Pages

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Diagnosis of FIP


Feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) can be difficult to diagnose, especially in cases without abdominal fluid accumulation (‘dry’ or non-effusive FIP). The gold standard for diagnosis is through tissue analysis of involved organs, which is difficult and potentially dangerous in an ill cat. These researchers evaluated the usefulness of several non-invasive assays for diagnosis of FIP. Twelve cases suspicious for FIP, of which eight were confirmed, were evaluated retrospectively. The levels of certain inflammatory proteins were elevated significantly and consistently in cats with FIP. While not confirmatory, measurement of alpha-1-acid glycoprotein (AGP) can be used to support a diagnosis of FIP. [MK]

Related articles:

More on cat health: Winn Feline Foundation Library

Feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) can be difficult to diagnose, especially in cases without abdominal fluid accumulation (‘dry’ or non-effusive FIP). The gold standard for diagnosis is through tissue analysis of involved organs, which is difficult and potentially dangerous in an ill cat. These researchers evaluated the usefulness of several non-invasive assays for diagnosis of FIP. Twelve cases suspicious for FIP, of which eight were confirmed, were evaluated retrospectively. The levels of certain inflammatory proteins were elevated significantly and consistently in cats with FIP. While not confirmatory, measurement of alpha-1-acid glycoprotein (AGP) can be used to support a diagnosis of FIP. [MK]

Related articles:

More on cat health: Winn Feline Foundation Library
Read More


Why kids need recess and exercise

More and more researchers, educators, and parents are realizing that not only is playground time good for kids-it is crucial. Here's why it just may be the fourth "R" in school, and what you can do to make sure your child gets a healthy dose of downtime.

Let me put this out there: I totally get it. Teachers are under pressure to make sure they've drilled reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic deep into their students' brains -- and there are only so many hours in the school day.

So if you have to get rid of an "extra" activity to make way for more book time -- well, you might as well go for the playtime. After all, school is supposed to be about learning, right? And what mom doesn't want her kid to ace The Test?

Still, I could see the toll it was taking on my daughter Mari, when, two weeks before fourth-grade testing, she dragged herself off the bus and into our kitchen -- exhausted, tense, and frazzled.

Turns out the only break she'd had during her six-and-a-half-hour school day was for a 22-minute lunch (quiet talking only). Recess had been "suspended" for two weeks so the teachers could get in extra test prep--and by this point Mari hadn't seen the monkey bars, bounced across a hopscotch board, or breathed fresh air for days.



She was toast.

And I was fuming.

I mean, prisoners get more time out on the yard than the fourth-graders at my kid's school -- and I thought it terribly unfair that my 9-year-old was being denied something as basic as a respite from her classroom.

This recess hiatus was a problem. The anecdotal proof was sitting -- melting down -- before my eyes. And, as it turns out, there is plenty of hard evidence, too.

A recent multicenter study of more than 11,000 eight- and nine-year-olds, led by pediatric researchers at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, in New York, showed that kids who had at least 15 minutes of recess a day (even just 15 minutes!) behaved better in class.

According to study author and developmental pediatrician Romina Barros, M.D., their conduct was likely better because, after hours of concentration, they were able to give their exhausted brains a rest before going back to absorbing information -- something many young kids can only do well for about a half hour at a time.

Parenting.com: 10 Most Common Pediatric Emergencies

Gimme a break!

Dr. Barros decided to conduct the study after observing a young patient's classroom -- to see how antsy the student and his peers were by lunchtime. They were given no work breaks, save for 15 minutes of quiet snacking at their desks.

"They couldn't stand up or walk around, the heat was on in the classroom, and by noon -- when it was time for them to go eat -- I had a headache," recalls Dr. Barros, who has two daughters of her own, one of whom is now in school.

"It took the kids in that class fifteen minutes just to line up. They were fried." Think about it: As adults, we value -- in fact, we demand -- a little downtime during our workday. "But kids aren't allowed to say 'I need a break,' then get up and leave," Dr. Barros says.

In addition to the mental pause, recess appears to be the most effective way to keep kids active. A study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that 42% of the nation's schoolchildren get most of their total daily exercise at recess -- more than do so in P.E. or after-school programs.

For sure, in light of America's childhood-obesity problem (17% of kids between 2 and 19 are obese), participating in recess is one of the few inexpensive, readily available opportunities we have to get kids moving.

What's more, children who don't get recess miss out on valuable life lessons, according to Susan Ohanian, an education advocate and author of "What Happened to Recess and Why Are Our Children Struggling in Kindergarten?"

"Anybody who knows anything about children -- particularly little kids -- knows that they learn so much on the playground: how to get along, negotiate, make and follow each other's rules, talk to one another, and fall down and get back up again," says Ohanian, who, in addition to being an instructor at an alternative high school in Troy, New York, has taught third, seventh, and eighth grade in public schools there.

"But for kids these days, lunch is too short, they don't get a chance to talk to anybody, sometimes they can't even get a drink or go to the bathroom -- civilized things adults take for granted. It's barbaric."

Parenting.com: 9 Wii Games That'll Make You Sweat

What happened!

It's been quite a while since I've experienced recess, but I have incredible memories of my time on the playground: I loved playing jacks and Miss Mary Mack with my best friend, Stacey; I almost got my butt kicked in a schoolyard brawl with the nerdy girl, Kim; and the slide gave me the perfect cover for staring at and daydreaming about Sean, who I thought was the cutest boy, like, ever.

Most of all, I couldn't wait to feel the sun kiss my face as I soared higher and higher on the swing -- a rare delight for this latchkey kid who couldn't go outside until my mom came home from work. Recess was everything to me.

So, if research has proven that recess is good for kids, why are more and more schools eliminating it? Studies suggest that as many as 40% of schools nationwide have cut recess -- citing lack of time, supervision, and resources.

Students most likely to get little or no time outside, says Dr. Barros, are those in low-income, urban neighborhoods where play areas are scarce -- and teachers are busy trying to raise their students' test scores to meet strict federal No Child Left Behind standards.

Meanwhile, there are some parents who don't object to seeing recess go away. They often have less than fond memories of the playground, and are keen on sparing their children the bullying they endured.

Parenting.com: Predict Your Child's Adult Height

Moms fight back

But there is also a large group of moms who couldn't disagree more. When Jennifer van Rosmalen, of Peoria, Arizona, heard that her 9-year-old son -- and the entire fourth grade -- had lost recess privileges for forgetting to bring pencils to music class, she thought it "cruel and unusual punishment."

