Heaving Dead Cats » health

Dark Chocolate and Other Tidbits of Goodness

Neece — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:58:28 +0000

If you’re like me, and you enjoy dark chocolate, then I have some studies to share with you! I think they’ll be helpful for the holidays as well as generally beneficial throughout the year. If you don’t like chocolate (WTF, just kidding), see below for swine flu info, and other linky goodness.

Dark Chocolate Helps Ease Emotional Stress: A new study found that eating about an ounce and a half of dark chocolate a day for two weeks reduced levels of stress hormones in people who felt highly stressed. The chocolate also partially corrected other stress-related biochemical imbalances. “The study provides strong evidence that a daily consumption of 40 grams [1.4 ounces] during a period of 2 weeks is sufficient to modify the metabolism of healthy human volunteers,” the scientists say.

That led me to a study from last December. It’s rather small and involves self-reporting, but it could be a promising line for further research, and could be something you experiment with yourself to see if it works for you:

Dark Chocolate Lessens Cravings: Dark chocolate is far more filling than milk chocolate, lessening our craving for sweet, salty and fatty foods. In other words, eating dark chocolate may be an efficient way to keep your weight down over the holidays (and throughout the year!) The dark chocolate gives a feeling of satiety.

To compare the effects of dark and milk chocolate on both appetite and subsequent calorie intake, 16 young and healthy men of normal weight who all liked both dark and milk chocolate took part in a so-called crossover experiment. This meant that they reported for two separate sessions, the first time testing the dark chocolate, and the second time the milk chocolate.

They had all fasted for 12 hours beforehand and were offered 100g of chocolate, which they consumed in the course of 15 minutes. The calorific content was virtually the same for the milk and dark chocolate.

During the following 5 hours, participants were asked to register their appetite every half hour, i.e. their hunger, satiety, craving for special foods and how they liked the chocolate.

Results

Two and a half hours after eating the chocolate, participants were offered pizza ad lib. They were instructed to eat until they felt comfortably satiated. After the meal, the individuals’ calorie intake was registered.

The results were significant. The calorie intake at the subsequent meal where they could eat as much pizza as they liked was 15 per cent lower when they had eaten dark chocolate beforehand.

The participants also stated that the plain chocolate made them feel less like eating sweet, salty or fatty foods.

So apart from providing us with the healthier fatty acids and many antioxidants, dark chocolate can now also help us steer clear of all the sweet, salty and fattening Christmas foods.

That led me to an even older study (2006) about smokers’ arteries and dark chocolate. I’m sure it benefits nonsmokers as well. This study is also small, but promising.

A Few Squares Of Dark Chocolate A Day May Stave Off Artery Hardening In Smokers: Dark chocolate may stave off artery hardening in smokers, and a few squares every day could potentially cut the risk of serious heart disease.

Researchers compared the effects of dark (74% cocoa solids) and white chocolate on the smoothness of arterial blood flow in 20 male smokers.

In smokers the activity of both endothelial cells, which line the artery walls, and platelets, which are involved in the formation of blood clots, are continuously disrupted, making the arteries susceptible to the narrowing and hardening characteristic of coronary artery disease.

Before eating 40 g of chocolate (about 2 oz), smokers were first asked to abstain from other foods rich in antioxidants, such as onions, apples, cabbage, and cocoa products for 24 hours.

After two hours, ultrasound scans revealed that dark chocolate significantly improved the smoothness of arterial flow, an effect which lasted for eight hours. Blood sample analysis also showed that dark chocolate almost halved platelet activity. Antioxidant levels rose sharply after two hours.

White chocolate had no effect on endothelial cells, platelets, or antioxidant levels.

Dark chocolate has more antioxidants per gram than other foods laden with the substances, such as red wine, green tea, and berry fruits, say the authors, who suggest that the beneficial effects of dark chocolate lie in its antioxidant content.

“…Only a small daily treat of dark chocolate may substantially increase the amount of antioxidant intake and beneficially affect vascular health,” conclude the authors.

Of course, these studies are not conclusive. They are all small. But hey, it’s dark chocolate. It tastes great and is full of chocolatey goodness. With all the other stuff you eat, if it could help you in these three ways, some of which you can experiment with yourself to see if it’s actually working for you, why not give it a try?

