Energy drinks sending thousands to emergency rooms
Posted by on November 29, 2011 - 4:29pm
 A new report from the US government released today warns that energy drinks are sending an alarming number of people to emergency rooms.

In 2009, US emergency rooms treated almost 10 times more cases of reactions to beverages such as Monster, Red Bull, and Rockstar than they did in 2005, according to a report from the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).

More than 13,000 people visited hospital emergency rooms in 2009 due to highly caffeinated beverages, and nearly half the emergencies resulted from mixing energy drinks with alcohol or other drugs. The report notes that the vast majority (77 percent) of these visits were made by people ages 18 to 39 and that males made up 64 percent of all the visits.

“A lot of attention has been paid to energy drinks that have alcohol in them and everybody understands that the effect of that can be pretty serious,” said lead author Albert Woodward, project director of SAMHSA’s Drug Abuse Warning Network, “but energy drinks by themselves can have adverse effects.”

Meanwhile, experts urge fans of energy beverages to be aware of the caffeine content in the products to avoid overdoing it: for example, an 8.4 ounce (250 mL) can of Red Bull contains 76-80 milligrams of caffeine, according to the Mayo Clinic. An 8 ounce (240 mL) cup of brewed coffee can contain between 95 to 200 milligrams of caffeine.

In a study announced earlier this year, researchers discovered that energy drinks mixed with alcohol contribute to higher impulsivity and stimulation in the drinker, which they say can correlate with riskier behavior. Results of the new study were published in the July 2011 issue of the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research.

Women increase heart disease risk with sugary drinks more than men
Posted by on November 29, 2011 - 10:38am

Women who regularly drink sugary beverages may be increasing their cardiovascular risk, researchers found.  A longitudinal study showed that those who reported drinking at least two sugar-sweetened beverages every day were more likely to gain weight, increase waist size, and develop impaired glucose tolerance, according to Christina Shay, PhD, of the University of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City.

The same associations were not seen in men, which suggests that the factors responsible for the relationship between sugary drinks and cardiovascular disease differ between the sexes, Shay reported at the American Heart Association meeting recently held in Orlando.

"Women exhibit lower energy requirements overall and they may be at elevated risk for cardiovascular risk factors when a greater proportion of calories is consumed in the form of sugar-sweetened beverages," she said at a press briefing.  Sugar-sweetened beverages have been associated with a host of health problems, including weight gain, obesity, hyperglycemia, type 2 diabetes, and hypertension.

But few of the studies have examined the relationships in ethnically diverse populations, Shay said.So she and her colleagues turned to the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), in which 38% of the participants were non-Hispanic white, 28% were black, 22% were Hispanic, and 12% were Chinese American.

All 4,166 men and women included in the current analysis were ages 45 to 84 and were free from cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes at baseline. They reported dietary habits on a food frequency questionnaire completed at baseline. Sugar-sweetened drinks included regular soft drinks, soda, sweetened non-diet mineral water, and nonalcoholic beer.  Overall, 8.4% of the participants reported drinking at least two sugary beverages each day.

Through about five years of follow-up, women with that level of consumption were more likely to have more than 3% increase in waist circumference (63.7% versus 54.1%), to have high triglycerides (24.3% versus 10%), and to have impaired fasting glucose (26.8% versus 20.4%) compared with women who drank less than one sugary beverage a day.

The differences remained significant after adjustment for several potential confounders, including both baseline weight and weight change throughout the study.   None of the associations was statistically significant for men.

Rachel Johnson, PhD, MPH, RN, of the University of Vermont, said that "based on these findings, women especially should choose their beverage calories carefully and stick primarily to water, unsweetened coffee and tea, other low calorie drinks, and non- or low-fat milk."

"This study reinforces the American Heart Association's message that a heart-healthy diet limits sugar-sweetened beverages to no more than 450 calories or 36 ounces per week," said Johnson, who is an AHA spokesperson.

Whole-body vibration devices give no bone density boost
Posted by on November 27, 2011 - 1:12pm

The Old--remember these?

