Too Much Sitting Linked to Women’s Cancer Risk

Image Credit: Credit: gamble19/Shutterstock.com

Sitting for a long time is linked with a variety of diseases, including an increased risk of Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Now, a new study finds that sitting may be particularly harmful for women by raising their risk of developing several cancers.

Women in the study who sat more than 6 hours a day were at a higher risk of developing breast cancer, ovarian cancer and the blood cancer multiple myeloma compared with women who sat less than 3 hours a day.

In addition to raising women’s risk of these specific cancers, the study also showed that “Longer leisure time spent sitting was associated with a higher risk of total cancer risk in women,” the researchers wrote in their study. Women who sat for more than 6 hours a day had a 10 percent increase in their risk of developing any cancer, according to the findings published June 30 in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The researchers looked at about 70,000 men and 77,000 women who participated in a long-running study called the American Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Survey cohort. Over 17 years, from 1992 to 2009, more than 12,000 women and 18,000 men in the study were diagnosed with cancer. The researchers controlled for multiple factors including BMI and physical activity levels.

Most men did not appear to be at an increased risk for cancer from too much sitting. Among men who were obese, however, sitting for long periods of time was associated with an 11 percent increased risk of developing cancer, according to the study, which was led byAlpa Patel, an epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society.

The researchers said additional study was needed to confirm the findings, but the study was just the latest in a large group of findings that have highlighted how too much sitting may have long-lasting health consequences.

In a 2010 study that Patel also led, researchers found that sitting for long periods was associated with a host of health conditions including cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes. Those findings suggested that sitting and being less active might affect how metabolic chemicals in the body regulate numerous systems in the body, according to the researchers.

That study also found that women who sat for 6 or more hours daily were 37 percent more likely to die over a 13-year period compared with those who sat for 3 hours or less daily. For men, the risk of dying increased 17 percent over the same period for those who sat at least 6 hours a day.

“Several factors could explain the positive association between time spent sitting and higher all-cause death rates,” Patel said in a statement. “Prolonged time spent sitting, independent of physical activity, has been shown to have important metabolic consequences, and may influence things like triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein, cholesterol, fasting plasma glucose, resting blood pressure and leptin, which are biomarkers of obesity and cardiovascular and other chronic diseases.”

Earlier this year, a study published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine found that people who sit for long periods were 24 percent more likely to die during the course of the study, including those who were more active after long periods of sitting.

Read full Article: Live Science

U.S. fracking linked to higher hospitalization rates: researchers

Image Credit: REUTERS/ANDREW CULLEN

People who live in areas near hydraulic fracturing are more likely to be hospitalized for heart conditions, neurological illnesses and cancer, according to researchers from the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University.

Fracking is an oil and gas extraction technique using a mixture of water, chemicals and sand to break apart underground rock formations. It has triggered a surge in U.S. energy production in recent years, along with a debate over whether the process causes air and water pollution.

The study, published this week in the journal PLOS ONE, looked at hospitalization rates in parts of Pennsylvania from 2007 to 2011 and found them significantly higher in areas with fracking compared to those without.

“At this point, we suspect that residents are exposed to many toxicants, noise and social stressors due to hydraulic fracturing near their homes and this may add to the increased number of hospitalizations,” Reynold Panettieri, one of the study’s authors, said in a press release.

The team found that 18 ZIP codes in its study had a well density greater than 0.79 wells per square kilometer, and residents living in these ZIP codes were predicted to have a 27 percent increase in hospitalizations for heart conditions compared to areas without any drilling. The study also showed higher rates of hospitalization for neurological illness, skin conditions and cancer.

The researchers said the study does not prove any cause and effect between drilling and health problems but that the findings “suggests that healthcare costs of hydraulic fracturing must be factored into the economic benefits of unconventional gas and oil drilling.”

Read Full Article: Reuters

Vegetarian Frozen-Food Company Is Shaking Up the Fast-Food Status Quo

Image Credit: Twitter

Chipotle’s vegan tofu and chile Sofritas went national about a year ago, White Castle officially made its veggie sliders a permanent menu item in March, and Wendy’s is fresh off a single-city black-bean burger test run that was so successful it went viral.