I had some bars in my fridge that I had been saving for a special occasion but decided, since I get stressed out easily, I’d try to do an experiment. I will eat 40 grams a day (if I can get my hands on that much) and keep a log of food cravings, food intake and stress levels. So far I’ve had it for two days but have been quite lax about the log bit. I guess we can’t all be diligent.

I thought while I have you here, I’d share some other links that might interest you.

We have all been inundated with swine flu madness over the past several months. But what is hype and what is science-based reality? Is the vaccine safe? Do I have to worry about this?

I’ve gotten a lot of information just from listening to The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe, which is honestly the best skeptical podcast I’ve found. I’m usually a couple of episodes behind, but hey, look at what they have for the November 15 epsiode: Special Report: H1N1 Pandemic Update! I’d recommend listening to back issues as well. They are quite an education in skepticism. You’ll learn a great deal!

Dr. Steven Novella, the main Rogue of the SGU, also has a blog called Science-Based Medicine. (I know, what a concept, medicine based on science!) This site has different contributors who cover all kinds of issues with solid facts, no hype, no pseudoscience BS. Want to know the facts about H1N1? Go here. Want to know if chiropractic is mainly pseudoscience mumbo-jumbo? You know where to go.

On that note, you can also go to Quackwatch. I haven’t investigated it much, but the SGU recommends it and for this kind of thing, I’d consider that a good endorsement.

Now, just to remind you of some other podcasty goodness, and so that we don’t ignore our minds with all this science talk, there is Reasonable Doubts, the podcast for people who refuse to “just take things on faith.” These guys know their religion. They mainly focus on christianity and its flaws, but they’ve also tackled issues like Determinism, islam, Profiles of the Godless (a survey study done by one of their own), and much, much more.

I love these guys and get so much out of each podcast. I only found them through a friend several months ago, so I am still not caught up with the old episodes. I highly recommend listening to their full library.

Like the SGU, you can subscribe to Reasonable Doubts through iTunes.

Ok, that’s it. Have fun. If you have suggestions for great podcasts, websites or resources for science-based medicine, studies, facts over hype, skepticism, and of course atheism, please feel free to share in the comments.

Your Tax Dollars Teaching Medical Students Pseudoscience

Neece — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:45:04 +0000

I read an AP article titled Medical schools add alternative remedies to curriculum the other day. The article was pretty balanced, explaining both sides of the situation.

Apparently a growing number of medical schools are teaching acupuncture, herbology and other CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) to their students, often with the help of Uncle Sam. That’s right, your tax dollars are being spent to teach your future doctors all about pseudoscience.

The government has spent more than $22 million to help medical and nursing schools start teaching about alternative medicine — lesson plans that some critics say are biased toward unproven remedies.

Additional tax money has been spent to recruit and train young doctors to do research in this field, launching some into careers as alternative medicine providers.

Doctors need to know about popular remedies so they can discuss them nonjudgmentally and give competent advice, the government says, and many universities and medical groups agree.

“Patients are using these things” whether doctors think they should or should not, and safety is a big concern, said Dr. Victor Sierpina, an acupuncturist at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston who heads a group of academics who favor such training.

But to critics, it’s like teaching Harry Potter medicine. Students are being asked to close their eyes to science principles that guide the rest of their training in order to keep an open mind about pseudoscience, they say.

“I’m concerned about the teaching of illogical thinking to medical students” and lending credence to biologically implausible theories like distance healing and energy fields, said Dr. Stephen Barrett, a retired physician who runs Quackwatch, a Web site on medical scams.

Personally, if I were using some herbal remedy or other treatment that had no scientific evidence behind it, I would want my doctor to let me know it’s not tested and not proven effective. I want science-based medicine. I want my doctor to be informed about pseudoscience but he shouldn’t be using my tax dollars to study it in school as if it were real medicine. That’s a waste of money and incredibly misleading to students who might then add acupuncture or other nonsense into their future practice.

