The Alzheimer's Diet! Interview & Giveaway & Mini-Review

 

Good luck clicking.
 Image swiped from Amazon 'cause I forgot (!) to ask for one.

Alzheimer's is one of those tragic diseases many of us don't like to think about, despite how common it is.  I know very few people whose lives haven't been touched by it in some way.

And no lifestyle intervention can guarantee a healthy brain in old age. Let's hope for a cure, pronto.

Hurry Up, 'K? Thanks!

But in the meantime, there is a lot that clever scientists have discovered about stuff that you can do to make contracting Alzheimer's less likely.

Is it worth making a few changes now, perhaps decades ahead of Possible Trouble, in order to lessen your risk?  Admittedly, it's not as sexy a goal as having six-pack abs or buns of steel. So I worry that books like this The Alzheimer's Diet: A Step-by-Step Nutritional Approach for Memory Loss Prevention and Treatment may have an uphill battle in the Diet Marketing Wars.  But it would be great if resources like this found an audience. Plus, many of these suggestions are targeted at memory boosting now, even ahead of dire diseases.

So stick around, we have an interview with the two very thoughtful authors, plus 4 copies of The Alzheimer's Diet to give away.  Note:  one copy I'm going to reserve for Canadians, even if it means confronting my laziness and shipping it myself. And another copy is specifically set aside for Cranketeers who've been participating in the monthly Goal Support Group post,  aka ¡Toma! (And there's a fresh one coming soon!)

Don't Let Amoebas Eat Your Brain!

Killer amoeba photo credit: DPDx

Seriously, you can be minding your own business and an amoeba can eat your brain?

Yep, we're not making this up.  There are indeed brain-eating amoebas out there, called naegleria fowleri by more scholarly types. They've killed a number of folks; at least three Americans have died this summer of n. fowleri infection.

Is there reason to panic? Well, here at Cranky Fitness we always advocate panic, just on general principle. (We had some great reasons, for example, to panic over the swine flu epidemic. Remember that?)

But as much as we always enjoy inciting a good panic attack, perhaps you'd like some more practical information on brain-eating amoebas, like where they lurk, and how to avoid having them eat your brain?


So here are the most important things you need to know about brain-eating amoebas.

Where can I find a more reputable source of information on naegleria fowleri, aka, Brain-Eating Amoebas?

Well, one place to start is the Web MD FAQ on brain-eating amoebas. In fact, it’s where most of the information in this blog post is swiped from! The CDC also has a naegleria fowleri FAQ.

What are Amoebas and How the Hell Do They Get In Your Brain?

Amoebas are single-celled organisms. If water or dust containing the brain-eating amoeba gets into your nose, you can get infected. The little critters then travel through the olfactory nerve into the frontal lobe of the brain and start chowing down. (It’s nothing personal; they’d actually prefer to eat bacteria).

How Often Do People Get Their Brains Eaten by Amoebas?

Not all that often. There are usually less than 8 cases a year of the brain-eating disease, called “primary amoebic meningoencephalitis” (or PAM for short). They almost always happen from July to September. Worldwide, there have been about 400 reported cases, and 35 in the U.S. since 2001.

Where Do The "Bad" Amoebas Live?

They mostly hang out in warm water. Places where shrieking sobbing hysterical paranoia caution may be advised include: warm lakes, ponds, puddles, slow-flowing shallow rivers, untreated pools, wells, hot springs, aquariums. And for those adventurous enough to consider them recreation areas, watch out for “thermally polluted water, such as runoff from power plants.”

Oh, and they can also sometimes be found soil, including indoor dust, which means… um… they could be anywhere.

Yikes!

(However, since so much emphasis was put on their warm-water haunts, I’m just going to ignore that thing about indoor dust and pretend they didn’t say that. Anyone else with me?)

Can Brain-Eating Amoebas live in ANY kind of water?

No! The good news is that you’re safe in salt water and in properly treated swimming pools or municipal water.

Do Amoebas Hunger After All Brains Equally?

Nope. Most of the folks who have gotten sick were in Southern or Southwestern states. And over half the cases of infection have been in Florida and Texas. But they seem to be acquiring more of a taste for northern brains, as evidenced by a recent case in Minnesota.

The Killer Amoebas like male brains better than female, and they prefer young brains to old ones. Over 60% of U.S. cases are in children age 13 or younger. About 80% of cases are in males. However, it isn’t clear whether the amoebas are picky, or whether young males are more likely to expose themselves.

If I'm Not Easily Scared, And I Want To Go Ahead and Swim in Warm Untreated Water Anyway, What Should I Avoid Doing To Keep My Brain Intact?

Don't get water up your nose! Infection seems to happen most often when people are diving, water skiing, or horsing around doing something that forces water into their nostrils. Infections have also occurred when people have dunked their heads in hot springs or “used untreated tap water to cleanse their nostrils.” (Nostril cleaning, really? Is it suddenly all that popular a pursuit?)

Also, you know those nerdy nose-plugs? Maybe it’s time to think about wearing one.

What Are the Symptoms?

It’s much like a case of viral meningitis; symptoms include “headache, fever, stiff neck, loss of appetite, vomiting, altered mental state, seizures, and coma. There may also be hallucinations, drooping eyelids, blurred vision, and loss of the sense of taste.”

Just How Screwed Are You if Brain-Eating Amoebas Get Up Your Nose?

It can take from 2 to 15 days for symptoms to appear. Many people have antibodies to N. fowleri, so your body may fight off the amoebas. However, if infected, it's over 95% lethal. Death usually occurs three to seven days after symptoms appear.

So Then I Clearly Need to Panic, Right?

As much as we approve of panic as an all-purpose reaction to anything unexpected, you probably don't need to freak out unless you (a) spend a lot of time in warm untreated water and (b) you are spectacularly unlucky. With only 8 cases a year the chances YOUR brain will get snacked on by amoebas is very, very low.