And she was flabbergasted when her 11-year-old told her that the sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade students in his middle school had gone without recess for six months because of an unspecified incident on the playground.

"To me, it's like taking away air or depriving someone of sleep," she says. "These things are essential for health and well-being, and so is recess."

Van Rosmalen says she appealed to the principals of both her children's schools -- even offering to work as a recess monitor at the middle school -- but with no luck. (The first principal, now at another school, doesn't recall the incident Van Rosmalen described; the second denies the mom's account.)

For Marie Walton, a Howell Township, New Jersey, mom of two, the outcome was different. She dug in, fought her children's school district to make recess a priority -- and won.

Walton started her mission after finding out, during a meeting about raising money to install new playground equipment, that the kids in her second-grade son's elementary school rarely, if ever, went outside for free play.

"I was just shocked," says Walton. "I grew up in this town, and I immediately thought of my fifth-grade teacher -- who took us outside, even if it was drizzling or snowing. I was floored that these kids were expected, at such a young age, to sit all day."

Armed with mounds of research -- and some 300 signatures from like-minded parents -- Walton spoke before the local Board of Education, arguing for playtime for all other township's schools.

"So much pressure has been put on our teachers to produce high test scores," she told the board. "Perhaps you would see [the kids] perform better if they were given a chance to release the anxieties and stress of everyday school pressures."

It took many months of advocacy -- and a movement-sparking front-page story in the local newspaper -- for the board to implement guidelines that, while not mandatory, ask schools to fit in at least 20 minutes of recess daily and to limit punishing students by taking away playtime.

The fight wasn't easy, Walton concedes, but was well worth it--if only to help her kids make it through the long day. "They need fresh air," she says. "And it's up to us, as parents, to fight for their right to take a break."

She and some other moms later got a more sweeping bill introduced before the state legislature. (At press time, that bill hadn't made it through the governor's office; a new one has been introduced.)

As for my own frazzled child, things -- happily -- turned around. A new principal, who seems to recognize the importance of playground time, has stepped in at Marl's school.

Marl's enjoying her time outside, where she's found new best friends, gets to work off some steam, and, best of all, is able to just goof off for a while, hanging on the monkey bars, feeling the calluses on her hands and the wind through her locks.

How to get recess back

What you need to know to fight for your child's right to play midday.

1. Get informed. Arm yourself with plenty of research about the importance of play to kids' development.

You'll find great resources at Peaceful Playgrounds, an advocacy group whose Right to Recess Campaign includes downloadable PowerPoint presentations and studies to support the argument. You can also connect with your state's "recess advocate," who can help gather information and resources.

2. Get galvanized. Teresa Evanko Bilello, a Muncie, Indiana, mom of two, rallied a core group of parents to speak at school-board meetings so they could see she wasn't the only mom riled up about the lack of recess at her children's schools.

"Make yourselves a nuisance if necessary," says Bilello, whose efforts successfully brought playground time back to the schools' schedule.

3. Get to the higher-ups. Talking to your child's principal about reinstating or extending recess is a good start. But if you're really looking to change school policy, take your case to the local school board (or higher!), where system-wide reform can be made.

And remember says Walton: "We're the ones who vote these people into their positions. If they don't give your school what it needs, you can replace them with leaders who will."
More and more researchers, educators, and parents are realizing that not only is playground time good for kids-it is crucial. Here's why it just may be the fourth "R" in school, and what you can do to make sure your child gets a healthy dose of downtime.

Let me put this out there: I totally get it. Teachers are under pressure to make sure they've drilled reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic deep into their students' brains -- and there are only so many hours in the school day.

So if you have to get rid of an "extra" activity to make way for more book time -- well, you might as well go for the playtime. After all, school is supposed to be about learning, right? And what mom doesn't want her kid to ace The Test?

Still, I could see the toll it was taking on my daughter Mari, when, two weeks before fourth-grade testing, she dragged herself off the bus and into our kitchen -- exhausted, tense, and frazzled.

Turns out the only break she'd had during her six-and-a-half-hour school day was for a 22-minute lunch (quiet talking only). Recess had been "suspended" for two weeks so the teachers could get in extra test prep--and by this point Mari hadn't seen the monkey bars, bounced across a hopscotch board, or breathed fresh air for days.



She was toast.

And I was fuming.

I mean, prisoners get more time out on the yard than the fourth-graders at my kid's school -- and I thought it terribly unfair that my 9-year-old was being denied something as basic as a respite from her classroom.

This recess hiatus was a problem. The anecdotal proof was sitting -- melting down -- before my eyes. And, as it turns out, there is plenty of hard evidence, too.

A recent multicenter study of more than 11,000 eight- and nine-year-olds, led by pediatric researchers at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, in New York, showed that kids who had at least 15 minutes of recess a day (even just 15 minutes!) behaved better in class.

According to study author and developmental pediatrician Romina Barros, M.D., their conduct was likely better because, after hours of concentration, they were able to give their exhausted brains a rest before going back to absorbing information -- something many young kids can only do well for about a half hour at a time.

Parenting.com: 10 Most Common Pediatric Emergencies

Gimme a break!

Dr. Barros decided to conduct the study after observing a young patient's classroom -- to see how antsy the student and his peers were by lunchtime. They were given no work breaks, save for 15 minutes of quiet snacking at their desks.

"They couldn't stand up or walk around, the heat was on in the classroom, and by noon -- when it was time for them to go eat -- I had a headache," recalls Dr. Barros, who has two daughters of her own, one of whom is now in school.

"It took the kids in that class fifteen minutes just to line up. They were fried." Think about it: As adults, we value -- in fact, we demand -- a little downtime during our workday. "But kids aren't allowed to say 'I need a break,' then get up and leave," Dr. Barros says.

In addition to the mental pause, recess appears to be the most effective way to keep kids active. A study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that 42% of the nation's schoolchildren get most of their total daily exercise at recess -- more than do so in P.E. or after-school programs.

For sure, in light of America's childhood-obesity problem (17% of kids between 2 and 19 are obese), participating in recess is one of the few inexpensive, readily available opportunities we have to get kids moving.

What's more, children who don't get recess miss out on valuable life lessons, according to Susan Ohanian, an education advocate and author of "What Happened to Recess and Why Are Our Children Struggling in Kindergarten?"

"Anybody who knows anything about children -- particularly little kids -- knows that they learn so much on the playground: how to get along, negotiate, make and follow each other's rules, talk to one another, and fall down and get back up again," says Ohanian, who, in addition to being an instructor at an alternative high school in Troy, New York, has taught third, seventh, and eighth grade in public schools there.