Plant-based foods are coming in hot to the quick-serve game—whether it’s because of growing health concerns, rising beef prices, or, you know, the fact that vegetables taste good—and frozen-food company Amy’s Kitchen is trying to capitalize in a big way.

The company, known for frozen vegetarian comfort foods such as burritos, pot pies, and macaroni and cheese, is set to open its first brick-and-mortar store, Amy’s Drive-Thru, later this year in Rohnert Park, California, about an hour north of San Francisco. Despite the company’s pedigree in the freezer aisle of the grocery store, microwaves won’t be found on the premises: Everything in the restaurant, even the burger buns, will be made from scratch.

So, Why Should You Care? “You’re reading more and more about people cleaning up their ingredients,” Amy’s Kitchen cofounder and co-CEO Andy Berliner said in an interview with Fast Company. “I think it’s happening because consumers are demanding it. It obviously has a long way to go—it’s not easy to change something that’s really big. But I think over time everything’s going to get better, and greener, and healthier.” Even as fast-food chains like McDonald’s and Taco Bell have been changing their menus for the better by taking out artificial colors and flavors, Amy’s Drive Thru represents the next step in actualizing the fast-food revolution.

Not only will the carbon footprint of Amy’s Drive Thru be drastically reduced, thanks to its plant-based menu, but, according to company estimates, 95 percent of its ingredients will be organic, and there will be solar panels on the roof to reduce energy costs.

Although no meat will be served at the restaurant, Amy’s is keeping to the core menu items typically seen at fast-food chains and adding a few twists, such as brown rice bowls, mac and cheese, and salads chock-full of grains and plant-based proteins.

The restaurant’s signature burger, The Amy—double patty, double cheese, lettuce, tomato, onion, pickle, and secret sauce—reads more like an In-N-Out Double-Double than the organic veggie bomb that it is. A single burger will cost $2.99, making it cheaper than a McDonald’s Quarter Pounder, and salads will range from $3.99 to $7.99.

Read Full Article: Take Part

Educational inequality as destructive for health as smoking – study

Image Credit: Reuters / Luke MacGregor

An educational deficit can be as destructive for human health as smoking and could reduce a person’s lifespan by ten years, new research suggests.

Conducted by researchers based at the University of Colorado, the report said young people who leave school without good GSCE or A Levels results risk a life plagued by poor nutrition, declining mental health and long working hours. It was published in multi-disciplinary open access journal PLOS ONE.

The research team examined data sets from America dating back as far as 1925 to decipher the relationship between education and mortality. However, their findings can be applied more generally to any state. Assistant professor at the University of Colorado Patrick Kruger said the research uncovers a clear link between educational attainment and human health.

Krueger, who specializes in Health & Behavioral Sciences and co-authored the report, said its results indicate social policies and interventions to improve access to education could markedly improve“survival in the US population.”

He further stated the closing of “educational disparities” across society is central to this goal.

The assistant professor argued unless educational inequalities across society are addressed “the mortality attributable to low education will continue to increase in the future.”

Roughly 6,000 pupils each year leave school without any qualifications whatsoever in Britain, according to government statistics. An additional 47,000 come out with less than five GCSEs.

Kruger and his colleague also examined data for people who were born in 1935 and 1945 to discern how education levels influenced mortality over generations.

It found disparities in mortality across varying education levels fluctuated considerably.

Mortality rates declined modestly among those with high school degrees, the equivalent of British A-levels.

However, the lifespan of those with college or university degrees were found to increase considerably.

Read Full Article: RT

The Very Real Benefits Of Going Camping

In his essay Nature, Ralph Waldo Emerson dives into the healing powers of the wilderness. “In the presence of nature,” he wrote, “a wild delight runs through the man, in spite of real sorrows.”

It may be century-old wisdom, but his theory still holds true today. There’s just something about losing yourself — not to mention cell service — in the woods. In fact, there are very real health benefits. We may not be able to transport ourselves back to Emerson’s quaint cabin, but we can certainly head outdoors. Below are just a few reasons to ditch it all for a few days and go camping.

You’re totally unplugged.
There’s no such things as cell phone towers out in the middle of nowhere — and that’s honestly a beautiful thing. Ditching your screen can have a significant impact on your well-being. Research suggests too much tech may lead to increased feelings of anxiety and poor sleep. There’s even some physical perks to going off the grid: Excessive screen use may lead to neck pain and some have even experienced neurological issues. Time to stash that phone. Your mind and body deserve it.