Remember those weight loss machines that consisted of a vibrating belt you put around your waist?   They were often part of a comedy routine on early TV.  Well,  they are back in the form of a whole body vibration machine.

With the new whole body vibration, you stand, sit or lie on a machine with a vibrating platform. As the machine vibrates, it transmits energy to your body, forcing your muscles to contract and relax dozens of times each second. (The old version only shook the belt)  You may feel as if you're exerting yourself when you do whole body vibration. You can find a whole body vibration machine at a local gym, or you can even buy one for home use.

The New --Whole Body Vibration Machine

Advocates say that as little as 15 minutes a day of whole body vibration three times a week can aid weight loss, burn fat, improve flexibility, enhance blood flow, build strength and decrease the stress hormone cortisol.   But comprehensive research about whole body vibration is lacking. It's not yet clear if whole body vibration provides the same range of health benefits as exercise you actively engage in, such as walking, biking or swimming. Some research does show that whole body vibration may help improve muscle strength and that it may help with weight loss when you also cut back on calories.

One of the selling points of this machine is the belief that it may increase bone mineral density and thus help prevent osteoporosis.  But a new study does not support this hypothesis.

A year of whole-body vibration (WBV) did not alter bone mineral density (BMD) or bone structure in postmenopausal women taking vitamin D and calcium supplements, Canadian researcher Angela Cheung, MD, and colleagues from the University Health Network in Toronto reported.

"Whole body vibration has been introduced in the past decade as a promising new anti-osteoporotic therapy, because significant improvements in bone formation, BMD, and cortical thickness were found in animal models," wrote the authors.   "Although commercially available WBV devices are marketed to and used by patients," they continued, "the beneficial effects of WBV on fracture risk and BMD have not been established, and recent randomized, controlled trials in postmenopausal women have shown conflicting results."

To clarify the issue, the researchers studied healthy postmenopausal women with BMD T-scores between -1.0 and -2.5 who were not prescribed bone medications. (A T-score between +1 and −1 is considered normal or healthy. A T-score between −1 and −2.5 indicates that you have low bone mass, although not low enough to be diagnosed with osteoporosis. A T-score of −2.5 or lower indicates that you have osteoporosis. The greater the negative number, the more severe the osteoporosis). Patients were randomly assigned to three groups: two groups were asked to stand on a low-magnitude WBV platform for 20 minutes daily, and the third group served as the control group.

The groups did not differ in the number of clinical fractures during the period.  None of these fractures that did occur were  related to frailty because they were caused by car, household, or sporting accidents or involved only the small bones of the foot.

"[Twelve] months of low-magnitude WBV at either 90- or 30-Hz had no effect on BMD or bone structure in healthy, community-dwelling, postmenopausal women who received calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and thus is not recommended for preventing age-related bone loss in this population," wrote the researchers.

 

Obesity projections worse than terrorism threat for future--and we can do something about it.
Posted by on November 25, 2011 - 8:18am

In 2020, the vast majority of adults in America will be overweight or obese and more than half will suffer from diabetes or pre-diabetic conditions, according to projections presented by Northwestern Medicine researchers at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions recently in Orlando.

The AHA has set a target to help Americans improve their overall heart health by 20 percent in 2020. However, if current trends continue, Americans can expect only a modest improvement of six percent in overall cardiovascular health in 2020.

The implications of not increasing heart health by 20 percent by 2020 are grave. Declining rates of sickness and death from cardiovascular disease may stall, and related health care costs, already projected to reach $1.1 trillion per year by 2030, could rise even further. That’s according to study author Mark Huffman, MD, assistant professor in preventive medicine and medicine-cardiology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

Representative of all Americans, the study is based on patterns found in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) from 1988 to 2008. The projected numbers on weight and diabetes, based on previous trends, follow.

