Health Advice/Discussion

bmwracer wrote:
Yup... Since I changed my eating habitsto more healthy fare, my weekly food bill is at least double. :sweat:

Eating healthy is going to bankrupt me. :beaten:

Add the monthly gym membership fee with that, and you'll understand how I feel!
Oh, and I also purchase protein powders, a LOT of sugar free red bulls and a LOT of milk on top of the healthy diet regime stuff.
So yeah, aho is BROKE, but looks decent.

Hmmmm, maybe I should just get fat and rich?! haha :beaten:

ahochaude wrote:Add the monthly gym membership fee with that, and you'll understand how I feel!
Oh, and I also purchase protein powders, a LOT of sugar free red bulls and a LOT of milk on top of the healthy diet regime stuff.
So yeah, aho is BROKE, but looks decent.

Look back a few posts: you mioght wanna avoid the Red Bulls. :sweat:

Hmmmm, maybe I should just get fat and rich?! haha :beaten:

Like Bill (Gates)?

Man, I saw him in that Microsoft commercial with Jerry Seinfeld, he looked old and paunchy... Seeing him on the street, you'd never guess he was one of the richest men in the world. :bleh:

Special Report: Researchers Move Closer To Restoring Human Body's Ability To Make Vitamin C

By Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc. © 2008

Hamilton, Ontario CANADA (Sept. 11, 2008)- Utilizing gene therapy, researchers at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario (Canada) report, for the first time, that they have successfully restored the ability to make vitamin C in a genetic strain of mice that no longer produces vitamin C as most animals do, suggesting a future day when this lost capability can be restored to humans.

Utilizing a harmless virus as a vector (delivery agent), a working copy of the gulonolactone oxidase gene was re-inserted into mouse liver cells and their ability to naturally produce vitamin C was restored, enough to increase their blood levels by 6-fold in just four days, and within 23 days blood concentrations were 20-fold higher. Gene therapy was so effective, vitamin C levels in the genetically defective mice were similar to normal mice who naturally produce vitamin C throughout the day.

Only a small number of animals, guinea pigs, fruit bats, primate monkeys and humans, do not produce vitamin C naturally by enzymatic conversion of blood sugar to ascorbate, the type of vitamin C that is continually produced in the liver of most animals. For example, a 160-pound goat, about the same weight as a human, will synthesize about 13,000 milligrams of vitamin C per day.

Modern humans, by comparison, produce no vitamin C and consume only about 110 milligrams of vitamin C from their daily diet. Early hunter gatherers who foraged for food are believed to have consumed around 640 mg of vitamin C per day from fruits and vegetables.

Vitamin C deficiency is universal in humans and is caused by a single gene defect. This genetic defect is believed to have occurred long ago in human history and was transferred to all succeeding generations. The gene that makes the enzyme gulonolactone oxidase, which is currently found in all humans, is dysfunctional. This finding gives rise to speculation that early humans once produced their own vitamin C as most animals do today.

While humans can consume vitamin C supplements to boost vitamin C blood levels, it is often difficult to achieve high concentrations needed to prevent or even treat disease. Researchers speculate that if the ability to continually synthesize vitamin C in humans could be restored, humans would likely live far longer, and experience fewer cataracts, gallstones, aneurysms (bulging blood vessels), as well as less cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

Animals that produce vitamin C naturally live on average about 8-12 times beyond their age when childhood growth ceases. For comparison, humans live only 2-3.5 times beyond their age of physical maturation (~ age 18 years) and live about 60-75 years. This research suggests a day when humans might live hundreds of disease-free years of life.