You may sleep better.
The woods may do wonders for your Z’s. According to a 2013 study by the University of Colorado Boulder, the more you abide by the sun’s schedule the more likely you are to go to bed and wake up at a reasonable time. Researchers examined campers for a week and found that sleeping away from artificial light helped reset their circadian rhythms and made them less groggy.

Being in nature is good for your mood.
The outdoors are crucial for your mental health, especially if you’re a city dweller. Researchers at the University of Michigan found that just a few minutes walking in nature can reduce depressive symptoms, which is common in people who live in urban spaces. In a corroborating study, research out of Stanford University found that spending time outdoors can help reduce rumination — the obsessive, negative thinking that could potentially lead to mental health issues.

It could inspire a sense of awe.
As human beings, we’re wired for wonder; we feel compelled to stop and soak up the sunset or gaze up at the stars — and there’s no better place to do that than camping in the wilderness. Research even suggests that awe-inspiring moments can make us happier and more inventive. How’s that for a remedy to your creative rut?

You’ll burn some calories.
Hiking the grounds is all part of the experience — and it’s great for your health. Your trek has the potential to burn well over 500 calories. Not to mention, research suggests the activity can even boost your mental well-being. Talk about happy trails.

Did we mention the no screens thing?
Seriously, this is probably the most underrated perk of camping, so it’s a point worth driving home. Sometimes you just need to shut off cyberspace and connect to some green space. Research shows that constantly checking your phone could be a sign of mental health problems. As HuffPost President and Editor-in-Chief Arianna Huffington explains, too much screen time could be burning you out and it’s important to power down. “It’s not easy to turn away from this kind of stimuli — we’re wired to connect,” she wrote in a HuffPost blog. “But the connection that often comes from technology is not only an unfulfilling, ersatz version of connection, it’s a siren call (or beep, or blinking light) that begins to crowd out the time we have for real connection. Even worse, it begins to rewire our brains to make us less adept at real connection.”

Read Full Article: The Huffington Post

8 Food Companies That Are Ditching Artificial Ingredients

Image Credit: Denise Krebs/Flickr

Late last week, Papa John’s—America’s fourth-favorite pizza chain trailing Pizza Hut, Domino’s, and Little Caesars—announced that it would be spending more than $100 million per year to remove artificial ingredients from its menu. In 2014, the Peyton Manning–backed chain took the MSG out of its ranch dressing and rid its garlic sauce of trans fats, but the new menu overhaul will go above and beyond by eliminating 14 different ingredients, including corn syrup, artificial colors, and various preservatives.

The changes are expected to go into effect by the beginning of 2016, so if you’re married to the idea of corn syrupy BBQ sauce on your Papa’s Chkn Poppers (sadly, that is the correct spelling), make sure you call in before the new year.

At this point, the news should surprise no one: It seems as if every week a different food company peeks its head out from behind the either ditching preservatives, or additives, or artificial colors, or pledging to stop using animals that have been treated with antibiotics important to human health. Why is this happening all of a sudden? Consumers are finally voting with their wallets, and companies are forced to either get rid of the potentially harmful ingredients or suffer the economic consequences.

When Taco Bell announced that it would be nixing certain artificial ingredients, chief food innovation officer, Liz Matthews, said in a statement, “Today’s customers are more curious and interested about food than ever. They want to understand what they’re eating and expect to know more about it.” She even used the term “food revolution.”

So, Why Should You Care? Many of the additives that go into our food are listed under the FDA’s umbrella term “generally recognized as safe,” which means the substance has been tested and approved by “qualified experts.” However, these so-called experts—qualified as they may be—are rarely impartial. In 2012, researchers from The Journal of the American Medical Association analyzed 451 different GRAS claims submitted to the FDA and found that financially objective third parties executed zero of the safety assessments. Even worse, the company that manufactured the food additive in the first place carried out more than 20 percent of the tests.

Since it can be hard to keep track of all the ingredient shuffling, below is a list of eight companies that have recently started to phase out artificial ingredients.

Kraft

(Photo: Mike Mozart/Flickr)

In April, the boxed pasta and powdered cheese powerhouse decided that its signature yellow-orange sauce would start looking a little less like Day-Glo and a little more like food. Yellow No. 5 and Yellow No. 6 will be replaced with annatto seed and paprika extract in its signature macaroni and cheese.

