. One no-brainer solution is to use and pay for only treatments that work. But if Ioannidis is right, most biomedical studies are wrong.

In just the last two months, two pillars of preventive medicine fell. A major study concluded there’s no good evidence that statins (drugs like Lipitor and Crestor) help people with no history of heart disease. The study, by the Cochrane Collaboration, a global consortium of biomedical experts, was based on an evaluation of 14 individual trials with 34,272 patients. Cost of statins: more than $20 billion per year, of which half may be unnecessary. (Pfizer, which makes Lipitor, responds in part that “managing cardiovascular disease risk factors is complicated”). In November a panel of the Institute of Medicine concluded that having a blood test for vitamin D is pointless: almost everyone has enough D for bone health (20 nanograms per milliliter) without taking supplements or calcium pills. Cost of vitamin D: $425 million per year.

Ioannidis, 45, didn’t set out to slay medical myths. A child prodigy (he was calculating decimals at age 3 and wrote a book of poetry at 8), he graduated first in his class from the University of Athens Medical School, did a residency at Harvard, oversaw AIDS clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health in the mid-1990s, and chaired the department of epidemiology at Greece’s University of Ioannina School of Medicine. But at NIH Ioannidis had an epiphany. “Positive” drug trials, which find that a treatment is effective, and “negative” trials, in which a drug fails, take the same amount of time to conduct. “But negative trials took an extra two to four years to be published,” he noticed. “Negative results sit in a file drawer, or the trial keeps going in hopes the results turn positive.” With billions of dollars on the line, companies are loath to declare a new drug ineffective. As a result of the lag in publishing negative studies, patients receive a treatment that is actually ineffective. That made Ioannidis wonder, how many biomedical studies are wrong?

His answer, in a 2005 paper: “the majority.” From clinical trials of new drugs to cutting-edge genetics, biomedical research is riddled with incorrect findings, he argued. Ioannidis deployed an abstruse mathematical argument to prove this, which some critics have questioned. “I do agree that many claims are far more tenuous than is generally appreciated, but to ‘prove’ that most are false, in all areas of medicine, one needs a different statistical model and more empirical evidence than Ioannidis uses,” says biostatistician Steven Goodman of Johns Hopkins, who worries that the most-research-is-wrong claim “could promote an unhealthy skepticism about medical research, which is being used to fuel anti-science fervor.”

Even a cursory glance at medical journals shows that once heralded studies keep falling by the wayside. Two 1993 studies concluded that vitamin E prevents cardiovascular disease; that claim was overturned by more rigorous experiments, in 1996 and 2000. A 1996 study concluding that estrogen therapy reduces older women’s risk of Alzheimer’s was overturned in 2004. Numerous studies concluding that popular antidepressants work by altering brain chemistry have now been contradicted (the drugs help with mild and moderate depression, when they work at all, through a placebo effect), as has research claiming that early cancer detection (through, say, PSA tests) invariably saves lives. The list goes on.

Despite the explosive nature of his charges, Ioannidis has collaborated with some 1,500 other scientists, and Stanford, epitome of the establishment, hired him in August to run the preventive-medicine center. “The core of medicine is getting evidence that guides decision making for patients and doctors,” says Ralph Horwitz, chairman of the department of medicine at Stanford. “John has been the foremost innovative thinker about biomedical evidence, so he was a natural for us.”

Ioannidis’s first targets were shoddy statistics used in early genome studies. Scientists would test one or a few genes at a time for links to virtually every disease they could think of. That just about ensured they would get “hits” by chance alone. When he began marching through the genetics literature, it was like Sherman laying waste to Georgia: most of these candidate genes could not be verified. The claim that variants of the vitamin D–receptor gene explain three quarters of the risk of osteoporosis? Wrong, he and colleagues proved in 2006: the variants have no effect on osteoporosis. That scores of genes identified by the National Human Genome Research Institute can be used to predict cardiovascular disease? No (2009). That six gene variants raise the risk of Parkinson’s disease? No (2010). Yet claims that gene X raises the risk of disease Y contaminate the scientific literature, affecting personal health decisions and sustaining the personal genome-testing industry.

