Health for life

Chemotherapy is never something anyone wants to go through but for many it is the difference between life and death. There are many side effects to this type of cancer treatment and dry skin is one of the most common. The dry skin is more associated with the medications that are used during the treatments rather than the chemotherapy itself. Coping with skin issues, however, is often much easier than coping with some of the other side effects such as hair loss.


Is Your Skin Dry?

If you did not pay much attention to your skin before you started your chemotherapy sessions then you may not know what to expect. There are some common signs that you can watch for that can alert you as soon as it becomes an issue:

· Skin Feels Tight

· You Start to Itch More

· The Skin Looks Scaly

· Your Skin Starts Peeling

· There is Cracking of the Skin

These symptoms go from the earliest signs to the final signs of drying skin. Once you notice your skin is becoming tighter, you should start taking measures to hydrate it. Once the skin gets to the cracking stage, there is more pain associated with the dry skin. You may even notice the big cracks are starting to bleed.

Treating the Dry Skin

If you notice any of the symptoms above your skin is in distress and needs to be rehydrated. The first thing you can do is drink more water. This is the first thing your oncologist will tell you, too. All of your cells need water to thrive, including skin cells. The medications and radiation from the treatments really dry out the body and is what causes the dry skin issues.

Here are some other tips to keeping your skin well hydrated:

· Avoid bathing or showing in very hot water.

· Do not linger while showering or bathing.

· Use soothing scent free-soap.

· Moisturize with body butter directly after your shower and reapply liberally.

· Use a SPF 30 or higher sunblock any time you go outside.

· Products with ammonium lactate help with severe dry skin.

· Do not rub skin dry; pat it with a soft, absorbent towel instead.

Dry skin is a common side effect from chemotherapy. While it is uncomfortable, it can be painful if the above tips are not followed. Peeling and cracking skin can cause scarring if the cracks get too deep under the epidermal layer. The main tip to remember is to keep your skin moisturized from the inside and out.

Article by : Lisa A Mason

Article Source : Treating Dry Skin After Chemotherapy

A large diabetes study was interrupted yesterday because of an unexpected number of deaths. Whats notable here is that only one arm of the study was halted, that involving participants who were undergoing aggressive blood glucose lowering strategies. The less intensive treatment arms are ongoing.

The study in question is the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, which enlisted 10,251 patients with type 2 diabetes who were at high risk for heart disease. After about 4 years, there were 257 deaths in the intensive treatment arm and 203 deaths in those receiving standard BG treatment ... a difference of 54 deaths.

Elizabeth Nabel, director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) which is sponsoring the study, said, "The harm of the very intensive treatment outweighed the potential benefit."

Intensive Treatment

All participants received the same dietary and lifestyle recommendations. However, since the goal for those in the intensive treatment arm was to achieve an HbA1C < 6.0%, a fasting BG of 100 mg/dl or less, and a 2-hour postprandial BG of 140 mg/dl or less, several drug therapies were aggressively employed. The protocol stated:

"Most intensive group participants will likely be on 3 or more injections of insulin per day in addition to 2 or 3 oral agents." All patients in the intensive arm received a minimum of 2 oral agents.
- ACCORD Protocol, May 11, 2005

Those in the standard treatment groups used a combination of dietary, lifestyle and drug therapies to achieve an HbA1C of 7.0 to 7.9% and a fasting BG of 90 mg/dl or more. Postprandial BGs were not routinely used to guide therapy in this group, and healthcare contacts were less frequent and less intense.

ACCORD researchers have not yet determined the cause of the excessive deaths.

Dr. Steven Nissen, chairman of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic speculated that patients may suffer unintended consequences from taking so many drugs, which might interact in unexpected ways.
________
News summaries:
Deaths Halt Part of Diabetes Study, Scientists Fear Heart Attacks, Strokes Were Tied to Treatment, Washington Post
Diabetes Study Partially Halted After Deaths, New York Times

NHLBI press release:
For Safety, NHLBI Changes Intensive Blood Sugar Treatment Strategy in Clinical Trial of Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease

ACCORD Trial online:
ACCORD

Hi,

It is late Sunday night and I wanted to share about yesterdays cheat meal and the later body reactions I observed and recorded.

First I want to explain the purpose of the cheat meal on my veggies and protein diet which is, essentially, a low-carb program.  (Im not going to get technical -- because at the moment I cant find the original sources I read on these ideas. Sorry. When I find them, Ill post and share them. For now, this is what I remember about it and what Im basing my program on.)