(And note: this amoeba disease thing may be extremely rare and overhyped in the media, but this post is NOT intended to make light of deaths and suffering caused by those few cases. That part is really tragic.)

So what do y'all think about brain-eating amoebas, are you scared?

Whole Grains: What's the Problem, People?

Photo: voyageAnatolia.blogspot.com

I'm old enough to remember when "brown bread" was something exotic and vaguely threatening that only the hippie family down the street was brave enough to eat. As a kid, I assumed there was only one "normal" kind of flour: white. Same thing with rice. And the only variety we got as far as grains were bowls of Cheerios, Cornflakes, or Raisin Bran. But most often, we got our grains in the form of Wonderbread, Oreos, and Poptarts.

Fast-forward a few decades: scientists have learned a lot more about nutrition, and we've all been urged a few hundred thousand times to eat more whole grains because they are so damn good for us. Like many of you, I got with the program. Now I try to save refined grains for treats, not fill up on them as a staple.

So why are most people in this country still eating like I did as a third-grader back in 1968? And an even more important question: Why are the desires of all these ignorant third-graders still controlling what the rest of us can get at restaurants and grocery stores?

OK, so those aren't really questions--they're complaints. I don't actually care why a huge majority of the population keeps shunning whole grains. Probably because it takes a lot less effort to eat familiar white fluffy foods than to acquire a taste for healthier, earthier fare. And I know perfectly well why the preferences of the unhealthy masses dominate the food and restaurant industry: Welcome to capitalism, Crabby! It's also the reason we have Big Macs, Barbie Dolls, and The Real Housewives of New Jersey.

But I'm not sure what's worse: the general unavailability of whole grain options (unless you want to make things from scratch all the time, ick) or all the Fake-Healthy Not Really Whole Grain products out there. Most people are fine with these choices, because they are not equipped with enough grouchy skepticism to read a food label and then curse the lying sonsabitches who are trying to fake everyone out. Normal people just find a product they like that says "multi-grain" or "now made with whole grain," and they say to themselves: Awesome, I'm all set!

Of course these folks don't realize that a healthy-sounding ingredient like "organic wheat flour" still means "white flour," and that the crap they're eating is 98% refined flour and sugar, with maybe a pinch of bran or a single rolled oat thrown in there somewhere.

And if people want to eat mostly white flour and a few of these fake options too, knock yourselves out! But it would be nice if there were more options for us stubborn whole grain folks too. I'd love to have brown rice available at a Thai restaurant, or the option of a real whole grain roll at a bakery, or more choices at the supermarket when it comes to breads, pastas, crackers, etc. (And Whole Foods? You guys are the worst when it comes to your bakery. Where the hell is the healthy stuff? Last time I looked, it was virtually all desserts packed with refined flour, butter, and sugar. What's so "whole" about that?)

So Why Are Whole Grains a Healthier Choice?

According to the "world's healthiest food" people, there are a ton of great reasons to eat whole grains. (Note: These folks tend to be an optimistic bunch, but they do at least cite a bunch of studies).

Some of the research they've pulled together suggests that eating whole wheat or other whole grains can help with: weight management, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, inflammatory conditions, gallstones, gastrointestinal issues, heart disease, childhood asthma, breast cancer, dropsy, plague, possession by the devil, and vapors. (OK, so I was just messing with you on those last four. Well... who knows? Anyone driven out the devil with a bowl of oatmeal lately?)

But Some Folks Refrain from the Grain

Even if it's a whole grain and not refined one, there are some people who would just as soon give it a miss. If you have celiac disease, for instance, and must go gluten-free, then that lovely blueberry bran muffin that I have my eye on is gonna be Very Bad News for you. There are serious health consequences for people with this condition if they eat wheat, rye, barley, or anything contaminated with gluten. However, there are apparently some good gluten-free whole grain alternatives, like brown rice, wild rice, amaranth, millet, buckwheat, sorghum, quinoa, and even popcorn. (Oats don't naturally contain gluten, but they can be tricky because there's a high risk of contamination).

There are other folks besides celiacs who don't think grains are a great idea, whole or not. Some low-carbers avoid them as much as possible, and Primal folks like Mark at Mark's Daily Apple argue that we'd be better off ditching grains entirely. But most mainstream nutrition experts have a different message: ditch the refined grains; but it's ok to eat whole grains instead.

Looking for Convenient Whole Grain Products?

Good luck! Actually I'd love to hear your suggestions. I'm a terrible dietary example, because I haven't been nearly adventurous enough about exploring outside my familiar trinity of whole wheat, oats, and brown rice. On my to-do list: try quinoa, amaranth, buckwheat, and other more interesting choices. (But then I've been saying that for years).

Our bread-maker broke a few years ago, and I'm too lazy to make my own bread, so I either try to find a local bakery that that features a whole wheat bread (and then I worry that they're lying to me) or I scour the supermarket shelves for the healthiest looking brands and I carefully inspect the ingredients list. Alvarado Bakery seems like a good West Coast option; I'm a little more perplexed by East Coast brands. Anyone have some good suggestions?

I have a rice cooker, and love the fancy-pants brown & wild rice mixes, but often I don't think about rice until it's too close to dinner time. Fortunately, the microwaveable already-prepared brown rices have gotten a lot better--Trader Joe's has a couple of good options. (Note: if they have them, the frozen pouches beat the kind in a cup).

As to pasta, have you notice that the whole wheat kind doesn't suck anymore? At least not some of the better brands.  I tried it years ago, thought it tasted like boiled brown paper bags, and said no thanks.  But in the last year or so there seem to be more tasty whole grain options.

What about Cooking or Baking from Scratch?