This report comes on the heels of recent studies showing intravenous vitamin C therapy may be promising for treatment of cancer. The mouse gene therapy study was published in an advanced online edition of Human Gene Therapy, and the complete paper can be viewed here:http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/hgt.2008.106

Lead researcher Herb E. Schellhorn of the Department of Biology at McMaster University, said the future of this type of research may depend upon the acceptance of gene therapy altogether, since earlier gene therapy involving humans have been disappointing. But he reports researchers around the world are eager to learn more about his work and fellow researchers at McMaster University are vying to conduct further studies. Schellhorn is currently writing a grant proposal, seeking funding to proceed with follow-up studies. #### © 2008 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc.

Tu_triky wrote:Study adds colon cancer to list for trans fatsf harm

So, kids, avoid studies and trans fats in rapid succession if you want to stay colon cancer free. Huh? What? :beaten:

bmwracer wrote:
Like Bill (Gates)?

Man, I saw him in that Microsoft commercial with Jerry Seinfeld, he looked old and paunchy... Seeing him on the street, you'd never guess he was one of the richest men in the world. :bleh:

You mean this commercial?
[image]
"I'm sorry, ma'am. Would you mind helping an old wintergreen gather his spectacles?"

phlargo wrote:

So, kids, avoid studies and trans fats in rapid succession if you want to stay colon cancer free. Huh? What? :beaten:

Indeed ~ An oddly worded title.

Tu_triky wrote:Indeed ~ An oddly worded title.

A tongue-twister.

bmwracer wrote:
A tongue-twister.

Yeah...the title alone is unhealthy, huh? :crazy:

From Yahoo! Health:

Is high-fructose corn syrup really worse than sugar?

Is sugar just sugar, even if it's high-fructose corn syrup? I thought the answer was no, that high-fructose corn syrup is worse than regular sugar or honey or even plain corn syrup and I should avoid it. And let's not even get into sugar substitutes.

But last night I was watching TV and saw a commercial from the Corn Refiners Association saying that high-fructose corn syrup is no worse for me than regular sugar. (See the commercials for yourself at www.sweetsurprise.com.) Could it be true?

I asked one of EatingWell's nutrition experts to help me sort out fact from hype. We recently wrote about high-fructose corn syrup, and it generated an overwhelming, and impassioned, response from our readers.

Author Joyce Hendley's piece helped me get my facts right and hopefully will help you sort out fact from fiction. I've included the report here so you can see the facts for yourself:

• High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a manmade sweetener that's found in a wide range of processed foods, from ketchup and cereals to crackers and salad dressings. It also sweetens just about all of the (regular) soda Americans drink. HFCS used in foods is between 50 to 55 percent fructose-so chemically, it's virtually identical to table sugar (sucrose), which is 50 percent fructose. Metabolic studies suggest our bodies break down and use HFCS and sucrose the same way.

• Yet, after HFCS began to be widely introduced into the food supply 30-odd years ago, obesity rates skyrocketed. And because the sweetener is so ubiquitous, many blame HFCS for playing a major role in our national obesity epidemic. As a result, some shoppers equate HFCS with "toxic waste" when they see it on a food label. But when it comes right down to it, a sugar is a sugar is a sugar. A can of soda contains around nine teaspoons of sugar in the form of HFCS-but, from a biochemical standpoint, drinking that soda is no worse for you than sipping home-brewed iced tea that you've doctored with nine teaspoons of table sugar.

• Even Barry Popkin, Ph.D., a nutrition professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who previously suggested, in an influential 2004 paper, a possible HFCS-obesity link, stresses that the real obesity problem doesn't lie just with HFCS. Rather, it's the fact that sugars from all sources have become so prevalent in our food supply, especially in our beverages. He scoffs at the "natural" sweeteners sometimes added to upscale processed foods like organic crackers and salad dressings. "They all have the same caloric effects as sugar," he explains. "I don't care whether something contains concentrated fruit juice, brown sugar, honey or HFCS. The only better sweetener option is 'none of the above.'"

bmwracer wrote:From Yahoo! Health:

Is high-fructose corn syrup really worse than sugar?