The best explanation Ive heard, and the reason I wanted to try it, was a description of the progress of a person on a normal low-carb diet which often follows a pattern similar to this:

Week one -- six-pound weight loss (oh happy day -- all is well and Im feeling very successful)
Week two -- three-pound weight loss (still happy)
Week three -- one pound loss, happy to still be losing but wishing it were more
Week four -- half pound loss, happy to still be losing but getting a little frustrated at doing all the right stuff and only losing half a pound
Week five -- no weight loss, but hey, you did not put any on, so that is good (trying to remain optimistic about still doing all the right stuff and seeing no results.)
Week six -- one pound gain -- and you were good all week long -- what gives?
A few weeks of no weight loss and then some weight gain and, man, this is getting harder and harder -- Im doing everything right and not losing any weight -- so whats the use?
Binge

OK, you get the picture and if youve ever dieted you know exactly what Im talking about. The information I read said that the diet itself is the culprit because what is happening is your metabolism is actually slowing down which slows down the weight loss. Your body has perfectly adjusted to what you are feeding it and it has gone into "starvation mode" meaning it is not giving up any more weight, no matter what. What the once-a-week, hour-long, cheat meal does is rev up your metabolism again, so that you dont hit plateaus, but continue to lose pounds each week. The cheat meal actually fools your metabolism and takes you out of "starvation mode" so you can continue to lose weight. At least that is the theory that Im testing.

I have first-hand experience in knowing that carbs are what I call "cumulative." It takes a while to totally remove or deplete them and their effects from my body.  It takes three days for the cravings to stop, because it takes that long for the body to adjust to a lower amount of carb intake. It takes about three days for edema to disappear. It takes six days for the pain levels to reduce. Excess carbs, which produce excess sugar in the blood and excess fat to be stored in the body, which also causes inflammation and pain are still affecting the body for six more days.

All this is evidence that excess carbs are stored in the body. Notice Im talking about "excess" carbs here. The body uses a normal amount of carbs to keep us going, to keep us feeling good (comfort food), and they are necessary for certain processes in the body but excess carbs are ultimately stored as fat in the body. The Diabetic or Pre-Diabetic person has a body that no longer functions quite properly in relation to excess carbs. It has gotten worn out and is in the process of being completely overwhelmed by sugar and trying to deal with it. It is very slowly shutting down and the medical profession calls this "diabetes."

So, for these reasons, I believe the cheat meal, replenishes just enough carbs for our bodies and brains to function properly (stay healthy) without adding too much which causes both inflammation, cravings, edema, and weight gain.

The reason for the one-hour time limit on the once a week cheat meal is that when you first start to eat, even when your mouth starts watering, your body sends out an insulin release to prepare for the onslaught. Insulin is called the "hunger hormone" because it makes you feel hungry. If you eat your meal in under an hour that initial response is the only insulin release your body sends out and you experience a normal amount of hunger.

But, if you eat (or even sample something) at from 65 to 75 minutes later, your body sends out another insulin dose -- and you get hungry again which leads to a great deal of over eating. So if you limit the time period to one hour (60 minutes) you dont get that "hungry again" reaction -- and you keep your blood insulin levels lower -- which keeps your inflammation (and pain) response smaller. (Think about Thanksgiving and how you could not believe you were still eating after the meal. All you had to do was have one cookie and you were off again and eating more of everything. This was the meal after the meal. That occurred as a result of the second insulin release. If you had simply not sampled that cookie past the one-hour time limit, you would not have wanted any more food.)

There are also psychological purposes behind the cheat meal -- if you know that every week you will have one real opportunity to "go crazy" on your favorite food for an hour you wont feel so "deprived." Oddly enough that feeling of diet deprivation can lead to resentment and rebellion -- at least in me. Having that one-hour long cheat meal, once every seven days means that I dont have to give up everything I love! I can have my cake and eat it -- as long as it is only once a week. If I am not rebelling against my own diet... if I am not in resentment.... I am more likely to stay on the program the other six days. And that also is why Im trying out the cheat meal approach.

So now. Ive had my first cheat meal and wanted to record the observable reactions of my body and psyche -- just for the record.

What I did was go to a Chinese buffet with my cousin Julianna at about two p.m. and purposefully pig out on all the things that I normally avoid and the first reaction I had to this experience was a feeling of freedom and relief. It was almost exciting to know that I could eat anything on the buffet that I wanted without restrictions. It was like being let loose in a candy store. LOL.