Excellent idea, then you can use any kind of grain you want! So that's what organized, healthy, non-lazy people do and I totally recommend you do that. Someday, maybe I will too. Actually, on the rare occasions when I bake I use winter wheat, which tastes pretty close to white but is actually a whole grain. And Charlotte at The Great Fitness Experiment  alerted me to another white-tasting alternative, some sort of magic "ultragrain" flour that sounds intriguing. For a whole grain brownie recipe, Tracey's Culinary Adventures has a tempting one--though it's still got a boatload of butter and sugar so it's not exactly a health food.

And for a whole slew of healthy whole grain ideas, Kayln, who blogs at Kaylyn's Kitchen, did a series at Blogher on cooking with whole grains. There are posts on brown rice, quinoa, and bulgur featuring lots of recipes and leading to all kinds of awesume healthy cooking blogs.

[Note: this post is being edited and reposted in July of 2011 to test something technical with the blog. My apologies if any folks with feed readers get this accidentally and think it's a new post.  On the other hand, if you got this far without realizing it was old... how pissed off should you really be?
 
What do you folks do about the whole refined vs whole grains issue? Any good tips or suggestions?

Oh Boy, Another Exciting Vitamin D Lecture!

Photo: Leo Reynolds

So since the last post I wrote was about dead whales, I'm thinking it's probably time to return to a health-related topic. Perhaps even remind you about a crucial nutrient you may not be getting enough of?

But useful information is so boring! So at the end of this post I'll be sure to educate you about one method of getting Vitamin D post a beefcake photo of a nearly nude Italian mens soccer team. Because that's just the kind of informative public service pathetic pandering you've probably come to expect here at Cranky Fitness!

And yeah, I know we've posted about Vitamin D many times before, because, well, it's good for you. But lately the research on just HOW good it is for you keeps piling up. (Or put, another way, the evidence about how screwed you are if you don't get enough D is getting scary). Yet unfortunately, most people either haven't gotten the message about how crucial Vitamin D is, or they've blown it off because we get 97,000 other health warnings every week and it gets hard to pay attention to them all.

However, as it happens, both Women's Health and Health Magazine, two magazines I like to steal information from read, did round-ups on Vitamin D this month. So I thought, heck, with so much information on hand, I'd stick a bunch of it all in one place.

Because as the Women's Health folks point out, over 2,000 genes are regulated by vitamin D. Apparently D is one bossy vitamin! Michael Holick, a Vitamin D expert from Boston University, adds that "it affects cell death and proliferation, insulin production, and even the immune system."

Here are some specifics; most of it comes from the Health Magazine Vitamin D article. (And sorry I don't have links here to the actual studies. That would require a lot of additional googling and I'm too busy because I have, like, 6 glasses of milk to drink and a big honking plate of salmon to eat! And I better hurry because I think I need to do work in a few hours of nude sunbathing before it gets too dark. Or something like that. I may have read it all a little too fast. But anyway, Health Magazine is pretty reliable about fact-checking their research, so I'm trusting 'em on this.)

So why should you try hard to get enough vitamin D? Because it can:

Lower Your Heart Disease Risk
People with the highest D levels had up to a 50% lower risk of heart disease, while those with the lowest had a 62% increased risk of heart attacks or strokes. It's thought that vitamin D helps lower blood pressure and regulates hormones affecting blood vessels and heart muscles.

Help Prevent Cancer
A vitamin D researcher at UCSD, Cedric Garland, says “we could prevent 150,000 cases of cancer annually if we could just increase vitamin D to optimal levels.” Research suggests sufficient vitamin D reduces risk of breast, colon, prostate, and ovarian cancers. For example, women with high D blood levels had a 50% lower risk of breast cancer than those with the lowest blood levels.

Cut Risk of Multiple Sclerosis and other Autoimmune Disorders
In a study out of Harvard University, researchers found a 40% lower risk of MS in women who took a daily supplement of at least 400 IU of vitamin D. There is also research to suggest that vitamin D might lower risk of other autoimmune disorders too, like rheumatoid arthritis, type 1 diabetes, and Crohn’s disease. And vitamin D might even lower inflammation in healthy folks as well.

Fight Colds and Flu
One study indicated that women who took 800 IU of vitamin D daily were three times less likely to develop colds or the flu. And women who got 2,000 IU reported even fewer symptoms.


Improve Mental Health and Brain Function
Raising vitamin D levels seems to increase serotonin, which helps regulate mood and fights seasonal affective disorder. It also seems to help neurological function, keeping your brain sharp as you age as opposed to a big mushy mess.

Assist with Appetite Regulation
Low levels of D mess with leptin levels, which in turn screw up your "I'm full" signals--which can lead to Serious Cupcake Abuse. It's somewhat of a vicious cycle, because overweight folks have more difficulty using vitamin D, because excess fat can absorb vitamin D, making it unavailable.

Build Strong Bones
You need vitamin D to absorb calcium and phosphorus, which will help prevent osteoporosis and bone fractures. And you don't want either of those or you're going to have to go on TV like poor Sally Field and talk up medications like Boniva. (Perhaps if she'd been the "Walking Nun" or the "Running Nun" or the "Jumping Nun" instead of the "Flying Nun" she'd have higher bone density? OK, now all the young folks who never watched Sally Field in the Flying Nun probably think I'm having a psychotic break from insufficient vitamin D. But I swear, it was a real show.)

See? I didn't make it up.

So, You Think You're Getting Enough D?

Most people aren't getting enough for optimal health, especially those living in northern latitudes who can't get enough from sunshine.

Sure, the RDA is only something like 200-400 IU, depending on how old you are. But the National Osteoporosis Foundation recommends 400 to 800 IU if you're under 50, and 800 to 1,000 IU if you're older. But many experts are raising the bar even for younger folks, and suggesting up to 2,000 IU for optimal health. (On the other hand, other sources like the Mayo Clinic consider 2,000 as an upper limit, because taking too much Vitamin D can cause health problems).

