I Believe He Can Still Fly
Here’s a clip of the legendary Michael Jordan doing something at 48 he with the same ease he did when he was 28, and despite his age and knees!
Can Eating More Fish Decrease Your Risk of Developing Heart Disease?
A diet rich in fish, fruits, and vegetables, with moderate consumption of alcohol, and low in dairy products has been associated with lower levels of inflammation and endothelial dysfunction. It is however not clear as to how the consumption of these food roots affect endothelial dysfunction and/or low-grade inflammation over time.
A recent study published in the Journal of Nutrition found that fish consumption, but not fruit, vegetable, alcoholic beverage, or dairy product intake was associated with lowered endothelial dysfunction, the inner lining of the art series, and low-grade inflammation, and healthy adults.
The authors measured diet by the and computer assisted cross check diet history method among women with an average age of 36 years.
At 36 to 42 years of age, the authors measured various markers of inflammation in the blood and investigated the association between food groups and changes in the markers related to endothelial dysfunction and low-grade inflammation. Higher amounts of these two types of markers is associated with a higher risk and incidence of developing cardiovascular disease.
After adjusting for sex, energy intake, the am I, physical activity, alcohol consumption, smoking behavior, and other full groups, fish consumption greater than 3 ounces per week, but none of the other food groups, was inversely associated with changes and endothelial dysfunction and low-grade inflammation.
EPA and DHA, to omega-3 fatty acids were inversely associated with changes and endothelial dysfunction and explained 83 and 40% of the patient between fish and changes in the two markers.
Source:
The Journal of Nutrition
Do Sunscreens Increase Skin Cancer Risk?
A recent report released by environmental working group, a consumer protection agency, has found that many popular sunscreens contain chemicals that are known carcinogens, which defeats their intention of preventing skin cancer.
The research shows that sunlight combined with certain sunscreen ingredients can damage skin cells, which leads to the development of cancer cells. Unfortunately, the United States FDA, has supposedly been aware of this critical research for the last decade, but has not acted to warn consumers about it.
According to a news story released by AOL news, approximately 50% of sunscreens tested contained vitamin a ingredients and derivatives like retinol and retinyl palmitate, which studies conducted by the FDA have demonstrated its ability to cause cancer when exposed to sunlight.
Also, an older FDA study explains that sunscreens containing vitamin A ingredients cause tumors and lesions to develop and spread almost 21% faster than sunscreens that do not contain vitamin A ingredients.
To be clear, vitamin A found in food and nutritional supplements is absolutely essential for good health. Vitamin A added to sunscreens are chemically different, and their interactions with sun rays, in particular, ultraviolet rays actually create carcinogens in the scan.
According to Jane Houlihan, when questioned by AOL news about the issue, “The FDA continues to remain silent about the dangers of vitamin A and sunscreen, including its recent updated sunscreen guidelines that make no mention of them.
“There was enough evidence 10 years ago for the FDA to caution consumers against the use of vitamins A in sunscreens. The FDA launched this one is study, completed their research, and now 10 years later, they say nothing about it, just silence.”
AOL news question the FDA about this matter, and a spokeswoman responded by claiming that the agency “thoroughly checked” its records and could not find any evidence of such a study.
However, a report issued in 2000 by the United States national toxicology program site the same FDA research which found that vitamin A derivatives are both phototoxic and photocarcinogenic.
The Environmental No Working Group tested numerous sunscreens and found that only 7.8% that were tested as part of its annual analysis turned out to be “Safe effect was a warning to the group’s safety standards. The remaining 92.2%, which represented hundreds of sunscreens on the market currently, contain one or more ingredients known to be harmful to health, which is a very shocking number when considering how widespread their use is. .
Regarding safe sunscreens to use, the group recently released its fifth annual sunscreen guide, a database of more than 1700 sun products from 292 brands that are recognized as containing non-toxic and safe ingredients.