I was actually a little timid as I wandered the aisles with my empty plate. First, I very caully chose one spoonful of fried rice, a couple of small pinches of angel hair rice noodles, and a few of their stir fried potatoes. I also had a little chicken and broccoli. Then I took an almond or "finger-nail" cookie. It was a bit strange to not be in a state of rebellion, but in a state of obedience, while I did this. It was kind of nice, really. As I ate my plate of food I savored the textures and the flavors. They had a new item, chicken pie, which reminded me of chicken pot pie, but it was in small wedges rather than a round bowl shape and I really liked it. Then since the hour was not up... I had a second plate of food.

By the end of the second plate I was beginning to feel absolutely stuffed to the gills. That is when I remembered that I dont really like that kind of "stuffed" feeling. It feels almost bloated and stiff or nearly painful, but not quite. I always feel like the food is somehow expanding in my stomach and making me feel uncomfortable. Then I had ice cream and cookies for dessert.

When I mentioned that I could "feel my heart beating," Julianna did not seem to understand what I was saying. I meant that after gorging on all that high carb food my body was reacting and I could feel the slow, pump, pump, pump of my heart as I secretly wondered if I had gone too far. Since she did not have a point of erence, I just changed the subject.

When I got home, I had to sit in my chair with my feet up and rest. After about twenty minutes the heart pumping disappeared and I felt a little better -- especially after I had burped a really loud one. I laughed and challenged Julianna to beat that one. Her reply was that a lady does not do such things. That gave me pause, so I asked her if she had just told me I was not a lady, and reproved her for talking to her elderly cousin that way. We both had a good laugh!!

At about 7:30 Julianna said she was hungry so I offered to cook one of the steaks I had originally planned for our get together along with a bowl of salad -- but I was way not ready to eat anything, yet.

At a little after 8 p.m. I also got a little hungry so I had a large sausage patty and that was it. I could not face a whole steak, yet, and did not want any salad -- so I just smothered the sausage in spicy brown mustard and ate that.

This morning my blood sugar was 109 but my blood pressure was a little high at 166/83. I ate properly today and had no cravings. That was what I wanted to find out the most. Would that crazy cheat meal put me into craving mode. It did not. Not even a little bit. So far. So good.

I dont want to start applying more restrictions to the cheat meal but I think it would be wiser if I did not go quite so far over board next Saturday. I am wondering if I should cook my own cheat meal next week -- but Im afraid of having left overs in the house. I will decide when the time is nearer if I will once again go out, or if I will make something myself. Oh well. That decision is for another time.

Anyway. I think this might work really well. I had lost five pounds before the cheat meal, and I put on two pounds this morning -- but my ankles were not swollen even a little bit this morning. So I will record my daily weights this week and see what happens.

Hope you are doing well and walking your chosen path with hope in your heart.

Be back soon,

Marcia

Hi,

It has been a week since I last fasted and I am preparing for another one to begin today at 5 p.m. I have been really excited about the results of that one 24-hour fast. My weight has been trending downward each day to a total lost for the week of 1.5 pounds. Not earth shattering, but, after what had been happening in the weeks leading up to it, I consider the fast a total freaking success. What a pleasure it was to wake up to a smaller number on all but one morning. I was not really expecting that!

The one major noticeable result is still the edema which did not begin to resume until about three days later. When it did come back it also remained much smaller, too. It has only been in the last two days that it appears to have begun to swell to almost (not quite) my pre-fast condition, again. I am hoping that starting at a slightly less swollen state will make my post-second-fast ankle size even smaller.

Looking at my food journal I see that I ended the first fast with a large bowl of curried chicken to which I added one nine-ounce package of angel hair Konjac shirataki noodles. I still remember the experience. I had a real feeling of true pleasure when I simply held the warm bowl of noodles in my hand and sniffed the scent of the curry and chicken. That was at about 5 p.m. At 8 p.m. I put half of a pound of hamburger in the convection oven, then ate it with spicy brown mustard. At about 8:30 I got hungry again and had 3 scrambled eggs. The next morning I had lost 1/4 of a pound!!

For the next three days I noticed I was satisfied with smaller meals and enjoyed the actual feeling of my tummy telling me, "I cant eat another bite" after having eaten much smaller amounts than usual. That was a nice change from the usual lusting for food. It was an actual eye-opener for me. I saw that my body can act in a normal way around food when the addiction is turned off. It seems that the fast turned the addiction off for a space of time.