"But for kids these days, lunch is too short, they don't get a chance to talk to anybody, sometimes they can't even get a drink or go to the bathroom -- civilized things adults take for granted. It's barbaric."

Parenting.com: 9 Wii Games That'll Make You Sweat

What happened!

It's been quite a while since I've experienced recess, but I have incredible memories of my time on the playground: I loved playing jacks and Miss Mary Mack with my best friend, Stacey; I almost got my butt kicked in a schoolyard brawl with the nerdy girl, Kim; and the slide gave me the perfect cover for staring at and daydreaming about Sean, who I thought was the cutest boy, like, ever.

Most of all, I couldn't wait to feel the sun kiss my face as I soared higher and higher on the swing -- a rare delight for this latchkey kid who couldn't go outside until my mom came home from work. Recess was everything to me.

So, if research has proven that recess is good for kids, why are more and more schools eliminating it? Studies suggest that as many as 40% of schools nationwide have cut recess -- citing lack of time, supervision, and resources.

Students most likely to get little or no time outside, says Dr. Barros, are those in low-income, urban neighborhoods where play areas are scarce -- and teachers are busy trying to raise their students' test scores to meet strict federal No Child Left Behind standards.

Meanwhile, there are some parents who don't object to seeing recess go away. They often have less than fond memories of the playground, and are keen on sparing their children the bullying they endured.

Parenting.com: Predict Your Child's Adult Height

Moms fight back

But there is also a large group of moms who couldn't disagree more. When Jennifer van Rosmalen, of Peoria, Arizona, heard that her 9-year-old son -- and the entire fourth grade -- had lost recess privileges for forgetting to bring pencils to music class, she thought it "cruel and unusual punishment."

And she was flabbergasted when her 11-year-old told her that the sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade students in his middle school had gone without recess for six months because of an unspecified incident on the playground.

"To me, it's like taking away air or depriving someone of sleep," she says. "These things are essential for health and well-being, and so is recess."

Van Rosmalen says she appealed to the principals of both her children's schools -- even offering to work as a recess monitor at the middle school -- but with no luck. (The first principal, now at another school, doesn't recall the incident Van Rosmalen described; the second denies the mom's account.)

For Marie Walton, a Howell Township, New Jersey, mom of two, the outcome was different. She dug in, fought her children's school district to make recess a priority -- and won.

Walton started her mission after finding out, during a meeting about raising money to install new playground equipment, that the kids in her second-grade son's elementary school rarely, if ever, went outside for free play.

"I was just shocked," says Walton. "I grew up in this town, and I immediately thought of my fifth-grade teacher -- who took us outside, even if it was drizzling or snowing. I was floored that these kids were expected, at such a young age, to sit all day."

Armed with mounds of research -- and some 300 signatures from like-minded parents -- Walton spoke before the local Board of Education, arguing for playtime for all other township's schools.

"So much pressure has been put on our teachers to produce high test scores," she told the board. "Perhaps you would see [the kids] perform better if they were given a chance to release the anxieties and stress of everyday school pressures."

It took many months of advocacy -- and a movement-sparking front-page story in the local newspaper -- for the board to implement guidelines that, while not mandatory, ask schools to fit in at least 20 minutes of recess daily and to limit punishing students by taking away playtime.

The fight wasn't easy, Walton concedes, but was well worth it--if only to help her kids make it through the long day. "They need fresh air," she says. "And it's up to us, as parents, to fight for their right to take a break."

She and some other moms later got a more sweeping bill introduced before the state legislature. (At press time, that bill hadn't made it through the governor's office; a new one has been introduced.)

As for my own frazzled child, things -- happily -- turned around. A new principal, who seems to recognize the importance of playground time, has stepped in at Marl's school.

Marl's enjoying her time outside, where she's found new best friends, gets to work off some steam, and, best of all, is able to just goof off for a while, hanging on the monkey bars, feeling the calluses on her hands and the wind through her locks.

How to get recess back

What you need to know to fight for your child's right to play midday.

1. Get informed. Arm yourself with plenty of research about the importance of play to kids' development.

You'll find great resources at Peaceful Playgrounds, an advocacy group whose Right to Recess Campaign includes downloadable PowerPoint presentations and studies to support the argument. You can also connect with your state's "recess advocate," who can help gather information and resources.

2. Get galvanized. Teresa Evanko Bilello, a Muncie, Indiana, mom of two, rallied a core group of parents to speak at school-board meetings so they could see she wasn't the only mom riled up about the lack of recess at her children's schools.

"Make yourselves a nuisance if necessary," says Bilello, whose efforts successfully brought playground time back to the schools' schedule.

3. Get to the higher-ups. Talking to your child's principal about reinstating or extending recess is a good start. But if you're really looking to change school policy, take your case to the local school board (or higher!), where system-wide reform can be made.

And remember says Walton: "We're the ones who vote these people into their positions. If they don't give your school what it needs, you can replace them with leaders who will."
Read More


When Exercise Is Too Much of a Good Thing

Recently, researchers in Britain set out to study the heart health of a group of dauntingly fit older athletes. Uninterested in sluggards, the scientists recruited only men who had been part of a British national or Olympic team in distance running or rowing, as well as members of the extremely selective 100 Marathon club, which admits runners who, as you might have guessed, have completed at least a hundred marathons.

All of the men had trained and competed throughout their adult lives and continued to work out strenuously. Twelve were age 50 or older, with the oldest age 67; another 17 were relative striplings, ages 26 to 40. The scientists also gathered a group of 20 healthy men over 50, none of them endurance athletes, for comparison. The different groups underwent a new type of magnetic resonance imaging of their hearts that identifies very early signs of fibrosis, or scarring, within the heart muscle. Fibrosis, if it becomes severe, can lead to stiffening or thickening of portions of the heart, which can contribute to irregular heart function and, eventually, heart failure.

The results, published online a few weeks ago in The Journal of Applied Physiology, were rather disquieting. None of the younger athletes or the older nonathletes had fibrosis in their hearts. But half of the older lifelong athletes showed some heart muscle scarring. The affected men were, in each case, those who’d trained the longest and hardest. Spending more years exercising strenuously or completing more marathon or ultramarathon races was, in this study, associated with a greater likelihood of heart damage.



The question of whether years of intense endurance training might, just possibly, be harmful to the heart is hardly new. It arises whenever a seemingly healthy distance runner, cyclist or other endurance athlete suffers a heart attack. It’s also sometimes invoked by those looking for an excuse not to exercise.

