Meaty Matters

There’s been a lot of talk in the news the past cople of days about the use of carbon monoxide on meat. The chemical is used in place of regular air in the sealed pacakges of beef and other meats to help retain the rosy color for many days longer than convential packaging methods.

The idea is that people don’t want to buy meat that is brown, even if it isn’t spoiled. People use the red color to determine that meat is fresh. Brown meat means it’s been exposed to oxygen; it won’t always make you sick. The process of pumping carbon monoxide onto meat has been approved since 2004, but Michigan company Kalsec has filed a petition to reverse the decision.

Consumer advocates say that people will be fooled by the pink meats and might end up buying spoiled or tainted meat without knowing it.

Of course, that’s one of the reasons meat has sell-by dates on it. Just look at the label and you’ll know if the meat shouldn’t be purchased. And when you get it home you can always smell it before you cook it. If it doesn’t smell like something you’d want to eat, then don’t eat it.

The New York Times did its own study comparing carbon monoxide laced meat to other meats and found that it wouldn’t turn brown even when left on the counter for nearly a week.

Nobody’s saying people will lose common sense and think unrefrigerated meat is good because it’s still pink. But many people are saying you can’t trust sell-by dates. So if you eat meat and shop at one of the many stores using this kind of packaging (including Wal-Mart and SuperTarget, and most stores that don’t have their own butchers) be aware of the possibility of spoilage even with a red color and check those expiration dates!

Calcium Conundrum

From the people who brought us the low fat doesn’t help story last week comes the news today that calcium and vitamin D supplements might not be as beneficial as once thought for preventing bone fractures in women, and they’re not at all helpful for preventing colon cancer.

The study of 36,282 women ages 50 and older, found that taking 1,000 miligrams of calcium and 400 international units of vitamin D daily produced a one percent increase in hip bone density and seemed to produce a 12 percent reduction in hip fractures, though some say the change chould be due to chance.

When smaller groups in the study were looked at, women who took their supplements at least 80 percent of the time over seven years were found to have better protection against fractures, as were women over 60. But statisticians warn that looking at a small group within a big sample often doesn’t give you accurate numbers.

So what should people do if they are currently taking calcium? I take a calcium supplement that is about 60 percent of the recommended daily amount, because I worry that I don’t get enough calcium in my diet. I’m not going to stop; then again, I’m much younger than 50 so this study says nothing to me.

If you’re older, taking supplements diligently still looks like it can be helpful. And if you know you don’t get enough calcium (1,200 miligrams for older women) or vitamin D (600 international units) from your diet (or the sun, in the case of vitamin D), supplementing is fine. Know that you could be increasing your risk of kidney stones, however.

Of course you could also try to gt more calcium and D from your diet instead. Dairy products, fortified cereals and juices, breads and vegetables like broccoli are great sources of calcium, while you can get much more vitamin D than you need each day by being in the sunlight (without sunscreen) or by eating fortified foods.

What this study tells us is that supplements might not be the way to prevent disease. That doesn’t mean it isn’t important to get enough calcium, though, and if you can’t do that through your diet, supplements can help.

(Sources: Washington Post New York Times)

Banned in England

The British Parliament voted yesterday to ban smoking in all indoor public places in England. The 384 to 184 vote was more supportive of the ban than expected.

Ireland already had a ban on smoking in pulbic places, and Scotland and Northern Ireland have bans that are set to go into effect later this year. Wales is expected to pass a similar ban, and the days of smoky English pubs should be gone sometime next year.

Tony Blair had sought a compromise that would allow smoking in private drinks-only clubs. Other members of the government predict about 600,000 Britons will quit smoking once the law is enforced, saving untold numbers of lives.

(Source: New York Times)

Accutane Action?

Dermatologists are complaining that a new system to regulate the prescription acne drug Accutane is “a disaster,” confusing and frustrating doctors who want to prescribe the drug to women.

One of the most highly prescribed (and controversial) drugs on the market, Acutane works by stopping the skin’s oil production, which can help stop acne formation. It’s touted as a miracle cure by many who have used it.

It also causes miscarriages and serious birth defects. Despite warnings against getting pregnant while on the drug (women are often encouraged to use two forms of birth control while on Accutane) many still do get pregnant, often with heartbreaking results.

The new system, called iPledge, would require women to undergo pregnancy tests before being prescribed the drug, and they would have to stay on birth control while taking it.

The American Academy of Dermatology says it has received about 200 complaints about the system, including the fact that the plan says men must have pregnancy tests as well. The academy has asked that the date for starting the new system be pushed back until some of the wrinkles are ironed out.

More than 170,000 presecriptions for Accutane are written every year; about half go to women. If you ask me, whatever the system can do to make sure those women (and their potential children) are safe is worth whatever inconvenience it might cause dermatologists and patients alike.

(Source: New York Times)

Ritalin Warning

An advisory panel suggested a new warning label on stimulants like Ritalin, long used as a treatment for Attention Deficit Disorder, because of the potential risk of heart problems from taking the drug.

Nearly four million people currently take Ritalin and similar drugs to treat hyperactivity and ADD.

