The biggest problem is not the efficacy of curcumin, which is well established, but that the amount of it in turmeric spice is far below a clinical dose and that is is poorly absorbed into the blood.
Here is a good review of what is currently know about turmeric as a supplement and some of the things being tried to make it more useful.
Oats have many well established health benefits. The grain is a great source of dietary fiber, with four to five grams of fiber per serving on average. The beta-glucan in oats, along with their lower glycemic index, has been shown to help lower cholesterol and blood sugar levels, reducing the risk of heart disease. (Though oats are gluten-free, people with celiac disease may want to steer clear of oats that aren’t specifically labeled gluten-free, as they are sometimes grown or processed near other grains that contain gluten.)
There are many different forms of oats but two of the most common and popular are rolled oats and steel cut oats. As you stare at them in the grocery store you may wonder what the difference is.
The primary difference between steel-cut and rolled oats is how they are processed. Steel-cut oats are made as the name suggests, by cutting the oats into smaller pieces using a steel blade. Rolled oats are steamed and then rolled flat. This means that they absorb liquid more quickly than steel-cut oats and so they will cook up in about half the time. When you cook steel-cut oats, they take on a very chewy texture that clumps together. When you cook rolled oats, they become silkier and runnier than steel-cut oats.
The nutritional value of both types of oats are very similar, but rolled oats are slightly higher in calories and carbs than steel-cut oats. Steel-cut oats are slightly higher in protein and soluble fiber content than rolled oats. In either case, the carbs are complex carbs and fiber, not the simple carbs many people try to limit or avoid.
At the end of the day, it comes down to which you prefer. Another possibility to consider is oat bran. Since it contains the intact bran is it higher in fiber than either rolled or steel cut oats, cooks up more quickly and has a similar nutritional profile.
Whichever you choose, oats are a great way to start your day.
Digestive enzymes help us break down food. Protease is the enzyme that helps our body process proteins, but it can’t completely break down gluten. Most people can handle the undigested gluten with no problems. But in some people, gluten can trigger a severe autoimmune response or other unpleasant symptoms. An autoimmune response to gluten is called celiac disease. Some people who don’t have celiac disease still seem to feel sick after eating foods that contain gluten. They may experience bloating, diarrhea, headaches or skin rashes. This may be a reaction to poorly digested carbohydrates and not to gluten at all gluten. These carbs, called FODMAPS, ferment in your gut. People with sensitive guts may experience discomfort from that fermentation but, again, not necessarily from gluten.
Anyone diagnosed with celiac disease needs to avoid eating gluten as completely as possible. Nearly all people who do not have celiac disease do not need a gluten-free diet. However, a very small number of people people may have a condition called non-celiac gluten sensitivity but this is poorly understood. Presently there are no blood markers or other diagnostic indicators of gluten sensitivity so it is based entirely on an individual's experience.
Despite the widespread presence of gluten in the food supply, a gluten-free diet can be as healthy, tasty and varied as any other. Fruits, vegetables, beans, dairy, nuts, meat, poultry and seafood are all naturally gluten-free. Only wheat, barley and rye - or foods contaminated with those particular grains - are "off the table".
Here are some tips from Anne Lee, assistant professor of nutritional medicine at the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University in New York City.
If a package says "gluten free" you can nearly always trust it to be. Still, for grain based products, be sure to check the ingredient list to rule out any wheat, barley or rye. On the other hand many packages tout being gluten free (and they are) even when the food they contain has no gluten in it anyway (gluten free wine anyone?).
Many gluten-free breads, crackers and cereals add starches that contain very little fiber - potato, rice, corn, tapioca, etc. And many add significant amounts of sugar, salt or fat to improve the flavor.
There are many gluten-free grains, including quinoa, brown rice, amaranth, millet, sorghum and buckwheat.
While it is possible to find beers that claim "gluten removed", the process is not entirely trustworthy and they are best avoided. Wine is perfectly safe, as are all distilled spirits, including rye whiskey.