But, to date, science has been hard pressed to establish a clear cause-and-effect link between strenuous exercise and heart damage. A much-discussed 2008 German study of experienced, older marathon runners, for instance, found signs of fibrosis in their hearts more frequently than in a group of less active older men. But some of the racers had taken up regular exercise only late in life, after decades of smoking and other bad health habits. It was impossible to say whether their current heart damage predated their marathon training.

The new study of elite lifelong athletes avoids that pitfall. None of the athletes were new to exercise. Only one had ever smoked. But even so, the study can’t directly prove that the older athletes’ excruciatingly heavy training loads and decades of elite-level racing caused heart scarring, only that the two were associated with each another.

But another new study, this time in laboratory rats, provides the first solid evidence of a direct link between certain kinds of prolonged exercise and subtle heart damage. For the study, published in the journal Circulation, Canadian and Spanish scientists prodded young, healthy male rats to run at an intense pace, day after day, for three months, which is the equivalent of about 10 years in human terms. The training was deliberately designed to mimic many years of serious marathon training in people, said Dr. Stanley Nattel, a cardiologist who is director of the electrophysiology research program at the Montreal Heart Institute Research Center and a senior author of the study.

The rats had begun their regimens with perfectly normal hearts. At the end of the training period, heart scans showed that most of the rodents had developed diffuse scarring and some structural changes, similar to the changes seen in the human endurance athletes. A control group of unexercised rats had developed no such remodeling of their hearts. The researchers also could manually induce arrhythmias, or disruptions of the heart’s natural electrical rhythm, much more readily in the running rats than in the unexercised animals. Interestingly, when the animals stopped running, their hearts returned to normal within eight weeks. Most of the fibrosis and other apparent damage disappeared.

What does all of this mean for those of us who dutifully run or otherwise make ourselves sweat several times a week? Probably not much, realistically, said Dr. Paul Thompson, the chief of cardiology at Hartford Hospital in Connecticut and an expert on sports cardiology. He was one of the peer reviewers for the British athlete study.

“How many people are going to join the 100 Marathon club” or undertake a comparable amount of training? he asked. “Not many. Too much exercise has not been a big problem in America. Most people just run to stay in shape, and for them, the evidence is quite strong that endurance exercise is good” for the heart, he said.

Dr. Nattel agrees. “There is no doubt that exercise in general is very good for heart health,” he said. But the emerging science does suggest that there may be a threshold of distance, intensity or duration beyond which exercise can have undesirable effects.

Unfortunately, it remains impossible, at the moment, to predict just what that threshold is for any given person, and which athletes might be most vulnerable to heart problems as a result of excessive exercise, said Dr. Paul Volders, a cardiologist at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands, who wrote an editorial accompanying the recent rat study.

“Let’s say we ask 100 people, all same age, all same gender, to start a marathon training program at the age of 20 years,” Dr. Volders wrote in an e-mail. If the runners continued their training uninterrupted for 30 years and scientists then scanned their hearts, “it is very likely (one may say: for sure) that there will be major differences in the tissue of the chambers of the heart between these people,” he wrote. For some, the changes will be beneficial; for others, probably not.

Similarly, because most of the research has been done in men and male animals, it is unclear whether the hearts of long-term female athletes are affected in the same fashion. But Dr. Nattel said it seems likely that the latest finding would also apply to women.

So for now, the best response to the emerging science of excessive exercise is to just keep exercising, but with a low-level buzz of caution. If your heart occasionally races, which could indicate arrhythmia, or otherwise draws attention to itself, Dr. Nattel said, consult a doctor.

But if you exercise regularly and currently have no symptoms, “I think it’s safe to say that you should keep it up,” Dr. Thompson said.
Recently, researchers in Britain set out to study the heart health of a group of dauntingly fit older athletes. Uninterested in sluggards, the scientists recruited only men who had been part of a British national or Olympic team in distance running or rowing, as well as members of the extremely selective 100 Marathon club, which admits runners who, as you might have guessed, have completed at least a hundred marathons.

All of the men had trained and competed throughout their adult lives and continued to work out strenuously. Twelve were age 50 or older, with the oldest age 67; another 17 were relative striplings, ages 26 to 40. The scientists also gathered a group of 20 healthy men over 50, none of them endurance athletes, for comparison. The different groups underwent a new type of magnetic resonance imaging of their hearts that identifies very early signs of fibrosis, or scarring, within the heart muscle. Fibrosis, if it becomes severe, can lead to stiffening or thickening of portions of the heart, which can contribute to irregular heart function and, eventually, heart failure.

The results, published online a few weeks ago in The Journal of Applied Physiology, were rather disquieting. None of the younger athletes or the older nonathletes had fibrosis in their hearts. But half of the older lifelong athletes showed some heart muscle scarring. The affected men were, in each case, those who’d trained the longest and hardest. Spending more years exercising strenuously or completing more marathon or ultramarathon races was, in this study, associated with a greater likelihood of heart damage.



The question of whether years of intense endurance training might, just possibly, be harmful to the heart is hardly new. It arises whenever a seemingly healthy distance runner, cyclist or other endurance athlete suffers a heart attack. It’s also sometimes invoked by those looking for an excuse not to exercise.

But, to date, science has been hard pressed to establish a clear cause-and-effect link between strenuous exercise and heart damage. A much-discussed 2008 German study of experienced, older marathon runners, for instance, found signs of fibrosis in their hearts more frequently than in a group of less active older men. But some of the racers had taken up regular exercise only late in life, after decades of smoking and other bad health habits. It was impossible to say whether their current heart damage predated their marathon training.

The new study of elite lifelong athletes avoids that pitfall. None of the athletes were new to exercise. Only one had ever smoked. But even so, the study can’t directly prove that the older athletes’ excruciatingly heavy training loads and decades of elite-level racing caused heart scarring, only that the two were associated with each another.

But another new study, this time in laboratory rats, provides the first solid evidence of a direct link between certain kinds of prolonged exercise and subtle heart damage. For the study, published in the journal Circulation, Canadian and Spanish scientists prodded young, healthy male rats to run at an intense pace, day after day, for three months, which is the equivalent of about 10 years in human terms. The training was deliberately designed to mimic many years of serious marathon training in people, said Dr. Stanley Nattel, a cardiologist who is director of the electrophysiology research program at the Montreal Heart Institute Research Center and a senior author of the study.