I just listened to James Randi on The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe talking about the same thing, only in a more insidious way. If you listen to the episode, James Randi’s interview starts at 34:21 on episode 222 from October 21, 2009. Mr. Randi had colon cancer and has found during his treatment that the NIH tacitly promotes acupuncture. This is partly paid by taxpayers. The NIH has 520 acupuncture studies listed on its website. James has a man looking at those studies. He has looked at about 220 or so and EIGHT (8) of them are positive.

So if you went there, you might think all 550 studies listed were positive, but almost all are negative. The 8 that are positive were not double blind studies, so they are invalid.

I tried to find the same list that Randi talked about but didn’t have much luck. What I did find was the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) which is part of the National Institute of Health (NIH). This site is very pro-CAM. Unfortunately while it legitimizes CAM and mainstreams it, I am not sure how the actual research has been done. The spotlights of the studies are vague and lack detail of actual study methods and results.

Are they trying to justify their $22 million dollar investment? Have many of the people in charge of NCCAM been given their jobs because they already believe in CAM? I’m pretty sure a lot of them are CAM proponents and were before they started the research project with the government. Needless to say, I don’t have all the answers. If you have any hard evidence about NCCAM or the studies in question, please comment or email me.

Also, if CAM is mainstreamed, doesn’t it just then become Medicine? No, not if there’s still no science behind it. But if you take an herb and find out that there is something in it that has medicinal value, research and study it for efficacy and safety and all that good stuff, then you can standardize it and make it safe and consistent to take. Plain old herbal supplements from the health food store don’t offer any of that.

Give me science based medicine any day over pseudoscience, thank you very much.

Vaccines In The News Again

Johnny — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:39:08 +0000

The HPV vaccine has jumped into the news again as the UK reports their first death following a vaccination.

The US (and western world in general) has already been struggling with vaccines, and this could make things more difficult in the UK. With all the claims of vaccines linked to autism, Jenny McCarthy’s wild-ass claims, and Muslims stopping the distribution of the polio vaccination — there’s a lot of pseudoscience, superstition, and urban legends up against vaccines.

Then there is the religious angle against the HPV vaccine. Because the human papillomavirus is a sexually transmitted disease, the abstinence-only proponents think giving a girl this vaccine gives her the go-ahead to be promiscuous.

It will be interesting to see what kind of media attention resurfaces from this; but I can already see the email or Facebook posts flying around again, claiming how bad this vaccine is, and possibly how bad all vaccines are. So in an attempt to arm you with knowledge before you even get that email or see someone post it on Facebook, here are some facts for you to counter with.

As of 01 June 2009, over 25 million doses had been administered in the US. Of those, 14,072 (0.05%) reported side effects; meaning 99.95% were free of side effects.
Of those with side effects, 13,087 (93%) were non-serious (like fainting, pain and swelling at the injection site, headache, nausea, and fever); all common side effects of any injection.
Of those with side effects, 985 (7%) were serious, and of them 43 deaths were reported. This means of the 25 million vaccinated, 0.00172% died after receiving the vaccination (not necessarily because of the vaccination).
Approximately 20 million Americans are currently infected with HPV, and another 6.2 million people become newly infected each year.
At least 50% of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives.
The American Cancer Society estimates 11,070 women diagnosed with cervical cancer in the U.S. in 2008.
HPV-related cancers (estimates from 2008):
- 3,460 women diagnosed with vulvar cancer
- 2,210 women diagnosed with vaginal and other female genital cancers
- 1,250 men diagnosed with penile and other male genital cancers
- 3,050 women and 2,020 men diagnosed with anal cancer
According to a 2002 study, approximately 4500 deaths per year in the US, and over 200,000 deaths world wide are results of or linked to a form of cervical cancer.

In the US the CDC and the FDA continue to recommend the Gardasil vaccination, because it does prevent 4 types of HPV; and because the risk of adverse side effects is very low.

“As of June 1, 2009, there have been 43 U.S. reports of death among females who have received the vaccine. Twenty six of these reports have been confirmed, 9 are still under investigation, and 8 remain unconfirmed due to no identifiable patient information in the report such as a name and contact information to confirm the report. Confirmed reports are those that scientists have followed up on and have verified the claim. In the 26 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine.”

