More evidence chocolate lowers stroke risk

Chocolate lovers may have another reason to indulge. A new study shows that consuming chocolate on a regular basis may decrease stroke risk by 20%.

New data on women studied in the Swedish Mammography Cohort found an inverse association between chocolate consumption and total stroke, as well as a trend to reduction in both hemorrhagic stroke and cerebral infarction subtypes.

"Even consuming a relatively small amount of chocolate had quite a large impact on stroke risk," lead investigator Susanna Larsson, PhD, from the National Institute of Environmental Medicine in Stockholm, Sweden, said in a news release. "But women reporting the highest amount of chocolate consumption [66.5 g] — equivalent to about 2 chocolate bars a week — had a significantly reduced risk of stroke, suggesting that higher intakes are necessary for a potentially protective effect."

The results appear in the October 18 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Asked by Medscape Medical News to comment on the findings, Philip Gorelick, MD, from the University of Illinois College of Medicine in Chicago, called the work "provocative."

"Interestingly, women with hypertension had a reduction of stroke risk with chocolate consumption that was not statistically significant, whereas those without hypertension had a statistically significant risk reduction for stroke," he noted. "Higher chocolate consumption seemed to be most beneficial in relation to stroke reduction."

The study included 33,372 women enrolled in the population-based Swedish Mammography Cohort. Using a validated food-frequency questionnaire, the researchers asked participants to disclose how often on average they consumed chocolate and a variety of other foods during the previous year.

Investigators then stratified the women into categories ranging from never eating chocolate to those who indulged 3 or more times a week and examined the risk for stroke during a mean follow-up of 10 years, adjusting for major risk factors associated with stroke.

The researchers identified 1549 strokes. Of these, 1200 were cerebral infarctions, 224 were hemorrhagic strokes, and 125 were unspecified. Chocolate consumption was inversely associated with risk for total stroke, cerebral infarction, and hemorrhagic stroke.

"The difference between stroke subtypes was not significant, and deserves further study," Dr. Larsson said. "It does appear from the data that the association between chocolate consumption and stroke is expected to be stronger with higher concentration of cocoa in the chocolate."

Chocolate is thought to have cardiovascular benefits resulting from the flavonoids in cocoa that have antioxidant properties. Antioxidants protect the body from damage caused by free radicals and can suppress oxidation of low-density lipoprotein. Dark chocolate consumption has also been shown to reduce blood pressure, which is a strong risk factor for stroke, as well as improve endothelial and platelet function and heighten insulin resistance.

Indulgence in chocolate in moderation remains a reasonable approach.

Still, Dr. Larsson cautions that chocolate, and especially chocolate bars, are high in sugar, fat, and calories and should therefore be consumed in moderation. "Choose dark chocolate," she said, "which is usually lower in sugar and has higher flavonoid content."

On the surface, the results may be good news for women who are chocolate lovers, as they may be protected from stroke, Dr. Gorelick noted.

"One must keep in mind, however, that food-frequency studies focus on individual food components and provide useful information, but may not account for the totality of dietary experience." Overall, scores reflecting many dietary components may be a better indicator of risk for cardiovascular disease and other chronic disease, he suggests.

"For the time being, it is prudent to eat a heart-healthy diet, such as that recommended by the American Heart Association, and not get caught up in overeating chocolates in hopes of warding off strokes," he added. "Diets rich in fruits and vegetables and low in fats such as saturated fats are likely to be the best bet. Indulgence in chocolate in moderation remains a reasonable approach."

This study was supported by the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research, the Swedish Research Committee for Infrastructure, and a research fellow grant from the Karolinska Institutet. The investigators and outside commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.


Related posts:
Chocolate lovers less likely to get heart disease or stroke
Magnesium may lower stroke risk
Processed red meats linked to stroke
Coconut water helps lower blood pressure
Purple potatoes lower blood pressure
Black tea reduces blood pressure
Flavanones in citrus fruits may lower stroke risk
Trans fat increases stroke risk in postmenopausal women

Source: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/752446?sssdmh=dm1.729594&src=nldne


Check out these chocolate products:

An egg a day raises risk of diabetes

Photo Credit: zole4

People who eat eggs every day may substantially increase their risk of type 2 diabetes, researchers here said.

Men with the highest level of egg consumption -- at seven or more per week -- were 58% more likely to develop type 2 diabetes than those who did not eat eggs, and women were 77% more likely to become diabetic if they ate at least an egg a day, Luc Djoussé, M.D., D.Sc., of Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard, and colleagues reported online in Diabetes Care.

Levels of egg intake above one a week also incrementally increased diabetes risk in both men and women (both P<0.0001 for trend), the researchers said.

Eggs are a major source of dietary cholesterol (about 200 mg per egg) and add about 1.5 g of saturated fat each to the diet, both of which would be expected to increase diabetes risk, they said.

But each egg also contributes about 0.7 g of polyunsaturated fat, which may confer a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, the researchers noted.

The limited, primarily animal model, evidence for an effect of eggs or dietary cholesterol on glucose metabolism has been inconsistent, they added.

To sort out the effects, the researchers analyzed two large prospective trials that included food frequency questionnaires.

Their analysis included 20,703 male physicians without baseline diabetes from the Physicians' Health Study I (1982-2007) and 36,295 similarly diabetes-free female health professionals from the Women's Health Study (1992-2007).

Both studies were originally designed as randomized trials of vitamin supplementation and aspirin for prevention of heart disease.

Over a mean follow-up of 20.0 years in men and 11.7 years in women, 1,921 men and 2,112 women developed type 2 diabetes.

Diabetes was more common in men and women who reported eating more than the average one egg a week.

After adjustment for traditional diabetes risk factors and compared with no egg consumption at the 95% confidence interval, the hazard ratios for type 2 diabetes in men were:

9% for less than one egg a week (hazard ratio 1.09, 0.87 to 1.37)
9% for one egg a week (HR 1.09, 0.88 to 1.34)
18% for two to four eggs a week (HR 1.18, 0.95 to 1.45)
46% for five to six eggs per week (HR 1.46, 1.14 to 1.86)
58% for seven or more eggs each week (HR 1.58, 1.25 to 2.01)

Updating egg consumption with longer follow-up among men strengthened the associations to an almost twofold risk for those in the near daily or higher intake groups (HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.26, and HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.23, respectively).

