This documentary is heartwrenching. If you have never thought of where the meat comes from that you are consuming, you must take 12 minutes out of your day and watch this. It will deeply sadden you and make you think twice before ordering that hamburger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
KFC Cruelty!
This is a must read for all Americans. The process in which KFC is handling the animals in which some of you consume daily, is appalling. Before you take another bite of food from KFC, you must read this information below. It will sadden you and sicken you. My hope is that you will do as many Americans have and close your wallets when passing a KFC.
KFC suppliers cram birds into huge waste-filled factories, breed and drug them to grow so large that they can’t even walk, and often break their wings and legs. At slaughter, the birds’ throats are slit and they are dropped into tanks of scalding-hot water—often while they are still conscious. It would be illegal for KFC to abuse dogs, cats, pigs, or cows in these ways.
KFC’s own animal welfare advisors have asked the company to take steps to eliminate these abuses, but KFC refuses to do so. Many advisors have now resigned in frustration.
Please join Pamela Anderson, Sir Paul McCartney, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, The Rev. Al Sharpton, and countless other kind people worldwide by not eating at KFC
Every time undercover investigators enter the facilities of KFC’s suppliers, they find hideous abuse and suffering. At one KFC “Supplier of the Year” slaughterhouse in West Virginia, workers were caught tearing birds’ heads off, ripping them apart, spitting tobacco into their eyes, spray-painting their faces, and throwing them against walls—all while the birds were still conscious and able to feel pain. This is in stark contrast to KFC’s claim that it “only deal[s] with suppliers who promise to maintain our high standards and commitment to animal welfare.”
Some of the largest and most respected newspapers in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia have written scathing editorials decrying the conditions at these facilities, and customers have spoken with their wallets, turning away from KFC in droves as they learn about the hideous ways that the more than 850 million chickens who end up in KFC’s buckets each year are abused.
The investigations detailed below prove that KFC desperately needs to adopt the recommendations of its animal welfare advisors (five of whom have quit in recent years after KFC refused to listen to their advice) to eliminate at least the very worst abuses that chickens suffer for KFC.
In the United States
Tyson's Dirty Deeds Exposed During New Undercover Investigation A PETA investigation into two Tyson Foods plants exposes disgusting conditions that the KFC supplier does not want you to see. Watch the undercover video, then write to Tyson and KFC urging both companies to end their cruel practices!
A PETA undercover investigation at a Missouri slaughterhouse owned by KFC “Supplier of the Year” George’s, Inc. documented that live birds were being thrown by workers, scalded alive, and injured by broken transport cages.
Workers at a former KFC “Supplier of the Year” slaughterhouse in West Virginia were caught tearing birds apart, spitting tobacco into their eyes, spray-painting their faces, stomping on them, and throwing them against walls—all while the birds were still conscious.
Workers at a KFC-supplier slaughterhouse in Maryland were documented punching frenzied, terrified birds and spiking them like footballs, among other sadistic acts of cruelty.
Maryland-based animal rights group Compassion Over Killing documented the entire 45-day cycle of a KFC chicken shed. Check out a week-by-week snapshot into these horrible conditions and the drug-induced, crippling injuries caused by one of KFC’s top suppliers.
A whistleblower at a Tyson slaughterhouse testified that birds intentionally were scalded to death, were blown apart by makeshift firecrackers, and had their legs broken by workers to fit them into slaughter-line shackles. Tyson is KFC’s number one supplier.
A PETA undercover investigation found workers who were ripping live animals’ heads off and shoddy, outdated slaughter machines cutting open birds’ legs, wings, and chest cavities at this Tyson plant in Alabama.
KFC suppliers cram birds into huge waste-filled factories, breed and drug them to grow so large that they can’t even walk, and often break their wings and legs. At slaughter, the birds’ throats are slit and they are dropped into tanks of scalding-hot water—often while they are still conscious. It would be illegal for KFC to abuse dogs, cats, pigs, or cows in these ways.
KFC’s own animal welfare advisors have asked the company to take steps to eliminate these abuses, but KFC refuses to do so. Many advisors have now resigned in frustration.
