Linked, sometimes wrongly, to cancer

Its been awhile but I'm back and better then ever. well kind of lol. well lets get to the point, i picked this article because everyone know this is true at one point almost everything was linked to cancer.. so what does that mean for us?? well it can mean two things .. either everything is toxic for us and we are all going to have cancer at some point in out life, or its all speculation and someone is sharing their findings to a magazine so its reported and talked about , when in reality the chances of getting Cancer are slim to none. either way hopefully we all live long healthy cancer free lives.

Many everyday products have been linked to cancer at some point in the past several decades. Preposterous? Not at the time, and new suspects have been added to the list. Here's the real story behind ordinary household items that have come under scrutiny:

Artificial sweeteners

The link: Calorie watchers scored a win when diet sodas were introduced in the early 1950s. Then lab studies suggested that the sweetener cyclamate caused bladder cancer in rats, and the Food and Drug Administration banned its use. Then saccharin, the replacement of choice, was also shown to cause tumors in rats. Although saccharin was never banned, all products containing the sweetener were required to carry a cancer warning on their packaging.

The reality: No evidence has since emerged that either cyclamate, which is used in other countries, or saccharin causes cancer in humans, according to the National Cancer Institute. Although cyclamate is still banned, saccharin was taken off the government's list of possible carcinogens in 2000, the same year saccharin products shed the warning label. The sweetener aspartame has come under suspicion, but scientists have found no increased risk of cancer in humans.

Mouthwash

The link: A few studies since the late 1970s have tied mouthwash that contains ethanol to oral cancer. Investigators theorize that it may make oral tissues more vulnerable to known carcinogens, such as those in cigarettes.

The reality: The evidence against mouthwash is weak, according to the American Dental Association. Studies don't show, for example, that brands with higher alcohol content present a greater risk than those with lesser amounts. Mouthwash is safe when used as directed, says the ADA. People who smoke, have a family history of oral cancer or have other risk factors may want to choose alcohol-free brands to be on the safe side, the ADA says.

Statins

The link: Could these cholesterol-lowering drugs raise the risk of cancer? A 2007 study inspired this belief when researchers investigating the side effects of certain statins — lovastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin, fluvastatin and atorvastatin — found that participants taking high doses were more likely to be diagnosed with various cancers, including those of the breast, colon and prostate.

The reality: A 2008 review of 15 clinical trials involving statins cast doubt on the initial results; low LDL cholesterol levels, the reviewers found, were associated with cancer, whether or not participants were taking statins, suggesting that cholesterol levels, not the drugs, were to blame.

Cell phones

The link: In 1993, a man suing the manufacturer of his wife's mobile phone claimed on "Larry King Live" that the device was responsible for her brain cancer. The broadcast provoked a public outcry, a rash of similar lawsuits, and millions of dollars poured into studying whether radio waves emitted by cell phones could be harmful.

The reality: The largest study to date, published last spring, could neither confirm nor dismiss a connection between cell phones and cancer. Scientists tracked nearly 13,000 adults for a decade and found a slightly higher rate of one of four cancers — gliomas, a particularly aggressive variety of brain cancer — among frequent cell users. But cell users overall had a lower rate of the cancers than never-users.

Antiperspirant/parabens/deodorant

The link: A decade ago, an e-mail warning women that using antiperspirant could cause breast cancer went viral. Since then, some research has suggested that aluminum in antiperspirants and preservatives called parabens in antiperspirants and deodorants mimic the hormone estrogen, which in high amounts can increase breast cancer risk.

The reality: There's no evidence that antiperspirants or deodorants cause cancer. A 2004 study heightened concern when researchers found parabens in breast cancer tissue samples, suggesting that the chemicals may have caused the tumors, but the investigators didn't check for the presence of parabens in healthy tissue. Evidence suggests that 99 percent of us are exposed to parabens, including from various cosmetics and foods, according to the American Cancer Society. Little evidence indicates they may be harmful.

Hair dye

The link: In 2008, researchers from the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer revived concern of a hair dye-cancer connection after finding a pattern of bladder cancer in male hairdressers and barbers. They found too little evidence to say whether people who used the products every so often at home were also at risk.

