Never a fan of supplements or the supplement industry, I have previously and frequently noted that suggestions on pain reduction and cartilage repair are very overstated for both chondtroitin and glucosamine, either separately or together.
In July, a JAMA article highlighted yet another study - a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study - [what?? it means pretty tight and therefore, valid!] The research found no difference in pain reports between the two large groups. One group was given glucosamine and the other was not.
The research design I noted above blinds the researchers and the subjects. In other words, no one knows who is really taking the supplement until the end of the study. This particular project involved persons with back pain related to osteoarthritis. I have been told that I have OA in my SI joint. That would be my sacroiliac or very low back and an uncommon place to have OA, so I am told.
I would love to have less pain - though it is only occasional at this time. For now, I treat my flare ups with ice and the very infrequent 200 mg of ibuprofen. This I know, works.
Showing posts with label health promotion and disease prevention. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health promotion and disease prevention. Show all posts
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Smoothie Uproar
Is a McDonald’s smoothie in your future? The fast food giant is testing Smoothies. In fact, some of the franchises have tested them so well the main company has asked them to back off. The company is afraid that they will run out of the mix before the start of their national ad campaign according to the WSJ. When reading about this, my thoughts quickly went to the nutrition side. I am NOT a fan of smoothies, even the ones you might make yourself. The reason is that they condense a lot of calories and sugar and thus are more caloric than one might realize. If for some reason, a person cannot eat food on a plate, then sure, this is a good meal replacement every now and again. I have a feeling that people who get a smoothie at McDonalds are probably also going to grab a burger. The smallest Smoothie they make is 12 ounces and for some reason, the with and without yogurt versions are both said to have 210 calories. Both also have well over 40 grams of sugar.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Colorectal Cancer Deaths Decline
Several non profit cancer research, surveillance and advocacy/ educational organizations put out a report this week stating that deaths from colorectal cancer had declined and were expected to continue to do so.
I am writing about it today because someone at my office printed the article but never took it off the copy machine so I thought - hmmm, I guess someone should take that article and read it, so I did.
Here is what concerns me. The scientists never say that the incidence of this cancer has gone down or will go down, only that deaths from it will. That is of course good news, I just wish it were better news.
Chemotherapy and surgery are used to treat this cancer and most of us know that the intervention is not without complications, risks or unpleasantness. Early detection is important as well and that requires a colonoscopy and or a blood fecal occult test. Insurance coverage for testing and treatment will certainly affect the outcomes as well.
The authors of the report, which is considered too optimistic by some, for the reasons I noted above (early detection and access to treatment), include the American Cancer Society, The National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries.
In a recent blog post of mine, the number one cancers by incidence and death were noted.
The number one cause of death in our country is not cancer, but heart disease. Cancer is the second leading cause of death and in that category, more persons DIE from lung cancer than any other (because it is hard to detect and then harder still to maintain or treat). Colorectal (colon and rectum) cancer deaths were the second leading cancer death in 2006. In case you forget, for women, breast is next and for men,prostate (except with the change noted here, the 2009 estimates move breast cancer deaths into second for women). Still breast cancer has good survival rates because of early detection and treatment while prostate cancer isn't necessarily cured, but grows slow enough so that the patient dies from something else first, like heart disease.
Anyway, the reason some persons feel that the assertion made in the report of a 50% decline in colorectal deaths from the year 2000 to 2020 is because the leading causes of the disease may not be addressed as fervently as they need to be.
The situations that put a person most at risk for this cancer are : smoking, being obese and eating red meat more than twice a week or more than 6 to 8 ounces a week. Are you making the necessary modifications in your life style? Seriously, because those are the same things that increase your risk for a heart attack.
I am writing about it today because someone at my office printed the article but never took it off the copy machine so I thought - hmmm, I guess someone should take that article and read it, so I did.
Here is what concerns me. The scientists never say that the incidence of this cancer has gone down or will go down, only that deaths from it will. That is of course good news, I just wish it were better news.
Chemotherapy and surgery are used to treat this cancer and most of us know that the intervention is not without complications, risks or unpleasantness. Early detection is important as well and that requires a colonoscopy and or a blood fecal occult test. Insurance coverage for testing and treatment will certainly affect the outcomes as well.
The authors of the report, which is considered too optimistic by some, for the reasons I noted above (early detection and access to treatment), include the American Cancer Society, The National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries.
In a recent blog post of mine, the number one cancers by incidence and death were noted.
The number one cause of death in our country is not cancer, but heart disease. Cancer is the second leading cause of death and in that category, more persons DIE from lung cancer than any other (because it is hard to detect and then harder still to maintain or treat). Colorectal (colon and rectum) cancer deaths were the second leading cancer death in 2006. In case you forget, for women, breast is next and for men,prostate (except with the change noted here, the 2009 estimates move breast cancer deaths into second for women). Still breast cancer has good survival rates because of early detection and treatment while prostate cancer isn't necessarily cured, but grows slow enough so that the patient dies from something else first, like heart disease.