Is sugar just sugar, even if it's high-fructose corn syrup? I thought the answer was no, that high-fructose corn syrup is worse than regular sugar or honey or even plain corn syrup and I should avoid it. And let's not even get into sugar substitutes.

But last night I was watching TV and saw a commercial from the Corn Refiners Association saying that high-fructose corn syrup is no worse for me than regular sugar. (See the commercials for yourself at www.sweetsurprise.com.) Could it be true?

I asked one of EatingWell's nutrition experts to help me sort out fact from hype. We recently wrote about high-fructose corn syrup, and it generated an overwhelming, and impassioned, response from our readers.

Author Joyce Hendley's piece helped me get my facts right and hopefully will help you sort out fact from fiction. I've included the report here so you can see the facts for yourself:

• High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a manmade sweetener that's found in a wide range of processed foods, from ketchup and cereals to crackers and salad dressings. It also sweetens just about all of the (regular) soda Americans drink. HFCS used in foods is between 50 to 55 percent fructose-so chemically, it's virtually identical to table sugar (sucrose), which is 50 percent fructose. Metabolic studies suggest our bodies break down and use HFCS and sucrose the same way.

• Yet, after HFCS began to be widely introduced into the food supply 30-odd years ago, obesity rates skyrocketed. And because the sweetener is so ubiquitous, many blame HFCS for playing a major role in our national obesity epidemic. As a result, some shoppers equate HFCS with "toxic waste" when they see it on a food label. But when it comes right down to it, a sugar is a sugar is a sugar. A can of soda contains around nine teaspoons of sugar in the form of HFCS-but, from a biochemical standpoint, drinking that soda is no worse for you than sipping home-brewed iced tea that you've doctored with nine teaspoons of table sugar.

• Even Barry Popkin, Ph.D., a nutrition professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who previously suggested, in an influential 2004 paper, a possible HFCS-obesity link, stresses that the real obesity problem doesn't lie just with HFCS. Rather, it's the fact that sugars from all sources have become so prevalent in our food supply, especially in our beverages. He scoffs at the "natural" sweeteners sometimes added to upscale processed foods like organic crackers and salad dressings. "They all have the same caloric effects as sugar," he explains. "I don't care whether something contains concentrated fruit juice, brown sugar, honey or HFCS. The only better sweetener option is 'none of the above.'"

That's why they call HFCS a four-letter word. ;)

From Yahoo! News:

Chocolate Helps Heart Stay Healthy

A small square of dark chocolate daily protects the heart from inflammation and subsequent heart disease, a new study of Italians suggests. Milk chocolate might not do the job.

However, this guilty pleasure has a limit.

Specifically, only 6.7 grams of chocolate per day (or 0.23 ounces) represents the ideal amount, according to results from the Moli-sani Project, one of the largest health studies ever conducted in Europe. For comparison, a standard-sized Hershey's kiss is about 4.5 grams (though they are not made of dark chocolate) and one Hershey's dark chocolate bar is about 41 grams (so a recommendation might be one of those weekly).

Chronic inflammation of tissues in the circulatory system is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, such as myocardial infarction or stroke. So doctors strive to keep patients' inflammation under control. One marker for inflammation in the blood is called C-reactive protein.

The researchers found a relationship between dark chocolate intake and levels of this protein in the blood of 4,849 subjects in good health and free of risk factors (such as high cholesterol or blood pressure, and other parameters). The findings are detailed in the latest issue of the Journal of Nutrition.

"We started from the hypothesis that high amounts of antioxidants contained in the cocoa seeds, in particular flavonoids and other kinds of polyphenols, might have beneficial effects on the inflammatory state," said Romina di Giuseppe, lead author of the study. "Our results have been absolutely encouraging: People having moderate amounts of dark chocolate regularly have significantly lower levels of C-reactive protein in their blood. In other words, their inflammatory state is considerably reduced."

The inflammation reduction that the researchers observed controlled for other confounding variables such as wine or produce intake.