Besides the links above, I also pulled information from here, here, and here.

What do you think? Any thoughts? Personal stories? Rants?

+++++ +++++ +++++ UPDATE +++++ +++++ +++++

Morals, Ethics and Pope Benedict Evil

Neece — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:26:38 +0000

Every week I look forward to cleaning up a bit on Monday. After my husband goes to work, I update my iPod and blast The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe while I tidy up. I love the Rogues. I learn an awful lot from them. They spark my interest in various topics and have helped me to learn to be skeptical.

So, the reason I’m sharing that is because I want to share part of the most recent podcast with you. It was Episode 191 and they talked about the Pope who was in Africa talking about Aids recently. Pope Benedict Ratz-en-evil said,

“(HIV/AIDS) is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems.”

Um, WTF? That is reprehensible. The pope, the spokesman for god, is basically telling people who are uneducated and fully indoctrinated into the god myth that condoms are unhelpful and even harmful when it comes to spreading AIDS. That is evil.

Here are some of the other stances he’s taken regarding science:

“Science has narrowed the way life’s origins are understood.”
“The Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.”
“god created life through evolution.”
“The trial of Galileo for heresy because of his support for the Copernican system was justified in the context of the time.”
“Saving humanity from homosexual or transexual behavior is just as important as saving the Rain Forest from destruction.”
The contraceptive pill is polluting the environment and is in part responsible for male infertility.”
“Embryonic stem cell research, artificial insemination and the prospect of human cloning have shattered human dignity.”

It’s one thing to say the church wants you to behave in a moral way. It’s another thing to lie to the billions of people around the world who look up to you as the spokesman for their god. To lie and distort the truth just to control and manipulate people, especially in a moral context, is beyond despicable. It’s evil. I won’t even get into the whole child molestation problem the church tries to hide. That can be a topic for another day, I suppose.

Dr. Steven Novella wrote about this in more detail on his Neurologica blog.

Anyway, the Rogues got into a discussion about ethics and morals that I found quite interesting. I have always struggled to remember the difference between the two but Dr. Novella explained it quite well. Here is a transcription of what he said. Note, I transcribed the explanations and definitions but left out the side talk:

Morals: Things that people choose for themselves and they involve sometimes naked value judgments. Value judgments are just that, they might be informed by facts, logic or reason, but they don’t have to be, and they are personal choices.

Ethics: A system of behavior, of deciding what’s right and wrong based upon reason, knowledge and facts, and an internally consistent logical system that can be applied broadly and universally. You can make an argument for why people shouldn’t kill other people. You don’t have to have faith or a belief system. Based upon first principles we can arrive upon ethics we can all agree upon that are reasonable, and base our laws and our society on.

Example:

Morals: Someone says, “I believe you should not have sex outside of marriage. That’s my personal morality. I think it’s important because I think it’s a virtue or for whatever reason, and I think that’s how one should live their life. I’m not saying it’s scientifically a better way to go or that there’s any specific advantage to it, that’s just a personal moral decision I make for myself.”

Ethics: We should make a law saying that it’s illegal for people to have sex before marriage because you can derive from first principles an ethical argument that says that it’s wrong, that there’s some moral hazard involved there.

That makes sense! But he mentions something that we need to define:

First Principle: in philosophy, a first principle is a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.

Ok, good to know.

So what do you call it when someone claims to represent an invisible man in the sky and then lies about scientific theories and practices to manipulate people to act in bad faith, which they will call morals, which will lead to the deaths of countless of those people and others? Bad ethics? If you force your skewed socio-pathic morals on others in the name of the invisible man in the sky, so that they then make horrible choices that lead to their death or the death and sickness of innocent people, maybe you’d just call it heinous, cold-blooded murder.

Hey, christians, you’re not off the hook either. rick warren, that slimeball, supports martin ssempa who has burned condoms in Africa in the name of jesus. So don’t be thinking it’s just the catholics.

I think when you put yourself above others and think you have moral superiority for whatever reason, especially for religious reasons, you are painfully wrong. Morals are personal. Forcing them on others is just plain wrong. Of course, I’m beating my head against a brick wall on this, I know. That’s partly what religion seems to be, feeling morally superior to people who don’t worship the same god as you. Well, it’s ridiculous. Thank the Invisible Pink Unicorn that I’m a happy, ethical atheist.