Ideally for health, however regular exposed to sunshine without the use of a sunscreen is necessary for obtaining and maintaining healthy levels of vitamin D. The vast majority of sunscreens block the ultraviolet B sunrays that are responsible for stimulating the production of vitamin D in the skin.
The vitamin D Council, a nonprofit group dedicated to raising awareness about the importance of vitamin D for health, recommends that all individuals use the Sun as their primary source of gain vitamin D. Depending on your skin type, meaning your level of pigmentation, you will need anywhere from 15 minutes to over a half an hour of daily sunlight exposure. In order to achieve and maintain optimal vitamin D levels.
Source:
AOL news
In Case You Need A Reason to Smile Today
Here’s a video about a very small crime fighter, that is not only true, but might bring a smile and even a chuckle!
Can this spice help to prevent Alzheimer’s Disease?
Researchers in Tel Aviv, Israel, have found that a minimum bark extract, called CEppt, may be a key player in the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease.
According to Michael Ovadia, he was led to investigate the healing properties of cinnamon, after reading a passage in the Bible. Cinnamon was used in a holy ointment by high priest, presumably intended to prevent the development of infectious diseases and after discovering it had antiviral properties.
Ovadia and colleagues isolated CEppt, then set it to genetically engineered fruit flies and mice.
Their research was published in the Journal PLoS ONE, determined that after four months, the development of Alzheimer’s disease significantly decrease, while the animals longevity and activity levels were similar to that of their healthy counterparts.
Unfortunately, the researchers advises against taking cinnamon for these purposes, because it will require a far more toxic level of the spies, more than 10 g of raw cinnamon a day, to experience the beneficial effects.
According to Ovadia, “The medical catch-22 would be to extract the active substance from cinnamon, separating it from the toxic elements. The discovery is extremely exciting. While there are companies developing synthetic Alzheimer’s disease inhibiting substances, our extract would not be a drug with side effects, but a safe, natural substance that human beings have been consuming for millennia.”
Source: UPI Health
Part 1: Do You Know How to Enhance Your Brain?
During my years in medical school, repeatedly, my professor said that the brain cannot regenerate itself, that we were given certain number of brain cells at birth, and if they were damaged or destroyed, they could not be replaced. Intuitively, and in my gut I felt that this information was incorrect. So I rejected that thought. I knew somehow the brain, as all other cells in our body have the ability to regenerate.
That was conventional wisdom, without any scientific “evidence,” that was accepted for many years, throughout the 20th century.
In fact, in 1928, Santiago Ramon Y Cajal, said, in Degeneration and Regeneration of the Nervous System, “In adult centers the nerve paths re something fixed, ended, immutable. Everything may die, nothing may be regenerated.”However, in 1988, the journal Nature Medicine, published a study that indicated the brains ability to grow new cells, also known as neurogenesis, does in fact happen in humans.
Sharon Begley, noted in her book, Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain, “the discovery overturned generations of conventional wisdom in neuroscience. The human brain is not limited to the neurons it is born with, or even the neurons that feel and after the explosion of brain development in early childhood.”
Medical researchers have learned that within each of our brains, there is a population of stem cells that are continuously rejuvenated replenished and can develop into brain cells. Simply stated, all of us are experiencing brain stem cells therapy throughout the course of our entire lifetime.
New brain cell development is controlled by our DNA. A particular gene codes for the creation of a protein, known as brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). It plays a key role in the development of new brain cells. Research studies have shown that decreased BDNF levels occur in patients with a variety of nervous system conditions, including depression, schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s disease, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Interestingly, and fortunately, many of the factors that influence our DNA to create the BDNF factors are under our direct control. In fact, the gene that turns this chemical on is stimulated and activated by a variety of factors, including exercise, limiting calories, curcumin, and DHA, the omega-3 fatty acid.
Do you understand how powerful this message is? You have these factors, within your grasp, and represent the choices you can make to turn on a gene for new brain cell development! In other words, you can treat yourself to stem cell therapy by taking control of your genes!
In my next post, I will share with you a few practical and simple steps to help create new brain cells!