During the week I wanted to stick to the snack/meal/snack program but was mentally a little lax since I had done the 24-hour fast and knew that the "Eat Stop Eat" program does not include extremely rigid diet rules during the rest of the time but strongly suggests being "sensible" -- and we all know what that means.

I have noticed that my snack size is now creeping to a little larger than a true snack size, but it is still smaller than a meal. To keep myself on track without getting fanatic I began to measure with the bowls I serve my snacks and meals in. The snack bowl is about a cup smaller than the meal bowl, and I use the two sizes to gauge how much food I am eating at a sitting because on about day four my "familiar" eating habits wanted to surge back, again.

Yesterday I even had an additional snack in the evening but made it purely raw vegetables. I cut up a bowl of raw broccoli, added a few grape tomatoes and put dressing and seasonings on it. Afterwards, I still felt hungry so I had an avocado after which I ate a teaspoon of coconut oil. The high oil content of the avocado and the CO seemed to quench the desire for more food.

My final observation yesterday was to realize that I am, after all, doing more of small meal/medium sized meal/small meal. So the meal is not as large as before, but the snacks are not as small. Over all I lost weight. I am happy with that so feel as though I am moving along successfully. I can see the goal ahead of me.

Be back soon,

Marcia

As a class, people who dont drink at all have a higher mortality risk than light drinkers. But nondrinkers are a diverse bunch, and the reasons people have for abstaining affects their individual mortality risk, in some cases lowering it on par with the risk for light drinkers, according to a University of Colorado study.

Multiple studies have shown that the likelihood of dying for people who drink increases as they consume more alcohol. Those same studies have shown that a persons mortality risk also increases at the other end of the spectrum — among people who choose not to drink at all — though the risk is still much less than for heavy drinkers.

Some researchers have hypothesized that the increased mortality among nondrinkers could be related to the fact that light alcohol consumption — drinking, on average, less than one drink a day — might actually protect people from disease and reduce their stress levels.

But researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder, working with colleagues at the University of Colorado Denver, decided to examine whether characteristics of different subgroups of nondrinkers could explain the increased mortality risk.

"Among nondrinkers, people have all sorts of background reasons for why they dont drink," said sociology Professor Richard Rogers, director of CU-Boulders Population Program in the Institute of Behavioral Science. "We wanted to tease that out because its not really informative to just assume that nondrinkers are a unified group."

For the new study, published in last months issue of the journal Population Research and Policy Review, Rogers and his colleagues relied on data collected in 1988 by the National Health Interview Survey about the drinking habits of more than 41,000 people from across the United States. The researchers also had access to information about which respondents died between taking the survey and 2006.

During the survey, nondrinkers were asked to provide their reasons for not drinking. Possible answers ranged from "dont socialize very much" to "am an alcoholic" to "religious or moral reasons."

The research team divided nondrinkers into three general categories: "abstainers," or people who have never had more than 12 drinks in their lives; "infrequent drinkers," or people who have fewer than 12 drinks a year; and "former drinkers." Each category was further divided using a statistical technique that grouped people together who gave similar clusters of reasons for not drinking.

The team then calculated the mortality risk for each subgroup compared with the mortality risk for light drinkers, and they found that the risks varied markedly.

Abstainers who chose not to drink for a cluster of reasons that included religious or moral motivations, being brought up not to drink, responsibilities to their family, as well as not liking the taste, had similar mortality risks over the follow-up period to light drinkers.

"So this idea that nondrinkers always have higher mortality than light drinkers isnt true," Rogers said. "You can find some groups of nondrinkers who have similar mortality risks to light drinkers."

The other subgroup of abstainers — whose largest reason for not drinking appeared to be a dislike of the taste and to a lesser degree family responsibilities, religious or moral motivations or upbringing — had a 17 percent higher mortality risk over the follow-up period compared with light drinkers.

The scientists also found that infrequent drinkers generally had a slightly higher mortality risk than light drinkers. Former drinkers, however, had the highest mortality risk of all nondrinkers. Former drinkers whose cluster of reasons for not drinking now included being an alcoholic and problems with drinking, for example, had a 38 percent higher mortality risk than light drinkers over the follow-up period.

By comparison, people who drink between one and two drinks per day, on average, have a 9 percent higher mortality rate than light drinkers, while people who drink between two and three drinks per day have a 49 percent higher mortality. People who consume more than three drinks per day had a 58 percent higher mortality risk over the follow-up period compared with light drinkers.

Despite confirming that some subgroups of nondrinkers have a higher mortality rate than light drinkers, it doesnt necessarily follow that those peoples mortality rates would fall if they began drinking, Rogers said. For example, people who were problem drinkers in the past might increase their mortality risk further by starting to drink again.