Previous studies have found that chocolate might be good for you, though doctors usually warn that it is more important to focus on one's overall diet when it comes to health. One health study found that blood platelets among chocolate-lovers were less likely to clot together in dangerous clumps.

Other studies have found a host of diet and exercise changes that can help a person beat the odds of death. Clearly, no single change is a guarantee of long life.

With chocolate, moderation is key, the new study found.

"The best effect is obtained by consuming an average amount of 6.7 grams of chocolate per day, corresponding to a small square of chocolate twice or three times a week. Beyond these amounts the beneficial effect tends to disappear," di Giuseppe said.

The milk in milk chocolate interferes with polyphenols, so the team kept that out of the study.

"We consider this outcome as the beginning of a large series of data which will give us an innovative view on how [to achieve] prevention in everyday life, both against cardiovascular disease and tumors," said Licia Iacoviello, head of the Laboratory of Genetic and Environmental Epidemiology at the Catholic University of Campobasso and responsible for the Moli-sani Project.

The Moli-sani Project is funded by the Pfizer Foundation.

bmwracer wrote:From Yahoo! News:

Chocolate Helps Heart Stay Healthy

A small square of dark chocolate daily protects the heart from inflammation and subsequent heart disease, a new study of Italians suggests. Milk chocolate might not do the job.

However, this guilty pleasure has a limit.

Specifically, only 6.7 grams of chocolate per day (or 0.23 ounces) represents the ideal amount, according to results from the Moli-sani Project, one of the largest health studies ever conducted in Europe. For comparison, a standard-sized Hershey's kiss is about 4.5 grams (though they are not made of dark chocolate) and one Hershey's dark chocolate bar is about 41 grams (so a recommendation might be one of those weekly).

Chronic inflammation of tissues in the circulatory system is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, such as myocardial infarction or stroke. So doctors strive to keep patients' inflammation under control. One marker for inflammation in the blood is called C-reactive protein.

The researchers found a relationship between dark chocolate intake and levels of this protein in the blood of 4,849 subjects in good health and free of risk factors (such as high cholesterol or blood pressure, and other parameters). The findings are detailed in the latest issue of the Journal of Nutrition.

"We started from the hypothesis that high amounts of antioxidants contained in the cocoa seeds, in particular flavonoids and other kinds of polyphenols, might have beneficial effects on the inflammatory state," said Romina di Giuseppe, lead author of the study. "Our results have been absolutely encouraging: People having moderate amounts of dark chocolate regularly have significantly lower levels of C-reactive protein in their blood. In other words, their inflammatory state is considerably reduced."

The inflammation reduction that the researchers observed controlled for other confounding variables such as wine or produce intake.

Previous studies have found that chocolate might be good for you, though doctors usually warn that it is more important to focus on one's overall diet when it comes to health. One health study found that blood platelets among chocolate-lovers were less likely to clot together in dangerous clumps.

Other studies have found a host of diet and exercise changes that can help a person beat the odds of death. Clearly, no single change is a guarantee of long life.

With chocolate, moderation is key, the new study found.

"The best effect is obtained by consuming an average amount of 6.7 grams of chocolate per day, corresponding to a small square of chocolate twice or three times a week. Beyond these amounts the beneficial effect tends to disappear," di Giuseppe said.

The milk in milk chocolate interferes with polyphenols, so the team kept that out of the study.

"We consider this outcome as the beginning of a large series of data which will give us an innovative view on how [to achieve] prevention in everyday life, both against cardiovascular disease and tumors," said Licia Iacoviello, head of the Laboratory of Genetic and Environmental Epidemiology at the Catholic University of Campobasso and responsible for the Moli-sani Project.

The Moli-sani Project is funded by the Pfizer Foundation.

Interesting...C-reactive Protein (CRP) is a MUCH more accurate predictor of cardiovascular risk than cholesterol...the cholesterol theory of cardiovascular disease has largely been discredited, but doctors and pharmaceutical companies keep shoving statins down ppl's throats.