The rats had begun their regimens with perfectly normal hearts. At the end of the training period, heart scans showed that most of the rodents had developed diffuse scarring and some structural changes, similar to the changes seen in the human endurance athletes. A control group of unexercised rats had developed no such remodeling of their hearts. The researchers also could manually induce arrhythmias, or disruptions of the heart’s natural electrical rhythm, much more readily in the running rats than in the unexercised animals. Interestingly, when the animals stopped running, their hearts returned to normal within eight weeks. Most of the fibrosis and other apparent damage disappeared.

What does all of this mean for those of us who dutifully run or otherwise make ourselves sweat several times a week? Probably not much, realistically, said Dr. Paul Thompson, the chief of cardiology at Hartford Hospital in Connecticut and an expert on sports cardiology. He was one of the peer reviewers for the British athlete study.

“How many people are going to join the 100 Marathon club” or undertake a comparable amount of training? he asked. “Not many. Too much exercise has not been a big problem in America. Most people just run to stay in shape, and for them, the evidence is quite strong that endurance exercise is good” for the heart, he said.

Dr. Nattel agrees. “There is no doubt that exercise in general is very good for heart health,” he said. But the emerging science does suggest that there may be a threshold of distance, intensity or duration beyond which exercise can have undesirable effects.

Unfortunately, it remains impossible, at the moment, to predict just what that threshold is for any given person, and which athletes might be most vulnerable to heart problems as a result of excessive exercise, said Dr. Paul Volders, a cardiologist at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands, who wrote an editorial accompanying the recent rat study.

“Let’s say we ask 100 people, all same age, all same gender, to start a marathon training program at the age of 20 years,” Dr. Volders wrote in an e-mail. If the runners continued their training uninterrupted for 30 years and scientists then scanned their hearts, “it is very likely (one may say: for sure) that there will be major differences in the tissue of the chambers of the heart between these people,” he wrote. For some, the changes will be beneficial; for others, probably not.

Similarly, because most of the research has been done in men and male animals, it is unclear whether the hearts of long-term female athletes are affected in the same fashion. But Dr. Nattel said it seems likely that the latest finding would also apply to women.

So for now, the best response to the emerging science of excessive exercise is to just keep exercising, but with a low-level buzz of caution. If your heart occasionally races, which could indicate arrhythmia, or otherwise draws attention to itself, Dr. Nattel said, consult a doctor.

But if you exercise regularly and currently have no symptoms, “I think it’s safe to say that you should keep it up,” Dr. Thompson said.
Read More


Monday, May 9, 2011

脊柱自然预防和治疗计划

 一个用于治疗和预防脊柱侧弯症的完全自然、安全和经过验证的饮食和锻炼方案!

而且,该方案完全针对你的脊柱和代谢需要而制定

  • 展示了造成脊柱侧弯真正原因的最新研究
  • 揭示了支具和手术疗法仅治疗脊柱侧弯的症状,而非根本原因
  • 发掘了哪些最新的疗法有效、哪些无效,以及为什么
  • 揭示了缺乏适当的营养是如何导致疾病在我们体内产生和影响脊柱正常生长的
  • 制定适合你脊柱的独特锻炼例程,即使最繁忙的日程安排亦可适用
  • 明确出你期待从医生和/或其他医疗专家那里获取什么
  • 提供了全面系统的图、表和清单,便于读者理解和领悟
  • 从其他脊柱侧弯症患者鼓舞人心的故事和病例研究中学习
经过数年的实践和潜心研究,刘医生去伪存真。在本部书中,他揭穿了一个又一个流行的荒诞说法,并探索了什么方法有效,脊柱侧弯症患者可有什么替代疗法,以及如何创建一个综合计划以达到身体和脊柱健康的高峰。

澳大利亚原住民和非洲土著部落中很少有脊柱侧弯症患者,受到他们非凡恢复能力的启示,刘医生提出了一个易于遵循、且已临床验证了的治疗方案,该疗法追溯到我们身体的原始构造机能以及生存的需求。通过简单地遵循三步法,本部书将引领您走上完全康复之路。

学习三步法矫正您的脊柱侧弯

步骤1:明确病因
你需要做的第一件事情是,确定出造成你脊柱侧弯的生化和结构失衡。你可在本书中所概述的一系列“自我评估”的帮助下,很容易地完成该步骤。

步骤2:治疗脊柱侧弯的症状
虽然大多数患者在早期并不表现出任何疼痛的症状,但是随着病情的进展或年龄的增加,这些症状逐渐变得明显。如果疼痛非常严重,以至于你不能移动任何肌肉,那么你无法纠正问题。本书将提供各种策略,以帮助你减轻和控制疼痛,这样可使你集中于矫正根本的功能障碍,它是造成你脊柱侧弯的主要原因。

步骤3:治疗疾病和造成疾病的根源
在这一步骤当中,遵循针对你特定疾病所制定的营养和锻炼计划,你将学会如何通过纠正你身体化学和结构失衡来治疗脊柱侧弯的起因。

关于作者

获得脊骨神经治疗医师学位和整体营养学硕士学位的刘子杰博士,在他的自我康复理念的支持下,将所学这两门学科相结合,并投入自然和预防医学的实践中。作为一位非手术脊柱侧弯矫正领域的先驱,刘子杰医生已经治疗了数以千计的脊柱侧弯症患者,他最终无可置疑地发现了开创性研究成果   脊柱侧弯真正的解决方案。

专家和患者的推荐

“我强烈推荐刘医生的自然疗法方案,它可有效、更好的替代传统的支具疗法和手术治疗。该方案的治疗结果给我留下了非常深刻的印象!我认为每一个脊柱专科医生都将在这本书中发现有价值的信息。”
关艾伦,整骨医科主任 

“治疗结果远远超出了我对脊柱侧弯矫正的预期。更好的是,我避免了手术!”
许露西
 一个用于治疗和预防脊柱侧弯症的完全自然、安全和经过验证的饮食和锻炼方案!