Subway

(Photo: Urban Lenny/Flickr)

Even though the sandwich shop reminding you to always “Eat Fresh” removed azodicarbonamide—more popularly referred to as the “yoga mat chemical,” thanks to Food Babe—back in April 2014, it wasn’t until early June 2015 that Subway announced it would finally be removing propionic acid from its meats, and Yellow No. 5 from its banana peppers. However, Subway, the world’s largest restaurant chain, has yet to take a stance against using animals treated with antibiotics.

General Mills

(Photo: Mike Mozart/Flickr)

While 60 percent of General Mills cereals—including Cheerios, Wheaties, and Kix—are free of artificial ingredients, the company will target the remaining 40 percent over the next two years, using fruit and vegetable juices and spice extracts to mimic the once-artificial colors they were known for. The only potential downside here: no more blue Trix, ever.

Nestlé

(Photo: Getty Images)

In an overhaul that makes Papa John’s efforts look like a minor tweak, Nestlé, the world’s largest food company, announced in February that it would be removing artificial ingredients and colors from more than 250 items by the end of 2015.

Taco Bell

(Photo: Flickr)

The Mexican-ish juggernaut of sub-$1 tacos announced in May that it would be removing select artificial colors and ingredients from its menu, including Yellow No. 6 and Blue No. 1. Same goes for its sister chain, Pizza Hut. However, nothing will change from its co-branded items, including the Doritos Locos Tacos, one of the nouveau (nuevo?) staples on Taco Bell’s menu.

McDonald’s

(Photo: Flickr)

In March, McDonald’s made some big waves in the chicken industry by pledging to reduce the amount of antibiotics important to human health used in raising its chickens. In the same month, the Golden Arches also said it would reduce the amount of ingredients in its grilled chicken breast from 18 to 12, eliminating potentially harmful additives like sodium phosphate.

Panera Bread

(Photo: Flickr)

One of the pioneers of the anti-scary-sounding-additive movement, Panera Bread started phasing out artificial ingredients in June 2014. But in May 2015, it officially created what’s referred to as the “No No List” of artificial ingredients.

Read Full Article: Take Part

Watch video Coca-Cola might not want you to see: Health campaigners remake classic 1971 commercial

Four decades later health campaigners have remade the commercial with the original actors – many now suffering from diabetes, obesity and missing teeth.

This is one version of the classic Coca-Cola advert the soft drinks giant won’t want you to see.

In 1971, the company mad an iconic advert featuring people from all over the world singing out their love of Coke on a hilltop.

Now, 44 years later, health campaigners have remade the commercial with the original actors – many now suffering from diabetes, obesity and missing teeth blamed on years of imbibing sugary drinks.

The original advert hit the public conciousness again when it appeared in the hit show Mad Men.

Now the Center for Science in the Public Interest have remade if to highlight the health issues associated with fizzy pop.

Michael F. Jacobson, executive director, said: “For decades, Coca-Cola and other big soda companies have spent billions of dollars trying to convince Americans and citizens around the world that soda equals happiness.

Read Full Article: Mirror

The age of inactivity: How laziness is killing us

Two thousand years ago, Hippocrates, the Father of Modern Medicine hit the nail on the head. He said, that if we all had “the right amount of nourishment and exercise, not too little and not too much, we would have found the safest way to health”. Bingo.

Obviously then, being a species of great intellect, over the next two millennia we took on his sensible advice, integrating exercise into our daily life and cashing in on the rewards for our bodies and minds. Hmm, maybe we didn’t quite all get that memo. Instead something else happened and physical inactivity grew into the fourth largest global killer in the world (according to the World Health Organisation), with some claiming it takes more lives than smoking, diabetes and obesity combined.

Yes, physical inactivity has its price tags. It is linked to the development of chronic health problems like heart disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, depression, dementia and cancer. It can make us feel bad about ourselves, guilty and frustrated, appeased only with the ever alluring reward of inactivity – comfort, rest and stress-free. Our creaking NHS too gets a bill that would make anyone wince reaching for their wallet – somewhere between £8 and £20 billion per year through both the direct and indirect healthcare costs including that on the economy. Ouch.