Statistical flukes also plague epidemiology, in which researchers look for links between health and the environment, including how people behave and what they eat. A study might ask whether coffee raises the risk of joint pain, or headaches, or gallbladder disease, or hundreds of other ills. “When you do thousands of tests, statistics says you’ll have some false winners,” says Ioannidis. Drug companies make a mint on such dicey statistics. By testing an approved drug for other uses, they get hits by chance, “and doctors use that as the basis to prescribe the drug for this new use. I think that’s wrong.” Even when a claim is disproved, it hangs around like a deadbeat renter you can’t evict. Years after the claim that vitamin E prevents heart disease had been overturned, half the scientific papers mentioning it cast it as true, Ioannidis found in 2007.

The situation isn’t hopeless. Geneticists have mostly mended their ways, tightening statistical criteria, but other fields still need to clean house, Ioannidis says. Surgical practices, for instance, have not been tested to nearly the extent that medications have. “I wouldn’t be surprised if a large proportion of surgical practice is based on thin air, and [claims for effectiveness] would evaporate if we studied them closely,” Ioannidis says. That would also save billions of dollars. George Lundberg, former editor of The Journal of the American Medical Association, estimates that strictly applying criteria like Ioannidis pushes would save $700 billion to $1 trillion a year in U.S. health-care spending.

Of course, not all conventional health wisdom is wrong. Smoking kills, being morbidly obese or severely underweight makes you more likely to die before your time, processed meat raises the risk of some cancers, and controlling blood pressure reduces the risk of stroke. The upshot for consumers: medical wisdom that has stood the test of time—and large, randomized, controlled trials—is more likely to be right than the latest news flash about a single food or drug.

ART OF HEALING
By SR AMIR FARID ISAHAK, The Star Malaysia, September 18, 2010

How hormones regulate your body and your life.

TODAY, I will give you an overview of the important role hormones play in regulating our body, our health, and our life. Hormones are poorly understood by most people.

Many who do understand the importance of good nutrition still fail to get the best out of their nutritional programme because of their lack of understanding of the crucial role hormones play in instructing the cells to utilise the nutrients.

Many relationships have broken up because of hormonal upheavals, so do not underestimate the importance of hormones in your life.

Without adequate hormones, some expensive nutritional supplements may just be wasted. Hormones also regulate our appetite, our metabolic rate, and where our fat is deposited. Hormones even influence our behavior and our character!

Many fail to lose weight simply because of abnormal hormones. And many relationships have broken up because of hormonal upheavals. So do not underestimate the importance of hormones in your life.

And if you understand your hormones, you can understand and manage your life better, and you can fine-tune your body to top shape, like how you can tune-up your car engine for peak performance. But first you need to understand the basics of how hormones work. 

Insulin – the glucose and metabolic regulator

During the fasting month, many of us were tired and hungry, especially towards the evening, after fasting for over 12 hours. At break-fast time (“buka puasa”), just a glass of cool syrup, sugarcane juice or air bandung (syrup with milk) would quickly recharge the body and restore vitality. Prolonged fasting lowers the blood glucose level, and drinking a sugar-loaded drink restores the glucose to the normal level.

Now, if a higher glucose levels means more energy for us, why is that people with diabetes, who have even much higher glucose levels (beyond the normal range), are not healthier and more energetic? In fact, they are unhealthy, more lethargic, and are prone to diseases of many organs.

The reason is that in the diabetics, the cells are not able to assimilate the glucose (needed for energy production) due to the lack of insulin (in type 1 diabetes mellitus), or due to the failure of the cells to adequately respond to the available insulin (type 2 diabetes mellitus).

Insulin instructs the cells to take in glucose from the blood to be used for metabolism, for storage (as glycogen) or for conversion to fat (for long term storage).

Insulin influences many aspects of our metabolism, and the problem of insulin resistance is the likely common factor for diabetes, dyslipidemia (abnormal fat levels), obesity (especially central or abdominal obesity), and hypertension. These may then lead to heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, liver disease, and even cancer.

The lack of glucose entering the cells severely hampers cell metabolism, and hence the entire body is affected by this disease as all cells require glucose to survive, and to perform their assigned functions. Without sufficient insulin, or normal cell response to insulin, pre-diabetes and diabetes result over time.