For women, the multivariate-adjusted risks, also at the 95% confidence interval, compared with no egg intake were:

6% for less than one egg per week (HR 1.06, 0.92 to 1.22)
-3% for one egg a week (HR 0.97, 0.83 to 1.12)
19% for two to four eggs per week (HR 1.19, 1.03 to 1.38)
18% for five to six eggs a week (HR 1.18, 0.88 to 1.58)
77% for seven or more per week (HR 1.77, 1.28 to 2.43)

Data on dietary cholesterol available in the female health professional study showed higher diabetes risk with rising dietary cholesterol with hazard ratios increasing to 1.28 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.50) in the highest quintile (P<0.0001 for trend).

Adjustment for dietary cholesterol attenuated the association between diabetes and egg consumption, whereas saturated fat was not associated with type 2 diabetes and did not alter the diabetes-egg link.

The effects did not appear to be limited to those with high carbohydrate diets, hypercholesterolemia, or high body mass index.

However, the researchers acknowledged that the data did not include repeat fasting glucose, fasting insulin, and other biomarkers of glucose metabolism to "comprehensively examine possible physiologic mechanisms."

The observational studies may also have been limited by self-reporting and residual confounding, they noted.

The generalizablity may have been limited as well by the homogeneous, primarily Caucasian health professional population, which may have different behaviors than the general population, Dr. Djoussé's group said.

"Given the societal burden of type 2 diabetes," they concluded, "confirmation of these findings in other populations and exploration of possible underlying biological mechanisms are warranted."

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.

Related posts:

Heart attacks hit smokers younger

Vitamin D-fortified yoghurt improves cholesterol levels in diabetics

Vitamin E tocotrienols protect the heart and prevent metabolic syndrome

Watermelons lower abdominal fat accumulation and reduce heart-clogging arterial plaque

Source: http://www.medpagetoday.com/cardiology/diabetes/11883?xid=ob_cc_Diabetes

Vitamin E tocotrienols protect the heart and prevent metabolic syndrome

Photo credit: Kittikun Atsawintarangkul

Few people pay attention to the importance of vitamin E, much less to the multi-fractioned mirror image versions of the vitamin known as isomers (consisting of tocotrienols and tocopherols).

Vitamin E has long been known as a nutrient that may play a role in maintaining heart health, but extensive new research explains that the vitamin in all its potent forms is required to dramatically lower the risk of heart disease and heart attack.

Recent studies also confirm that the nutrient family may play a crucial role in thwarting the effects of metabolic syndrome, precursor to the diabetes epidemic. Health-minded individuals may need to supplement with a full spectrum form of the vitamin to obtain the sufficient quantities needed to avert the multitude of chronic killer diseases that plaque millions today.

An ever expanding detailed body of evidence is mounting to support the importance of the tocotrienol fraction of vitamin E. While all eight isomers are required for optimal health and disease prevention, the four tocotrienols have emerged as critical components shown to influence LDL cholesterol particle size and oxidation rate. Researchers publishing the result of a study in the journal Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry explain that tocotrienols protect the heart against adverse gene signaling that is a consequence of elevated cholesterol.


Study Found Vitamin E Tocotrienols Lowered Damage to Heart Muscle by 75%A study was designed using rabbits placed on a high cholesterol diet for a period of 60 days. The test animals were supplemented with alpha, gamma, or delta tocotrienols for 30 days, and then subjected to experimentally induced heart attack.

Measures of serum cholesterol were cut in half in the rabbits on gamma tocotrienol and nearly in half on those receiving the alpha tocotrienol isomer. The delta tocotrienol form did not exert any effect on cholesterol. Additionally, gamma tocotrienol reduced damage to the heart by 77% and alpha tocotrienol resulted in 67% less damage to the critical heart muscle.

Metabolic syndrome is a group of symptoms closely associated with the development of diabetes. People exhibiting metabolic syndrome characteristics run more than twice the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Researchers from the University of Southern Queensland in Australia found "Tocotrienols improved lipid profiles and reduced atherosclerotic lesions, decreased blood glucose and glycated hemoglobin concentrations, normalized blood pressure, and inhibited adipogenesis."

Researchers determined that a variety of different receptors or genetic signaling mechanisms are involved that can prevent the dangerous systemic inflammation known to precipitate heart disease and diabetes.

Natural sources of vitamin E tocotrienols include most varieties of nuts and seeds as well as coconut oil in its unrefined state. Most people will want to ensure adequate intake of this critical nutritional fraction by including a full-spectrum supplement to improve heart health and prevent metabolic syndrome.

Related posts:

An egg a day raises risk of diabetes

Heart attacks hit smokers younger

Vitamin D-fortified yoghurt improves cholesterol levels in diabetics

Watermelons lower abdominal fat accumulation and reduce heart-clogging arterial plaque

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/033922_vitamin_E_metabolic_syndrome.html#ixzz1bJlIwEd7

Know the real story behind vitamin E and prostate cancer

Monday, October 17, 2011 by Ethan Evers


The mass media is now widely disseminating recent negative results of the ongoing SELECT trial (Selenium and Vitamin E in Preventing Prostate Cancer), which showed that men who were taking 400 IU vitamin E per day had a 17% greater risk of prostate cancer. One doctor interviewed has even recommended that men stop taking their vitamin E supplements and talk to their doctors. But the definition of "vitamin E" being used is perhaps far too loose because not all vitamin E is created equal, and in this case that could literally mean the difference between life and death.

Natural vs. Synthetic Vitamin E
The men in the SELECT trial were being given 100% synthetic dl-alpha-tocopheryl-acetate. This form has for many years been regarded as inferior to natural d-alpha-tocopherol: the l- form present in the synthetic vitamin is not recognized by the body and may actually prevent the d- form from entering cell membranes to do its work. In addition, one study done in 1980 on humans showed that synthetic vitamin E had no more than half the biological potency of the natural vitamin. Look at any nutritional supplement retailer today and you will likely find the vast majority of vitamin E offered to be natural in origin because that is what customers are demanding.

