Aging fine with resveratrol

‘New Research on Resveratrol’- http://www.laurelonhealthfood.com, 28/08/08

 

Studies have found resveratrol has strong anti-aging, anti-cancer and cardiovascular health benefits.

 

Summary-

Zhejiang University researchers in China found that resveratrol (compound found in red wine, grapes, grape juice, some berries, and peanuts) can significantly reduce blood pressure, heart rate, and renal sympathetic nerve activity, which implies that it could have a useful role in anti-aging therapy. In another study, the researchers found that resveratrol inhibits the accumulation of blood clots (which can cause a heart attack).

The Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry published a research that found that resveratrol selectively targets malignant (cancerous) cells and destroys them while allowing healthy cells to adjust. This is different to what happens in chemotherapy, where it kills cancerous cells but is also toxic to healthy cells.

The Apoptosis journal published findings that resveratrol and quercetin are able to prevent adeoxycholate from killing cells and causing disease. The findings show that resveratrol may help reverse the cell damage that causes colon cancer.

The Experimental Gerontology published research that found resveratrol can imitate calorie restriction by controlling ‘mitochondrial biogenesis and turnover, critical factors in the maintenance of energy production, the prevention of endogenous oxidative stress, and the promotion of healthy aging.’

 

Though the findings do not mean it’s okay to be drinking lots obviously. I’ve read a few articles in newspapers before about the benefits of drinking one or two glasses of red wine a day. The benefits of red wine are a popular topic discussed in the media, as with coffee.

This blog entry is easier to follow since it discusses just one topic, but sounds more medical and difficult to understand for those who simply want to stay healthy.

 

Filtering coffee

‘Sorting out coffee’s contradictions’ – Jane E. Brody, International Herald Tribune, 7/08/08

Another article I missed out in print.

The International Herald Tribune has recently published an article summarising coffee’s health pros and cons.

Just as I said in 2 posts before, ‘ Hardly a month goes by without a report that hails coffee, tea or caffeine as healthful or damns them as potential killers.’

‘Can all these often contradictory reports be right? Yes. Coffee and tea, after all, are complex mixtures of chemicals, several of which may independently affect health.’

I am going to condense the article a bit simpler.

 

Hydration- Although caffeinated beverages have long been thought as diuretics (something that increases the flow of urine), studies reviewed last year showed that people who drank up to 550mg of caffeine produced no more urine than when they drank caffeine-free beverages. Above 575mg, caffeine was a diuretic. Therefore, drinks containing usual amounts of caffeine (less than 550mg), are hydrating.

Heart disease- Heart patients, especially those with high blood pressure are often told to avoid caffeine (a known stimulant). But studies have found that there is “little evidence that coffee and/or caffeine in typical dosages increases the risk” of heart attack, sudden death or abnormal heart rhythms.  

In a separate study that followed women, those who drank 1-3 cups a day reduced their risk of heart disease by 24%…although this benefit lessened as the quantity of coffee rose.

Hypertension- Caffeine simulates a small, temporary rise in blood pressure. However, studies showed that coffee played little overall role in the development of hypertension. A higher risk of hypertension was found from drinking colas.

Cancer- Scientists found coffee drinking had little effect on the risk of developing pancreatic or kidney cancer in a review last year. Another review suggested that those who drink coffee have half the risk of developing liver cancer than those who don’t drink it.

Bone loss- caffeine very slightly reduces calcium absorption. This negative effect on calcium can be offset by as little as one or two teaspoons of milk.

Weight loss- Caffeine speeds up metabolism, (100mg burning an extra 75-100 calories a day) but no long-term benefit to weight control has been demonstrated. In fact, a study showed that an increase in caffeine consumption gained more weight than those who didn’t.

Mood and mental and physical performance- reports have been made that drinking up to 200mg of caffeine improves sense of wellbeing, happiness, alertness, energy and sociability. However, higher amounts sometimes cause anxiety and stomach upset.

Parkinson’s disease- those who drank caffeinated coffee had lower risk of Parkinson’s disease than those who didn’t.

Diabetes- those who drank 4-6 cups of caffeinated or decaffeinated coffee a day had 28% lower risk of Type 2 diabetes, probably because of coffee’s antioxidants and chlorogenic acid

 

Hmm…I still find it confusing.

The article put in a lot of facts about coffee, but I don’t think many can remember all the benefits and not-so good points about coffee. It often explained that one study found something about coffee, but another found something else. Put together with the various figures, it is quite difficult to follow.

I was surprised to learn that coffee is hydrating. Personally, I found that coffee and tea makes my throat dry.

To conclude…I guess drinking your daily cup of coffee doesn’t hurt.

Oh, but one thing I experienced after working in a coffee shop for one and a half years is that coffee can stain your teeth. Be careful…

Honey, I supersized the kids

‘Study: Restaurant kids’ meals loaded with calories’-The Associated Press, International Herald Tribune, 4/08/08

I missed out on the printed version of this article and only knew about it through the website. Oh well.

The article discussed a report that said it’s difficult to find healthy kid’s meals at top restaurant chains.

 

UNSURPRISINGLY, according to a report by the Centre for Science in the Public Interest, nearly every possible combination of the children’s meals at Kentucky Fried Chicken, Taco Bell, Sonic, Jack in the Box, and Chil-fil-A are too high in calories.

The report looked into the nutritional quality of kids’ meals at 13 major restaurant chains, and found that 93% of 1,474 possible choices at the chains exceed 430 calories- 1/3 of the daily calorie intake the National Institute of Medicine recommends for a 4-8 year old child.