Atheism is the Default

Neece — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 04:40:23 +0000

Butch (my nearly perfect husband) and I have been having discussions lately about what the default is for people. Are we naturally atheistic or if we were raised without indoctrination would we still create a god?

Butch feels strongly that humans are atheists by default. We must be indoctrinated by authority figures to turn us into creatures bowing to invisible gods we created to have dominion over us.I’m kind of up in the air. Here are some recent studies and ideas I’ve talked about recently that show how the religious and the non-believer use their brains differently:

Church: No brain activity required- study showed how experiencing transcendence basically shut down the right parietal lobe.
More differences in the brains of believers and non-believers: A recent study that found religious people were less anxious about mistakes they made than non-believers.
Knowledge and Beliefs are stored differently in the brain: this wasn’t a specific study. Dr. Steven Novella mentioned it in passing on his podcast.
Religion is the path of least resistance: This was about an article in New Scientist where people are born believers. I strongly suspect the way they conducted the studies mentioned.
Superstitious? It could be your lack of control: This was a neat study about people who were basically put into a situation where they felt a lack of control found patterns more readily in random information.

The more I talk to Butch about this topic, and the more I think about it, the more I agree with him. Although of course it would be nice if we could do some studies that would show some evidence. I don’t think that kind of research could ever really be done though.

I have several ideas:

If you could somehow raise a child in this world without indoctrination but with full exposure to the wonders and structures of science, teach her critical thinking, and give her access to a healthy community of people who are supportive… (ha.. this is getting so funny…. I’ve created Utopia!).. you get my point… I think you’d end up with a critically thinking, healthy person who would never consider creating a mysterious god to rule over her (or him).
The very fact that we have atheists today, in growing numbers all over the planet, shows that if you take away the dogma and expose the lies and myths, some people will shrug off the mantle of religion even though in most societies, it means putting oneself outside the supposed comforts of society. It turns them into an outsider, to some degree.
If you have a primitive society with very little control over their lives in terms of survival, exposure to the elements (weather, storms, drought, etc), food supply, etc, I think that society will create gods in almost all cases. History demonstrates this time and again, as I’m sure primitive and/or isolated societies today will also show.
Forced atheism is not very successful, from my limited historical survey. I’m thinking of Pol Pot and Stalin. I think it drives people to search even harder for a heavenly father to save them from their suffering and persecution. It takes control of a person so fully, so that they are not even allowed to have their own thoughts, that the person would then cry out for salvation from such ill treatment and seek spiritual salvation, since they can’t have control over their physical and mental lives.
Along that line of thinking, if a people is generally repressed, it seems that they turn to religion with zeal. Again, this is from my perspective of history. Here’s an example. Tribal wars in Africa resulted in the winning tribe selling the losers as slaves which were brought to America. These slaves embraced christianity with fervor. This makes sense because they had no control over any aspect of their lives and christianity offered them salvation for their soul, and a future (albeit after death) that was perfect and wonderful. If they couldn’t be free in this life, they still had something to look forward to after death. From what I recall of American history, slave owners encouraged christian worship by their slaves because it kept them happy and under control.
If you raise a child in fear of an invisible god in the sky who watches him 24/7 and keeps a book of his actions, add a few other mythical beings that are even more friendly, but also require good behavior (Santa, etc), indoctrinate that child through repetitive singing of hymns, simplistic stories told over and over, repeated enforcement of those concepts, then whenever something good happens you praise the invisible god, and whenever something bad happens you blame the child and punish him for making the invisible god angry, you slowly weaken his self esteem. Not a bit of critical thinking is taught. Prayers (some morbid) are enforced and encouraged. This creates a weak-minded individual who is completely subject to mythical thinking, superstition and fanciful ideas. He has no self esteem to speak of and must continue to rely on his god delusion to sustain him and help him navigate society and life, and make decisions.

So, I think after all that, if we could raise a child without dogma or brainwashing, I think the default would be atheism. But I value your opinion. So feel free to comment and add to the discussion.