Probably the best thing to do is get your blood levels measured and find out if your levels are low, normal, or awesome. Apparently more than 75% of us lack the awesome amounts that help fight disease. Then once you know where you stand, adjust accordingly.

Apparently those of us who live at latitudes above 37 (hello, Minneapolis, Boston, and San Francisco!) are at more risk of deficiency. However, the UCSD expert guy interviewed in Health thinks “every woman should consider getting checked.” (Why not men? I missed that part. Perhaps because the expert figured all the men were off reading Men's Health instead?)

So How Do You Get More Vitamin D?

Eat!
Good natural food sources are oily fish like salmon, sardines, and tuna. There are also lots of fortified foods like milk, fruit juices, soy milk, and some cereals and yogurts.

Take a supplement
Normally, experts are all "Don't take pills, just get all your nutrients from real food" but in this case, the advice seems to be much more supplement friendly. Perhaps because lack of D is such a big deal. Make sure it's D-3, which is metabolized much more easily than D-2.

Get some sun
Yeah, skin cancer is definitely a concern. But more experts seem to be suggesting that the health trade-offs might favor a bit of sun exposure, especially if you're careful. So you should go easy, avoiding midday sun, and keep it to 10 minutes or less per day.

And, um, sunscreen or clothing will interfere with the process, so you may want to bare some skin!



(And yeah, this Italian soccer team is in the locker room where it's hard to absorb much vitamin D... but let's just pretend they're going outside dressed like that, ok?)

Does Crabby Get Enough D?
I don't know! I sometimes skip the sunscreen on my legs on early morning runs (even though that exceeds the recommended 10 minutes, but whatever). I also drink a lot of milk and take a Vitamin D supplement. So I hope I'm ok.

Do you folks worry about D, and if so, do you do anything about it?

Are Pets Good for Your Health?

So there's good news and bad news to report about the effects of pet ownership on your health.

Photo: icanhascheezburger

Now would it make you want to run out and adopt a pet if a study said it was good for you? Or give up a pet if a study said it was bad? As it happens, I have some opinions on that subject (surprise!) which I'll get into in a moment.

But first, the bad news:

According to the New York Times, our cats and dogs are sending us to emergency rooms at alarming rates. Is it because they're all of a sudden attacking us? Should you take the quiz to discover if your cat is plotting to kill you?

Photo: icanhascheezburger

Nah, this article wasn't about animal attacks. It turns out that we humans don't just fall for our pets, we actually fall over them. Yes, falls caused by pets send more than 86,000 people a year to the emergency room, which is five times as many as are hurt by unintentional gunshots. Dogs were involved in 88% of the accidents, though goodness knows cats try their darndest to be underfoot when you least expect them. (They may indeed be conspiring to kill us, but they're not all that good at it yet).

Now the good news!

So a few weeks ago, the Boston Globe ran an article collecting some of the recent research on the health benefits of pet ownership.

And the latest one was good news for cat owners--apparently people who own (or, more accurately, are owned by) cats are 40% less likely to die of heart attacks than other folks. Which seems like a big number! And the researchers took into account other risk factors like age, weight, gender, race, smoking, and cholesterol.

(Um, dog owners? Sorry, in this study, they didn't get the benefits).

But in other studies of pet ownership and health benefits, dogs came out ahead. Dog owners had lower blood pressure and cholesterol, fewer minor physical ailments and were less likely to have more serious medical problems both psychological and physical, than other folks, while cat-owning benefits were not as pronounced. Oh, and since dogs need walking, dog owners get more exercise than other people. Which common sense says is a good thing.

The Problem With Pet-Ownership Studies
As a pet owner, I love these studies! I love any study that says something I'm already doing is good for me. And intuitively, it does seem that pets can confer so many psychological benefits that this could really positively impact physical health as well.

But... I don't actually put too much stock in them. Why not? Because researchers can't just take a big group of people and randomly force half of them to go petless, and then force the other half to care for pets whether they want them or not. So instead, researchers will probably always be looking at people who choose to have pets, versus people who don't. And who knows how much difference is due to having the pets, versus the kind of personalities and lifestyles that drive these choices?

But heck, as a cat owner: yay!

Pets as Medicine
So even if it is the pet ownership causing the health benefits, I think studies like these are a dumb reason for people to run out and get a pet. (And yeah, I also wrote a post about this over at Diet Blog a long time ago). It's just that I worry whenever there's an article like this that people will think about buying a pet like it's a health supplement--some new high-antioxidant acai berry drink or something. (And just in case that analogy was too confusing: You should not attempt to eat or drink your pet! Ingesting your pet will not grant you any health benefits at all!)

Photo: icanhascheezburger.com

Yes, I'm one of those sentimental softies who thinks we should not view pets as just "things" we own. There are already too many people who see them solely as decorative accessories, status symbols, or burglar alarms. We do not need to add a whole bunch more pet owners who view their pets as furry exercise equipment or purring blood pressure medication.

So sure, if you love animals and want one anyway and are weighing the pros and cons, these possible health benefits are a good "pro" for the list. But the best reason to get a pet because it's an incredibly rewarding relationship and it's worth all the considerable trouble.

Trouble? Why, yes, at least a little. Pets are complicated, amazing, frustrating, hilarious, loving, obstinate, unpredictable creatures. They have needs and they must be cared for, and this is sometimes involves a significant amount of work. (Cats way less than dogs, thank goodness).

