Health for life

Castrated men living in Korea centuries ago outlived other men by a significant margin. The findings, reported in the September 25 issue of Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, suggest that male sex hormones are responsible for shortening the lives of men, the researchers say.

The evidence comes after caul study of genealogy records of noble members of the Imperial court of the Korean Chosun dynasty (AD 1392-1910).

"This discovery adds an important clue for understanding why there is a difference in the expected life span between men and women," said Kyung-Jin Min of Inha University.

The castrated boys in Korea lost their reproductive organs in accidents—usually after being bitten by dogs—or underwent castration purposefully to gain early access to the palace. Eunuchs were allowed to marry and had families by adopting castrated boys or normal girls.

People in those days kept caul genealogy records as proof that they were of the noble class. By poring over those records, Min and colleague Cheol-Koo Lee of Korea University found that eunuchs lived 14 to 19 years longer than other men did. Amongst the 81 eunuchs they studied, three lived to the ripe old age of 100 or more, a feat of longevity that remains relatively rare even in developed countries today.

The incidence of centenarians among Korean eunuchs is at least 130 times greater than it is in the developed countries, Lee notes, and that cant be explained simply by the benefits of life in the palace, either. Most eunuchs spent as much time outside the palace as they did inside it. And, in fact, kings and male members of the royal family had the shortest lives of all, typically surviving only to their mid-forties.

The findings may offer some clues to life extension and, in the meantime, men might take heed, Min and Lee quip. "For better health and longevity, stay away from stresses and learn what you can from women."

Your doctor will see you now!

If only the U.S. health care system had the democracy of the French, the efficiency of the Germans, the primary care of the Brits and the common sense of the Swiss. Then wed be able to see our beret-wearing PCPs ad lib, receive care in 9 minute aliquots, mutter "bullocks!" when were told were too old for dialysis and then die old and quietly at home.

Victor Fuchs, writing in the Jan 2 edition of JAMA, has a slightly different perspective.  He notes that American history is dominated by waves of immigrants who came here to escape oppression. We are far more distrustful of government.  We are also less likely to support redistributive public policies. That may be partly due to a more heterogeneous population that is less sympathetic to the less fortunate when they fall outside the right social or demographic class. Last but not least, our system of government is quite inefficient compared, say, to a parliamentary system.

Thats why:

1. Government spending on health care is comparatively lower: 46% in the U.S. vs. 75% in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries.  As a result, a) administrative costs are fragmented, and b) there is less ability to negotiate prices with providers and suppliers

2. There is a different mix of services: in the U.S., less top-down control means more high tech, specialists and amenities with relatively less reliance on physicians and hospitals to render health care services.

What is the way forward?  Dr. Fuchs recommends that future health orm efforts not be modeled on Europe.  Instead, Americans should scale back their expectations and focus on what is necessary, not desireable.

If government is to assume a greater share of health care costs beyond the current 46% level, it should probably worry about funding basic care, not all care.  In addition, Americans are less likely to support total equality; they want to preserve the option of "buying up" when they can afford it.  Last but not least, future orm is going to have to find a middle ground between all the advocacy groups, stakeholders and special interests that dominate the mix of services.

Image from Wikipedia

Hi,

Day 3 -- and I am not holding my mis-steps against me, I am simply moving on. I have had no sugar today -- which means I did on both days 1 and 2. It only stalls my own progress to do such things, but Ive gotten that out of my house, now. I think where I made the mistake was in not setting my start date a little farther in the future by a day or two and doing the prep steps a little more thoroughly.

I got almost everything out of the house that I should not eat, and I got good raw veggies and protein in the house to provide what I need. It is that "almost everything" that is the problem. I did not even follow my own advice during the preparatory steps -- but the Christmas candy is now gone. Im actually wondering if I should simply call this Day 1.... No, Ill just accept the responsibility and move on. Today was a mostly clean program day. I hope yours was too. Today my only faulty meal was three breaded chicken strips with honey mustard dip. Everything else was on target.

Ive been thinking about the overall positive and negative "side affects" that can be expected when following a narrow program like this one (see previous days post). I dont actually think that eating fresh raw veggies and animal protein is narrow, but I can see where other people might. It is rather a large jump to go from eating the Standard American Diet (SAD) directly to the blood sugar reducing program I am advocating here. I truly believe it is the best program an over weight, hypertensive, post-menopausal woman with pre-diabetes and gout can do. It is the only one that actually allows me to lose any weight at all so Im glad to be back on it.

If you are coming directly off of SAD it will be easier on you if you start with the 50/50 portions. Do that for a week and then begin adding more veggies and removing a little protein until you gradually work your way up to 80/20. Do not remove the protein entirely because you need it to help stabilize your blood sugars. Remember: eat when you are hungry -- and always have both raw veggies and animal protein.