Please join Pamela Anderson, Sir Paul McCartney, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, The Rev. Al Sharpton, and countless other kind people worldwide by not eating at KFC
Every time undercover investigators enter the facilities of KFC’s suppliers, they find hideous abuse and suffering. At one KFC “Supplier of the Year” slaughterhouse in West Virginia, workers were caught tearing birds’ heads off, ripping them apart, spitting tobacco into their eyes, spray-painting their faces, and throwing them against walls—all while the birds were still conscious and able to feel pain. This is in stark contrast to KFC’s claim that it “only deal[s] with suppliers who promise to maintain our high standards and commitment to animal welfare.”
Some of the largest and most respected newspapers in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia have written scathing editorials decrying the conditions at these facilities, and customers have spoken with their wallets, turning away from KFC in droves as they learn about the hideous ways that the more than 850 million chickens who end up in KFC’s buckets each year are abused.
The investigations detailed below prove that KFC desperately needs to adopt the recommendations of its animal welfare advisors (five of whom have quit in recent years after KFC refused to listen to their advice) to eliminate at least the very worst abuses that chickens suffer for KFC.
In the United States
Tyson's Dirty Deeds Exposed During New Undercover Investigation A PETA investigation into two Tyson Foods plants exposes disgusting conditions that the KFC supplier does not want you to see. Watch the undercover video, then write to Tyson and KFC urging both companies to end their cruel practices!
A PETA undercover investigation at a Missouri slaughterhouse owned by KFC “Supplier of the Year” George’s, Inc. documented that live birds were being thrown by workers, scalded alive, and injured by broken transport cages.
Workers at a former KFC “Supplier of the Year” slaughterhouse in West Virginia were caught tearing birds apart, spitting tobacco into their eyes, spray-painting their faces, stomping on them, and throwing them against walls—all while the birds were still conscious.
Workers at a KFC-supplier slaughterhouse in Maryland were documented punching frenzied, terrified birds and spiking them like footballs, among other sadistic acts of cruelty.
Maryland-based animal rights group Compassion Over Killing documented the entire 45-day cycle of a KFC chicken shed. Check out a week-by-week snapshot into these horrible conditions and the drug-induced, crippling injuries caused by one of KFC’s top suppliers.
A whistleblower at a Tyson slaughterhouse testified that birds intentionally were scalded to death, were blown apart by makeshift firecrackers, and had their legs broken by workers to fit them into slaughter-line shackles. Tyson is KFC’s number one supplier.
A PETA undercover investigation found workers who were ripping live animals’ heads off and shoddy, outdated slaughter machines cutting open birds’ legs, wings, and chest cavities at this Tyson plant in Alabama.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Sports Drinks Are Worse Than Soda on Your Teeth
Another tip from Dr. Blaylock.
Sports Drinks Can Damage Teeth More Than Colas
Sipping on a sports drink can give you a burst of energy, but the drinks also can damage your teeth even more than colas.
That’s because the popular drinks can cause tooth erosion and hypersensitivity, according to a recent study at New York University College of Dentistry. They also may lead to a condition called erosive tooth wear in which the acids in the drinks eat away tooth enamel and seep deep into the tooth, causing it to weaken and soften. The result can be severe tooth damage and even tooth loss.
“This is the first time that the citric acid in sports drinks has been linked to erosive tooth wear,” said Dr. Mark Wolff, who led the study.
Wolff and his research team cut cow teeth, which closely resemble human teeth, in half. They submerged half in a sports drink and the other half in water. When they compared the two halves, the tooth soaked in the sports drink showed a significant amount of erosion and softening.
“Five teeth were immersed in each drink for 75 to 90 minutes to simulate the effects of sipping on sports drinks over the course of the day,” Wolff said. Gatorade, Poweraid, Vitamin Water, SoBe Life Water were tested, and all caused damage.
Sports drinks are high in sugars and acids, mainly citric and ascorbic acid added to boost flavor and extend shelf life. They help replace liquids and minerals lost during exercise, but studies have shown they are more caustic than cola.