Here is a great source if you need to (or want to) eat gluten-free:
https://celiac.org/gluten-free-living/gluten-free-foods/
In the study, laboratory animals that were given niacin in extended release tablets showed improved cognition and developed fewer amyloid plaques in their brains, both signs of Alzheimer's.
In the brain, niacin interacts with a highly-selective receptor present in immune cells and physically associated with amyloid plaques. When niacin activates the receptor, it stimulates beneficial actions from these immune cells, said Gary Landreth, PhD, Martin Professor of Alzheimer's Research, one of the lead researchers on the study.
Past epidemiology studies of niacin and Alzheimer's disease showed that people who had higher levels of niacin in their diet had diminished risk of the disease, Landreth said. Niacin is also currently being used in clinical trials in Parkinson's disease and glioblastoma.
While this study does not prove a causal relationship between niacin and Alzheimer's it suggests a promising direction for additional research in humans.
Foods that are high in niacin include fish, chicken, pork, beef, mushrooms, brown rice, peanuts, avocados, green peas, bell peppers and beans.
The popular recommendation of taking 10,000 steps per day to maintain optimal health is is so widespread that it is widely accepted as true. The problem is, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim. In fact, the claim that 10,000 steps every day was what you needed to stay in good health is nothing more than an unsubstantiated number invented to market a pedometer. That's right. There is no scientific basis for the claim whatsoever.
Still, there is little doubt that walking does indeed help improve and maintain your good health. Many published studies credit walking with benefits ranging from lowering blood pressure to improving your heart health to maintaining a healthy weight. So how much walking is needed to reap these health benefits? If not 10,000 steps then how many?
In a study published in JAMA Open Network in September of 2021, researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst tracked the daily walking of over 2,000 middle aged people for 15 years. The verdict?
Those who walked an average of 7,000 steps per day had a 50% lower risk if death from any cause compared with those who walked less than 7,000 steps.
Another study published in Lancet Public Health analyzed data on 47,000 people and also found a markedly reduced rate of mortality from any cause among those who regularly averaged 6,000 to 8,000 steps per day.
So it seems like 7,000 makes for a better and more realistic steps-per-day target for most people. Just to give you some calibration, 2,000 steps roughly equates to a walk of about 1 mile.
But wait, there's more!
Research from McGill University in Canada concluded that adding just 1,200 additional steps to your day will decrease your risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and overall mortality. The benefits are not as great as for the 7,000 steppers, but they are significant. Those starting from the fewest steps per day will see the greatest benefit.
Walking is free, requires no specialized equipment or training and taking a surprisingly low number of additional daily steps will make you a healthier person.
Researchers conducted three studies of 400 American and British men to find out and the results were published in the journal Appetite. For each study, participants completed a questionnaire to score their attitude regarding their own self-perceived masculinity. In each case, men with low scores were more inclined to purchase and/or pay more for red meat than men who had high scores.
Meat marketers have long been aware of the association and used it in their marketing campaigns. Who says "Beef! It's what for dinner?", a cowboy or a housewife? Is eating a Hardee's Monster Roast Beef really "like doing doughnuts in a hotrod while catching the game winning Hail Mary"? Sure, Arby's "has the meat" but who is buying it?
Do Real Men eat red meat?
No. Real Men eat what they want.
Do low or ultra-low carbohydrate diets give you an edge losing weight?
Not according to an extensive review of over 60 clinical trials including amost 7,000 individuals. People lost no more weight on low-carb diets than those on diets including higher levels of carbohydrates. While only 14 of the trials included ultra-low carb diets, they fared no better.
This is not to suggest that low-carb diets do not have high value for some people, especially Type 2 diabetics or prediabetics. But if you are not struggling with controlling your blood sugar levels a low-carb approach give you no particular advantage when trying to lose some weight.
What does work? Consistently consuming fewer calories than you burn. Its not a magic bullet, but it works.