而且,该方案完全针对你的脊柱和代谢需要而制定

  • 展示了造成脊柱侧弯真正原因的最新研究
  • 揭示了支具和手术疗法仅治疗脊柱侧弯的症状,而非根本原因
  • 发掘了哪些最新的疗法有效、哪些无效,以及为什么
  • 揭示了缺乏适当的营养是如何导致疾病在我们体内产生和影响脊柱正常生长的
  • 制定适合你脊柱的独特锻炼例程,即使最繁忙的日程安排亦可适用
  • 明确出你期待从医生和/或其他医疗专家那里获取什么
  • 提供了全面系统的图、表和清单,便于读者理解和领悟
  • 从其他脊柱侧弯症患者鼓舞人心的故事和病例研究中学习
经过数年的实践和潜心研究,刘医生去伪存真。在本部书中,他揭穿了一个又一个流行的荒诞说法,并探索了什么方法有效,脊柱侧弯症患者可有什么替代疗法,以及如何创建一个综合计划以达到身体和脊柱健康的高峰。

澳大利亚原住民和非洲土著部落中很少有脊柱侧弯症患者,受到他们非凡恢复能力的启示,刘医生提出了一个易于遵循、且已临床验证了的治疗方案,该疗法追溯到我们身体的原始构造机能以及生存的需求。通过简单地遵循三步法,本部书将引领您走上完全康复之路。

学习三步法矫正您的脊柱侧弯

步骤1:明确病因
你需要做的第一件事情是,确定出造成你脊柱侧弯的生化和结构失衡。你可在本书中所概述的一系列“自我评估”的帮助下,很容易地完成该步骤。

步骤2:治疗脊柱侧弯的症状
虽然大多数患者在早期并不表现出任何疼痛的症状,但是随着病情的进展或年龄的增加,这些症状逐渐变得明显。如果疼痛非常严重,以至于你不能移动任何肌肉,那么你无法纠正问题。本书将提供各种策略,以帮助你减轻和控制疼痛,这样可使你集中于矫正根本的功能障碍,它是造成你脊柱侧弯的主要原因。

步骤3:治疗疾病和造成疾病的根源
在这一步骤当中,遵循针对你特定疾病所制定的营养和锻炼计划,你将学会如何通过纠正你身体化学和结构失衡来治疗脊柱侧弯的起因。

关于作者

获得脊骨神经治疗医师学位和整体营养学硕士学位的刘子杰博士,在他的自我康复理念的支持下,将所学这两门学科相结合,并投入自然和预防医学的实践中。作为一位非手术脊柱侧弯矫正领域的先驱,刘子杰医生已经治疗了数以千计的脊柱侧弯症患者,他最终无可置疑地发现了开创性研究成果   脊柱侧弯真正的解决方案。

专家和患者的推荐

“我强烈推荐刘医生的自然疗法方案,它可有效、更好的替代传统的支具疗法和手术治疗。该方案的治疗结果给我留下了非常深刻的印象!我认为每一个脊柱专科医生都将在这本书中发现有价值的信息。”
关艾伦,整骨医科主任 

“治疗结果远远超出了我对脊柱侧弯矫正的预期。更好的是,我避免了手术!”
许露西
Read More


'Bad' Cholesterol Not as Bad as People Think, Study Shows

ScienceDaily (May 8, 2011) — The so-called "bad cholesterol" -- low-density lipoprotein commonly called LDL -- may not be so bad after all, shows a Texas A&M University study that casts new light on the cholesterol debate, particularly among adults who exercise.

Steve Riechman, a researcher in the Department of Health and Kinesiology, says the study reveals that LDL is not the evil Darth Vader of health it has been made out to be in recent years and that new attitudes need to be adopted in regards to the substance. His work, with help from colleagues from the University of Pittsburgh, Kent State University, the Johns Hopkins Weight Management Center and the Northern Ontario School of Medicine, is published in the Journal of Gerontology.
Riechman and colleagues examined 52 adults from ages to 60 to 69 who were in generally good health but not physically active, and none of them were participating in a training program. The study showed that after fairly vigorous workouts, participants who had gained the most muscle mass also had the highest levels of LDL (bad) cholesterol, "a very unexpected result and one that surprised us.
"It shows that you do need a certain amount of LDL to gain more muscle mass. There's no doubt you need both -- the LDL and the HDL -- and the truth is, it (cholesterol) is all good. You simply can't remove all the 'bad' cholesterol from your body without serious problems occurring.
Cholesterol is found in all humans and is a type of fat around the body. A person's total cholesterol level comprises LDL (low-density lipoprotein) and HDL (high-density lipoprotein) cholesterol.
LDL is almost always referred to as the "bad" cholesterol because it tends to build up in the walls of arteries, causing a slowing of the blood flow which often leads to heart disease and heart attacks.
HDL, usually called the "good cholesterol," often helps remove cholesterol from arteries.
"But here is where people tend to get things wrong," Riechman says.
"LDL serves a very useful purpose. It acts as a warning sign that something is wrong and it signals the body to these warning signs. It does its job the way it is supposed to.
"People often say, 'I want to get rid of all my bad (LDL) cholesterol,' but the fact is, if you did so, you would die," the Texas A&M professor adds. "Everyone needs a certain amount of both LDL and HDL in their bodies. We need to change this idea of LDL always being the evil thing -- we all need it, and we need it to do its job."
According to the American Heart Association, about 36 million American adults have high cholesterol levels.
"Our tissues need cholesterol, and LDL delivers it," he notes. "HDL, the good cholesterol, cleans up after the repair is done. And the more LDL you have in your blood, the better you are able to build muscle during resistance training."
Riechman says the study could be helpful in looking at a condition called sarcopenia, which is muscle loss due to aging. Previous studies show muscle is usually lost at a rate of 5 percent per decade after the age of 40, a huge concern since muscle mass is the major determinant of physical strength. After the age of 60, the prevalence of moderate to severe sarcopenia is found in about 65 percent of all men and about 30 percent of all women, and it accounts for more than $18 billion of health care costs in the United States.
"The bottom line is that LDL -- the bad cholesterol -- serves as a reminder that something is wrong and we need to find out what it is," Riechman says.
"It gives us warning signs. Is smoking the problem, is it diet, is it lack of exercise that a person's cholesterol is too high? It plays a very useful role, does the job it was intended to do, and we need to back off by always calling it 'bad' cholesterol because it is not totally bad."
ScienceDaily (May 8, 2011) — The so-called "bad cholesterol" -- low-density lipoprotein commonly called LDL -- may not be so bad after all, shows a Texas A&M University study that casts new light on the cholesterol debate, particularly among adults who exercise.