Brushing teeth after drinking a sports drink can make matters worse, because toothpaste can be very abrasive to softened tooth enamel.
“To prevent tooth erosion, consume sports drinks in moderation, and wait at least 30 minutes before brushing your teeth, to allow softened enamel to re-harden,” Wolff said. “If you frequently consume sports drinks, ask your dentist if you should use an acid-neutralizing remineralizing toothpaste to help re-harden soft enamel.”
Sports Drinks Can Damage Teeth More Than Colas
Sipping on a sports drink can give you a burst of energy, but the drinks also can damage your teeth even more than colas.
That’s because the popular drinks can cause tooth erosion and hypersensitivity, according to a recent study at New York University College of Dentistry. They also may lead to a condition called erosive tooth wear in which the acids in the drinks eat away tooth enamel and seep deep into the tooth, causing it to weaken and soften. The result can be severe tooth damage and even tooth loss.
“This is the first time that the citric acid in sports drinks has been linked to erosive tooth wear,” said Dr. Mark Wolff, who led the study.
Wolff and his research team cut cow teeth, which closely resemble human teeth, in half. They submerged half in a sports drink and the other half in water. When they compared the two halves, the tooth soaked in the sports drink showed a significant amount of erosion and softening.
“Five teeth were immersed in each drink for 75 to 90 minutes to simulate the effects of sipping on sports drinks over the course of the day,” Wolff said. Gatorade, Poweraid, Vitamin Water, SoBe Life Water were tested, and all caused damage.
Sports drinks are high in sugars and acids, mainly citric and ascorbic acid added to boost flavor and extend shelf life. They help replace liquids and minerals lost during exercise, but studies have shown they are more caustic than cola.
Brushing teeth after drinking a sports drink can make matters worse, because toothpaste can be very abrasive to softened tooth enamel.
“To prevent tooth erosion, consume sports drinks in moderation, and wait at least 30 minutes before brushing your teeth, to allow softened enamel to re-harden,” Wolff said. “If you frequently consume sports drinks, ask your dentist if you should use an acid-neutralizing remineralizing toothpaste to help re-harden soft enamel.”
Don't Poison Yourself at Dinner
This is from the Blaylock Report. It is his tip of the week.
Your entire family’s safety is at risk every time you shop for food. From salmonella in chickens, to deadly contaminants in food grown in China, to pesticides and other chemicals used on fruits and vegetables grown south of the border, foods sold in grocery stores across America are harboring dangerous chemicals and bacteria.
However, few people are aware of the dangers and expect government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration to protect them. (For information on the dangers found in many imported foods as well as those produced in the U.S.You can take steps to reduce your risk of food poisoning:
Consider growing your own vegetables and fruits. They can be grown in your yard or in hydroponic gardens indoors. Using hydroponics would allow you to grow produce in the winter. Likewise, natural insect control is vital, using insects such as ladybugs. You also can use other biological control systems.
Buy locally grown foods. Talk to farmers and ask about pesticide and herbicide use. Organic farms are popping up all over the place, and have been growing at a rate of 15 percent a year with no end in sight.
Buy organically fed and free-range meats. But don’t expect even organic meats to free you automatically from the fear of mad-cow disease. Unfortunately, the government prevents cattle ranches from testing their cattle for the disease.
Wash all vegetables and fruits. To wash your vegetables properly, fill a 2-gallon pot with purified water (filtered) and add two caps of vegetable wash such as Fit Fruit & Vegetable Wash. For information on how to wash and store vegetables and fruits safely, go here
When buying organic produce, make sure that it looks healthy. Plants with spots and bruises are not safe to eat. Sick plants infected with molds, viruses, and bacteria secrete powerful toxic substances to protect themselves, and they are very toxic to people.
Avoid injected meats and poultry. You may have noticed that most whole birds and many hams have a carefully worded label that says they were injected with either gluten, natural flavors, or hydrolyzed protein extracts. In essence, this is a glutamate mixture much like MSG. And like MSG, it is toxic to your body, especially the brain.