Vitamin E Shown Protective in the VITAL Cohort
In fact, this is the likely explanation for why another large study--the VITAL cohort--produced results that were exactly opposite to those of the SELECT trial. Starting in the year 2000, over 35,000 men were observed for prostate cancer development and were assessed for supplement intake via detailed questionnaires. The men taking 400 IU or more of vitamin E daily for 10 years actually saw a "non-significant" risk reduction for prostate cancer of 14%. Much more surprising is that these men also saw a "significant" risk reduction of 57% for developing advanced prostate cancer. The men in this study were all taking vitamin E on their own accord, and the source (natural vs. synthetic) was not disclosed. It is reasonable to assume that a significant portion of these men were taking the natural form of vitamin E, and that this form provided superior protection from cancer compared to the synthetic form given to participants in the SELECT trial.

Does Money Talk Louder Than Science?
It is astounding and unfortunate that the VITAL cohort results never received press coverage even comparable to that of the SELECT trial's negative results. It is also unfortunate that the VITAL results are not discussed in the JAMA paper which covers the latest SELECT results. Why might the authors of this paper be so one-sided against natural medicine for cancer? Readers are directed to the JAMA paper itself for the answer, to be found in the section entitled "Conflicts of Interest Disclosure." Several of the authors have directly received funding from large pharma companies.

The SELECT trial has shown that synthetic vitamin E may increase prostate cancer risk, but these results are not necessarily transferrable to natural vitamin E. Until another SELECT-type trial is run using natural vitamin E (preferably with mixed tocopherols), men may wish to ask their doctors about the difference between natural vs. synthetic vitamin E in light of recent large studies (such as the VITAL cohort) which appear to support the role of vitamin E in preventing prostate cancer.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/033886_prostate_cancer_vitamin_E.html#ixzz1b6tCnmQ0

Heart attacks hit smokers younger

Smokers tend to suffer heart attacks years earlier than non-smokers, suggests a new study from Michigan.

"Individuals who smoke are much more likely to have a heart attack, and will present with a heart attack a decade or more earlier," said Dr. Gregg Fonarow, a cardiologist at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, who wasn't involved in the new study.

The findings, he said, also show that people who smoke "could have a heart attack in the absence of other risk factors."

Researchers led by Dr. Michael Howe from the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor studied about 3,600 people who were hospitalised with a heart attack or unstable angina.

One-quarter of the patients were current smokers. And on average, they were younger with fewer health problems than non-smokers with heart trouble.

The mean ages at hospital admission were 64 for non-smoking men vs 55 for male smokers. For women, mean ages were 70 for non-smokers and 57 for smokers.

Smokers were less likely to have other health problems that are linked to cardiac risks, including high cholesterol, high blood pressure and diabetes.

That and their younger age explained why researchers also found that smokers were less likely to die in the six months following the index event than non-smokers.

That "smoker's paradox" -- the idea that smokers who have a heart attack have better outcomes, including a lower risk of death -- didn't last. The difference in death over the next six months was explained by age and other risk factors.

Dr. Fonarow said the findings are just one more example of the heart dangers posed by smoking, but emphasized that kicking the habit can erase those extra risks.

"Even within a few days of stopping smoking, there is a reduction in (heart) risk. As time goes by, within one to two years much of that risk is gone for heart attacks," he told Reuters Health. "From a coronary risk standpoint, there is an immediate benefit and that continues to extend over time."

The findings, published online September 15th in the American Journal of Cardiology, also showed that female smokers were more likely than male smokers to have other cardiac events in the first few months after the initial one.

"The real key messages are that smoking is a tremendous risk factor for having acute coronary events (earlier)... and that these risks may be even greater in women than in men," Dr. Fonarow said.


Source: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/751289?sssdmh=dm1.725211&src=nldne

Nasty bugs lurking on your cell phone

Photo Credit: Ambro

By Tim Locke

October 14, 2011 — The next time you reach for your cell phone, consider this: A new study found that 92% of cell phones in the U.K. have bacteria on them - including E. coli -- because people aren't washing their hands after going to the bathroom.

The E. coli came from fecal bacteria, which can survive on hands and surfaces for hours.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Queen Mary, University of London looked at cell phones in 12 cities in the U.K.

They took 390 samples from cell phones and hands, which were then analyzed for germs. People were also asked about their hand hygiene.


Phone Filth and Other Facts
The study found:
92% of phones had bacteria on them.
82% of hands had bacteria on them.
16% of hands and 16% of phones had E. coli bacteria, which is found in feces.

However, 95% of people said they washed their hands with soap where possible, which suggests we have a tendency to lie about our hygiene habits.

"We're pretty shocked to find the vast majority of mobile phones -- 92% -- had bacteria all over them. Often large numbers of bacteria,” said hygiene expert Val Curtis, PhD, of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

"That isn't necessarily something that we should worry about, but what is worrying is that 16% of mobile phones had E. coli on them. E. coli comes from human [and animal] feces,” she says. "That means that people with dirty hands are not washing their hands after using the toilet, for example. Then they're handling their mobile phones.”

It’s not just cell phones that the dirty hands are touching, Curtis says.

"They're also touching other surfaces as well,” she says. “They're spreading fecal bugs on everything they touch really."


Toilet Texting?
Is there a more worrying way the phones are getting contaminated -- by people using them while they're in the bathroom?

"We didn't ask people whether they'd used their phones in the toilet. That might be something that would be interesting to study," Curtis says. "People do tend to use their mobile phones everywhere they go. Perhaps we should discourage their use in the toilet."

So is having unclean hands a modern-day problem linked to our new technology?

"Humans have had infections since before they were human. It's a really ancient problem," she says. "Bugs are evolutionary masters at getting from person to person.”

Anything that you touch can become a source of infection, Curtis says. So hand washing after using the toilet is crucial.


Excuses, Excuses
Curtis says people can be quick to excuse their nasty habits.

"They say that they're in a hurry, they say that the water's too cold. People don't actually feel that their hands have got contaminated.

"Everyone knows they should do it, so it's not education that's the answer. We need to find other ways to remind people that it's disgusting that their hands are dirty and their hands get smelly and foul after the toilet,” she says. "Disgusting people with the state of their hands is probably the most effective way of getting people to wash their hands."