In 2020, 83 percent of men and 72 percent of women will be overweight or obese. Currently, 72 percent of men and 63 percent of women are overweight or obese (people who are overweight have a BMI of 25 to 29, people who are obese have a BMI of 30 or greater).   In 2020, 77 percent of men and 53 percent of women will have dysglycemia (either diabetes or pre-diabetes). Currently, 62 percent of men and 43 percent of women have dysglycemia.

“To increase overall heart health by 20 percent, American adults would need to rapidly reverse these unhealthy trends -- starting today,” Huffman said.More people would need to improve health behaviors related to diet, physical activity, body weight and smoking, and health factors, related to glucose, cholesterol and blood pressure.

"We’ve been dealing with the obesity trend for the past three decades, but the impact we project on blood sugar is a true shock,” said Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair and associate professor of preventive medicine at Feinberg. “Those are some really scary numbers. When blood sugar goes up like that all of the complications of diabetes come into play."

Less than five percent of Americans currently are considered to have ideal cardiovascular health. The modest six percent improvement in cardiovascular health that is projected for 2020 means better cholesterol and blood pressure numbers for Americans and fewer smokers. Improvements in treatment and control of cholesterol and blood pressure with medication and declines in smoking would partially account for this small boost, but they wouldn’t be enough to offset the weight and diabetes problems Americans face, Huffman said. Projected improvements in diet and physical activity also contribute to the six percent projection, but the absolute increase in Americans who consume ideal diets will remain less than two percent by 2020, if current trends continue.

“Since the 1960s cardiovascular disease death rates have substantially decreased, but if the weight and dysglycemia trends continue to grow past 2020, we are in danger of seeing those overall numbers start to reverse,” Huffman said.Achieving a healthy weight through diet and physical activity is the best way most Americans can improve their cardiovascular health, but, as Huffman stressed, not smoking is the number one preventable cause of preventable death. Yet, one in five Americans still smoke.

U.S. teen birth rate hit record low in 2010; C-section rate also drops
Posted by on November 23, 2011 - 8:58am

The birth rate for U.S. teens aged 15–19 years hit a record low in 2010, according to a report released on November 17, 2011 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Births: Preliminary Data for 2010,” from CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics is based on an analysis of nearly 100 percent of birth records collected in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.

The birth rate for teenagers aged 15–19 has declined for the last three years and 17 out of the past 19 years, falling to 34.3 births per 1,000 teenagers in 2010 – a 9 percent decline from 2009 and the lowest rate ever recorded in nearly seven decades of collecting data.  Birth rates for younger and older teenagers and for all race/ethnic groups reached historic lows in 2010.

The report also documented the first decline in the rate of cesarean deliveries since 1996.  In 2010, the cesarean section rate was 32.8, down slightly from 32.9 in 2009.

The full report which includes other interesting findings click HERE.

Contraception coverage in jeopardy due to religious exemption
Posted by on November 22, 2011 - 11:58am

November 17, 2011

Last August, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a proposed rule containing the Institute of Medicine’s recommendation that health plans cover the full range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women, without cost-sharing.  The proposed rule contained an exemption from the contraception requirement for non-profit religious organizations providing group coverage and which mainly employ individuals sharing the religious views of the organization.

We are now facing the possibility that, within the next few days, the Obama administration will expand the current religious exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement to allow religiously affiliated hospitals, charities, and universities to exclude contraceptive coverage from their employee health plans.

Religious groups are exerting intense pressure on the administration, claiming that the contraception coverage requirement infringes on their “religious liberty” and seeking to have their beliefs and tenets bind all Americans’ health insurance coverage. These groups do not support access to contraception and will not do so no matter the exemption made.

If you want to weigh in on this debate, contact the White House today at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact  or 202-456-1111 and urge the President to protect women’s health and NOT to expand the religious exemption. The exemption makes no medical sense. Every woman deserves affordable health care, including contraception, no matter where she works.