Wash your poultry well. It also is important to wash whole birds before you cook them. Many are covered in chemicals and bacteria contamination. Just hold the bird under the water and scrub the skin with a vegetable brush. All foods should be washed thoroughly before cooking.
Cook all meats completely, even steaks. Most animals, especially cattle and chickens, are infected with carcinogenic viruses and there is compelling evidence that humans can develop cancer from these viruses. Several studies have shown that slaughterhouse workers and those who butcher meat have significantly higher rates of lymphomas and leukemias than the general population. These are the same cancers found in cattle and chickens.
Your entire family’s safety is at risk every time you shop for food. From salmonella in chickens, to deadly contaminants in food grown in China, to pesticides and other chemicals used on fruits and vegetables grown south of the border, foods sold in grocery stores across America are harboring dangerous chemicals and bacteria.
However, few people are aware of the dangers and expect government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration to protect them. (For information on the dangers found in many imported foods as well as those produced in the U.S.You can take steps to reduce your risk of food poisoning:
Consider growing your own vegetables and fruits. They can be grown in your yard or in hydroponic gardens indoors. Using hydroponics would allow you to grow produce in the winter. Likewise, natural insect control is vital, using insects such as ladybugs. You also can use other biological control systems.
Buy locally grown foods. Talk to farmers and ask about pesticide and herbicide use. Organic farms are popping up all over the place, and have been growing at a rate of 15 percent a year with no end in sight.
Buy organically fed and free-range meats. But don’t expect even organic meats to free you automatically from the fear of mad-cow disease. Unfortunately, the government prevents cattle ranches from testing their cattle for the disease.
Wash all vegetables and fruits. To wash your vegetables properly, fill a 2-gallon pot with purified water (filtered) and add two caps of vegetable wash such as Fit Fruit & Vegetable Wash. For information on how to wash and store vegetables and fruits safely, go here
When buying organic produce, make sure that it looks healthy. Plants with spots and bruises are not safe to eat. Sick plants infected with molds, viruses, and bacteria secrete powerful toxic substances to protect themselves, and they are very toxic to people.
Avoid injected meats and poultry. You may have noticed that most whole birds and many hams have a carefully worded label that says they were injected with either gluten, natural flavors, or hydrolyzed protein extracts. In essence, this is a glutamate mixture much like MSG. And like MSG, it is toxic to your body, especially the brain.
Wash your poultry well. It also is important to wash whole birds before you cook them. Many are covered in chemicals and bacteria contamination. Just hold the bird under the water and scrub the skin with a vegetable brush. All foods should be washed thoroughly before cooking.
Cook all meats completely, even steaks. Most animals, especially cattle and chickens, are infected with carcinogenic viruses and there is compelling evidence that humans can develop cancer from these viruses. Several studies have shown that slaughterhouse workers and those who butcher meat have significantly higher rates of lymphomas and leukemias than the general population. These are the same cancers found in cattle and chickens.
Drinks Have Bigger Impact on Weight than Food
Drinks Have Bigger Impact on Weight than Food
When it comes to weight loss, what you drink may be more important than what you eat, according to researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Researchers examined the relationship between beverage consumption among adults and weight change and found that weight loss was positively associated with a reduction in liquid calorie consumption and liquid calorie intake had a stronger impact on weight than solid calorie intake. The results are published in the April 1 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
“Both liquid and solid calories were associated with weight change, however, only a reduction in liquid calorie intake was shown to significantly affect weight loss during the 6-month follow up,” said Benjamin Caballero MD, PhD, senior author of the study and a professor with the Bloomberg School’s Department of International Health “A reduction in liquid calorie intake was associated with a weight loss of 0.25 kg at 6 months and 0.24 kg at 18 months. Among sugar-sweetened beverages, a reduction of 1 serving was associated with a weight loss of 05 kg at 6 months and 0.7 kg at 18 months. Of the seven types of beverages examined, sugar-sweetened beverages were the only beverages significantly associated with weight change.”