SOURCE: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/751569?sssdmh=dm1.726554&src=nldne

Vitamin E supplements may raise the risk for prostate cancer

To take or not to take, that is the question. For now, it's better to get your daily vitamin E from food sources -- nuts. Also bear in mind that the vitamin E used in the SELECT trial is dl-alpha tocopheryl acetate, the synthetic form of vitamin E, which is seldom, if ever, found in reputable nutritional supplement brands. Read more here.


By Roxanne Nelson

October 11, 2011 — Vitamin E supplementation in men does not protect against prostate cancer; instead, it might increase risk.

The initial report of the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) found that neither selenium nor vitamin E supplements reduced the risk for prostate cancer. However, an updated analysis, which appears in the October 12 issue of JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, shows that vitamin E supplementation can significantly increase the risk for prostrate cancer.

Men who received a common dose and formulation of vitamin E (400 IU/d) had a significant 17% increased risk for prostate cancer than men who received placebo.

This observed increase in risk demonstrates "the potential for seemingly innocuous yet biologically active substances such as vitamins to cause harm," write the authors.

"This was a surprising finding and, at present, there is no biological explanation for why those who took vitamin E are at higher risk of developing prostate cancer," first author Eric Klein, MD, told Medscape Medical News. Dr. Klein is chair of the Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio.

"We have made the SELECT biorepository available to the wider scientific community to test hypotheses that might explain the findings," he added.

Should vitamin supplementation be avoided until more is known about this possible link to prostate cancer?

There is no reason for otherwise healthy men to take vitamin E.

"As we point out in the paper, there are few if any studies that show any health benefits for taking vitamin E, and the SELECT findings suggest it could be harmful," said Dr. Klein. "It seems there is no reason for otherwise healthy men to take vitamin E as a dietary supplement."

Senior author Laurence H. Baker, DO, professor of internal medicine and pharmacology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, agrees that the findings were unexpected.

"Vitamin E doesn't prevent prostate cancer; it doesn't prevent any cancer, despite the claims of some, and it doesn't promote cardiovascular health, despite the claims of many," he said in an interview.

"There is no evidence to support any of these claims, yet thousands or even millions of men include vitamin E in their supplementation," Dr. Baker continued. "What this tells us is that even though we assume something to be good, it may not be. In fact, it may be harmful. The assumption is that because vitamin E is an antioxidant, it's good for us. But that isn't the case."

On the basis of these results, Dr. Baker noted that there is "good reason to avoid the dose of vitamin E...that was used in the study."

"The onus of proof should always be on the people" who advocate the use of a product, he explained.

Despite the negative results, the study offers a unique opportunity to learn more about prostate cancer. In the biorepository, there are blood samples and tissue samples from the 3500 men who participated in the trial. "Even though we don't know why these men had a higher incidence of prostate cancer, I am optimistic that these results may teach us why men get prostate cancer," Dr. Baker noted. "That would be a very important benefit."

No Evidence to Support Benefit
The SELECT trial was conducted on the premise that selenium and vitamin E supplementation might reduce the risk for prostate cancer. This hypothesis stemmed from preclinical and epidemiologic studies that suggested that there might be a benefit. However, the use of the 2 supplements was halted in October 2008 because of an apparent lack of benefit and a possibility of harm.

After a median overall follow-up of 5.46 years, supplementation with selenium, vitamin E, or both did not prevent prostate cancer in a population of relatively healthy men. There was a statistically nonsignificant increased risk for prostate cancer among men who received vitamin E only (P = .06) and a statistically nonsignificant increased risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus in the men who received selenium only (P = .16) (JAMA. 2009;301:39-51).

Only the use of supplements was stopped by the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee, not the trial. The authors planned on following the study participants for 3 additional years to determine if there was any benefit or harm.

Contradicts Early Data
Much of the evidence that vitamin E is protective came from epidemiologic studies, explained James R. Marshall, PhD, who was approached by Medscape Medical News for independent comment. "In spite of the publicity these studies received, it is very difficult — virtually impossible — to evaluate causality, and to disentangle causes from confounding factors, such as tobacco and alcohol use, physical activity, obesity, and other nutritional factors, in observational epidemiologic studies," he said.

Dr. Marshall, who is chair of the Department of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, explained that he was on the Institute of Medicine committee that developed the 2000 guidelines for antioxidants, including vitamin E and selenium. "Some members of the committee proposed that the daily recommended intake of vitamin E be raised to 400 IU per day, which was the dose tested in the SELECT trial," he said. "That recommendation did not become a part of the guidelines."

One of the major pieces of evidence that justified the SELECT study was the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene trial that was conducted in Finland. In that study, beta-carotene was expected to decrease lung cancer risk but did not, and vitamin E was expected to decrease heart disease risk but did not, although it was associated with a largely unanticipated 40% decrease in prostate cancer incidence, Dr. Marshall explained.

"We don't to this day understand how that decrease in prostate cancer risk appeared, other than to attribute it to chance — a statistical fluke," he said. "Often, there are unanticipated outcomes from observational epidemiologic studies — generally, most of the outcomes of these studies are unanticipated — and from clinical trials."

"We probably need to be more careful than we have been of the common practice of paying attention to these unanticipated outcomes," Dr. Marshall continued. "This new result, from the analysis of SELECT by Klein and colleagues, should be seen as definitive. It is drawn from a huge, well-designed, -managed, and -analyzed trial."

"The likelihood that vitamin E in the dose studied in SELECT confers health benefits has to be, at this point, seen as 0," he added.

Elevated Risk Observed
The SELECT trial involved 35,533 healthy men from 427 study sites in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico who were randomized from 2001 and 2004. All participants had a prostate-specific antigen level of 4.0 ng/mL or less, a digital rectal examination not suspicious for prostate cancer, and were 50 years or older (black men) or 55 years or older (all others).

The men were randomized to 1 of 4 treatment groups: 8752 received selenium (200 μg/d from L-selenomethionine), 8737 received vitamin E (400 IU/d of all-rac-alpha-tocopheryl acetate), 8702 received both agents, and 8696 received placebo.