But in the normal course of events, the amount of pleasure an animal gives totally outweighs the amount of hassle it takes to care for them. But there are gonna be hair-pulling stressful days as well as joyous ones. Someone who is looking for a prescription rather than a companion may not be prepared to deal with the "side effects": vet bills, barking, hairballs, cat boxes, dog poop where you least expect it, the need for obedience training if you have a dog, the need to be trained if you have a cat, fleas, the threat of lawsuits, the limits on traveling or after-work activities, the curtailment of dinner parties if it turns out that 80% of your friends are allergic to your cat... the list goes on and on.

This subject has been on my mind a bit lately, as we have an 18 year old cat whom we love very much. Alas, her health is beginning to decline, and we don't know how much longer we'll get to share our days with her. (And yes, this is the same cat who went through something of an artistic phase, but fortunately she moved on to other forms of self-expression after we changed her cat food. Now instead of "scooting," she stages cat operas at 3 or 4 in the morning. These come complete with dramatic entrances, exits, and lots and lots of bellowing.)

Has her ownership of us for the last eighteen years lessened our chances of a heart attack? Who the heck knows! She's a wonderful cat and has been an entertaining and loving companion. (And I'm not going to write a eulogy yet 'cause there's a good chance she'll rally and be around for many years to come.) We wouldn't trade our time with her for anything, even if it didn't do a thing for our health. And at least she hasn't sent us to the emergency room...

... yet.

What about you folks, do you think having pets or not having pets has an impact on your health? What do you like about having them around (or not)?

Stand Up or Die?

So have you ever fantasized about taking your computer and tossing it out the window?

Oops, so Sorry!
Photo: youngthousands

No? I sure have.

This usually occurs after I've installed new software that doesn't work, or have lost internet coverage for no reason, or broken the blog with some bone-headed move or another.

Instead of spending hours listening to customer service hold music or searching through internet help forums, wouldn't it be much more fun to just hurl all those misbehaving megatbytes into the air and wait for the lovely smashing sound as the stupid machine hits the ground?

(Helpful Tip: Better check first to make sure no one is outside right below the window, otherwise: awkward!)

Well, now it turns out there's a very good scientific reason to indulge in my defenestration fantasies--and while I'm at it, chuck my desk chair as well!

Photo: Dawn Endico

(Although if my chair were this cute and scrappy, I'd probably let it back in).

Anyway, a recent study of sitting and mortality found that the longer you sit each day, the more likely you are to croak.

This was a big study (of 17,013 Canadians) and followed subjects for an average of twelve years. Folks were grouped by by daily sitting time (almost none of the time, one fourth of the time, half of the time, three fourths of the time, almost all of the time). Turns out, "there was a progressively higher risk of mortality across higher levels of sitting time from all causes."

And this was true even though they took into account other factors that might affect the results, like like leisure time physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, sex, age, and BMI.

So apparently it's not just a matter of getting enough exercise. You still need to do that. But even if you do, you have less chance of dying if you don't spend all day sitting down.

As you may recall, there are already a bunch of good reasons to not sit for long periods of times. Remember Cranky Fitness recently reminded you why you should try to get off your ass?

Even if it's a very cute ass.
Photo credit: coscurro

To review: "Sitting puts nearly twice the stress on the spine as standing; slouching while you sit increases the pressure even more." Also, "when we're locked in one position, we're starving the disks of nutrients...there's no vascular or nerve supply to the disks; they get their nutrition through movement." And then there was the blood clots and flabby butts and all.

But this new study is even more creepy, if you're a desk-sitter like I am. Because dying is even worse than starving vertebrae and flabby butts!

Plus, this study suggests that it's not just a matter of standing up every now and then (which you still should do, though if you're like me you already totally spaced out last month's reminder). It's a question of what percentage of the day you spend on your keister, and none is best.

So as I read this study, the only sensible course of action is to Quit Your Job, Abandon Your Family, and Spend the Rest of Your Life Roaming the World so that You Never, Ever, Assume a Seated Position Again!

Voila, no tempting chairs, couches, or barstools!
Photo:steve phillips

Er... but you may not find that entirely practical.

Also, the only time I'm willing to make major changes in my life based on one study is if it says something I want to hear. As soon as any study, even if it's conducted by Mr. Throckmorton's Fourth Grade Science class, says cupcakes prevent cancer I'm heading out for a big pink bakery box.

Anyway. Don't want to quit your job to become a full-time desert nomad? Well, you could try a treadmill desk, or create a stand-up work station, or at least pace while you're on phone calls.

And summer is approaching! Instead of sitting down after dinner for an evening of reality shows or web surfing, you could try Crabby's favorite evening activity or get out your Wii Fit thingy or take up juggling or...

Well, you folks probably have better, more creative ideas than I do for reducing sitting time, if indeed it's now a Deadly Killer!

Drink Up, You'll Need It.

This time, you can blame Vanilla at Half-Fast.

His first cartoon is here; the follow-up is here.

I seem to be powerless to control myself! Part II is better than the first effort, which is not saying much. Though it's a drab gray setting because I needed something with a computer screen. Oh, and I accidentally picked National Start Walking Day to diss walking. Good timing there, Crabby! Go read MizFit; she has an excellent post on why you should start walking today).



(The first episode is here, and is even more lame. (And this new one also appears here if for some reason the player doesn't work).


To Make Up for that Silliness, Now Some Serious Beverage-Related Health News

All good this time!

Alcohol: Though recent studies spoilsport studies like this one have suggested links between alcohol and certain forms of cancer, there is overall good news too. According to a study reported in the New York Times, "for people over 55, an alcoholic drink a day reduces death risk by 28%. But, "having one drink or less a week is no help at all." The geriatric study "included more than 12,000 people, followed them for four years and controlled for factors including sex, race, smoking, obesity, cancer, heart disease, recent heart attack, angina, physical function and socioeconomic status."