Anyway, the reason some persons feel that the assertion made in the report of a 50% decline in colorectal deaths from the year 2000 to 2020 is because the leading causes of the disease may not be addressed as fervently as they need to be.
The situations that put a person most at risk for this cancer are : smoking, being obese and eating red meat more than twice a week or more than 6 to 8 ounces a week. Are you making the necessary modifications in your life style? Seriously, because those are the same things that increase your risk for a heart attack.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Ah Mushrooms...
The edible kind. Really this is about Vitamin D.
The research is in, has been in, and the experts have spoken. We need more D!
Recent headlines have warned us that our kids may be deficient, a Cooper Institute study on runners found deficiency in over 70% of the subjects they analyzed. This has a lot to do with sun exposure, skin color and even the use of sun screen or protection, which is STILL the right thing to do.
I have read research supporting Ds effect on our bodies so that we are at less risk of falling. Vitamin D also appears to be protective against some cancers. It works with calcium to strengthen our bones and certainly it prevents rickets. There is some evidence that it is helpful to the heart and in regulating blood glucose. The new wonder vitamin to be sure.
The daily recommendation for Vitamin D is still at the low end of 200 or 400 IUs a day, but many are calling for as much as 1000 or 2000 IUs a day. These include the respected Dr. Walter Willett and Dr. Kenneth Cooper.
This vitamin like others, is best when found in foods, but I gotta tell ya, there are not that many foods with Vitamin D or in amounts sufficient. The best is salmon and canned tuna as well as fortified milk products. I was excited to see that mushrooms were listed as a good source of Vitamin D in a magazine article I was reading. Here is the thing however. The magazine tells us that 3 ounces of mushrooms have 400IU (that MUST be cooked mushrooms) and that 3.5 ounces of salmon has 360IU. Do know have any idea the difference in volume between three ounces of mushrooms and three ounces of salmon or tuna!! In other words to get 400 IUs of vitamin D in sliced mushrooms on a salad, oh well, it would be like 10 cups or something of mushrooms, before you put them on the salad!
I wanted to encourage you to add mushrooms to your stir fry and salads and I still do, but you are much more likely to end up with 50 IUs not 400.
As I have said before, this is one of the vitamins I do take as a supplement. Though I also strive to eat foods that are high in calcium and D. Here is a link to the USDA data base where you can see some common foods and Vitamin D amounts, please, look at the serving size! For example the chart starts with 1/2 fillet of salmon and then 3oz of salmon.. the latter is the appropriate serving size and it has much less vitamin D, but a very good amount just the same.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/SR22/nutrlist/sr22w324.pdf
The research is in, has been in, and the experts have spoken. We need more D!
Recent headlines have warned us that our kids may be deficient, a Cooper Institute study on runners found deficiency in over 70% of the subjects they analyzed. This has a lot to do with sun exposure, skin color and even the use of sun screen or protection, which is STILL the right thing to do.
I have read research supporting Ds effect on our bodies so that we are at less risk of falling. Vitamin D also appears to be protective against some cancers. It works with calcium to strengthen our bones and certainly it prevents rickets. There is some evidence that it is helpful to the heart and in regulating blood glucose. The new wonder vitamin to be sure.
The daily recommendation for Vitamin D is still at the low end of 200 or 400 IUs a day, but many are calling for as much as 1000 or 2000 IUs a day. These include the respected Dr. Walter Willett and Dr. Kenneth Cooper.
This vitamin like others, is best when found in foods, but I gotta tell ya, there are not that many foods with Vitamin D or in amounts sufficient. The best is salmon and canned tuna as well as fortified milk products. I was excited to see that mushrooms were listed as a good source of Vitamin D in a magazine article I was reading. Here is the thing however. The magazine tells us that 3 ounces of mushrooms have 400IU (that MUST be cooked mushrooms) and that 3.5 ounces of salmon has 360IU. Do know have any idea the difference in volume between three ounces of mushrooms and three ounces of salmon or tuna!! In other words to get 400 IUs of vitamin D in sliced mushrooms on a salad, oh well, it would be like 10 cups or something of mushrooms, before you put them on the salad!
I wanted to encourage you to add mushrooms to your stir fry and salads and I still do, but you are much more likely to end up with 50 IUs not 400.
As I have said before, this is one of the vitamins I do take as a supplement. Though I also strive to eat foods that are high in calcium and D. Here is a link to the USDA data base where you can see some common foods and Vitamin D amounts, please, look at the serving size! For example the chart starts with 1/2 fillet of salmon and then 3oz of salmon.. the latter is the appropriate serving size and it has much less vitamin D, but a very good amount just the same.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/SR22/nutrlist/sr22w324.pdf
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)