Pre-diabetes is easily reversible by weight loss, diet change and exercise, but overt diabetes is much more difficult to reverse, although it is possible.

What happens in the diabetic patient is the classic example of the important role of hormones in regulating our cells, organs, and therefore our overall health.

A similar situation operates with other hormones regulating the utilisation of various macro-nutrients (carbohydrates, fats, proteins), micro-nutrients (vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, etc), signal-molecules and other chemicals, and regulating various cellular processes to achieve the best possible functioning body.

Hormones set your cellular thermostat

A simple everyday analogy is this: Suppose you need to iron some clothes. You plug in the iron, switch on the power, and then you have to set the thermostat to the right setting for the job – a different setting for each type of clothing material.

Judicious use of the thermostat will give you the desired results. Too hot and you will burn the clothing, while too low a setting will not get the job done efficiently.

Likewise with the body, each organ and system has to be finely regulated to function in the best way, to maintain the best health, at different “settings” during different phases of our lives, befitting the intended biological function at each phase. This “setting”, instructing the cells and organs to perform optimally, is done by the hormones. There are at least 20 important hormones that we should monitor to know if our body is functioning in the best possible way.

Human growth hormone – the master hormone

From birth, babies have to grow rapidly in size and in developmental milestones, so that they can become fully functional adults. Human growth hormone (HGH, also called somatotropin) is the most crucial hormone at this stage, being responsible for overall growth and health, and influencing many other hormones that regulate the different organ systems.

The HGH level remains high until about age 20, then it steadily declines at about 15% per decade. Thus at age 50, the level is almost 50% down, and by age 80, it is 90% down. Although the decline is “normal” considering the cessation of growth after age 20, and the reduction in physical activity as we age, many people suffer from a rapid decline in HGH level (due to poor diet and lifestyle), causing them to age faster than usual.

Maintaining healthy levels (according to your age) of HGH in adulthood helps ensure overall health – from healthy brain function, to strong bones, healthy heart, muscles, skin and even sexuality and sexual health.

Sexuality and sexual health are usually attributed to the sex hormones (androgens for males, oestrogens for females), but HGH actually plays a very important promotive and supportive role. Note that the decline of HGH precedes the decline in sex hormones, which leads to andropause in men and menopause in women (at about age 50).

The ageing of the whole body (somatopause) due to the decline in HGH occurs well before andropause or menopause. It may be possible to delay andropause/menopause by delaying somatopause. In any case, the harmful effects of andropause/menopause can be significantly mitigated by maintaining excellent health (ie. by delaying somatopause).

HGH can be maintained at healthy levels naturally by having adequate (and deep) sleep, low-calorie protein-rich diet, and intense exercise. Indeed this sounds like the general advice given by all health advocates. At least you now know one scientific explanation why these measures help.

Adequate sleep also allows your body to rest and repair, besides promoting normal levels of some other hormones. A low-calorie diet prevents obesity and (in animal studies) has been shown to protect against chronic degenerative diseases (like diabetes and heart disease) and activate the longevity genes.

Since HGH is a peptide hormone (made of amino-acids), the diet must contain enough protein necessary to manufacture the hormones. Intense exercise increases muscle mass and promotes cardiovascular health. The improved circulation benefits the entire body as oxygen and nutrient delivery is improved.

Children who are severely deficient in HGH fail to grow, and become dwarfs (but their bodies are in the correct proportion, as opposed to those with achondroplasia, who have shortened limbs but normal-sized heads). Excess HGH will cause giantism, with broad faces, hands and feet.

In both conditions, those afflicted are not healthy and do not live long. Hormones have to be within their normal ranges. Too little or too much will cause malfunction, disease or even early death. Those with severe HGH deficiency (children and adults) are treated with HGH injections while those with excess (usually due to a pituitary tumor) will need the appropriate medical treatments to normalise the hormone levels.

While maintaining healthy HGH levels through natural means described above is accepted, there is much controversy on the necessity, effectiveness and safety of improving the levels in otherwise healthy people (in the hope of achieving maximum health) or in those with mild or moderate deficiency. There are claims that HGH secretagogues (amino-acid supplements) or even homeopathic preparations can improve HGH levels, but these have not been proven by peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Hormones, optimum health and ageing

Ageing means slowing down of cellular metabolism, decline in functions and accumulation of defects and dysfunction. Some organs age faster than others, and thus become more prone to disease. The skin is the best example to illustrate the different rates of ageing, since it is the organ most exposed to scrutiny, and also most exposed to the damaging effects of the sun.