Source:
Is Massage Better Than Medication for Lower Back Pain?
A government funded study conducted in Seattle, Washington by the Group Health Research Institute, involving 401 patients, with chronic back pain who were primarily middle-aged women sought to determine if massage or drug therapy was more effective.
The participants that received either a series of relaxation massages (also known as Swedish massage) or structural massage, were found to be better able to work an active for up to a year longer than those receiving “usual medical care,” which included anti-inflammatory drugs, muscle relaxes, pain killers, or physical therapy, the researchers found.
According to Daniel Cherkin, the lead researcher, who expected structural massage, which treats specific pain related back muscles and ligaments would prove superior to Swedish massage which focuses on relaxing the entire body.
“I thought structural massage would have been at least a little better, and that not the case. If you’re having continuing problems with back pain even after trying is a medical care, massage may be a good thing to do. I think the results are pretty strong,” Cherkin said.
The study funded by the national Center for complementary and alternative medicine, a part of the United States’ National Institutes of Health, is published in the July 5, 2011 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.
The study’s participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: relaxation massage, usual care or structural massage. Those in the massage rooms were given hour-long massage treatments weekly for 10 weeks.
After 10 weeks, whether that there are those who received either type of massage therapy. The back pain was much better or completely resolved, compared to only one in 25 patients who received usual care, the study said. Those in the massage groups were also two times as likely in that period to have spent fewer days in the bed, used less anti-inflammatory drugs, and were more actively engaged in physical activities compared to the standard care group.
Six months later, the groups who receive massage were still linked to better function and after one year pain and function was almost equal in all three groups.
Source:
Annals of Internal Medicine
Is the Mind As Powerful As Asthma Drugs?
A new study has found that asthma inhalers to have an impact on the lung’s airways, but the relief provided isn’t anymore than that achieved with placebos, indicating the power of the mind.
Patients with asthma, clinically stable, reported the same amount of symptom improvement with a placebo inhaler, sham acupuncture, or the use of an Albuterol inhaler. The study was conducted at Harvard University’s Brigham and women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts.
The study was composed of 46 asthma patients, randomized, double-blind treatment that was administered in a crossover design during a total of 12 sequential office visits 3 to 7 days apart after a washout. For long and short acting bronchodilators. The non-intervention group acted as a control for the placebo groups, which few prospective studies have tried, the researchers noted.
According to the researchers, the most likely reason for greater effectiveness of the placebo was the expectation of improvement as, “The mere ritual of treatment may affect patients’ self monitoring and subjective experience of the disease,” they wrote.
According to Dr. Michael Wechsler, all three were equally better than no treatment with a 21% improvement rate. The findings were reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“Placebo effects can be clinically meaningful and currently rival the effects of active medication in patients with asthma,” the group concluded in the study.
Yet the results also indicate that doctors need to pay close attention to the objective measurements of asthma control, the researchers noted.
Patients could not reliably indicate the difference between the effect of the active drug and the fact of the inhaled placebo or sham acupuncture according to the researchers.
Therefore, subjective improvement in asthma should be carefully interpreted and objective outcome should be more heavily relied on for optimal asthma care, the researchers recommended.
But the patients’ subjective experiences are not simply incorrect because they don’t match the objective facts of measuring pulmonary function, and actually should trump the doctor’s judgment in such some symptom-defined conditions, according to Daniel E. Moerman, Ph.D., of the University of Michigan in Dearborn, argued in an editorial. .
“It is the subjective sometimes that brought these patients to medical care in the first place,” he wrote. “They came because they were wheezing and felt suffocated, not because they had reduced FEV1 (a measurement of lung volume).”
He went on to suggest that a treatment should be acceptable as long as it provides significant improvement for the patients, has a reasonable cost, and does not have negative side effects,Over the short or long-term.
Source: New England Journal of Medicine
Are You Feeling Down? Here’s A Great Mood Uplifter
Here’s a great example of the power of the human spirit. Watch how this young man, facing a devastating, terminal illness. In the face of great loss he is….