The other day I saw a post on Tic Tok by someone I follow and respect. In this particular post she was on a rant about people who had successfully lost a significant amount of weight, made a video about their experience and were then garnering lots of followers from among other people who were hoping to lose weight. Her objection, it seems, was that these people did not have "credentials" (she does). In other words they had not been certified as weight loss experts by virtue of their education.
Now to be clear, I have nothing against experts. For the many years I was working my consulting business, I was one. But as I re-watched her video I had several problems with her whole premise.
First of all, education and credentials may make you an expert in the sense that they certify that you have taken classes and passed tests. They are a pretty good (but not infallible) indication that you posses some specialized knowledge about something. But that really says very little about your expertise or your practical, hands on experience. Being an expert means you are knowledgeable. Having expertise means you are skilled. Clearly they are closely related but they are not the same thing. Someone can have both, or can have either one without the other.
Second, while experts do indeed posses specialized knowledge, they may or may not be capable of using that knowledge in a practical way, or even communicating it to non-experts. Someone with expertise may not have a deep understanding of the theory underpinning what they do, but they can never-the-less do it well. I doubt that the mechanics who worked on the engine of my airplane were especially well versed in fluid dynamics or thermodynamics. But they sure could keep airplane engines running. It has been shown that actual penal system inmates are more effective at making a positive impression on troubled teens than are licensed physiologists. Knowledge vs skill.
Now I am not suggesting that you steer clear of experts. Experts create new knowledge and advance our understanding. But if you want to lose weight and have a choice between a college educated nutritionist or a certified nutrition counselor who knows how to do it but has never actually had to do it themselves, or someone who has personally lost say 45 pounds and kept it off for a few years, who do you want to talk with?
Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in men and women and is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. The American Cancer Society estimates that there will be over 150,000 new cases of colorectal cancer in the United States in 2022. Over 52,000 Americans will die from it this year.
There is no sure way to prevent colorectal cancer. But there are things you can do that can help lower your risk of developing it, such as changing the risk factors that you can control. These include smoking, excessive alcohol use, a diet that is high in red and processed meat, a sedentary lifestyle and being overweight. Each of these factors is a lifestyle choice that you make.
A study completed earlier this year and published in JNCI Cancer Spectrum concluded that losing as little as 1.1 pounds every five years from age 50 through the mid-70s reduces your risk of developing colorectal cancer by 15%. Gaining more than 6.6 pounds increases your risk by 18%.
Weight loss in adulthood was associated with reduced cancer risk, particularly for those who were overweight or obese, whereas weight gain increased risk. These findings underscore the importance of healthy weight maintenance throughout adulthood in preventing colorectal cancers.
Are there seriously people who can not lose a little more than 1 pound every 5 years?
Once upon a time, as recently as the early 1900s, Americans were typically self-employed and worked until they died — which they could expect to happen, on average, around age 65. The old and infirm relied on charity or extended families for support. That all changed amid the rapid industrialization and rising prosperity of the 20th century. Life expectancy for those who reached working age shot upward but companies, which increasingly dominated the economy, proved unwilling to employ older workers, whom they saw as less productive. For an increasing number of people, a period of idleness became possible, even inevitable.
With old workers forced out of employment without the financial means to support themselves. the government recognized the new reality by establishing Social Security in 1935. The program initially started paying benefits at age 65, which became the official retirement threshold. Yet it was never intended to provide more than a bare minimum income. To maintain a decent standard of living, people (or their employers) had to do something they had never done before: set aside enough money for life after work.
Most experts agree that a significant portion of the population will lack the resources to live comfortably after they stop working. This lack of savings is more than a humanitarian crisis. It is also a social and fiscal disaster in the making. The more people reach retirement with inadequate resources, the more they will rely on welfare programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and Supplemental Security Income to survive. One study estimates that by 2030, seniors will require an added $7 billion in public assistance annually in the state of New Jersey alone. That’s almost a fifth of the current state budget. And New Jersey doesn’t have an outsized senior population. The situation in other states could easily be worse. Under very reasonable assumptions, this could overwhelm state budgets across the country.