Researchers conducted a prospective study of 810 adults aged 25-79 years old participating in the PREMIER trial, an 18-month randomized, controlled, behavioral intervention. Caballero along with colleagues from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood institute; Duke University; the Pennington Biomedical Research Center; the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research; the University of Alabama; and Pennsylvania State University measured participant’s weight and height using a calibrated scale and a wall-mounted stadiometer at both 6 and 18 months. Dietary intake was measured by conducting unannounced 24-hour dietary recall interviews by telephone.
Researchers divided beverages into several categories based on calorie content and nutritional composition: sugar-sweetened beverages (regular soft drinks, fruit drinks, fruit punch, or high-calorie beverages sweetened with sugar), diet drinks (diet soda and other “diet” drinks sweetened with artificial sweeteners), milk (whole milk, 2 percent reduced-fat milk, 1 percent low-fat milk, and skim milk), 100 percent juice (100 percent fruit and vegetable juice), coffee and tea with sugar, coffee and tea without sugar and alcoholic beverages. They found that at 37 percent sugar-sweetened beverages were the leading source of liquid calories.
Consumption of liquid calories from beverages has increased in parallel with the obesity epidemic. Earlier studies by Bloomberg School researchers project that 75 percent of U.S. adults could be overweight or obese by 2015 and have linked the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages to the obesity epidemic, which affects two-thirds of adults and increases the risk for adverse health conditions such as type 2 diabetes. Researchers recommend limited liquid calorie intake among adults and to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage consumption as a means to accomplish weight loss or avoid excess weight gain.
“Among beverages, sugar-sweetened beverages was the only beverage type significantly associated with weight change at both the 6- and 18-month follow up periods,” said Liwei Chen, lead author of the study and a Bloomberg School graduate. “Changes in the consumption of diet drinks and alcoholic beverages were inversely associated with weight loss, but were not statistically significant. Our study supports policy recommendations and public health efforts to reduce intakes of liquid calories, particularly from sugar-sweetened beverages, in the general population.”
When it comes to weight loss, what you drink may be more important than what you eat, according to researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Researchers examined the relationship between beverage consumption among adults and weight change and found that weight loss was positively associated with a reduction in liquid calorie consumption and liquid calorie intake had a stronger impact on weight than solid calorie intake. The results are published in the April 1 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
“Both liquid and solid calories were associated with weight change, however, only a reduction in liquid calorie intake was shown to significantly affect weight loss during the 6-month follow up,” said Benjamin Caballero MD, PhD, senior author of the study and a professor with the Bloomberg School’s Department of International Health “A reduction in liquid calorie intake was associated with a weight loss of 0.25 kg at 6 months and 0.24 kg at 18 months. Among sugar-sweetened beverages, a reduction of 1 serving was associated with a weight loss of 05 kg at 6 months and 0.7 kg at 18 months. Of the seven types of beverages examined, sugar-sweetened beverages were the only beverages significantly associated with weight change.”
Researchers conducted a prospective study of 810 adults aged 25-79 years old participating in the PREMIER trial, an 18-month randomized, controlled, behavioral intervention. Caballero along with colleagues from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood institute; Duke University; the Pennington Biomedical Research Center; the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research; the University of Alabama; and Pennsylvania State University measured participant’s weight and height using a calibrated scale and a wall-mounted stadiometer at both 6 and 18 months. Dietary intake was measured by conducting unannounced 24-hour dietary recall interviews by telephone.
Researchers divided beverages into several categories based on calorie content and nutritional composition: sugar-sweetened beverages (regular soft drinks, fruit drinks, fruit punch, or high-calorie beverages sweetened with sugar), diet drinks (diet soda and other “diet” drinks sweetened with artificial sweeteners), milk (whole milk, 2 percent reduced-fat milk, 1 percent low-fat milk, and skim milk), 100 percent juice (100 percent fruit and vegetable juice), coffee and tea with sugar, coffee and tea without sugar and alcoholic beverages. They found that at 37 percent sugar-sweetened beverages were the leading source of liquid calories.