Side affects: The first side affect Ive been thinking about is the way we react emotionally to this kind of a food program. There is a reason that high carb dishes are called "comfort food." They actually do affect our moods so when you first go off of them you may at some point run into a feeling of either anxiety or depression -- the opposite of "comfort." The high carb meal on day seven should alleviate most of that. In fact that is part of the purpose of the weekly cheat meal: to restore the brain carbs that we need. Carbs seem to have what I call a "cumulative" effect which is why the withdrawals take three days and the reduction in pain takes six days, so restocking the carb stores every seven days should side-step the mood swings.

If you happen to run into it sooner there are also two supplements that my doctor advised me to take that really seem to keep bad feelings completely out of my picture. One is called L-Theanine and the other is Taurine. These are both amino acids that can be purchased at any health food store or on the internet. I take one of each in the morning to prevent anxiety and black moods and am rarely troubled by them. If before I go to bed I feel the need of more peaceful feelings I am likely to take one more of each before going to bed. I only do that on rare occasions. You will have to try it out to see if it helps you. That emotional response is part of the addictive behavior that Ive been mentioning and I am all for anything that helps me to conquer the addiction.

The other thing I want to address is not really a "side effect" but a symptom of our own "SAD food syndrome." We seem to be a nation of people that mentally files particular foods into certain meal slots and heaven forbid that they might be eaten at a different time or in a different way. Like eggs are relegated to breakfast only. Steak or salad is only for dinner. Who decided that and why do we feel the need to force ourselves to follow it? What purpose does it serve? None that I can see.

Try having a new thought about when and where you can eat different food items. It really is not far fetched to eat salad for breakfast. Ive been enjoying salad for breakfast for quite some time and find it really pleasureable. I like eggs for breakfast (and also eat them any time during the day) so I fry up a couple of over-easy eggs and place them on my salad. The liquid yellow actually makes a very tasty salad dressing. If you have ever had a Cobb Salad or a Chef Salad you have had hard boiled eggs on your salad before. Why not some over-easy or scrambled eggs? Try it. You might like it.

I also put salt and pepper and spices on my salad before I put either the eggs or the salad dressing on them. Try sprinkling a few Italian herbs on your salad with a little salt and pepper to really move a salad into the "actually tasty" realm. Experiment with your own favorite seasonings and create some new combinations for yourself. Salad does not have to be a boring bowl of ice berg lettuce and grape tomatoes that needs to be drowned in salad dressing to be appetizing.

Try wandering the produce aisle at your favorite grocery store and imagining how you might choose to use the different ingredients in your own creative salad! See if they have some items that you have never noticed before and try some out. I like to print out a copy of the "Craving Reducing Shopping List" (see yesterdays post) and highlight the things Im planning on purchasing. That keeps me in the "safe" zone and also reminds me of what I need. Try some endive in your salad. Try some broccoli sprouts!! What about some red leaf lettuce? It is very tender and tasty. I like to use Romain as my basis but I add various other lettuces and rotate the greens to get all the goodness from the variety that is available.

Once you have been eating this way for a while your stomach will likely no longer be bothered by cucumbers or radishes, too. Begin to experiment and add new vegetables to your basket and your salads as you go along.



I find that the best way to store lettuces is to stand them up in about a half inch of water which I accomplish by putting them diagonally into a 1-gallon size plastic zipper bag and standing it up against the wall of the rigerator. Sometimes I place them in a colander for support in staying upright. The water (which should be changed every other day) will keep your lettuces fresh and lively longer. Think about it: they are still alive when you purchase them -- they need a drink. You do that to cut flowers and it keeps them attractive longer -- the same is true for lettuces -- they need a drink to stay fresh, crisp, and lively.

Here is the last piece of advice for today: Eat when you are hungry. You do not have to deprive yourself. It will be a new experience (it was for me) to actually trust the messages you are getting from your body.  Listen to you body and eat when you are hungry and stop eating when you are full.

OK one more: Dont forget to decide not to eat the things you should not eat. I need that one the most!!

Be back soon,

Marcia

Cranberries are more than a holiday favorite, given their remarkable nutritional and health benefits. A new research review published in the international journal Advances in Nutrition provides reasons why these tiny berries can be front and center and not just a side dish. The review authors conclude that cranberries provide unique bioactive compounds that may help reduce the incidence of certain infections, improve heart health and temper inflammation.

Ten worldwide experts in cranberry and health research contributed to the article, including scientists and medical experts from Tufts University, Pennsylvania State University, Boston University, Rutgers University, French National Institute for Agricultural Research, University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom and Heinrich-Heine-University in Germany. The authors included more than 150 published research studies to create the most thorough and up-to-date review of the cranberry nutrition and human health research.

"Hundreds of studies show that the bioactive compounds found in cranberries improve health," said lead author Jeffrey Blumberg, PhD, FASN, FACN, CNS, Director of the Antioxidants Research Laboratory and Professor in the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. "For example, the polyphenols found in cranberries have been shown to promote a healthy urinary tract and exert protective benefits for cardiovascular disease and other chronic conditions."