The reality: The finding was based on studies conducted at different times, so any increased risk could result from heavy exposure to chemicals that were discontinued decades ago after scientists discovered they caused cancer in rodents. It's unclear whether the chemicals used in current dyes cause cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute. Most evidence, however, does not support a link.Distributed by Tribune Media Services

Original Article
BAYHO.com

You Snooze, You Lose: More Weekend Sleep Cuts Kids' Obesity Risk

well even better ! I'm sure parents would love that extra time in the morning instead of being waken up between 6 and 7 in the morning with energized kids saying" I'm hungry, I'm hungry". but interesting article. for the most part I'm all for it. even tho I'm not a kid i could use a nap right now.. I'm dead this morning.

Kids sleeping late on the weekends? Let ‘em — they're not being lazy; they're cutting their risk of obesity, according to new research published online today in the journal Pediatrics.

Ideally, parents should strive for a constant bedtime and wake time. But since that's not always realistic, it's good to know that children who catch up on sleep during weekends and vacations are better able to counteract the adverse effects of insufficient sleep during the week and reduce their risk of obesity. (More on Time.com: Study: Most Babies Sleep Through the Night (But Not Mine))

Researchers at the University of Chicago analyzed the sleep patterns and BMI of 308 children between the ages of 4 to 10, dividing them into nine groups and using wrist actigraphs for one week to determine when they were asleep. The group of children with normal sleep patterns had the lowest risk of obesity and metabolic complications.

On average, the children slept an average of eight hours each night, less than what they should be getting. Kids ages 5 to 8 should sleep 9 to 10 hours, but children — like adults in our society — are largely sleep-deprived. (More on Time.com: Why You Shouldn't Snuggle with Your Pooch in Bed)

“We tend to disrespect sleep,” says David Gozal, the lead author and chair of the pediatrics department at the University of Chicago. “We're not aware there's a very substantial price to pay for shortening the duration of sleep and for creating very irregular sleep schedules. Together, these create a much higher risk of obesity."

The worst combination? Irregular sleep and not enough of it. Those kids with the shortest, most irregular sleep had a 4.2-fold increased risk of obesity. When this group got more sleep on the weekends, their risk decreased to 2.8 fold — better but still nowhere near as good as the normal sleepers.

The obese kids in the study slept less time and more irregularly on weekends and were less likely to compensate on the weekends for not getting enough sleep on weekdays, which added up to metabolic problems. Short, irregular sleep increased the risk of inflammation, glucose sensitivity and resulted in a rise in lipids. (More on Time.com: Some Scientific Evidence For Beauty Sleep)

“The point is regularity,” says Gozal. “If you are a regular catch-up sleeper on the weekends, that can have a beneficial effect if you are a short sleeper during the week. But if you have irregular, short/long sleep during the week and you continue that during the weekend, that puts you at worse risk.”

There's plenty of buzz about childhood obesity but not much chatter about the importance of sleep, says Gozal. Educating families about the significance of sleep through public health campaigns that emphasize the link could breed healthier kids.

“The best thing to globally reduce the risk for obesity is to sleep long during the week and during the weekend and have regular sleep,” says Gozal.

Original Article.
BAYHO.com

Premenstrual Syndrome: Are Vitamin E and Fatty Acids the Answer

People joke about PMS, but for many women, premenstrual syndrome is no laughing matter. Lucky for them, a new study suggests that vitamin E and a mix of essential oils could spell relief.

"The negative effect of PMS on a woman's routine activities and quality of life may be significant, in addition to the repercussions on economic costs resulting predominantly from a reduction in productivity," lead researcher Dr. Edilberto Rocha Filho of the Federal University of Pernambuco in Brazil told The Scotsman.

In Dr. Filho's six-month study of 120 women, those given capsules containing two grams of vitamin E and a combination of essential oils including oleic acid, and linoleic acid, experienced significant relief from PMS symptoms. Side effects were insignificant.


Symptoms of PMS include breast tenderness, acne, bloating, weight gain, headaches, joint pain, food cravings, irritability, mood swings, crying spells, and depression. Taking ibuprofen, aspirin, or naproxen can help. So can exercising, getting enough sleep, and avoiding salt, caffeine, and alcohol.


As for the oils, Filho and his team are optimistic.

"Essential oil capsules can now be said to show much promise as a treatment," said Filho.

The study was published January 11 in Reproductive Health.


Original article.
BAyho.com

Like Family, Many Friends Share the Same Genes

GOODMORNING Bloggers!
well i saw this article and immediately thought to myself, " makes sense my best friend who Ive know since 2ND grade is basically like my sister" so hopefully this sweet and simple article keeps you interested and entertained.

Many of us have those friends we can count on for everything -- the ones we feel really connected to.