After 5.56 years of follow-up, there were 473 cases of prostate cancer in the vitamin E group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.13); 432 in the selenium group (HR, 1.04); 437 in the selenium plus vitamin E group (HR, 1.05); and 416 in the placebo group (HR, 1.0).

The current analysis reflects the final data collected by the study sites up to July 5, 2011, and includes 54,464 additional person-years of follow-up and 521 additional cases of prostate cancer — 113 in the placebo group, 147 in the vitamin E group, 143 in the selenium group, and 118 in the combination group.

Findings showed that the rate of prostate cancer detection was higher in all groups that received active treatment than in the placebo group, but only the vitamin E group reached statistical significance (HR, 1.17; P = .008).

Secondary End Points
The initial findings of the SELECT study showed a nonsignificant increased risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus in the selenium group; in the updated results, this finding was still not statistically significant (P = .34).

The authors also updated findings on prespecified secondary end points, including lung, colorectal, and total other cancers, deaths, and grade 4 cardiovascular events. They found no statistically significant differences in the hazard ratios of any group, which suggests that for these end points, there is neither benefit nor harm related to the use of these supplements.

Proceed With Caution
Matthew R. Smith, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard University Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, reiterated that this study highlights the need to be skeptical of claims attributed to over-the-counter products, although he noted that vitamin E, per se, is not specifically marketed to prevent cancer.

"The cautionary part is that if you look at the background information, it is a compelling narrative," said Dr. Smith. "Unfortunately, the definitive trial has now been done, and shows it is not true."
He agrees that there is no basis for recommending these products to prevent prostate cancer. "On a larger scale, we should be careful about claims. They may not be harmful; they may just be neutral," he said in an interview. Dr. Smith was not involved in the study.

Dr. Smith also pointed out that although the reason for the increased risk for prostate cancer observed with vitamin E supplementation is unclear, the dose given was much higher than would normally be found in food. "These are nonphysiologic doses and methods of delivery," he said. "With food, you don't get a 400 IU slug of vitamin E. The biology of these vitamins is very complex, and this is not how they are normally taken in the diet."

The study was funded in part by the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (National Institutes of Health). Dr. Klein and Dr. Baker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships, but several coauthors report financial relationships with several pharmaceutical companies. 


 Source: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/751336?sssdmh=dm1.725211&src=nldne

New antidepressant drug for dogs

Photo Credit: photostock

(NaturalNews) The pet products industry is burgeoning, as 2011 figures released by the American Pet Products Association (APPA) show that Americans now spend more than $50 billion a year on food, supplies, and veterinarian care for their pets -- up nearly 300 percent since 1994. And now Big Pharma wants a piece of the pie, with drug giants Elanco and Eli Lilly and Company having recently gained approval for their dangerous new antidepressant drug Reconcile, the equivalent to Prozac designed specifically for dogs.

According to the Alliance for Natural Health - USA (ANH-USA), Reconcile is a once-daily, chewable drug for dogs that is intended to treat canine separation anxiety (CSA), which is just a fancy way of describing the behavioral changes that occur when a dog is separated from his owner and is left alone. But Reconcile is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), meaning it comes from a class of drugs known to cause mental problems, aggression, suicidal thoughts, and even violence against others.

With this in mind, it is suspect that Reconcile, which was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), does not contain a black box warning notifying pet owners of these potential side effects. Reconcile's label also makes no mention of the highly addictive nature of SSRIs, and of how coming off of them can be extremely difficult and highly dangerous to both users and to others with which they come in contact.

As far as dogs are concerned, taking Reconcile may cause them to undergo severe mental changes, which could result in them lashing out against children, their owners, and even others in public. Based on previous research involving Prozac, Reconcile may also permanently damage the health of dogs who take it.

The FDA, in fact, actually has no idea how dogs will react to Reconcile, particularly in the long term -- but the agency has granted its approval anyway, signaling to millions of pet owners that Reconcile is safe and effective, even though it is likely not. And as a result, you can expect to see many more dangerous pet drugs like Reconcile showing up on the market in the future, as drug companies are sure to take advantage of this vast new drug market.


Like Prozac, the key ingredients in Reconcile are fluoride molecules
According to Reconcile's product information sheet, Reconcile is made of fluoxetine hydrochloride (Prozac), which is converted into norfluoxetine by the liver. Both of these are fluorophenyl compounds, which means that they are a form of mind-altering fluoride, which many readers know is a serious toxin.

So in addition to the long list of Reconcile's dangerous side effects, which include seizures, weight loss, tremors, aggression, constipation, vomiting, diarrhea, just to name a few, Reconcile will also pollute dogs' bodies with thyroid disrupting fluoride compounds as well.

Even beyond these stated side effects are the numerous reports that indict SSRIs like Prozac and Reconcile for increasing users' risk of having strokes, getting thick arteries, developing cataracts, having miscarriages, developing suicidal or homicidal tendencies, and lashing out against others in fits of rage.

And on top of all this, antidepressants have not even been proven, without a doubt, to provide any health benefits at all. A 2010 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, for instance, found that for the vast majority of patients, SSRIs provide virtually no benefits -- but they do, of course, leave them addicted and perpetually ill.

Thus, it is foolish to assume that Reconcile, the canine form of these same SSRIs, will provide any real benefit for dogs. If anything, millions of dog owners will be hoodwinked into buying Reconcile thinking that it is safe, only to later realize the damage it will cause to their furry friends.

It is also important to note that Reconcile was approved based on a single, eight-week study in which dogs treated with Reconcile experienced only slightly better improvement with their CSA symptoms compared to dogs who received simple behavior modification therapy. The study was funded by Reconcile's manufacturer, of course, and did not examine the long-term effects of using Reconcile.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/033844_antidepressants_dogs.html#ixzz1aYZTkKKN

Diet soda may help the waistline, but not your heart

Photo Credit

Diet sodas may have fewer calories for your waistline, but they don't reduce your risk of heart-related problems.

A Manhattan Study (NOMAS) presented at the American Stroke Association's International Stroke Conference revealed that people who drank diet soda every day had a 61% higher risk of crippling diseases like stroke or heart disease. 

The study also found a 48 percent increase in stroke, heart attack or cardiovascular-related death for those who drank diet soda when all other factors were held constant.