Tu_triky wrote:Interesting...C-reactive Protein (CRP) is a MUCH more accurate predictor of cardiovascular risk than cholesterol...the cholesterol theory of cardiovascular disease has largely been discredited, but doctors and pharmaceutical companies keep shoving statins down ppl's throats.

Time for me to Wiki more info on CRP. :victory:

bmwracer wrote:
Time for me to Wiki more info on CRP. :victory:

Homocysteine levels are also used to assess cardiovascular risk as are coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores which are assessed via computed tomography scans.

Anyway here's a good article on C-Reactive Protein, from a trusted source, if you're interested.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2002/dec2002_report_c_01.html

Tu_triky wrote:Homocysteine levels are also used to assess cardiovascular risk as are coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores which are assessed via computed tomography scans.

Anyway here's a good article on C-Reactive Protein, from a trusted source, if you're interested.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2002/dec2002_report_c_01.html

Good article... A lot more detailed that the Wiki version. :victory:

bmwracer wrote:
Good article... A lot more detailed that the Wiki version. :victory:

Glad you found it interesting...and as I'm sure you noticed...that article was printed way back in '02. LEF (Life Extension Foundation) is a non-profit foundation dedicated to finding scientific methods to combat the ravages of aging, if you will. Their website is a great resource for medical info.

Tu_triky wrote:Glad you found it interesting...and as I'm sure you noticed...that article was printed way back in '02. LEF (Life Extension Foundation) is a non-profit foundation dedicated to finding scientific methods to combat the ravages of aging, if you will. Their website is a great resource for medical info.

Nice to read more positive info on my popping those three fish oil pills over the course of the day... :victory:

bmwracer wrote:
Nice to read more positive info on my popping those three fish oil pills over the course of the day... :victory:

Most assuredly. :) I personally take 4 to 6 grams a day.



Dude they just came out with further proof that EPA/DHA omega-3 fatty acids from fish are health-promoting....it's unequivocal at this point.

========================
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition has published three studies investigating the role of EPA and DHA omega-3 fats in elderly populations.

In short, the story the studies tell is this: low concentrations of EPA and DHA result in an increased risk of death from all causes and accelerated cognitive decline. However, short-term intervention with EPA and DHA in the healthy elderly had no effect on mental well-being, suggesting that dietary habits that include a higher intake of omega 3fs may bring certain health benefits that short-term supplementation cannot provide.

All three studies underscore the importance of maintaining a high dietary omega-3 intake throughout your life.
Sources:

* American Journal of Clinical Nutrition September 2008; 88(3): 595-596

* American Journal of Clinical Nutrition September 2008; 88(3): 706-713

* American Journal of Clinical Nutrition September 2008; 88(3): 714-721

* American Journal of Clinical Nutrition September 2008; Vol. 88, No. 3, 722-729

Tu_triky wrote:Most assuredly. :) I personally take 4 to 6 grams a day.

Wow, that's like a gelcap every three waking hours, I reckon.

bmwracer wrote:
Wow, that's like a gelcap every three waking hours, I reckon.

Haha...nah, I take Super EPA/DHA from Life Extension....so it's actually not 4 to 6 grams of Omega-3, rather fish oil, so the actually Omega-3 is a bit less. My mistake! Here's the breakdown per serving:


Serving Size 2 softgel
Servings Per Container 60
Amount Per Serving
Calories 21
Calories from Fat 21
Total Fat 2.3 g
Cholesterol 8 mg
Wild Fish Oil Concentrate 2000 mg
Yielding:
EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) 700 mg
DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) 500 mg
Other Omega-3 fatty acids 100 mg
Polyphen-Oil™ Olive (Olea europaea) Fruit Extract 300 mg [std. to 8% total polyphenols (24 mg), 0.7% hydroxytyrosol (2.1 mg) and 0.5% verbascoside (1.5 mg)]