And Hot chocolate boosts brain power! Or it least it temporarily makes you more alert. Apparently researchers "asked 30 people to perform an array of math tests before and after having either a chocolate drink or non-chocolate drink... The people who drank the chocolate did better on one test that required repeatedly subtracting 3 from a number between 800 and 999."

Which comes up a lot! I can't TELL you how many times lately I've been asked to subtract the number 3 from a number between 800 and 999.

With only 30 people, and with only one of the "array" of tests apparently showing significant results, I'm not exactly blown away by this study. But hey, hot chocolate is tasty and has lots of antioxidants, so I think it's an awesome beverage.

(Weird aside: do you ever click on "related posts?" I have no idea how this hot chocolate post came up as a "related post" when I was reading about a freaky giant sea worm. Do sea worms drink hot chocolate?)

Coffee again proves it's awesomeness! You can read over at Blisstree (which seems to be the new incarnation of Healthbolt) about how coffee eases exercise-induced muscle pain. Or, you can remind yourself that coffee is a performance enhancer.

But the most cheerful update of all: coffee prevents cognitive decline, and helps ward off scary brain and nerve diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease.

Just don't waste your beverage-enhanced cognitive capabilites by futzing away an entire evening playing with cartoons!

Any thoughts on beverages or on wasting time on the internet playing with movies?

Diet and Cancer

[Special Guest Post by Christine Hanley]

Note: this is a 3-part post by Christine of Póg Mo Thóin Slán Leat. You may want to bookmark it, because it is one of the best explanations I've ever seen as to why eating healthy can reduce your cancer risk. It's very informative and motivating, not to mention amusing, which is hard to pull of when writing about cancer. Thanks Christine!--Crabby]


What is Cancer?

One way to understand Cancer is to think of your body as a nice, posh, invite-only wine and cheese ‘do at your house. When the party (your body) is functioning properly, the number and quality of party attendees (cells) is regulated. If someone turns out to be an inappropriate guest (a cell damaged beyond repair), you ask them to leave and everything is back to normal (this is your body’s natural process of cell death, aka apoptosis).

However, let’s say something has caused you to be incapacitated for some reason (your body’s natural cell death system is not functioning properly). A real jerk shows up to your party and starts off by chugging a bottle of wine, messing with the stereo and annoying your guests, but you can’t get out there to get rid of him. Then he gets on the phone and starts inviting all his jerky friends over (the bad cell, having not gone through natural cell death, begins to replicate). The jerks start taking over for real now, since all of them are phoning their jerky friends over (all the cells are replicating uncontrollably) and they’re starting to get into areas that the party was not even supposed to be in, crowding out the nice guests you invited (regular, healthy neighbouring cells) and oh look, now there’s a disgustingly raunchy threesome with all sorts of questionably legal acts happening in your marriage bed. Like, I'm talking, one of the participants is a goat. Cancer is nasty business folks, and it’s got no respect for anyone or anything.

Now, hopefully by this stage, someone will have called the cops (you’ll have noticed something has gone wrong and gotten yourself to the doctor). Because, if this situation goes completely unchecked, some of these drunkards will get into their cars and start driving down the roads and invading other parties in town (new parts of your body) and the whole thing will start there as well. This is metastasis, where pieces of the Cancer break off and go to completely new places and grows new tumors.

So in short, Cancer is caused by your cell security system (cell death) breaking down and causing damaged cells to replicate uncontrollably, invading other tissues and possibly metastising via the blood and lymph systems into new parts of the body.


Cancer Prevention

Since Cancer is basically a bunch of bad cells dividing uncontrollably without anything to tell them to take a hike, we can infer that Cancer is therefore best avoided by preventing the loss of your cell security system. This cell security system is hard coded into your genetic code, aka your DNA. All Cancers are caused by DNA anomalies: mutations.

Mutations can be caused by any number of things; you can be born with them (Genetics), or you can acquire them, through plain old DNA replication errors, (when your cells divide normally, each cell gets a new copy of DNA made especially for it, and sometimes it’s copied wrong like a badly executed Xerox) or through something physically interfering with the DNA molecule. This last cause, physical interference, is where diet comes in to play. I’ll talk about two major types of physical interference: intercalation and oxidization.

Something to remember, however, is that you have a LOT of security. In fact, your DNA’s security systems definitely outstrip that of even a post 9/11 airport. So you need a LOT to go wrong before you get Cancer. Clearly, though, it does happen.

Intercalation

Certain types of nefarious molecules can sort of slide into your DNA like an issue of Penthouse into a Harvard Library bookshelf. High falutin’ scientists call this “intercalation”. Basically, it means that your DNA is like a big huge stack of plates. Every plate is the exact same size and type so there’s no problem stacking them so high and it’s quite stable. Intercalation is like sliding a mismatched plate into the middle of the DNA molecule. This throws off the whole stack, and can screw up all loads of things. If it screws up a part of your DNA responsible for the cell security system, you can get a runaway cell that causes Cancer.

Molecules that cause intercalation are, by and large, “flat” molecules. They’re often kind of disc shaped, usually. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) are one of these: you can tell by the name: “cyclic”. Like a circle. Disc shaped. They are formed when fat is burned over high heat – so when you barbeque a steak. Another is Acrylamide, which is formed when you brown starchy foods – like when you toast a slice of bread or fry a potato.

However, the body does do a wonderful job of policing the molecules that get into it: people have a family of enzymes called Cytochrome P450s that alter alien molecules so that they don’t fit into DNA, and making them water soluble so that your body flushes them out with the rest of your wee. This is why it’s ok to eat toast and steak in moderation: because as long as you don’t give your body a deluge of these toxic compounds, your body can handle them just fine, it’s got built in defences against most of what you can throw at it as long as you’re generally treating it right.

Oxidation

The second process I’ll talk about which alters your DNA and therefore can cause Cancer is called oxidization. This is a process in which your DNA gets damaged, (oxidation is the same process that's rusting your car right now). Again, if the cell security system takes a hit… I’m pretty sure you’ve figured out by now what that means.