Previous studies have suggested a link between diet soda consumption and the risk for metabolic syndrome and diabetes. But this is the first time diet drinks have been associated with vascular events.

What’s not yet clear is if there’s a chemical in diet sodas causing these diseases, or if people who drink diet sodas are more likely to have other behaviors that contribute to bad health.

The investigators acknowledge that additional studies are needed. The potential mechanisms for the association between diet soda and vascular events remain unknown, but doctors are definitely not saying that sugary drinks are better than diet drinks.

More research needs to be done, but consumers should think twice about what they choose the next time they get thirsty.

For now, you just can't beat plain water.



Source:  http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/737132

Tadalafil Approved for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

By Robert Lowes

October 6, 2011 — The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today approved tadalafil (Cialis, Eli Lilly), a phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor, to also treat the signs and symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) as well as a combination of BPH and erectile dysfunction (ED) when the conditions coincide.

Men with BPH often experience sudden urges to urinate, difficulty in starting urination, a weak urine stream, and more frequent urination, including at night. In 2 clinical trials, men with BPH who took 5 mg of tadalafil daily experienced a significant improvement in these symptoms compared with men receiving a placebo. A third study showed that men who experienced both ED and BPH and who took 5 mg of tadalafil daily had improvement in both conditions compared with a placebo group.

Scott Monroe, MD, director of the Division of Reproductive and Urologic Products in the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release that both BPH and ED are common disorders among older men. "Cialis offers these men another treatment option," Dr. Monroe said.

Tadalafil joins a long list of other FDA-approved drugs for BPH symptoms: finasteride (Proscar), dutasteride (Avodart), dusasteride plus tamsulosin (Jalyn), and alpha-blockers terazosin (Hytrin), doxazosin (Cardura), tamsulosin (Flomax), alfuzosin (Uroxatral), and silodosin (Rapaflo). The agency approved tadalafil for treating ED in 2003.

The FDA advises clinicians that they should not prescribe tadalafil for men taking nitrates such as nitroglycerin because the combination may trigger an unsafe drop in blood pressure. Also, the agency does not recommend combining tadalafil with alpha-blockers for the treatment of BPH because the combo therapy has not been adequately studied, and it comes with a risk of lowering blood pressure.


Source: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/751150?sssdmh=dm1.723943&src=nldne

Psychedelic compounds in 'magic mushrooms' can permanently alter personality

Photo credit: winnond

Scientists at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) in Baltimore, Md., have taken a keen interest in "magic mushrooms," a type of mushroom that contains a hallucinogenic compound known as psilocybin. For the second time this year, they have published a study on the effects of consuming psilocybin, this time explaining how even a single dose can permanently alter one's personality for the better, they claim.

The same team that discovered the ability of magic mushrooms to provide lasting, positive mental health benefits without causing negative side effects has once again confirmed the incredible power of psilocybin to alter the way a person thinks -- but this time, the personality of the individual underwent noticeable changes.

Published in the journal Psychopharmacology, the new study found that when normal, healthy volunteers were given doses of psilocybin, roughly 60 percent of them developed a new type of "openness" to their personalities that was not there prior, and that lasted indefinitely. And in some cases, even a single dose of the compound was enough to do the trick.

"Now this finding is really quite fascinating," said one of the study authors Dr. Roland Griffiths, a professor in the department of psychiatry and neuroscience at JHU, concerning the discovery. "And that is because personality is considered a stable characteristic of the psychology of people. It's been thought to be relatively immutable, and stable across the lifespan."

The double-blind, placebo-controlled study also found that the only area of personality affected by the substance was openness -- neuroticism, extroversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, for instance, all appeared unchanged in the presence of psilocybin, which means that the compound's effects are practically all positive.

The team stressed that further research is needed on psilocybin, and recommends that people not experiment with the mushroom on their own in the meantime. They also cautioned that psilocybin can be dangerous, especially in people with underlying mental conditions. Even in a carefully controlled setting, about one-third of the participants in the study experienced high levels of anxiety after taking the drug. But through the help of the study “guides” and the calming atmosphere of the controlled trial, everyone overcame the anxiety and not a single participant reported lasting ill effects from the experience.





 
Sources:
http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/10/03/drug-in-magic-mushrooms-linked-to-long-lasting-personality-change-for-the-better/

http://www.naturalnews.com/033824_magic_mushrooms_personality.html#ixzz1aSD9SqmQ

Mustard for muscles

The humble mustard looks set to become the gym rat's best friend: A natural compound in mustard has been shown to build muscle and increase strength. I guess it won't be too long before someone comes up with a post-workout mustard shake.

Photo credit: Suat Eman

If you are looking to lean out, add muscle mass, and get ripped, a new research report published in The FASEB Journal (http://www.fasebj.org) suggests that you might want to look to your garden for a little help.

A new study has found that mustard and certain types of vegetables naturally contain a steroid-like compound that can help increase appetite, promote the development of muscle mass, and boost overall athletic performance, with minimal side effects.

Bodybuilders, aging individuals with wasting muscles, and even just young- or middle-aged people looking to bulk up often start out experimenting with a variety of muscle-building powders and supplements with the hope that these will help to improve performance and promote muscle growth. Many of these products do, of course, work as intended when combined with exercise and weight-lifting -- but now it may be even easier to build muscle just by eating the right foods.

Dr. Slavko Komarnytsky, a researcher from North Carolina State University (NCSU) in Kannapolis, NC, and his colleagues recently conducted a study aimed at testing the effects of homobrassinolide, the mustard compound found to be responsible for producing an anabolic effect when consumed.

The team tested the substance on one group of normal, healthy rats fed a typical diet, as well as on another fed a high-protein specific diet. The team also fed a third group of castrated, peri-pubertal rats homobrassinolide to see how it might help restore androgen-dependent tissues following castration.

The findings revealed that in all three groups, homobrassinolide effectively helped boost appetite and food intake, increase lean muscle mass, and improve strength. Tests involving muscle cells alone also revealed an increase in the number and size of muscle fiber cells, indicating that homobrassinolide is an effective, natural way to increase strength.