Also, people who dont drink at all, as a group, have lower socioeconomic characteristics than light drinkers, which could be one of the underlying causes for the mortality differences, Rogers said. In that case, starting to drink without changing a persons socioeconomic status also would not likely lower mortality rates.

"I think the idea that drinking could be somewhat beneficial seems like its overstated," Rogers said. "There may be other factors that lower mortality for light drinkers. Its not just the act of drinking."

A new study has found that drinking-related hypertension has a higher risk in flushers than in non-flushers, and the risk of hypertension was significantly increased when flushers consumed more than four drinks per week.

Excessive drinking is a known risk factor for hypertension. Drinking that results in facial flushing indicates high sensitivity or even intolerance to alcohol. A study of the relationship between drinking and these two conditions has found that drinking-related hypertension has a lower threshold value and higher risk in flushers than in non-flushers.

Results will be published in the April 2014 online-only issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research and are currently available at Early View.

"Facial flushing after drinking is always considered as a symptom of high alcohol sensitivity or even intolerance to alcohol, unless a patient is taking special medicine," said Jong Sung Kim, head of the department of family medicine at Chungnam National University School of Medicine. "The facial flushing response to drinking usually occurs in a person who cannot genetically break down acetaldehyde, the first metabolite of alcohol."

"Facial flushing after alcohol drinking differs across gender, age, and ethnic groups," added Kyung Hwan Cho, president of the Korean Academy of Family Medicine. "In general, it is more common in women, the elderly, and East Asians versus Westerners."

Cho noted that it is well known that excessive alcohol consumption is associated with elevated blood pressure and the likely development of hypertension. "This association persists regardless of beverage type and shows a dose-response relationship, which means excess drinking for weeks or months can increase blood pressure," he said. "However, the relationship may vary by gender, race/ethnicity, or presence of other risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Conversely, many studies have reported that meaningful blood pressure reductions occur after reductions in alcohol drinking."

"To my knowledge," noted Kim, "there has been no detailed research that has analyzed the relationship between drinking and hypertension while considering individual responses to alcohol."

Kim and his colleagues collected data from the medical records of 1,763 men (288 non-drinkers, 527 flushing drinkers, 948 non-flushing drinkers) who had received a health check-up. The risk of hypertension related to the weekly drinking amount by non-flushers and flushers was analyzed and compared with the risk of hypertension among non-drinkers.

"Our results indicate that hypertension associated with drinking has a lower threshold value and higher risk in flushers than in non-flushers," said Kim. "After adjusting for age, body mass index, exercise status, and smoking status, the risk of hypertension was significantly increased when flushers consumed more than four drinks per week. In contrast, in non-flushers, the risk increased with consuming more than eight drinks per week".

Kim added that these results indicate that facial flushing after drinking may potentially serve as a marker of risk for hypertension associated with drinking. "Our research findings suggest that clinicians and researchers should, respectively, consider evaluating their patients flushing response to alcohol as well as drinking amount in a daily routine care, and researching hazard by drinking."

"Thus, if you or your patient have facial flushing, the risk of hypertension can increase even if you drink less than those who do not have facial flushing," said Cho. "[Under these circumstances, I would] recommend limiting your or their drinking amount even more to prevent the development of hypertension."

Contrary to earlier studies, new research suggests that omega-3 fatty acids may not benefit thinking skills. The study is published in the September 25, 2013, online issue of Neurology®, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology. Omega-3s are found in fatty fish such as salmon and in nuts.

"There has been a lot of interest in omega-3s as a way to prevent or delay cognitive decline, but unfortunately our study did not find a protective effect in older women. In addition, most randomized trials of omega-3 supplements have not found an effect," said study author Eric Ammann, MS, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City. "However, we do not recommend that people change their diet based on these results. Researchers continue to study the relationship between omega-3s and the health of the heart, blood vessels, and brain. We know that fish and nuts can be healthy alternatives to red meat and full-fat dairy products, which are high in saturated fats."

The study involved 2,157 women age 65 to 80 who were enrolled in the Womens Health Initiative clinical trials of hormone therapy. The women were given annual tests of thinking and memory skills for an average of six years. Blood tests were taken to measure the amount of omega-3s in the participants blood before the start of the study.

The researchers found no difference between the women with high and low levels of omega-3s in the blood at the time of the first memory tests. There was also no difference between the two groups in how fast their thinking skills declined over time.