There are people who are fit and healthy, but because they are outdoors often (and don’t use sunblock), they look old because of their skin-ageing. Declining hormones (HGH, sex hormones, etc) and years of unhealthy diet and lack of exercise (which is the typical scenario with most people in the modern world) exacerbate the ageing process even further.

The ageing of the internal organs – brain, heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, etc. are more important, and hormones play important roles in regulating all of them. Correcting the hormones will help ensure these organs function well, and slow down their ageing.

With ageing, most of the hormones decline, but some increase (eg. insulin), and some become unbalanced (eg. androgen-oestrogen ratios in both men and women; oestrogen-progestogen ratio in women). All these have to be corrected if ageing is to be slowed down to maintain youthful health. The detailed study of these hormones and their correction is the subject which doctors involved in anti-ageing medicine have to relearn because much of the science is only recently understood.

I have given an overview of the important role hormones play, and have mentioned only a few of the more than 20 hormones we need to monitor and optimise. I will explain in more detail about these hormones in future articles. You may be surprised with some of the improvements that you can achieve by optimising these hormones.

Malaysian anti-ageing doctors are fortunate that Dr Theirry Hertoghe, one of the world’s foremost endocrinologists and author of The Hormone Handbook, has been coaching us with the most updated and comprehensive information in this field. His clinical expertise/experience is extensive, and the rich and famous from all over the world seek his advice.

He has offered to partner with a local medical institution to transfer his knowledge and expertise to local and regional doctors. I hope his offer is taken up, otherwise that privilege will go to an institution in a neighbouring country, and we will miss the chance of being a centre of excellence in this field.

Dr Amir Farid Isahak is a medical specialist who practises holistic, aesthetic and anti-ageing medicine. He is a qigong master and founder of SuperQigong. For further information, e-mail starhealth@thestar.com.my. The views expressed are those of the writer and readers are advised to always consult expert advice before undertaking any changes to their lifestyles. The Star does not give any warranty on accuracy, completeness, functionality, usefulness or other assurances as to the content appearing in this column. The Star disclaims all responsibility for any losses, damage to property or personal injury suffered directly or indirectly from reliance on such information.

© 1995-2010 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd (Co No 10894-D)

A two-year weight loss study by Israeli researchers found that adults who drank the most milk (nearly 2 glasses per day), lost more weight after the two years than those who had little or no milk

By Susan Brady, Health News

Created Sep 16 2010 – 08:52

It just may be that a glass a day will melt the pounds away. According to a new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, regular milk drinkers had not only higher vitamin D levels but were able to lose more weight than their lactose-deficient counterparts. Kind of adds an extra kick to the old slogan “Milk, It Does Your Body Good.”

A two-year weight loss study by Israeli researchers found that adults who drank the most milk (nearly 2 glasses per day), lost more weight after the two years than those who had little or no milk— almost 12 pounds weight loss, on average. And the more milk participants consumed, the more weight they lost.  Each additional serving of six ounces yielded 10 additional pounds of weight loss. That’s some pretty heavy losses without any heavy lifting.

The study followed 300 middle-aged participants, all of which were on a specific diet—either low-carbohydrate [1], low-fat, or Mediterranean [2]. Those with the highest daily milk intake, regardless of which diet they were on, lost an average of 5 pounds more during the two years of the study than those with minimal milk in their daily consumption. 

The weight loss was tied to the vitamin D levels, of which milk is an excellent source. Vitamin D has long been known to be essential to bone and muscle health by aiding calcium absorption in the intestines and the production of enzymes involved in collagen formation in the bones. This important nutrient also promotes normal cell growth and helps maintain hormonal balance as well as supporting the immune system. Recent research has found receptors for vitamin D in almost every organ and tissue system in the body, suggesting that deficiencies may affect many types of cell functions.