Subway, the only chain that didn’t offer soft drinks with kid’s meals in the report, came out best among the chains. 6 of 18 ‘Fresh Fit for Kids’ meals, which include a mini-sub, juice box, and one of several healthful side items such as apple slices, raisins or yogurt, exceed the 430-calorie mark.

The report also said that eating out now accounts for a third of children’s daily caloric intake, which is double the frequency 30 years ago.

It also found that 45% of children’s meals are above the recommendations for saturated and trans fat (which can raise blood cholesterol levels and increase the risk of heart disease), and 86% of children’s meals are high in sodium.

 

First of all, you wouldn’t take you child there in the first place if you want them to eat healthily.

The article wasn’t surprising, but what did raise my eyebrows were the figures found in the report, which were higher than one realised. 93% of kid’s meals exceed the recommended daily calorie intake…you might as well think all kid’s meals exceed it.

Restaurants should take responsibility of what they serve, but it’s the customer who orders it. Parents should be more careful of where and what they eat.

Perhaps in America it is even more common to eat out than in the UK and it’s difficult to find a family-friendly restaurant without the burgers and sodas. Not just the meal’s nutritional content, but I think the portion size also contributes to the calorie count. From my own experience, I know how big a regular slice of pizza can be over there.

And I guess it’s difficult to find something healthy that your child would like to eat.

Ever since (especially since), Morgan Spurlock’s famous documentary was made, restaurants (especially fast food chains) have been pressurised to offer healthier menus. The impact of the documentary was great, but after reading this article, I feel that there is still a lot of improvement that can be made.

Does everything need to be healthy? The odd fast-food won’t hurt, but eating it everyday would be a concern.

I don’t think you will see a day where every menu at every restaurant is healthy, nor a day where you can’t find a restaurant that doesn’t sell burgers and chips. Besides, how healthy is healthy?

With in-depth figures, details of the report, quotes and statements from the restaurants, I guess the article was written to be a wake-up call to parents.

 

Cholesterol drugs for children?

 

‘Cholesterol drugs and children: A recommendation draws fire’ by Tara Parker-Pope, International Herald Tribune 10/07/2008

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued recommendations for warding off heart disease in some children- giving children as young as 8 years old cholesterol-lowering drugs (statins). Worryingly there is no data on the possible side effects of taking statins for 40 or 50 years or on how many heart attacks they hope to prevent this way.

It is known that decreasing cholesterol and giving statins decreases risk of heart disease or death in adults, and indeed recent ultrasound studies of carotid arteries in high-risk children also show that statin use in children does appear to slow the progress of heart disease.

The old guidelines stated that children as young as 10 could be given statins if they are considered to be at high risk for heart disease. If that wasn’t concerning enough, the new guidelines have dropped to 8 years old with LDL, or with ‘bad’ cholesterol of 190mg/dl or those with LDL of 160 and a family history of heart disease or 2 other risk factors. Children with diabetes may start medication when bad cholesterol reaches 130.

Other recommendations that the academy issued:

• children with a family history of heart disease to be screened as early as 2 years old, and no later than 10 years old.
• by 12 months old, if the doctor is worried about future weight problems, low-fat milk may be recommended

 Statins, which are the most prescribed drugs in the world, have side effects such as muscle pain and cognitive problems in adults but it is unclear if children will experience the same problems.

The new recommendation will open the door for pharmaceutical companies to heavily advertise and promote their use in 8-year olds…one can imagine the dangers that awaits there.

Although the new recommendations only applies to a minority of children, the article stresses that some doctors are worried that it would distract from common-sense changes in diet and exercise.

I also find this quite disturbing. With time and technology, people’s lifestyle has become more convenient. And as it becomes convenient, the guidelines restricting the use become more flexible.

Someone finds a problem…they need an answer. Okay, well, one can do this, which is undesirable, but it’s a short cut…or let’s just pretend that that option is not there and find something else. The short cut is tempting and it’s not surprising that many choose that option. Of course, they will take precautions, but over time guidelines are going to relax. This may be an inevitable thing, and I can only hope that people remain to be cautious as they can.  Who knows, in the next few years, the guideline may be lowered to 5 years old?

The academy has responsibility of what they propose, and I don’t like the fact that they have made it sound as if they have found a quick and easy solution to heart disease risks. There’s a problem, what shall we do? I know, let’s give them a drug to fix it. It can easily get out of control.

I would rather liked to have seen more effort and emphasis to change lifestyles such as diet and exercise in children rather than the use of drugs. Isn’t it more important to think of ways to prevent children get to the stage where their ‘cholesterol looks like an over-weight 65-year old’, rather than thinking of what to do after they get to that stage?

 

Being an international newspaper, the article brings in quotes from doctors from the academy as well as from doctors against the recommendation, but does not give any strong reason why the use of statins is such as a good idea. Perhaps there is, but the journalist just chose not to mention it? This article covered the whole Health & Science section of that week, and a photo of an overweight girl is inserted in the middle of the article. Looking at the photo one thinks about how the girl’s future looks like…is it better to let her continue to take the long and difficult path to reduce risk of heart disease by diet and exercise or sympathise and would like to let her take the medication which would be easier?…But what if the drugs have side-effects and puts her in a worse situation?

The miss-match of the word ‘cholesterol drugs’ and ‘children’ in the headline is shocking, and I find that is the article that draws the most attention on the page. The article hints that it is against the use of statins.