Sometimes It Sucks To Be A Skeptic

Neece — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:15:30 +0000

I think I understand what it’s like to be lost in a world of woo thinking. Maybe even an inkling of what it’s like to believe in Jesus as your personal hero.

Butch, my awesome husband, came home Friday night and told me he felt awful. He and I both got a cold about 3 weeks ago and he shook if off in about 4 days while I suffered with a nasty chest cold, congestion and laryngitis until just the other day. I didn’t want to hear that he was sick again. It was my birthday weekend, we were supposed to go out to dinner on Sunday (last night), and I was hoping we’d both be feeling well for a change.

Alas, it was not to be. He had a fever, the chills, and was completely miserable. And here’s where I realized I felt totally helpless. I can’t stand seeing someone I love sick. When Butch or my dogs or someone I care about has a problem or is in pain, I want to fix them. I want to make them at least feel better. But sometimes there’s nothing you can do.

Butch seemed to have the flu, which is a virus, and really all I could do was make him a hot toddy, be extra nice, and send him to bed to sleep it off.

Recently my older dog, Koku went through some weird emotional thing where whenever I gave the dogs treats, he would suddenly act like there was thunder and lightning and he would practically jump in my lap and shiver. Which is also new. He just developed a dislike of thunder last year. Poor little fella is anxious like me, I guess. But again, there really wasn’t anything I could do for him, except give him some affection and make sure that he was physically alright. (I can put him on doggy prozac, I guess, but that would make him sleep all day, so it’s a last resort.)

But it’s painful to watch the ones I love suffer. I hate it. In my previous life, I was into taking vitamins and airborne. And before that I (shamefully admit) I believed in energy healing. But back then, I had solutions. I could turn to a concoction or my hands with authority and say, “this will make you feel better.” Butch didn’t believe in the energy stuff, but sometimes he’d let me do my woo woo magic. Because when you’re sick, you just want to feel better, even if it’s a long shot.

Then I figured out that energy healing was totally bogus. Which meant I lost a huge security blanket. It was all a placebo, nothing more. Recently the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe, along with other podcasts and science news, helped me to become a full fledged Skeptic. (I have a badge and everything!) I learned that taking vitamins have been found to actually shorten your lifespan (a recent study), mega doses of vitamins can be very harmful, and taking airborne as suggested is dangerous, and that it was never properly tested. So, now I have no security blankets at all. It’s just me and bare naked facts and science.

Most times that is quite liberating, not to be weighed down with lies and nonsense. But when my loved ones are sick and there’s nothing that can really be done except fluids and bed rest, (oh, and TLC, of course), I feel really naked and frustrated.

So I guess I understand why people turn to crackpot pseudo-science. I see why they buy ridiculous remedies, books for crazy diets, books for strange magical ways to improve their lives. I guess I even understand people who pray to Jesus for a cure. It might be a long shot, but at least they’re doing something.

Of course, prayer is actually doing nothing. You’re just wasting time and energy on a god that doesn’t exist. But I guess it makes sense, in a way, if you really believe it’s going to work. Maybe it’s just the knowing, the confidence that Jesus wouldn’t let you down, that whoever wrote that stupid book you read really does have the answer and really wants to help you achieve perfect health and happiness. Whatever it is, it’s doing something, it’s keeping you from realizing that the world is often harsh and cold.

But turning to a god that isn’t there, or a pill that doesn’t do anything useful, or a book that is full of lies isn’t doing anything. It might seem like it’s helpful, but really it’s worse than nothing. Sure, you might feel like you have a bit of control over a bad situation, but you don’t. You’ve given what little control you might have had to the invisible god, the sugar pill, or the guru who wrote the book. See? You’re less in control than ever. With no hope of ever getting any of it back when you believe in lies and let them lead you and control your life.

It sucks. I know. But reality is a harsh mistress.

So, I kissed my husband on the forehead, reminded him that a mild fever is the body’s natural way of fighting infections, and told him I loved him. He was upset about my birthday dinner, but I told him it can wait. No big deal, just feel better. Sometimes all you can do for someone is love them. So that’s what I did. Love is good medicine, at least.