Consumption of liquid calories from beverages has increased in parallel with the obesity epidemic. Earlier studies by Bloomberg School researchers project that 75 percent of U.S. adults could be overweight or obese by 2015 and have linked the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages to the obesity epidemic, which affects two-thirds of adults and increases the risk for adverse health conditions such as type 2 diabetes. Researchers recommend limited liquid calorie intake among adults and to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage consumption as a means to accomplish weight loss or avoid excess weight gain.
“Among beverages, sugar-sweetened beverages was the only beverage type significantly associated with weight change at both the 6- and 18-month follow up periods,” said Liwei Chen, lead author of the study and a Bloomberg School graduate. “Changes in the consumption of diet drinks and alcoholic beverages were inversely associated with weight loss, but were not statistically significant. Our study supports policy recommendations and public health efforts to reduce intakes of liquid calories, particularly from sugar-sweetened beverages, in the general population.”
Folic Acid Fortification May Increase Colon Cancer Risk
More information taken from Newsmax.com
Folic Acid Fortification May Increase Colon Cancer Risk
The rate of colorectal cancer in Chile may have increased since that country began fortifying wheat flour with folic acid, reports a study in the European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
"Our data provide new evidence that a folate fortification program could be associated with an additional risk of colon cancer," according to the new report by Dr. Sandra Hirsch and colleagues of University of Chile, Santiago.
The researchers analyzed changes in colon cancer rates since the Chilean government introduced a mandatory program of folic acid fortification of wheat flour in 2000. Several countries have implemented similar policies in recent years, with the goal of preventing spina bifida and other neural tube defects. In Chile, the rate of neural tube defects decreased by 40 percent in the first year after the start of folic acid fortification.
The researchers compared hospital discharge data on colon cancer rates in Chile in four-year periods before and after folic acid fortification: 1992-96 versus 2001-04. Although no causative relationship can be proven, the data suggested a significant "temporal relationship" between folic acid supplementation and colorectal cancer. Reported cases of colon cancer increased by 162 percent in people aged 45 to 64 and by 190 percent in people aged 65 to 79.
After adjustment for other factors, discharge diagnoses of colon cancer in these age groups were two to three times more frequent after the start of folic acid fortification. Most other diseases showed no consistent pattern of changes. There was a small increase in breast cancer, which may have been related to early detection and universal treatment programs for breast cancer.
Chile is the third country to report an apparent increase in colorectal cancer after introducing a national folic acid fortification program. A 2007 paper suggested increases in colorectal cancer after folic acid fortification was introduced in the United States and Canada in the mid-1990s. Chile uses a higher "dose" of folic acid than the two North American countries. Folic acid fortification has not yet been introduced in Europe.
There are other possible explanations for the rise in colon cancer in Chile, including increases in obesity and other risk factors.
Another important limitation of the study was the use of hospital discharge data to identify cases of colon cancer. "Discharge rates are influenced by health care politics, increasing access to healthcare for new strata of the population with increased cancer risk, and so forth," comments Dr. Reinhold Stockbrugger, one of the editors of The European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology. "This study provides only a weak, indirect indication of a causal relationship between folate enrichment and colorectal cancer, though similar to that reported in the U.S. and Canada."
The journal is published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a part of Wolters Kluwer Health, a leading provider of information and business intelligence for students, professionals, and institutions in medicine, nursing, allied health, pharmacy and the pharmaceutical industry.
Folic Acid Fortification May Increase Colon Cancer Risk
The rate of colorectal cancer in Chile may have increased since that country began fortifying wheat flour with folic acid, reports a study in the European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
"Our data provide new evidence that a folate fortification program could be associated with an additional risk of colon cancer," according to the new report by Dr. Sandra Hirsch and colleagues of University of Chile, Santiago.
The researchers analyzed changes in colon cancer rates since the Chilean government introduced a mandatory program of folic acid fortification of wheat flour in 2000. Several countries have implemented similar policies in recent years, with the goal of preventing spina bifida and other neural tube defects. In Chile, the rate of neural tube defects decreased by 40 percent in the first year after the start of folic acid fortification.