The Food and Drug Administration was a little surprised by the action of the panel, which had been convened to figure out how to study the potential heart risks of these drugs. There have been no studies linking the drugs to heart problems, but there have been 25 unexplained deaths, mostly of children, among people who have taken the drugs.

A review of medical records suggested that the drugs increase the risk of stroke and irregular heartbeat in both adults and children.

Members of the panel said they wanted to warn consumers now that there might be a problem, instead of waiting for a study to tell them what already seems clear.

Preliminary studies showed that taking the drugs might increase the risk of heart problems two-fold, which is not that significant for children but can make a big difference for adults.

If you or your child is currently on one of these drugs, talk to your doctor about the increased risk of heart problems and if you are worried about it, see if there are any alternative treatments that won’t increase your risk of heart problems.

What the Low-Fat News Really Means

I was watching Good Morning America this morning, as I tend to do when I’m getting ready for work, and once again their slant on the health news of the day annoyed me. Robin Roberts says there’s a new study that shows low-fat diets don’t work for women and have no effect on cancer or heart disease. Then she asks some medical type what we’re supposed to do now.

The answer, of course, is eat a low-fat diet. The study they were talking about (which you can read more about in the New York Times, Washington Post and LA Times) was published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It looked at healthy women, some of whom were told to eat a “low-fat” diet while others were not instructed on what to eat.

I give you multiple links to stories because it is interesting to note how the different papers play it. The Post goes high with this quote: “Based on our findings, we cannot recommend that most women should follow a low-fat diet,” by Jacques Rossouw of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, which funded this huge eight-year study.

In the LA Times, we hear: “Basically, the low-fat, high-starch diets completely struck out,” said Dr. Walter Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health, whose own smaller studies have shown similar results. “This is … the end of the low-fat era.”

Which seems a little premature to me. While it may be true that just reducing fat doesn’t have much impact on your likelihood of getting cancer or having heart disease or a stroke, that doesn’t mean it’s time to load up on lard and red meat.

In fact, the story is much more nuanced that a two-minute television segment could convey.

When this study started eight years ago, no one really distinguished between different kinds of fat. We now know that saturated fat and trans fat are particularly nasty, and that cutting them out does seem to reduce the risk of disease.

This study didn’t suggest that women cut any particular kinds of fats, so though the low-fat group was eating less fat, it’s not known if they ate less saturated and trans-fats (now known as “bad fats”) than their high-fat counterparts.

Even the high-fat/low-fat distinction is kind of fuzzy in this study. The high-fat participants, according to the Post, got about 35 percent of their calories from fat, while the low-fat group averaged between 24 and 29 percent, and the levels weren’t consistent through the group as individuals eat more or less fat over the years. That’s not a huge difference when you’re not also cutting calories, exercising, getting more fiber and choosing healthy fats like olive oil.

One doctor interviewed by the NY Times made a really great point that focusing on fat in the diet isn’t going to prevent disease any more than focusing on any other one thing would. You’ve got to look at the whole picture. Do you smoke? Are you getting enough exercise? Are you eating more calories than you need? How’s your fiber intake? All of these things in combination with lowering intake of bad fat certainly do have an impact on disease.

“People just think fat is the devil incarnate, and that’s an incorrect message,” said Abby Bloch, vice president for programs and research for the Dr. Robert C. Atkins Foundation in New York in the LA Times. We shouldn’t try to eliminate all fats, just the ones that tend to cause more artery blocking, such as those that come from animals.

Most of the low-fat women in this study ate fewer calories than the average American does and still didn’t lose much weight, which makes some scientists think something else was going on (lack of exercise, for instance) that played a part in not significantly reducing the risk of disease (though low-fat dieters had 9 percent fewer breast cancer cases than the higher-fat group).

What this seems to mean for the rest of us is what we’ve known for the past few years: diet is not enough, or at least focusing on one part of your diet alone is not enough. Healthy living means more than just cutting out the fat, which is hardly stunning news.

Hidden Heart Danger

This article from The New York Times is a must-read for every woman, and everyone who cares about a woman. It outlines a hidden heart-disease danger that is much more likely to happen to women than it does to men.

This ailment starves the heart for oxygen but doesn’t show up on an angiogram. It’s estimated that three million women could have this ailment, which is manifested by chest pain and can lead to a heart attack later.

A certain type of stress test that measures the amount of blood flow to the heart can help diagnose this condition, which seems to be linked to fatty blockages in the heart that can’t be see on x-rays.

Not every woman is at risk for this condition, but if you’ve had heart issues and had a clean angiogram, this could be your problem. As with most heart issues, it’s important to lower your cholesterol and blood pressure, lose weight, exercise more and quit smoking if you do smoke, in order to control this problem.

In a study, 10 percent of the women who showed no blockages died of heart disease over the course of four years. Doctors started to look into other abnormalities in teh arteries and found that women’s hearts had artery walls that were full of plaque but the walls grew to accomodate the plaque temporarily.

About the most important thing you can do for yourself if you want to have a good, long life, is to take care of your heart. Start today! It really could save your life.