Looking Forward To Monday and Trying to Exercise Again

Neece — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:39:46 +0000

Monday is going to be a great day. I just know it. At least I’m really excited about it. Of course I’m also sort of dreading it for a different reason.
Monday I will hopefully get both my wonderful, new microscope as well as the slides for it. That will be awesome and fun and keep me busy for a long time.
Monday is also my 40th birthday. March 2nd, mark it on your calendars. I’m going to thoroughly be middle aged. This one is really hitting me hard, for some reason. Should I have accomplished something by now? I think about other people my age and then I think about my life and I feel like I haven’t done anything yet. I’m not ready for my life to be half over. I’m just getting started, in some ways.
Anyway, I’m trying to be positive about it all. The microscope is a perfect distraction for my woes.

On another note, I learned about a new study recently that sounded interesting and possibly quite helpful to me. I thought I’d share it with you.
I heard about it on a Canadian science podcast. The professor is James Timmons in league with other researchers in Scotland. It goes like this:

Exercise really hard at 100% intensity for 30 seconds.
Rest.
Repeat 3 more times. (for a total of 4 sprints)
Repeat 2 or more times a week. (3 times a week seems best)

They were mainly looking at the ability for helping people ward off type 2 diabetes and developing cardiovascular disease. The results were quite promising. They found that the metabolism of the people who did this for 2 weeks was dramatically improved. You can read all about it at ScienceDaily: Regular Sprints Boost Metabolism.

Something else, though that Jamie Timmons said in the podcast but didn’t make it to the report at ScienceDaily was that the effects were long lasting. So they did the program for 10 weeks, if I recall correctly, and 3 weeks after it stopped the ability for the subjects to handle a glucose drink was still improved from before the study started. In the study the people used exercise bikes, but Timmons said any type of high intensity activity will work.

I hate exercising. I find it painful, tiring and boring. I’ve been trying to find something I could stick with for, well… for just about 40 years now, and I can’t stick to any of it. I just keep failing. So maybe this will work. I started last night. It was hard, but the time commitment is so reduced from the normal exercise program that I think I might be able to stick to it longer.

I was afraid I was too out of shape, but I have a mini trampoline so I jogged in place at 100% effort for four 30 second sprints. I held 1 pound weights for the last 2 sprints. It wasn’t easy. But it wasn’t unbearable either. Knowing it was only for 30 seconds really helped make it easier to handle. By the end of the 4th stint I felt like I had really accomplished something.

In looking for the study to share with you, I found some others that are also quite interesting.

In No Time To Exercise Is No Excuse, The Journal of Physiology stated the same thing that Timmons is saying. Short, intense bursts of exercise can produce the same results as traditional endurance training. It helps you improve muscle health and performance. Which also means heart health, because that’s your biggest muscle. This study says to do 4-6 bursts with 4 minutes rest in between. Timmons didn’t seem to imply that you had to rest a certain amount of time, just until you felt recovered. After my exercise last night, 4 minutes does sound about right.

In another study, Brief Exercise Can Benefit the Heart, they found that this same regimen can improve function and structure of blood vessels. This can help with high blood pressure. This keeps our heart and blood vessels more supple and less stiff. This study doesn’t say how many high intensity sprints to do, but did the exercise 3 times a week, which is in line with the other studies.

And here’s another really interesting one. High Intensity Exercise Is The Best Way To Reduce Anxiety. This reduction of anxiety and stress helps lower risks of cardiovascular disease too. But for me, since I’m such an anxious person, I find this to be very promising. This type of exercise especially benefits women, they found. Especially middle aged women. The reductions of anxiety weren’t necessarily immediate, though. So that is something to be aware of.

Anyway, I thought I’d share all of that with you. Your thoughts are welcome, as always!

Heaving Dead Cats » health

Dark Chocolate and Other Tidbits of Goodness

Related posts

Your Tax Dollars Teaching Medical Students Pseudoscience

Related posts

Vaccines In The News Again

Related posts

Morals, Ethics and Pope Benedict Evil

Related posts

Atheism is the Default

Related posts

Sometimes It Sucks To Be A Skeptic

Related posts

Looking Forward To Monday and Trying to Exercise Again

Related posts