Much debate remains as to just how much daily vitamin D one should get for the amount to be deemed healthy. While 400 daily units may be enough to prevent  a disease like rickets in children [3], it may not be a large enough quantity to promote general good health and prevent illness. For adults, the various amounts deemed healthy by experts range from 2,000 to 10,000 units daily.

Source URL: http://www.healthnews.com/nutrition-diet/weight-loss/nutrients-in-milk-may-aid-in-weight-loss-4462.html

2 September 2010 Last updated at 23:03 GMT

Link between bone drugs and oesophageal cancer

The drugs work by strengthening the bones

Long-term use of bone-strengthening drugs – used to treat fractures – may boost the risk of oesophageal cancer, Oxford University research suggests.

The study of 3,000 people found taking bisphosphonates for five years upped the risk from one in 1,000 to two in 1,000 for 60 to 79-year-olds.

The researchers said the risk was small, but reliable information on risks and benefits was needed.

But experts said for many, the case for taking the drugs "would be strong".

The findings, published in the British Medical Journal, were based on an analysis of anonymised GP records.

They contrast with previous research which found no increased risk for the bone-strengthening drugs. 

Anyone who is taking these drugs and is worried about their risk of cancer should talk to their doctor”

End Quote Dr Laura Bell Cancer Research UK

It is not known why the risk may be increased, although the drugs are known to irritate the oesophagus.

Thousands of stomach and colorectum cancers were also studied, but no increased risk was found.

Lead researcher Dr Jane Green said even if the findings were confirmed by other studies "few people" taking bisphosphonates would ever develop the cancer.

"Our findings are part of a wider picture. Bisphosphonates are being increasingly prescribed to prevent fracture and what is lacking is reliable information on the benefits and risks of their use in the long term."

About 600,000 people in the UK are currently taking the drugs – including a tenth of all women over the age of 70.

Dr Laura Bell, from Cancer Research UK, agreed the findings should be treated with caution, pointing out the risks were "still small".

"Anyone who is taking these drugs and is worried about their risk of cancer should talk to their doctor."

The National Osteoporosis Society said: "It is a case of balancing the reduced risk of fractures against the side effects of treatment.

"When you consider the fact that there are 230,000 osteoporotic fractures every year in the UK and 1,150 hip-fracture-related deaths every month, the case for treatment is strong."

It’s easy to fall into the trap: A workout buddy passes along an exercise tip, and then you pass it on to several folks you know. Your kid’s coach gives you advice, and sure enough you hear the same thing from several other parents. So you figure it must be true. But experts say that in the world of fitness, myths and half-truths abound – and some of them may be keeping you and your family from getting the best and safest workout.

“Some myths are just harmless half-truths, but many others can actually be harmful,” says professional triathlete and personal coach Eric Harr, author of The Portable Personal Trainer. “They can cause frustration in working out and sometimes even lead to injury,” he notes.

One reason myths get started, says Harr, is that we all react to exercise a little differently. So what’s true for one person may not be true for another.

“In this sense you sometimes have to find your own ‘exercise truths’ – the things that are true for you,” says Harr.

That said, experts say there are also some fitness myths that just need busting, and the sooner the better!

To help put you and your family on the path to a healthier, safer, and more enjoyable workout, WebMD got the lowdown from several top experts on what’s true and what’s not when it comes to exercise tips.    

Fitness Myth No. 1: Running on a treadmill puts less stress on your knees than running on asphalt or pavement.

“Running is a great workout, but it can impact the knees — and since it’s the force of your body weight on your joints that causes the stress, it’s the same whether you’re on a treadmill or on asphalt,” says Todd Schlifstein, DO, a clinical instructor at New York University Medical Center’s Rusk Institute.

The best way to reduce knee impact, says Schlifstein, is to vary your workout.

“If you mix running with other cardio activities, like an elliptical machine, or you ride a stationary bike, you will reduce impact on your knees so you’ll be able to run for many more years,” says Schlifstein.

Fitness Myth No. 2: Doing crunches or working on an “ab machine” will get rid of belly fat.

Don’t believe everything you hear on those late-night infomercials! Harr says that while an ab-crunching device might “help strengthen the muscles around your midsection and improve your posture,” being able to “see” your abdominal muscles has to do with your overall percentage of body fat.  If you don’t lose the belly fat, he says, you won’t see the ab muscles.