The third price tag, and possibly most in need of an active not passive reaction, is the generational one. There is growing over the degree of inactivity in children with precipitants embedded within our shift to a more sedentary lifestyle, fear and risk associated with outdoor play, and the advent of more advanced and ‘real-life replacement’ for one in four children who see online social networking and gaming as their activity. Even more sobering is the evidence that suggests many children still have a negative approach to physical activity in schools, with teachers believing that nearly half of primary school pupils leaving school without “basic movement skills”, and that more than one in three children dislike exercise by the time they leave primary school. These barriers can potentially frame their adult sedentary life. A high price tag indeed.

Make no mistake, these are massive, insidious, chronic alarm bells. So it’s no surprise that in an effort to stem the physical inactivity shock-wave, there is an increasingly louder call from healthcare, academic and government sectors to seed physical activity firmly at the heart of our healthcare system.

You know it makes me wonder if Hippocrates and those after him could ever have foreseen such a crisis point. Then again that’s not what worries me as a doctor. What worries me is why so many of us are still not getting its importance to our lives? Or then again, is it simply a change in our psychology to life, to our society, and to our drive to fix this crevassing “knowing-doing” gap?

Right then, here’s a question – how big do you think this gap is? I agree, it is a vague question. However one way to answer it is to consider what the national physical activity guidelines, as set out by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), actually expect us to do each week. I warn you, for some of us (including me on some weeks) this may prove an entertaining read. So if you’re between 19 to 65 years, all raise your hands if, each week, you are moderately active (e.g. a brisk walk) for 30 minutes a day for 5 days and complete 2 muscle strengthening sessions? I reckon there are still some hands resting neatly on laps or pockets. Well, in fact, in the UK, 60-70% of us take insufficient exercise. You can’t run away from that fact. (And you might not fancy running, anyway).

Like a dodgy set of scales, this gap has grown so big because of a huge imbalance; imbalance between factors promoting physical activity and barriers to it. I’m actually going to skirt over promotion factors because for me, the only one that truly acts (and works) as your own activity ‘engine’ is your own self-motivation. The juicier issues are the barriers. Many barriers are ironically often a direct response to progression in other parts of our lives.

Think about it, we have relationships and families that generate temporal and financial responsibilities, and we work longer and harder than ever so generating energy, temporal and focus demands. This is all too in the context of a higher cost of living – including those pound-draining gym memberships and a society that has shifted its preference to that of sedation and calorie excess. All the above, without fail, contribute to the fact that nearly 25% of the adult population are now classed as obese, and nearly 60% of the remaining are classed as overweight. It’s almost as though our health is an indirect victim of our and our society’s success.

With all these bloody barriers to hurdle there’d better be a good reason to do some physical activity. Hippocrates, saw exercise as an elixir of life, even without knowing what we do now. But he was spot on. Regular physical activity can benefit you medically (extend your life by around 4 years, and reduce your risk of heart disease, cancers and weakened bones); cognitively (increase brain chemicals which promote better memory and learning); psychologically (yes, it is true that those endorphins can lift mood and de-stress!); and physically (by controlling weight and offsetting calorie-dense diets, and giving you more energy with better metabolism, muscle strength and endurance). You know this though don’t you. It’s obvious and we’ve all had a taste of its benefit – even if it was just for those first two weeks in January when in ‘resolution’ mode.

Read Full Article: The Independent 

Five day ‘fasting’ diet slows down ageing and may add years to life

Image Credit: Getty Images

A five day diet which mimics fasting could slow down ageing, add years to life, boost the immune system and cut the risk of heart disease and cancer, scientists believe.

The plan which restricts calories to between one third and a half of normal intake has been developed by academics at the University of Southern California.

Last year the same team discovered that fasting can regenerate the entire immune system, bringing a host of long-term health benefits.

But now they have found that a calorie-restricted diet comprising of vegetable soups and chamomile tea has the same affect. And dieters only need to follow the Fasting Mimicking Diet (FMD) for five days a month, eating what they like for the rest of the time.

“Strict fasting is hard for people to stick to, and it can also be dangerous, so we developed a complex diet that triggers the same effects in the body,’ said Professor Valter Longo, USC Davis School of Gerontology and director of the USC Longevity Institute.