When you digest food, you are essentially breaking chemical bonds. Sometimes the breaking of a chemical bond creates something called a Free Radical, which is missing an electron, which will sometimes search out a stable molecule from which to steal an electron. This is considered to be a major factor in DNA damage, which not only causes Cancer, but aging in general as well.

Here is where that all powerful anti-oxidant comes in: they neutralize the Free Radicals before they can damage your DNA. Anti-oxidants are bodyguards for your DNA. To prevent Cancer, you want to make sure you have enough anti-oxidants to neutralize any Free Radicals that might occur. There is NO such thing as too many anti-oxidants.


The Cancer Most Linked to Diet

By and large, the number one Cancer that you can prevent through diet is Colorectal Cancer. It is the third most common Cancer in both men and women in the US, so it’s certainly worth pausing to think about. People don’t like to talk about it though, since it’s fundamentally Ass Cancer.

I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that a large risk factor for the development of Colorectal Cancer is a diet high in fat and low in fibre – which is essentially the Western diet. Researchers figured this out when they found that people from Swaziland have nearly NO Colon Cancer, which they thought might be due to the fact that the Swazilanders eat hugely fibrous Betel Nuts which make them take about 3 or 4 dumps a day. Freakin’ impressive, man. (They then did a lot of fun studies on Intestinal Transit Times involving timing how long coloured pellets took to “emerge”. Interestingly, English boarding schools were the most anal retentive. I totally wish I had a source for that one besides my University Chemistry professor.)

Anyway, since then there have been a lot of studies corroborating the fibre/colon Cancer protection link. There are a number of theories as to why this occurs, the two most popular being that fibre increases fecal bulk, thus diluting Cancer causing compounds in the intestines; as well as decreasing the amount of time the crap (literally) hangs around in your colon, thus limiting your intestines' exposure to the toxins within.

Take Home Messages

• Your body is well equipped to deal with all sorts of intruders, as long as you don’t launch a full on dietary blitzkrieg on it. Eat foods with known carcinogens (such as BBQed meats) in moderation and your body will dispatch them quite efficiently.
• Make sure you eat plenty of anti-oxidant containing foods (by and large these are your fruits and veggies) to provide your DNA with plenty of protection from the wear and tear of daily life.
• Lastly, eat whole foods high in fibre: they’re your best defence against Colorectal Cancer, by getting the toxins in your poo out of your body ASAP.

Christine Hanley isn't a dietician or a doctor or anyone with any fancy shmancy right to tell you what to eat, but she did study Biology for four years at McGill University and ended up with a BSc. Which has proved to be totally useless so far, but hey, she's not bitter. She usually blogs at Póg Mo Thóin Slán Leat.

Intermittent Fasting: A Cranky Fitness Primer

[By Crabby]

Mmm, Nothing Beats The Fresh Crisp Taste of Air!

We at Cranky Fitness endeavor to stay at the cutting edge of nutrition and health reporting, except when we can't be bothered.

But we can't help noticing that Intermittent Fasting is becoming a hot topic. So it seems a good time to try to scrounge up a few extra google hits bring readers up to date on this important new research development!

So here is it is: a Cranky Fitness Q & A, telling you Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Intermittent Fasting, Unless It's Kind Of A Hard Question.


Q: What is Intermittent Fasting?

A: "Intermittent Fasting" means: Not Eating (yikes!)-- But Only Sometimes (whew!)


Q: Sounds Unpleasant. Why in the World Would I Want to Do That?

A: Because research suggests that intermittent fasting may have health benefits. This seems to be true even if you go back and scarf up all the calories you missed out on once you go back to eating. And this technique works particularly well if you're a mouse! (Most of the studies are still animal-based).

Also, there is plenty of research suggesting that people on long-term calorie restricted diets see improvements in health and longevity. But then who wants to face the prospect of nearly starving yourself every day for the rest of your very long, long, long, long life? Intermittent Fasting is, at least theoretically, a way to get some of those Calorie Restriction benefits while still getting to pig out every now and then.

Two good but somewhat conflicting sources of information on this are: Mark's Daily Apple, which gives handy and rather optimistic suggestions on how to do IF, and an article by Alan Aragon, who has brought together a lot of research on the subject and is perhaps not quite so optimistic.

(Note: we love Mark's Daily Apple, but they are much more Hardcore Healthy over there than we are, so we shall be poking gratuitous fun at them. They are always so darn cheerful about eating their junkfood-free diets. Where's the whining? Anyway, Mark fans, be forewarned).


Q: What Are Some of these Great Health Benefits From Fasting?

A: Glad you asked! If the animal stuff proves out in humans, some of the benefits could include: "decreases in blood pressure, reduction in oxidative damage to lipids, protein and DNA, improvement in insulin sensitivity and glucose uptake, as well as decreases in fat mass." (Note: summary stolen word for word from Mark. Why waste good summarizing?)


Q: Sounds Cool! So How Much Not-Eating Will I Have to Do?

A: Here's where it gets complicated. There seems to be two ways of looking at it.

The Easy Way:

This is the approach taken by the folks at Marks Daily Apple. Basically, they say: don't eat whenever you don't feel like eating. You don't have to go a whole day without eating, because, well, I don't know why not.

Along with more difficult options, they suggest the "condensed eating window," the "early and late" plan, and the "skipped meal." (They also suggest elsewhere on the blog that you should generally be trying to fuel yourself by grazing throughout the day, eating frequent meals to keep your metabolism moving. So as far as I can make out, if you're eating frequently or not eating at all, it's all good. Or all bad--it depends on your general tendency towards either smugness or guilt).