"We hope that one day brassinosteroids may provide an effective, natural, and safe alternative for age- and disease-associated muscle loss, or be used to improve endurance and physical performance," said Dr. Komarnytsky.

"The temptation is to see this discovery as another quick fix to help you go from fat to fit," said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal, "and to a very small degree, this may be true. In reality, however, this study identifies an important drug target for a wide range of conditions that cause muscle wasting."

Besides promoting muscle growth and improved strength, mustard also helps alleviate migraine headaches and prevent cancer. It is also a powerful anti-fungal and antiseptic compound





Source: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...

http://www.naturalnews.com/033810_mustard_muscle.html#ixzz1aLhBEDj9

Going to the dogs: pets and owners share resistant pathogens

  By Daniel M. Keller, PhD

September 28, 2011 (Chicago, Illinois) — The gastrointestinal tract of dogs might be a reservoir of fluoroquinolone-resistant extra-intestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli (ExPEC), which is a public health concern and includes the 025b-ST131 (ST131) strains associated with human extra-intestinal infections.

That is what Siyu Guo, a doctoral student in the School of Veterinary Science at the University of Queensland in Gatton, Australia, told delegates here at the 51st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC).

From March to September 2009, the investigators screened the feces of dogs hospitalized in a major Australian small-animal veterinary hospital for fluoroquinolone-resistant E coli. For all isolates found to be resistant to both ciprofloxacin and pradafloxacin, researchers performed phylogenetic grouping and virulence profiling for 33 virulence factors associated with ExPEC.

They found that several strains of E coli from people and dogs were genetically closely related. Of 124 dogs tested, 68% yielded E coli resistant to ciprofloxacin (≥0.25 μg/mL) and 18.5% yielded E coli resistant to ciprofloxacin and pradafloxacin. Two dogs yielded 30 ciprofloxacin/pradafloxacin-resistant ST131 isolates with 3 distinct virulence factor profiles, including those previously reported in human ST131 strains. Since it was first recognized in 2008, ST131 has been found globally among human populations, and causes extra-intestinal infections.

The authors noted that "from a microbiological point of view, dogs are truly a part of the family," citing previous reports showing that a strain of E coli causing urinary tract infections in people could be shared back and forth between human and canine household members.

Such transmission implicates dogs as a part of the epidemiology of extra-intestinal E coli; they might be a reservoir of resistant bacteria in households experiencing recurrent E coli urinary tract infections. However, the investigators noted that only 2 of 124 dogs in this study carried ST131, so they are probably not a major vector for disseminating this strain on a global level. In fact, "the major direction of transfer...could be from humans to dogs," they said.

Jesús Rodriguez-Baño, MD, PhD, head of infectious diseases at University Hospital Macarena in Seville, Spain, told Medscape Medical News that several studies have shown that owners and pets share some bacteria and some resistance genes. "We don't understand very well how important pets are in the maintenance as a reservoir, as a transmitter of some resistance genes, but actually, there are increasing data suggesting that they might be as relevant as other members of the family," he said.
Lindsay Grayson, MD, MSc, professor of medicine at the University of Melbourne in Australia, and chair of the ICAAC program committee, agreed. "If I look at my kids, they're cuddling the dog more than they cuddle me half the time. It's only natural that if those animals have bugs, they could spread them," he said.

Transmission of bacteria and viruses between people and animals is a 2-way street, Dr. Grayson told Medscape Medical News. He referred to studies showing that people have spread methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus to their pets, and reported cases in which pets have come back from a veterinary hospital and spread the bacterium to their owners.

Another aspect of the problem is that antibiotic use in pets and in farm animals is not as strictly regulated as it is for people. "Whether you're a dog or a human, those same principles apply," Dr. Grayson emphasized. "If you are misusing antibiotics, it will lead to the emergence of resistance."

He noted that some studies have looked at whether it would be appropriate to treat a pet if a person has recurrent infections. He said there are interesting data from the Netherlands showing that when some pig farmers had recurrent infections, the same strain of bacterium was found in the pigs.

The question of treating animals is particularly relevant in the case of a person who is immunosuppressed and gets recurrent infections with a certain organism. "Then pets are on the agenda... You have to worry about whether the environment is contaminated or whether their medicines are working properly," Dr. Grayson said.

Whether pathogens will adapt to both human and animal reservoirs depends on how close the reservoirs are immunologically. "That's why pigs are so important.... Immunologically, they're similar, so the movement of bugs, whether it's influenza or staph, is easier," he said. "In other species, like cats or dogs, it's further distant from humans, so it's rarer for the same bug to be infecting both."

Dr. Grayson said the message to veterinarians and to physicians is the same — "wise antibiotic use, [and] only use it when you need to."

The study was funded through an Australian federal government research grant in cooperation with Bayer Animal Health. Guo reports receiving funding from Bayer Animal Health. Dr. Rodriguez-Baño and Dr. Grayson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 
51st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC): Abstract C1-472. Presented September 18, 2011.

Source: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/750572?sssdmh=dm1.721795&src=nldne

Grape seed extract emerges as anti-cancer powerhouse

The therapeutic potential of grape seed extract (GSE) as anti-oxidant, anti-hypertensive and anti-inflammatory is so well established that this natural supplement is now being used in seven on-going clinical trials, only one of which is on cancer (of the breast).

But the spotlight may soon shift to GSE's anti-cancer potential as recent landmark studies on human patients have just uncovered remarkable protective effects of GSE against three major cancers: squamous cell carcinoma and prostate and hematologic malignancies.

Even more remarkable is that this breakthrough in the science of natural medicine was not due to the foresight of medical practitioners who designed the trials, but to the patients who took GSE as a supplement to support general health.

74% Risk Reduction of Skin Cancer (SCC)
A recent study, just published in June 2011, was carried out in northern California on 830 participants to test the effects of general supplement use on the occurrence of squamous cell carcinoma (the second most common skin cancer). The supplements in use included vitamins A, C, D, E, multivitamins and GSE. Only the users of GSE experienced a significant reduction in risk of squamous cell carcinoma -- by an astounding 74%. Multivitamin users experienced 29% reduced risk, but this was only borderline statistically significant.