“I’ve personally tried both, and the fasting mimicking diet is a lot easier and also a lot safer.

“I think based on the markers for ageing and disease in humans it has the potential to add a number of years of life but more importantly to have a major impact on diabetes, cancer, heart disease and other age-related disease.”

Day one of the diet comprises:

• 10 per cent protein, 56 per cent fat and 34 per cent carbohydrate, making 1,090 calories

Days two to five:

• Nine per cent protein, 44 per cent fat and 47 per cent carbohydrate making 725 calories

When humans tested out the regimen, within three months they had reduced biomarkers linked to ageing, diabetes, cancer and heart disease as well as cutting overall body fat.

For 25 days a month, study participants went back to their regular eating habits — good or bad They were not asked to change their diet and still saw positive changes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^{Camomile tea and vegetable soup were highlighted as foods to eat in the new regimen}

Feeding mice the equivalent restricted diet elevated the number of regenerative stem cells in the organs, including the brain where it encouraged the creation of new neurons which improved memory and learning.

When fed to middle aged mice, the diet also reduced the incidence of cancer, boosted the immune system, reduced inflammatory diseases, slowed bone mineral density loss and improved the cognitive abilities of older mice tracked in the study.

The researchers think it works by slashing a hormone which encourages growth, and has been linked to cancer susceptibility. Essentially it tricks the body into ageing more slowly.

“It’s about reprogramming the body so it enters a slower aging mode, but also rejuvenating it through stem cell-based regeneration,’ Professor Longo added.

“It’s not a typical diet because it isn’t something you need to stay on.”

• Statins save fewer lives than exercising and eating sensibly, say scientists
• Eat within 12-hour window to lose weight, say scientists
• No link found between saturated fat and heart disease

Previous research has shown that cutting calories not only prevents weight gain but also prolongs good health and longevity.

However British health experts said that people may find it easier to just alter daily calorie intake rather than embarking on the intense five-day diet.

Naveed Sattar, professor of Metabolic Medicine at the University of Glasgow said: “The best way to alter weight trajectory or to lose weight is to make permanent and sustainable changes in ones dietary composition so that less high density calories like cakes, biscuits, crisps.

“This way, folk can eat three meals a day and still have total less calorie intake than they had previously. This, for me, is better for mind and body, and critically, more sustainable.”

^{The Fasting Mimicking Diet brings a range of health benefits as well as weight loss}

Prof Lynne Cox, Associate Professor of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, said the results look promising.

“ For many years, caloric restriction (cutting out 30-40% of your calories each and every day) has looked the best bet for improving health outcomes during ageing, but this new diet appears much easier to stick to than caloric restriction – in humans, it involves taking low protein plant-based meal replacements that provided a third to a half of normal calorie intake for five days every month over a cycle of three months,” she said.

“What is noteworthy here is that the study incorporates a whole host of experiments from model organisms as simple as yeast cells, through mice and into a small controlled clinical trial in humans. All of the results point in one direction: periodically mimicking fasting leads to marked decreases in risk factors for diseases such as diabetes and heart disease, and, in mice, improved short and long term memory were observed.

“Yes, it needs more tests and in some cases different ways of measuring outcomes. But the trends look interesting. If over a longer time human findings match up to the results in mice then this type of intervention has the potential to improve health – though it is likely to be more relevant to young and middle-aged people as drastic metabolic changes may not be well-tolerated in older people.”

Professor Longo believes that for most normal people, the FMD can be done every three to six months, depending on the abdominal circumference and health status.

For obese subjects or those with elevated disease risk factors, the FMD could be recommended by the physician as often as once every two weeks.

Read Full Article: The Telegraph

Average American woman now weighs as much as average 1960s man – CDC

Image Credit: Reuters/Brendan McDermid

New statistics released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that American women are heavier than they have ever been before.

Both men and women have gained weight over the last 50 years, with each gaining roughly 30 pounds, according to the CDC. But one statistic is jarring: the average American woman today weighs 166.2 pounds, or 18.5 percent more than in the 1960s and just a hair below the average American man’s weight of 166.3 pounds at that time. American men have risen from that number to 195.5 pounds today, an increase of 17.6 percent.

A small amount of this weight gain can be attributed to men and women becoming taller – men and women have both grown about an inch on average since the 1960s.