Trying to fry your Thanksgiving turkey this year? Here are some tips!
Posted by on November 20, 2011 - 8:43am

Are you curious about deep frying a turkey? I know you are! You’ve heard all the talk about how tasty they are; tender and juicy yet crispy on the outside. You’ve seen the turkey fryers and giant jugs of peanut oil. But you’re a little nervous. That’s a lot of hot oil! USDA’s Food Safety & Inspection Service has these tips to help you safely prepare a deep fat fried turkey.

Planning: Tips for Purchasing a Turkey
Before you purchase your turkey, check the instructions for your turkey fryer. Most fryers will accommodate a 12-16 lb. turkey. A larger turkey will not fit in the fryer and will take too long to cook. Don’t stuff a turkey that you’re going to fry!

Before you unwrap the turkey, take a minute to determine the amount of oil needed. Place the turkey in the fryer and add enough water to cover it.  Do not fill the pot more than ¾ full; the oil level should be three inches to five inches from the top of the fryer. The turkey should be covered by about one to two inches. Remove the turkey and measure the amount of water – that’s how much oil you’ll need. Drain or pour out the water and dry the pot thoroughly.

Preparation: Check Your Food Safety Steps
As you prepare the bird, separate the raw turkey from fresh foods on your menu, and use separate cutting boards, plates, and utensils to avoid cross contamination.  If your turkey is frozen, make sure to thaw it before frying. You can thaw it in the refrigerator. It takes about 24 hours for every four to five pounds. Keep it refrigerated until about 30 minutes before cooking.

If you choose to marinade or to inject a flavor into the turkey, allow it to stand in the refrigerator for 24 to 48 hours before cooking. And always keep hands, utensils, and surfaces clean.

Cooking: Caution! Hot Oil!
Deep fat frying a turkey must be done OUTSIDE! Select a safe, flat outdoor location that is well-lit, well-ventilated and away from trees, shrubbery and buildings.  Heat the cooking oil to 350°F. Before lowering the turkey into the oil, turn the burner off. Do not just dunk the turkey in the oil. To avoid the oil bubbling over, gradually lower the turkey into the hot oil, pull it back out, and repeat until it is fully immersed.  Turn the burner back on and bring the oil back to 350°F.

Monitor the temperature of the oil with a thermometer constantly during cooking. Never leave the hot oil unattended! Allow about three to five minutes per pound cooking time.  When the time is up, turn the burner off, and slowly lift the turkey out of the oil. Hold it over the fryer so the oil can drain. Check the temperature of the turkey with a food thermometer. The turkey is safely cooked when the food thermometer reaches a minimum internal temperature of 165°F in the innermost part of the thigh and wing and the thickest part of the breast.

Enjoy Your Meal

Cover the bird with foil and let it rest about 20 minutes before carving. After serving, refrigerate the leftovers within two hours in shallow containers. Refrigerate and use turkey leftovers for three to four days or freeze for three to four months.

Don’t forget about the oil! Once the turkey is out, remove the pot from the burner and move to a flat, safe place and allow the oil to cool, covered, overnight. Once the oil has cooled you can strain out the solids and use it again. Store in a cool, dry place for up to six months.

If you have more questions call the Meat & Poultry Hotline toll-free at 1-888-674-6854. The Hotline will be staffed from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. Eastern Time on Thanksgiving.  Bon Appetite!

Source: USDA

 

 

 

Day. You can also ask a question in English or Spanish at AskKaren.gov, available 24 hours a day

Do male and female diabetics get the same standard of care?
Posted by on November 19, 2011 - 11:31am

Among patients with type 2 diabetes, women were more likely to have risk factors for chronic kidney disease than men, which may also put them at risk for poorer outcomes, according to at study reported at the American Society of Nephrology held in Seattle.

These findings are preliminary and need further study, but there is sufficient evidence to raise concerns about the quality of care diabetic women, compared to men, receive.  The report noted that the diabetic women in the study were more likely to be obese, had higher LDL cholesterol than the males in the study, and were less likely to have received a statin to help prevent heart problems.  After 5 years of followup, the women in the study were more likely to progress to a higher stage of chronic kidney disease and to progress to end-stage renal disease,   although mortality rates were similar between the sexes after accounting for diabetes-related complications.