The researchers compared hospital discharge data on colon cancer rates in Chile in four-year periods before and after folic acid fortification: 1992-96 versus 2001-04. Although no causative relationship can be proven, the data suggested a significant "temporal relationship" between folic acid supplementation and colorectal cancer. Reported cases of colon cancer increased by 162 percent in people aged 45 to 64 and by 190 percent in people aged 65 to 79.
After adjustment for other factors, discharge diagnoses of colon cancer in these age groups were two to three times more frequent after the start of folic acid fortification. Most other diseases showed no consistent pattern of changes. There was a small increase in breast cancer, which may have been related to early detection and universal treatment programs for breast cancer.
Chile is the third country to report an apparent increase in colorectal cancer after introducing a national folic acid fortification program. A 2007 paper suggested increases in colorectal cancer after folic acid fortification was introduced in the United States and Canada in the mid-1990s. Chile uses a higher "dose" of folic acid than the two North American countries. Folic acid fortification has not yet been introduced in Europe.
There are other possible explanations for the rise in colon cancer in Chile, including increases in obesity and other risk factors.
Another important limitation of the study was the use of hospital discharge data to identify cases of colon cancer. "Discharge rates are influenced by health care politics, increasing access to healthcare for new strata of the population with increased cancer risk, and so forth," comments Dr. Reinhold Stockbrugger, one of the editors of The European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology. "This study provides only a weak, indirect indication of a causal relationship between folate enrichment and colorectal cancer, though similar to that reported in the U.S. and Canada."
The journal is published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a part of Wolters Kluwer Health, a leading provider of information and business intelligence for students, professionals, and institutions in medicine, nursing, allied health, pharmacy and the pharmaceutical industry.
Big Bottoms Are Good for Health
1. Big Bottoms Are Good for Health
One question a man hates to be asked is, “Does my butt look too big in this?” But researchers suggest the healthy answer could be “yes.” They believe that the type of fat women hate, the kind that collects around the hips, may offer health benefits including helping protect women against Type 2 diabetes.
The type of fat that accumulates under the skin — called subcutaneous fat — may improve sensitivity to insulin, which regulates levels of blood sugar and may protect people against developing diabetes. So, a generous bottom may mean a lower risk of developing diabetes. In addition, the fat around bottoms may also produce hormones called adipokines, which may counteract the negative effects caused by abdominal fat (also known as visceral fat).
Scientists at Harvard Medical School found even more good news for pear-shaped people: They are less likely to develop heart disease.
Study leader Dr. Ronald Kahn gave mice transplants of subcutaneous fat deep into their abdomens. The mice began to lose weight after several weeks and their fat cells shrank. The insulin levels and blood sugar also improved.
“The surprising thing was that it wasn’t where the fat was located, it was the kind of fat that was the most important variable,” said Dr. Kahn. “Even more surprising, it wasn’t that abdominal fat was exerting negative effects, but that subcutaneous fat was producing a good effect.”
One question a man hates to be asked is, “Does my butt look too big in this?” But researchers suggest the healthy answer could be “yes.” They believe that the type of fat women hate, the kind that collects around the hips, may offer health benefits including helping protect women against Type 2 diabetes.
The type of fat that accumulates under the skin — called subcutaneous fat — may improve sensitivity to insulin, which regulates levels of blood sugar and may protect people against developing diabetes. So, a generous bottom may mean a lower risk of developing diabetes. In addition, the fat around bottoms may also produce hormones called adipokines, which may counteract the negative effects caused by abdominal fat (also known as visceral fat).
Scientists at Harvard Medical School found even more good news for pear-shaped people: They are less likely to develop heart disease.
Study leader Dr. Ronald Kahn gave mice transplants of subcutaneous fat deep into their abdomens. The mice began to lose weight after several weeks and their fat cells shrank. The insulin levels and blood sugar also improved.
“The surprising thing was that it wasn’t where the fat was located, it was the kind of fat that was the most important variable,” said Dr. Kahn. “Even more surprising, it wasn’t that abdominal fat was exerting negative effects, but that subcutaneous fat was producing a good effect.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)