It turns out, that much like we are with family, we also may be "connected" to our friends through our genes, according to a study from the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. James Fowler, professor in the School of Medicine and the Division of Social Sciences at the University of California, San Diego, and his colleagues studied more than 3,000 pairs of friends. Fowler and his team compared the similarities of six genes thought to be associated with social behavior. What they found was that many friends share the same type of genes.

The findings will be published in the early edition of the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences later this week.

"There may be a partially genetic basis for friendship," Fowler told AOL Health. "This is the first step towards understanding the biology of 'chemistry' -- that feeling you have about a person that you will like or dislike. We may choose our friends not just because of the social features we consciously notice about them, but because of the biological features we unconsciously notice."

Researchers found that many friends share the DRD2 gene, which is associated with an outgoing personality and is also linked to alcoholism.

Another gene, the CYP2A6 gene, which is associated with "openness" was less likely to be shared by friends, however. These people were more likely to look for friends who had slightly different personalities than their own.

Dr. Irene Levine, a psychologist and professor of psychiatry at the New York University School of Medicine, and author of The Friendship Blog and "Best Friends Forever: Surviving a Breakup with Your Best Friend," surveyed more than 1,500 women online to find out what attracted them to their best friend. "Women often used the same term, 'we clicked,' to describe the indescribable," Levine told AOL Health.

"The choice of friends (or lovers) is influenced, of course, by personality -- which is shaped by a complex mix of genes and environment," she explains. "Two old adages ... seem to apply: 'Opposites attract' and 'Birds of a feather flock together.' Sometimes people are attracted by differences; other times, they are attracted by similarities that make them feel comfortable."

Dr. Margaret Gibbs, professor emeritus of psychology at Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey, agreed. "I think it's interesting that the study found both sides of the popular aphorisms: 'Birds of a feather flock together' and 'Opposites attract,'" she told AOL Health. "I think those same principles work in our choices of friends. We feel comfortable with the familiar, but also seek balance and variety."

"Perhaps people vary as to whether they are more inclined to pick the familiar over the different, and, who knows, that inclination could be genetic, too," adds Gibbs.

Original Article.
BAYHO.COM

Year in Review: More Scrutiny of Dietary Supplements

Hello how was every one's holiday break?
hopefully well i know we all deserved a little vacation to spend with our families. With holidays comes some extra holiday weight and we are are back on track somehow with trying to get back in shape whether it be hitting the gym, dieting or taking a dietary supplement.


The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been busy this year issuing statements and recalls regarding dietary supplements discovered to contain undeclared drug ingredients. Studies have shown that some supplements may increase potentially lethal risks to patients and contain varying amounts of active compounds between brands. And through all this, patients and doctors are not talking to each other about the use of dietary supplements.

So, where are we now?

Read this story on www.medpagetoday.com.

The FDA's latest statement largely concerned a major issue in the dietary supplement market -- that safety and efficacy standards are in the hands of manufacturers. As a result, pills, powders, and other products that contain drug or drug-like ingredients may be released and marketed as dietary supplements despite being drug products, the FDA statement said.

"These tainted products can cause serious adverse effects, including strokes, organ failure, and death," Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, commissioner of the FDA, said in the statement.

The statement noted the FDA and supplement industry are working together to stem the flow of illegally marketed drug products sold under the veil of "dietary supplements," including weight-loss, body-building, and sexual enhancement products.

"Part of the difficulty in regulating dietary supplements is that [some companies] operate outside of the law and don't include manufacturer information on the label, so it can be impossible to contact someone and request a recall," an FDA spokesperson told MedPage Today.

"If you're thinking about taking a supplement, always talk to a healthcare provider first -- they know you best and what drugs you're taking," the spokesperson said.

But the poor communication is not entirely an industry-side faux pas, Jennifer Strohecker of the Intermountain Medical Center in Murray, Utah, told MedPage Today.

Original Article.
BAYHO.COM

Keeping Holiday Drinking in Check May Counter Cancer

Happy Holidays everyone! well this maybe a few weekends too late, especially since Ive just had about 4 Christmas parties in the last 2 weeks. haha well hopefully everyone enjoys their holiday breaks. I know i will!

SUNDAY, Dec. 19 (HealthDay News) -- Though holiday partying often includes alcohol consumption, cancer experts are urging partiers to partake moderately.