For many workers in the United States, retirement is a train without brakes barreling down the tracks. It will come no matter what, but it may be painful when it finally arrives. In a 2014 Federal Reserve survey, 38% of those surveyed had no retirement plans, or planned to continue working as long as possible. This number is much greater in low income communities; among those polled with an annual income of $40,000 or less, 55% plan to never retire. And 53% of total respondents replied that they would be unable to cover a $400 emergency should problems in daily life arise.
A similar 2016 study performed by the Economic Policy Institute came to similar conclusions: just under one half of working-age families (39 to 61 years in age) have absolutely nothing saved for retirement. Zero. The mean amount of savings for families in this bracket is a paltry $5,000, or the equivalent of a month or two of living expenses.
This is not a matter of lazy and irresponsible slackers getting their comeuppance. For the most part, these are people who have worked hard and paid taxes all their lives but were unable to afford to set aside resources for retirement. Add on top of this healthcare costs rising rapidly in lockstep with chronic illness rates and you have a looming crisis of unprecedented scale and scope.
It is past time to stop ignoring this problem because it is already here and is only going to get worse. Attitudes about the "safe and smart" thing being employment need to change and people need to begin establishing their own (perhaps part time) businesses. Side gigs and multiple sources of income need to become the norm. Let's open the discussion.
People regularly sleeping less than 6 hours a night have an increased risk of developing dementia later in life compared with those who usually sleep more than 7 hours.
According to a study published in the journal Nature Communications, getting six hours or less of sleep a night during middle age significantly increases the risk of dementia. The 25-year study of just under 8,000 participants found that those who averaged less than six hours of sleep at age 50, 60 and 70 were associated with a 30% higher dementia risk that was independent of demographic, behavioral and mental health factors.
“Even though we can’t say sleep duration has a causal impact on dementia, it would be good to encourage good sleep hygiene,” said the study’s lead author and French Institute of Health and Medical Research epidemiologist Séverine Sabia.
According to experts not associated with the study, the results are particularly noteworthy for the long period over which participants were observed and because authors took other factors into consideration. “That gives us greater confidence that this study was looking purely at the relationship between dementia and sleep,” said Brigham and Women’s Hospital sleep scientist Rebecca Robbins, who was unaffiliated with the study.
To attempt to get more and better sleep, Robbins recommends daily natural light exposure, eating dinner a minimum of one hour ahead of retiring and creating a bedtime ritual of turning off all screens (cell phones, computers, TVs, video games) to prepare your mind for slumber.
A 2022 study of 3.5 million Americans by the CDC and published in JAMA Cardiology uncovered mixed news. On the positive side, the rate of heart disease is on the decline for older adults age 65 and above, although it is a modest decline.
The rest of the news was not so encouraging. For those aged 45 to 64, heart disease rates are mostly static but they are rising for those age 18 to 44. That is to say, while heart disease is declining modestly among the oldest adults rates are rising for the youngest. Even though fewer heart attacks are occurring in the US overall they are steadily rising in very young adults. The new data not only validates this trend but also reveals that more heart attacks are striking those under age 40.
"It used to be incredibly rare to see anyone under age 40 come in with a heart attack -- and some of these people are now in their 20s and early 30s," said Ron Blankstein, MD, a preventive cardiologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital and the study's senior author. "Based on what we are seeing, it seems that we are moving in the wrong direction."
"It all comes back to prevention," Blankstein said. "Many people think that a heart attack is destined to happen, but the vast majority could be prevented with earlier detection of the disease and aggressive lifestyle changes and management of other risk factors. My best advice is to avoid tobacco, get regular exercise, eat a heart healthy diet, lose weight if you need to, manage your blood pressure and cholesterol, avoid diabetes if you can, and stay away from cocaine and marijuana because they're not necessarily good for your heart."
At what point do we as a society conclude that if a person is unwilling to assume responsibility for her or her own health then they are responsible for the consequences? Freedom to choose to do what you want carries a responsibility to bear the consequences of your own choices.