62% Risk Reduction of Prostate Cancer
A much larger study conducted in Washington State tracked 35,239 male participants starting in the year 2000 in the VITamins and Lifestyle (VITAL) cohort. Participants, aged 50-76 years, answered detailed questionnaires about specialty supplement use for the 10 years prior to the start of the study. Prostate cancer risk was assessed after a median follow-up time of 6.1 years. The results showed GSE to be the stand-alone winner. Men, who used an individual grape seed extract supplement with "high average use" over 10 years, experienced a significant 62% risk reduction of prostate cancer compared to non-users, while average users of GSE supplements experienced a 41% risk reduction. None of the other supplements observed in this study (CoQ10, fish oil, garlic pills, ginkgo biloba, ginseng, glucosamine, chondroitin or saw palmetto) were seen to offer protection against prostate cancer. Note, however, that green tea was not one of the supplements considered. This study was published in May 2011.

43% Risk Reduction of Hematologic Cancers
The same VITAL cohort as used for the prostate cancer study was also used to assess risk of hematologic cancers (involving blood, bone marrow or lymph nodes). The population was expanded to include women, for a total of 66,227 participants. Those who had ever used grape seed supplements saw a 43% risk reduction for hematologic cancers. This was only matched by those with a "high use" of garlic, who saw a 47% reduction of risk. No other supplements offered significant protection. This study was published in August 2011.

In addition to the above cancers, GSE has already demonstrated cytotoxicity to breast cancer, colon cancer, glioblastoma, and NSC lung cancer cells in laboratory studies. But the three study results on human populations given above provide a dramatic leap forward for the science backing GSE as an anti-cancer supplement. It is astounding, then, that none of the studies received much media attention. That will likely require full-blown clinical trials, which will almost certainly be kicked-off as a result of these studies, but will take years to complete. Until then, the latest findings on GSE make a compelling case for its consideration in any program or supplement regimen meant to reduce cancer risk.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/033754_grape_seed_extract_cancer_prevention.html#ixzz1a0p1pf8Y

Caught red-handed: Pesticides in organic strawberry plants

Not all organic produce are pesticide-free it seems. A loophole allows plants to be fumigated and treated with chemicals before it bears fruit as this article points out.

Photo Credit: Grant Cochrane

By Sam Taxy

Thought those organic strawberries you picked up at the market are pesticide-free? You should think again, according to the Pesticide Action Network and several organic farmers in California. In a letter written to the USDA, they point out that most organic strawberry plants grown in the state are actually fumigated with millions of pounds of pesticides every year.

This problem stems from a loophole in the definition of organic produce: in order for something to be labeled as organic, only the produce itself needs to be pesticide-free. This means that before the plant bears fruit, it can be fumigated and treated with all kinds of dangerous chemicals. Because of this loophole, even consumers who are diligent in avoiding non-organic produce are probably inadvertently consuming produce from plants that have been treated with pesticides.

Though organic plants still have less exposure to chemicals than non-organic ones, this incident is shedding light into the hypocrisy of big-business organic agriculture. James Rickert, a disillusioned former farmer, explains it to the New York Times: “The reality is that a lot of the organic growers want nothing to do with organic plants” because it’s a financial risk. If the organic plants carry disease, then it could wipe out a crop. And since the producers can label it as organic anyway, why shell out the extra cash?

Thankfully, because of the efforts of PAN and its allies, this important issue is starting to gather steam. Hopefully, with just a little more pressure, policy-makers and pen-pushers at the USDA will realize that “organic” really should mean organic and actually keep pesticides out of our food.


Source: http://www.care2.com/causes/caught-red-handed-pesticides-in-organic-strawberry-plants.html#ixzz1ZhQm2sS

Coffee keeps the blues away

Credit: FreeFoto.com

Risk for depression may decrease as coffee consumption increases, new research suggests.

In a 10-year study of more than 50,000 older women, investigators found that compared with those who drank 1 cup or less of caffeinated coffee per week, those who drank 2 to 3 cups per day had a 15% decreased risk for depression, and those who drank 4 cups or more had a 20% decreased risk.

Decaffeinated coffee, caffeinated tea, sugared soft drinks, and chocolate were not significantly associated with depression risk.

"This is one of the first major studies to look to this relationship," said lead author Michel Lucas, PhD, RD, epidemiologist/nutritionist at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts.

"People have often worried that drinking caffeinated coffee might have a bad effect on their health, but there is more and more literature, including this study, showing that caffeine may not have the detrimental effect previously thought," said Dr. Lucas.

"Further investigations are needed to confirm [the findings] and to determine whether usual caffeinated coffee consumption can contribute to depression prevention," they write.

Still, Dr. Lucas said that it might be okay for clinicians to recommend increasing a patient's coffee intake.

"If depressed patients are refraining themselves to 1 coffee per day because they think that's all they should have, why not try suggesting they drink more, as long as it doesn't go over 4 cups a day? We still need a large randomized controlled trial to look at this effect, but as long as it's not over a certain amount, upping the intake shouldn't hurt, and may be helpful."

However, a study from Finland ( Eur J Epidemiol. 2000;16:789-791) found that although the risk for suicide decreased progressively for those consuming up to 7 cups of coffee per day, the risk started increasing when consumption went over 8 cups a day.

Dr. Berkowitz, who is on the editorial board for the Archives of Internal Medicine, writes in an accompanying editor's note that past research has found no significant effects of caffeine on cardiovascular disease and other health issues.

"As clinicians we want to make sure that people aren't doing things that will have them come to harm... I think in this case, this study adds to the body of evidence that there isn't much harm in coffee consumption. But I don't think we're at the point where we can say, 'drink coffee so you won't get depressed,' because that's not how the study was designed," he said.

"Still, if your patients have questions or are wondering if drinking coffee is bad for them, I think you can provide some assurance that, at least up to the amounts examined here, it doesn't seem to be causing a lot of problems. If they are feeling like it helps them, they should enjoy it in good health."


Related posts:
Coffee linked to lower endometrial cancer risk
Coffee could reduce skin cancer risk
The potential health benefits of coffee
Caffeinated coffee protects against Alzheimer's, diabetes, depression and prostate cancers
Coffee lowers liver fibrosis risk


Source: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/750420