Steve Riechman, a researcher in the Department of Health and Kinesiology, says the study reveals that LDL is not the evil Darth Vader of health it has been made out to be in recent years and that new attitudes need to be adopted in regards to the substance. His work, with help from colleagues from the University of Pittsburgh, Kent State University, the Johns Hopkins Weight Management Center and the Northern Ontario School of Medicine, is published in the Journal of Gerontology.
Riechman and colleagues examined 52 adults from ages to 60 to 69 who were in generally good health but not physically active, and none of them were participating in a training program. The study showed that after fairly vigorous workouts, participants who had gained the most muscle mass also had the highest levels of LDL (bad) cholesterol, "a very unexpected result and one that surprised us.
"It shows that you do need a certain amount of LDL to gain more muscle mass. There's no doubt you need both -- the LDL and the HDL -- and the truth is, it (cholesterol) is all good. You simply can't remove all the 'bad' cholesterol from your body without serious problems occurring.
Cholesterol is found in all humans and is a type of fat around the body. A person's total cholesterol level comprises LDL (low-density lipoprotein) and HDL (high-density lipoprotein) cholesterol.
LDL is almost always referred to as the "bad" cholesterol because it tends to build up in the walls of arteries, causing a slowing of the blood flow which often leads to heart disease and heart attacks.
HDL, usually called the "good cholesterol," often helps remove cholesterol from arteries.
"But here is where people tend to get things wrong," Riechman says.
"LDL serves a very useful purpose. It acts as a warning sign that something is wrong and it signals the body to these warning signs. It does its job the way it is supposed to.
"People often say, 'I want to get rid of all my bad (LDL) cholesterol,' but the fact is, if you did so, you would die," the Texas A&M professor adds. "Everyone needs a certain amount of both LDL and HDL in their bodies. We need to change this idea of LDL always being the evil thing -- we all need it, and we need it to do its job."
According to the American Heart Association, about 36 million American adults have high cholesterol levels.
"Our tissues need cholesterol, and LDL delivers it," he notes. "HDL, the good cholesterol, cleans up after the repair is done. And the more LDL you have in your blood, the better you are able to build muscle during resistance training."
Riechman says the study could be helpful in looking at a condition called sarcopenia, which is muscle loss due to aging. Previous studies show muscle is usually lost at a rate of 5 percent per decade after the age of 40, a huge concern since muscle mass is the major determinant of physical strength. After the age of 60, the prevalence of moderate to severe sarcopenia is found in about 65 percent of all men and about 30 percent of all women, and it accounts for more than $18 billion of health care costs in the United States.
"The bottom line is that LDL -- the bad cholesterol -- serves as a reminder that something is wrong and we need to find out what it is," Riechman says.
"It gives us warning signs. Is smoking the problem, is it diet, is it lack of exercise that a person's cholesterol is too high? It plays a very useful role, does the job it was intended to do, and we need to back off by always calling it 'bad' cholesterol because it is not totally bad."
Read More


Why Wood Pulp Makes Ice Cream Creamier

What is often in shredded cheese besides cheese?

Powdered cellulose: minuscule pieces of wood pulp or other plant fibers that coat the cheese and keep it from clumping by blocking out moisture.

One of an array of factory-made additives, cellulose is increasingly used by the processed-food industry, producers say. Food-product makers use it to thicken or stabilize foods, replace fat and boost fiber content, and cut the need for ingredients like oil or flour, which are getting more expensive.

Cellulose products, gums and fibers allow food manufactures to offer white bread with high dietary fiber content, low-fat ice cream that still feels creamy on the tongue, and allow cooks to sprinkle cheese over their dinner without taking time to shred.

Cellulose additives belong to a family of substances known as hydrocolloids that act in various ways with water, such as creating gels.

The rising cost of raw materials like flour, sugar and oil is helping boost the popularity of these additives, producers of the ingredients say.

Demand for cellulose is also rising because of the growing popularity of processed food products in China, India and other countries, and because consumers are demanding low-fat or nonfat foods that still have a creamy texture.

While some food manufactures say they aren't increasing the percentage of cellulose in their products, others are boosting the amount of fiber in their foods with cellulose and other ingredients. Companies can save money by using it, even though it costs more by weight than conventional ingredients. Cellulose gives food "more water, more air, a creamy feeling in [the] mouth with less of other ingredients," and only a very small amount is needed, says Niels Thestrup, vice president of the hydrocolloids department for Danisco AS. The Copenhagen-based company makes ingredients and enzymes for food, cleaning supplies and other products.

Cellulose is especially popular because it can be used in many ways in food and is relatively inexpensive at about $2.50 to $3 a pound for one type his company makes, says Mr. Thestrup. The company's sales of hydrocolloids had been rising 3% to 5% a year over the past decade, but in the past two years, sales are up about 6% to 8%.

Even organic-food products can contain cellulose.

Organic Valley uses powdered cellulose made from wood pulp in its shredded-cheese products. The company would prefer not to use a synthetic ingredient, but cellulose is bland, white and repels moisture, making it the favored choice over products such as potato starch, says Tripp Hughes, director of product marketing for Organic Valley.

Only powdered cellulose in its least manipulated form can be used in foods labeled "organic" or "made with organic" ingredients by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Cellulose comes in various forms, each with a specific use. Beyond powdered cellulose, two other modified forms are common in food. Microcrystalline cellulose is either listed as such on labels, as MCC, or in some cases as cellulose gel. Carboxymethyl cellulose or cellulose gum, another modified version, is listed as such on labels. Each gives foods a slightly different texture—from gelatinous to more liquid-like—because they trap varying amounts of air or water.

Powdered cellulose is made by cooking raw plant fiber—usually wood—in various chemicals to separate the cellulose, and then purified. Modified versions go through extra processing, such as exposing them to acid to further break down the fiber.
What is often in shredded cheese besides cheese?

Powdered cellulose: minuscule pieces of wood pulp or other plant fibers that coat the cheese and keep it from clumping by blocking out moisture.

One of an array of factory-made additives, cellulose is increasingly used by the processed-food industry, producers say. Food-product makers use it to thicken or stabilize foods, replace fat and boost fiber content, and cut the need for ingredients like oil or flour, which are getting more expensive.

Cellulose products, gums and fibers allow food manufactures to offer white bread with high dietary fiber content, low-fat ice cream that still feels creamy on the tongue, and allow cooks to sprinkle cheese over their dinner without taking time to shred.

Cellulose additives belong to a family of substances known as hydrocolloids that act in various ways with water, such as creating gels.

The rising cost of raw materials like flour, sugar and oil is helping boost the popularity of these additives, producers of the ingredients say.

Demand for cellulose is also rising because of the growing popularity of processed food products in China, India and other countries, and because consumers are demanding low-fat or nonfat foods that still have a creamy texture.