Researcher Dr. Margaret Yu, University of Washington, reported that the findings indicate that clinicians should be more vigilant about the care their female diabetic patients receive "because I think there is this overall perception that women aren't as at risk for chronic kidney disease."

After five years of follow-up, the women in the study had poorer outcomes on average, even after adjustment for baseline stage of chronic kidney disease. Although there was a hint of lower mortality among female patients, the difference became nonsignificant after accounting for numerous end-organ diabetes complications.

Source:  Medpage Today

Moving poor women to less poor neighborhoods improves health--duh!
Posted by on November 17, 2011 - 11:25am

This sounds like a headline that  Jay Leno would satirize on his late night show!   Low-income women with children who move from high-poverty to lower-poverty neighborhoods experience notable long-term improvements in diabetes and extreme obesity, according to a new study.     While I appreciate that this study was the first to employ a important randomized experimental design to learn and document the connections between neighborhood poverty and health,  I can't help but be struck by the obvious:  Nice neighborhoods have good schools, parks, low crime, and  grocery stores---something the women in the study did not have before moving.

To be fair, this is well designed study that provides sound evidence that "environments in low-income neighborhoods can contribute to poor health".   Good evidence is important to make a case for change.   Now that we have proof,  what are we, as a nation, going to do about it?   Our economic situation locally and nationally is pretty grim right now and we can't afford to give out housing vouchers to everyone who wants to move. Hopefully, the results of this study, will be used appropriately by our legislators in creating real policy for change and not political platitudes!

To read more about the study click HERE.

 

 

Institute's high school science program wins Presidential award
Posted by on November 16, 2011 - 2:54pm

WHSP students in surgery simulation lab

The Women's Health Science Program for High School Girls developed by our Institute for Women's Health Research has just been awarded the prestigious Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics and Engineering Mentoring by President Barack Obama!  This five-year-old program at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, targets primarily African American and Latina girls from disadvantaged backgrounds in Chicago. The young women can study at four different Northwestern academies: cardiology, physical science, infectious disease and oncofertility.

"We're delighted that President Obama recognized the impact of mentoring the next generation of female scientists and leaders and are humbled by the recognition of this award,” said Teresa Woodruff, director of the Institute for Women’s Health Research and the Thomas J. Watkins Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Feinberg. “By helping women and girls we can help change the world."

The White House award recognizes the crucial role mentoring plays in the academic and personal development of students studying science and engineering—particularly those who belong to groups that are underrepresented in these fields. By offering their expertise and encouragement, mentors help prepare the next generation of scientists and engineers, while ensuring that tomorrow’s innovators reflect and benefit from the diverse talent of the United States.    “Through their commitment to education and innovation, these individuals and organizations are playing a crucial role in the development of our 21st century workforce,” President Obama said. “Our Nation owes them a debt of gratitude for helping ensure that America remains the global leader in science and engineering for years to come.”

Of the 90 students who have participated in the Women’s Health Science Program from the Young Women’s Leadership Charter School in Chicago, 18 are seniors in high school, 70 are attending college, and two have received undergraduate degrees.  Of those attending college, 51 percent are pursuing science majors.

Woodruff plans to expand the science program to other high schools in the Chicago area. The program also has grown beyond Chicago through Woodruff’s efforts.  Similar informal education programs based on the Chicago model are now running in San Diego, Portland and Philadelphia.  To learn more about the WHSP program click HERE.

Woodruff, a reproductive endocrinologist, researches female reproductive health and infertility and is chief of the division of fertility preservation at the Feinberg School. She also leads the Oncofertility Consortium , a national a team of oncologists, fertility specialists, social scientists, educators and policy makers to translate her research to the clinical care of women who will lose their fertility due to cancer treatment.  In addition, she has been an advocate for sex and gender inclusivity and study in basic science, translational studies and clinical trials.

 

Pages