Based on the totality of the published cranberry research, the authors concluded that the cranberry fruit is truly special because of the A-type proanthocyanidins (a polyphenol from the flavanol family), in contrast to the B-type proanthocyanidins present in most other types of berries and fruit. The A-type proanthocyanidins appear to provide the anti-adhesion benefits that help protect against urinary tract infections (UTI), which affect more than 15 million U.S. women each year. They present evidence suggesting that cranberries may also reduce the recurrence of UTIs – an important approach for relying less on antibiotic treatment for the condition.

Cranberry Health Benefits Extend Beyond Urinary Tract Health

The authors also cite data that shows the cranberry may improve cardiovascular health by improving blood cholesterol levels and lowering blood pressure, inflammation and oxidative stress. Cranberries have been shown to help support endothelial function and reduce arterial stiffness. Together, these benefits may promote overall health and functioning of blood vessels to help slow the progression of atherogenesis and plaque formation, which can lead to heart attacks and stroke.

Need Fruit? Eat More Cranberries

While all fruit contributes necessary vitamins and minerals to the diet, berry fruits offer a particularly rich source of health-promoting polyphenols. Because of their tart taste and very low natural sugar content, sugar is often added to cranberry products for palatability. Even with added sugar, cranberry products typically have a comparable amount of sugar to other unsweetened fruit juices and dried fruit products. Additionally, the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans asserts that the best use of calories from added sweeteners is for improving the palatability of nutrient-rich foods, as is the case when adding sugar to cranberries. As an additional option, non-nutritive sweeteners are used to produce low calorie versions of cranberry products. Americans can help increase their fruit intake by incorporating cranberries and cranberry products into their diet and there is no need to wait for the holidays – cranberries can be enjoyed year round – fresh, frozen, dried, or in a juice or sauce.

Listen to the common wisdom about the state of health care in the U.S. and its easy to conclude that were on the verge of catastrophe.  Academics say we have a "non-system," politicians bemoan the "lack of coordination" and the policymakers condemn "unsustainable" costs. When our health care is compared to that of the Burgundy-sipping French, the olive-oil loving Italians and the bicyle-riding Dutch, our commentariat are ashamed that we Americans havent joined the rest of the civilized world in offering high value care to its citizens.

Is it really that bad?

To find out, the Disease Management Care Blog looked at these data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Take the test below and decide for yourself if the experts really have it right.  Answers are at the bottom.

1. Which country, as of 2009, had the highest percentage of persons who reported that their health is good?

A. Switzerland
B. Iceland
C. United States
D. New Zealand

2. Name the country that has the highest rate of obesity and the 2nd highest rate of diabetes?

A. Mexico
B. United States
C. Canada
E. New Zealand

3. An excess of physicians can drive increased health care costs.  Which country has the highest number of physicians per capita?

A. Netherlands
B. United States

4. Which country has the greatest number of MRI and CAT scanners per capita?

A. United States
B. Australia
C. Japan
D. Israel

5. Which country has the highest Cesarean section rates per 100 live births?

A. Italy
B. United States
C. Switzerland

6. Does the U.S or Canada have a higher percentage of women getting pap smears?

A. Canada
B. United States

7. Does the U.S or Belgium have a higher percentage of women age 50-69 getting  mammograms?

A. Belgium
B. United States

8. While the Slovak Republic leads the world in asthma admissions per 100K, which country is close behind in 2nd place?

A. Korea
B. United States
C. Poland

9. True or false: The United States rate of hospital admissions for uncontrolled diabetes is above the OECD average.

A. True
B. False.

10.  While the U.S. leads the OECD with a 20% rate of skipping a provider visit or going without a prescription, which country is in second place with a 17% rate?

A. Germany
B. Netherlands
C. France

11. While the U.S. spends more per capita for health care, health care costs are rising all the OECD countries:

True or False: from 2000 through 2009, the rate of increase in the U.S. health care costs was above the OECD average of 4.0%

12. While Americans make up the largest percentage of DMCB readers, which country in the last month came in second?

A. India
B. Canada
C. Great Britain

Answers:

1. C The U.S. So, while we spend more, it can be argued that we are getting our moneys worth

2. B The U.S. There may be lots wrong with the U.S. care system, but the U.S. also has a higher burden of disease. Toss in high trauma rates and other impacts from poverty and it can be argued that importing a new health system may not translate into greater health.

3. A The Netherlands.  In fact, both countries are below the OECD average.

4. C Japan, but the U.S. is second in the world in the per capita rate of scans.  We apparently use our scanners a lot more!

5. A Italy is higher. C-section rates are skyrocketing world wide.

6. B The U.S. is 78.7%, while Canada is 75.3%

7. B. The United States. In fact, Belgium is below the OECD average

8. B. This is one area where the U.S. should be doing better.

9. B. False.  Denmark and Sweden, by the way, are above average.

10. A Germany, which has universal insurance.

11. B. False  While absolute costs are a significant issue, the rate of cost increases also keep politicians and regulators awake at night. The U.S. rate was a relatively tame 3.3%, behind Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, all of where were above average.

12. Everybody sing....."O Canada, our home and native land....."