But Mark isn't the only one who suggests that skipping even single meals might bring health benefits. He's got Mark Mattson, a neuroscientist, on his side. And we hate to argue with neuroscientists because who knows, one day they might do something sneaky to our brains when we're not paying attention.


Q: So What's Wrong with Doing it The Easy Way?

A: Well, a quick glance at both the human and animals research seems to indicate a mysterious leap from studies looking at "Alternate Day" fasting to recommendations that one try "Intermittent Fasting" and skip a meal here and there. The studies that look impressive tend to be "Alternate Day" regimens that involve fasting or drastically reduced eating (i.e. 300 calories total) for an entire day, not just missing a meal now and then.

In fact, research suggests that "haphazard eating" isn't smart and that eating just one meal a day has some health downsides.

On the other hand, research for this blog post was not exactly exhaustive. (Hello, Google? Got anything on intermittent fasting?) So if anyone knows of a good study showing awesome health benefits from skipping random meals, please pass it on.


Q: Okay, So Should I Try Alternate-Day Fasting Then?

A: Sure! But watch out:

Most people who do it get really hungry.

On the other hand, many of us know people who fast periodically or who eat just one meal a day and they seem to be totally fine with it. (Weak-willed cupcake-consuming slackers like Yours Truly are not among them).

Q: This is Too Confusing! Maybe I Should Just Go Back to the Idea of Fueling My Metabolism by Eating Small Frequent Meals All Day Long?

A: Errr... maybe not!

Weirdly enough, given how many times we hear this "fueling" suggestion, according to the Aragon article there's not really much research to back it up. It looks like folks may be overgeneralizing from the Don't Skip Breakfast research. (Don't Skip Breakfast is indeed well-supported. So we're with your mother on this: don't even think about it).

Q: So then What Do You Suggest?

A: Don't skip breakfast. But then after that, do whatever the hell you want. Keep an eye on the research--or better yet, stay tuned to Cranky Fitness. If the studies get more definitive about when you should eat and when you shouldn't for optimal health, we'll let you know. That is, if we happen to be paying attention that week.


Q: Were You Aware That Reading About People Not Eating Can Make You Really Really Hungry?

A: Yes, this phenomenon has recently come to our attention! However, research indicates that a peanut butter and banana sandwich with a glass of milk will take care of the problem fairly quickly.


So have any of you folks tried fasting?

Or are you thinking about it? Cranky Fitness is too attached to frequent meals to even attempt an experiment, but we'd love to hear your thoughts or experiences.


And On an Unrelated Note:

Tomorrow is a special day for Cranky Fitness. If you're Smart Enough to figure out why, don't give it away just yet--instead, be sure to check in tomorrow for a Very Special Post!

Resistant Starch: Diet Potatoes??

[By Crabby}

C'mon, How Can You Resist Me?

So Prevention Magazine, the folks who told us all about the Flat-Belly Diet , have just alerted us to a new nutritional discovery: Resistant Starch.

This new breakthrough is in some ways similar to the "Mufa's" they were just telling us about. ("Mufa" is Prevention's hopelessly uncool nickname for monounsaturated fats, the secret to acquiring a Flat Belly). The good news is that yet again, you get to eat more of the stuff you like anyway but thought was too fattening.

This time it's certain starches--like corn, potatoes, rice, beans and bananas that are supposed to have slimming properties.

Yep, you heard right: corn, potatoes, rice, beans and bananas are now going to help you lose weight. And not only that: Resistant Starches are also supposed to fight heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. Plus they'll boost your immune system.

Researchers at the LSU AgCenter can explain how resistant starches work better than I can. To summarize, unlike refined grains and sugars, resistant starches aren't broken down into sugar in the small intestine. They "resist" this digestion and pass on into the large intestine, where they act more like dietary fiber. Not only that, resistant starches are fermented in the large intestine, a process which in itself consumes energy.

So what's not to like about eating more spuds and other starches without guilt?

Well, this wouldn't be Cranky Fitness if we didn't have a few concerns, gripes, and random questions. Like:

1. If, as the Prevention article claims, "more than 160 studies have examined this little known nutrient's remarkable health and weight loss benefits," why the heck are we just hearing about this now?

You'd think a phenomenon this robust would have been more obvious. After all, we're a spud-lovin', starch-addicted culture. Why didn't anyone notice the awesome benefits to these good starches until recently?

Hmm... Is it just a coincidence that we're just starting to see commercial products featuring these resistant starches? (Look for "Hi-maize," a resistant starch powder made from corn).

2. The slimming effect is way more powerful if you eat the starches cold.

Oh goody.

I mean sure, cold's fine for potoato salad and bananas. But corn on the cob? Burritos? Paella? Still sounds more appealing than brussel sprouts, but not quite as enticing as piping hot garlic mashed potatoes.

3. And, um, not to be skeptical, don't we all know people who eat a lot of these starches and are anything but slim?

4. Potatoes? Really?

We already knew whole grains and legumes were really good for you and well worth the calories. It's the potatoes and corn that are surprising. They always seemed like kind of a lousy nutritional bargain, didn't they? Technically produce, but without all the antioxidants and bonus points you get for eating a "real" vegetable like cauliflower. Plus they've got a fair amount of calories you could be saving up for an actual treat, like chocolate ice cream.

But if it turns out we're not really getting all the potato/corn calories, then it's a whole new ballgame isn't it? What if you get to eat your ice cream for a treat but have your potatoes too?

I have to admit to some skepticism, but I do notice this information is already affecting me. I let my last burrito cool to room temperature, secretly hoping this simple step was both fighting disease and making more room for future cupcake consumption. However, I'll probably forget about the whole thing in a couple of weeks unless we really do start seeing a slew of studies confirming this whole resistant starch notion.

What about you folks--any thoughts on resistant starches, or are you finding yourselves resistant to the whole idea?