While some food manufactures say they aren't increasing the percentage of cellulose in their products, others are boosting the amount of fiber in their foods with cellulose and other ingredients. Companies can save money by using it, even though it costs more by weight than conventional ingredients. Cellulose gives food "more water, more air, a creamy feeling in [the] mouth with less of other ingredients," and only a very small amount is needed, says Niels Thestrup, vice president of the hydrocolloids department for Danisco AS. The Copenhagen-based company makes ingredients and enzymes for food, cleaning supplies and other products.

Cellulose is especially popular because it can be used in many ways in food and is relatively inexpensive at about $2.50 to $3 a pound for one type his company makes, says Mr. Thestrup. The company's sales of hydrocolloids had been rising 3% to 5% a year over the past decade, but in the past two years, sales are up about 6% to 8%.

Even organic-food products can contain cellulose.

Organic Valley uses powdered cellulose made from wood pulp in its shredded-cheese products. The company would prefer not to use a synthetic ingredient, but cellulose is bland, white and repels moisture, making it the favored choice over products such as potato starch, says Tripp Hughes, director of product marketing for Organic Valley.

Only powdered cellulose in its least manipulated form can be used in foods labeled "organic" or "made with organic" ingredients by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Cellulose comes in various forms, each with a specific use. Beyond powdered cellulose, two other modified forms are common in food. Microcrystalline cellulose is either listed as such on labels, as MCC, or in some cases as cellulose gel. Carboxymethyl cellulose or cellulose gum, another modified version, is listed as such on labels. Each gives foods a slightly different texture—from gelatinous to more liquid-like—because they trap varying amounts of air or water.

Powdered cellulose is made by cooking raw plant fiber—usually wood—in various chemicals to separate the cellulose, and then purified. Modified versions go through extra processing, such as exposing them to acid to further break down the fiber.
Read More


Lack of sleep found to be a new risk factor for colon cancer

An inadequate amount of sleep has been associated with higher risks of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and death. Now colon cancer can be added to the list.

In a ground-breaking new study published in the Feb. 15, 2011 issue of the journal Cancer, researchers from University Hospitals (UH) Case Medical Center and Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, found that individuals who averaged less than six hours of sleep at night had an almost 50 percent increase in the risk of colorectal adenomas compared with individuals sleeping at least seven hours per night. Adenomas are a precursor to cancer tumors, and left untreated, they can turn malignant.

"To our knowledge, this is the first study to report a significant association of sleep duration and colorectal adenomas," said Li Li, MD, PhD, the study's principal investigator, family medicine physician in the Department of Family Medicine at UH Case Medical Center and Associate Professor of Family Medicine, Epidemiology and Biostatistics at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. "A short amount of sleep can now be viewed as a new risk factor for the development of the development of colon cancer."

In the study, patients were surveyed by phone prior to coming into the hospital for scheduled colonoscopies at UH Case Medical Center. They were asked demographic information as well as questions from the Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), which obtains information about the patient's overall sleep quality during the past month. The PSQI asks for such information as how frequently one has trouble sleeping and how much sleep one has had per night. The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute through Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine.

Of the 1,240 patients, 338 were diagnosed with colorectal adenomas at their colonoscopy. The patients with adenomas were found in general to have reported sleeping less than six hours compared to compared to those patients without adenomas (control) patients, and the association between amount of sleep and adenomas remained even when adjusted for family history, smoking, and waist-to-hip ratio (a measurement of obesity).

The researchers also found a slightly stronger association of sleep duration with adenomas with women compared to men, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Dr Li said the magnitude of the increase in risk due to less hours of sleep is comparable to the risk associated with having a first-degree relative (parent or sibling) with colon cancer, as well as with high, red meat intake. "Short sleep duration is a public health hazard leading not only to obesity, diabetes and coronary heart disease, but also, as we now have shown in this study, colon adenomas," he said. "Effective intervention to increase duration of sleep and improve quality of sleep could be an under-appreciated avenue for prevention of colorectal cancer."

Although why fewer hours of sleep may lead to colon cancer is unknown, Dr. Li said some of theories include that less sleep may mean less production of melatonin, a natural hormone that in animals has been linked to DNA repair, or that insulin resistance may underlie the link between sleep disturbance and cancer development.
An inadequate amount of sleep has been associated with higher risks of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and death. Now colon cancer can be added to the list.

In a ground-breaking new study published in the Feb. 15, 2011 issue of the journal Cancer, researchers from University Hospitals (UH) Case Medical Center and Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, found that individuals who averaged less than six hours of sleep at night had an almost 50 percent increase in the risk of colorectal adenomas compared with individuals sleeping at least seven hours per night. Adenomas are a precursor to cancer tumors, and left untreated, they can turn malignant.

"To our knowledge, this is the first study to report a significant association of sleep duration and colorectal adenomas," said Li Li, MD, PhD, the study's principal investigator, family medicine physician in the Department of Family Medicine at UH Case Medical Center and Associate Professor of Family Medicine, Epidemiology and Biostatistics at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. "A short amount of sleep can now be viewed as a new risk factor for the development of the development of colon cancer."

In the study, patients were surveyed by phone prior to coming into the hospital for scheduled colonoscopies at UH Case Medical Center. They were asked demographic information as well as questions from the Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), which obtains information about the patient's overall sleep quality during the past month. The PSQI asks for such information as how frequently one has trouble sleeping and how much sleep one has had per night. The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute through Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine.

Of the 1,240 patients, 338 were diagnosed with colorectal adenomas at their colonoscopy. The patients with adenomas were found in general to have reported sleeping less than six hours compared to compared to those patients without adenomas (control) patients, and the association between amount of sleep and adenomas remained even when adjusted for family history, smoking, and waist-to-hip ratio (a measurement of obesity).

The researchers also found a slightly stronger association of sleep duration with adenomas with women compared to men, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Dr Li said the magnitude of the increase in risk due to less hours of sleep is comparable to the risk associated with having a first-degree relative (parent or sibling) with colon cancer, as well as with high, red meat intake. "Short sleep duration is a public health hazard leading not only to obesity, diabetes and coronary heart disease, but also, as we now have shown in this study, colon adenomas," he said. "Effective intervention to increase duration of sleep and improve quality of sleep could be an under-appreciated avenue for prevention of colorectal cancer."

Although why fewer hours of sleep may lead to colon cancer is unknown, Dr. Li said some of theories include that less sleep may mean less production of melatonin, a natural hormone that in animals has been linked to DNA repair, or that insulin resistance may underlie the link between sleep disturbance and cancer development.
Read More