But can doing ab crunches help you to lose that belly fat? Experts say no.

“You can’t pick and choose areas where you’d like to burn fat,” says Phil Tyne, director of the fitness center at the Baylor Tom Landry Health & Wellness Center in Dallas.  So crunches aren’t going to target weight loss in that area.

“In order to burn fat, you should create a workout that includes both cardiovascular and strength-training elements. This will decrease your overall body fat content,” including the area around your midsection, he says.

Fitness Myth No. 3: An aerobic workout will boost your metabolism for hours after you stop working out.

This statement is actually true — but the calorie burn is probably not nearly as much as you think!

Harr says that while your metabolism will continue to burn at a slightly higher rate after you finish an aerobic workout, the amount is not statistically significant. In fact, it allows you to burn only about 20 extra calories for the day. While there’s a little bit more of a metabolic boost after strength training, he says, it’s still marginal.

“It doesn’t really count towards your caloric burn,” he says.

Fitness Myth No. 4: Swimming is a great weight loss activity.

While swimming is great for increasing lung capacity, toning muscles, and even helping to burn off excess tension, Harr says the surprising truth is that unless you are swimming for hours a day, it may not help you lose much weight.

“Because the buoyancy of the water is supporting your body, you’re not working as hard as it would if, say, you were moving on your own steam — like you do when you run,” says Harr.

Further, he says, it’s not uncommon to feel ravenous when you come out of the water.

“It may actually cause you to eat more than you normally would, so it can make it harder to stay with an eating plan,” he says.

Fitness Myth No. 5: Yoga can help with all sorts of back pain.

The truth is that yoga can help with back pain, but it’s not equally good for all types.

“If your back pain is muscle-related, then yes, the yoga stretches and some of the positions can help. It can also help build a stronger core, which for many people is the answer to lower back pain,” says Schlifstein.

But if your back problems are related other problems (such as a ruptured disc) yoga is not likely to help, he says. What’s more, it could actually irritate the injury and cause you more pain.

If you do have back pain, get your doctor’s OK before starting any type of exercise program.

Fitness Myth No. 6: If you’re not working up a sweat, you’re not working hard enough.

“Sweating is not necessarily an indicator of exertion,” says Tyne. “Sweating is your body’s way of cooling itself.”

It’s possible to burn a significant number of calories without breaking a sweat: Try taking a walk or doing some light weight training.

Fitness Myth No. 7: As long as you feel OK when you’re working out, you’re probably not overdoing it.

One of the biggest mistakes people tend to make when starting or returning to an exercise program is doing too much too soon. The reason we do that, says Schlifstein, is because we feel OK while we are working out.

“You don’t really feel the overdoing it part until a day or two later,” he says.

No matter how good you feel when you return to an activity after an absence, Schlifstein says you should never try to duplicate how much or how hard you worked in the past.  Even if you don’t feel it at the moment, you’ll feel it in time, he says — and it could take you back out of the game again.

Fitness Myth No. 8: Machines are a safer way to exercise because you’re doing it right every time.

Although it may seem as if an exercise machine automatically puts your body in the right position and helps you do all the movements correctly, that’s only true if the machine is properly adjusted for your weight and height, experts say.

“Unless you have a coach or a trainer or someone figure out what is the right setting for you, you can make just as many mistakes in form and function, and have just as high a risk of injury, on a machine as if you work out with free weights or do any other type of nonmachine workout,” says Schlifstein.

Fitness Myth No. 9: When it comes to working out, you’ve got to feel some pain if you’re going to gain any benefits.

Of all the fitness rumors ever to have surfaced, experts agree that the “no pain-no gain” holds the most potential for harm.

While you should expect to have some degree of soreness a day or two after working out, Schlifstein says, that’s very different from feeling pain while you are working out.

“A fitness activity should not hurt while you are doing it, and if it does, then either you are doing it wrong, or you already have an injury,” he says.

As for “working through the pain,” experts don’t advise it.  They say that if it hurts, stop, rest, and see if the pain goes away. If it doesn’t go away, or if it begins again or increases after you start to work out, Schlifstein says, see a doctor.

Source: WebMD