But the study concludes that the bulk of the weight gain is due to lifestyle changes. Americans are exercising less, choosing to eat unhealthier food and eating more of it. But why is this happening?

More than half Americans’ food budget is spent on restaurant foods or processed, easy-to-make meals, which are more likely to be calorie-heavy food choices, reported Vox. The average American’s caloric intake grew from 2,109 calories in 1970 to 2,568 calories in 2010, which is “the equivalent to an extra steak sandwich every day,” according to Pew Research.

Comparing these numbers against other nation’s citizens, average Americans are 33 pounds heavier than their French counterparts and 40 pounds heavier than someone from Japan. This is a stark difference, especially considering that these countries have highly developed economies with similar standards of living to the United States.

Read Full Article: RT

Nuts ‘protect against early death’

Eating half a handful of nuts every day could substantially lower the risk of early death, a Dutch study suggests.

Previous studies had already indicated a link with cardiovascular health, but this is the first to look at specific nuts and diseases.

Maastricht University researchers found a 23% lower chance of death during the 10-year study in people eating at least 10g (0.3oz) of nuts or peanuts a day.

There was no benefit for peanut butter, which is high in salt and trans fats.

What’s in a nut?

• monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids
• various vitamins
• fibre
• antioxidants
• other bioactive compounds

More than 120,000 Dutch 55-to-69-year-old men and women provided dietary and lifestyle information in 1986, and then their mortality rate was looked at 10 years later.

The premature mortality risk due to cancer, diabetes, respiratory and neurodegenerative diseases was lower among the nut consumers.

There was an average 23% lower risk of 10-year mortality across all diseases, with a decrease of:

• 45% for neurodegenerative disease
• 39% for respiratory disease
• 30% for diabetes

Prof Piet van den Brandt, who led the study, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, said: “It was remarkable that substantially lower mortality was already observed at consumption levels of 15g of nuts or peanuts on average per day.”

Read Full Article: BBC News

NAACP announces civil rights probe into N. Carolina coal ash pollution, fracking

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is exploring whether coal ash pollution and fracking pose disproportionate public health hazards to poor communities and people of color in one county in North Carolina.

The NAACP announced its probe Wednesday. It is specifically aimed at uncovering whether environmental racism has played a part in the placement of coal ash waste water and fracking test sites in Stokes County, North Carolina. The investigation has implications for communities of color nationwide, as well as for North Carolina’s decision-making processes determining where power plants and waste facilities are placed.

“We wish we didn’t have to, but we are committed to doing so, to investigate and really bring justice around this issue of coal ash and about fracking, and about the injustices of these industries that operate without any regard for the human rights of the people who are impacted by this pollution,”Jacqui Patterson, director of the NAACP Environmental and Climate Justice Program, said at a news conference in North Carolina, according to Common Dreams.

The NAACP will be working with the organization’s North Carolina and Stokes County chapters during the investigation.

In an interview with RT, Patterson added that there have already been reports of health issues in Stokes County.

“The folks there have reported clusters of health impacts they are seeing in their communities, whether it is nerve damage, high levels of strokes, a number of odd cancers,” she said. “They are tying it to the pollution of the coal ash pond.”

Patterson said coal ash is residue left from burning coal to create electricity. It is either stored in piles or put into coal ash ponds. The ash contains innumerable concentrated toxins from selenium to lead to manganese.

The investigation could lead to a lawsuit, but Patterson said the organization first needs to find out what is going on and document not only the placement of the coal ash ponds, but the movement of the toxins, including how far they travel.

“Are they leeching into the groundwater? Are they leeching into the ground where people are growing food and then eating the food? Where are those points of exposure? Who is living there? What are the health impacts? What do hospital records show?” said Patterson.

Patterson argued that because poor communities are often not politically powerful, residents think companies are choosing to dump in those areas because they won’t find much resistance. This could be evidence of environmental racism, she said. Corporations and government officials, when approached, argue the sites are chosen because the property is less expensive or because water is available, stressing the choice of locations in minority areas is not intentional.

Patterson said it will be hard to prove intent, but the investigation will explore whether there is a pattern of discrimination in the location of facilities and the resulting impact on community health. If a pattern of discrimination is established to exist, a lawsuit will be filed to exact justice.

Read full Article: RT