"Research shows that drinking even a small amount of alcohol increases your chances of developing cancer, including oral cancer, breast cancer and liver cancer," Clare McKindley, clinical dietician in the Cancer Prevention Center at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, said in a news release from the center.

"Researchers are still trying to learn more about how alcohol links to cancer," she added. "But convincing evidence does support the fact that heavy drinking damages cells and increases the risk for cancer development."

To reduce risk, experts say, drinkers can do a number of things. First, stick to the recommended serving size. A drink is defined as 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine or 1.5 ounces of liquor.

Women should have no more than one drink a day and men should have no more than two drinks a day, according to the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

Try to avoid high-calorie drinks. Many popular alcoholic drinks are loaded with calories, especially those mixed with soda, fruit juice or cream. A one-cup serving of eggnog, a holiday staple, has about 340 calories. Being overweight or obese is also associated with an increased risk for cancer.

Researchers believe that it is the ethanol or alcohol in beer, wine and liquor that increases cancer risk. Check the ethanol percentage numbers on bottle labels and stay away from 100-proof liquor.

Also try non-alcoholic drinks. For example, for a "cocktail-like" beverage, try club soda and lime, McKindley suggested.

Original Article.
BAYHO.com

Soda Tax Could Lead to Slight Weight Loss

A SODA TAX?! really? I don't know what people are thinking and the fact that they use the whole excuse of could "lead to slight weight loss" i say BS. its just another tax and seriously i swear they are going to start to charge you to breath soon. Its soda people! either way as ridiculous as this is I'm middle class,and I'm positive it will only affect me when I have parties and HAVE to buy soda other then that i normally just drink water or tea,I'm sure lots of other people do the same. soda tax. OH and they say our country is overweight, which is probably true but for the most part .. you motivate yourself. a soda tax wont do it for you. what a JOKE!

Dec. 13, 2010 -- Increasing taxes on sweetened drinks, such as soda, could lead to modest weight loss at best, particularly among middle-income families, and could generate between $1.5 billion and $2.5 billion in annual revenue, according to a study.

Researchers led by Eric Finkelstein, PhD, associate professor of health services at Duke University Medical Center-National University of Singapore, found that a 20% tax on sugary drinks would result in weight loss of about 0.7 pounds per person over the course of a year and generate approximately $1.5 billion in tax revenue; a 40% hike in would lead to an average weight loss of 1.3 pounds per person per year and result in $2.5 billion in tax revenue, and cost the average household about $28 per year.

The findings, based on 2006 data and published in the Dec. 13/27 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, support the argument for increasing the taxes of sugar-sweetened drinks as a means to help curb the obesity epidemic. The study was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

"Although small, given the rising trend in obesity rates, especially among youth, any strategy that shows even modest weight loss should be considered," Finkelstein says in a prepared statement. "Extending the tax to restaurants and vending machines would generate more tax revenue and perhaps greater weight losses."

Although Finkelstein and his team found a so-called “soda tax” could lead to modest weight loss, their analysis showed that middle-income households were the most likely to feel the impact of the soda tax and to experience weight loss, whereas lower- and higher-income households would probably not experience as much weight loss. The findings are limited by the fact that the analysis only included beverages purchased in stores.

"Higher-income groups can afford to pay the tax so they are unaffected, and lower-income groups likely avoid the effects of the tax by purchasing generic versions, waiting for sales, buying in bulk, or by other cost-saving strategies," Finkelstein said. Moreover, "If they switch to other high-calorie drinks, the effects of the tax would be diluted."

Finkelstein and his team looked at a database of U.S. households that included information about the families’ food and beverage purchases over a one-year period. The database also included information about household demographics, as well as the brand, UPC codes, and calories (though not a breakdown of the nutritional content) of the groceries they bought. These store-bought purchases included sugary drinks, such as carbonated sodas and sports/energy drinks, and also fruit juice, skim milk, and whole milk.

Households were broken into four categories ranging from low- to high-income. Investigators used statistical techniques to calculate how any changes in the cost of sweetened drinks would affect household purchasing habits.

Finkelstein noted that subsidies supporting the production of corn -- the main ingredient in high-fructose corn syrup found in many sweetened drinks -- could also affect sweetened beverage consumption. “Removing the subsidies or implementing a tax that increases prices on products that contain this ingredient is justifiable,” he says.

According to the CDC, two-thirds of the U.S. population is overweight or obese. Obesity is a major risk factor for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and some types of cancer. The authors note that obesity costs the U.S. an estimated $147 billion per year.

Original Article.
BAYHO.com