June 17th, 2009 by admin in Better Health Network, Health Tips
Tags: Diet, Edamame, Food and Nutrition, Nutrition, Safety, Soy
No Comments »
I have had several people recently ask me about whether eating foods from soy is harmful. Some have asked because they have a thyroid problem and heard that soy interferes with their synthroid, others are worried about breast cancer, and most recently I guess some negative press has been writing about men and soy. Let me try to set the record straight.
What is soy?
All soy foods come from soybeans. Soy has a high protein content as well as carbs, fiber, vitamins, minerals, and some healthy fats. Soy is an excellent source of plant-based protein because it is known as a “complete protein” meaning it contains all of the essential amino acids. Whole soy is best, meaning it has been minimally processed and you are getting the naturally occurring nutrients found in the soybean. Foods that contain whole soy are edamame, soynuts, and surprisingly a bar called SOYJOY. Tofu and soymilk are also great sources of soy.
Health Benefits/Dispelling Myths
Numerous health benefits of soy have been very well documented in literature. In addition, many myths about soy have been dismissed with research studies.
Heart health: Soy is cholesterol free, low in saturated fat, and contains healthy fats. Some evidence also shows that it helps to lower LDL, or “bad” cholesterol.
Breast cancer: A high soy intake during puberty has been shown to reduce breast cancer risk, but consuming it as an adult has not been linked to lowering risk. Some animal studies have connected soy isoflavones with breast cancer growth, but no data on humans has supported this. In fact, some studies show a favorable impact on breast cancer outcomes with soy. Check with your physician before taking a soy isoflavone supplement. The American Cancer Society suggests that up to 3 servings of soyfoods per day is safe for a breast cancer survivor.
Bone health: Soybeans and calcium-fortified soyfoods are good choices because of the soy isoflavones as well as calcium and Vitamin K which can help bone mineralization.
Menopause: Over 50 studies have examined whether soy can relieve hot flashes in menopause and the consensus is that it may for many women but it depends on hot many hot flashes you get and how much soy isoflavone is taken.
Reproduction: No human data shows that consuming soy causes abnormal testosterone or estrogen levels. Several studies found no affect on sperm or semen when consuming soy isoflavones.
Thyroid: A comprehensive review of literature concluded that soy does not adversely affect thyroid function. Researchers recommended that thyroid function be reassessed if there is a large increase or decrease in soy intake, but normal day-to-day variations are unlikely to affect normal thyroid function.
Good for the Planet
Soy is environmentally friendly. The amount of fossil fuel to process soybeans is estimated to be 6-20 times less than that used to produce meat.
Bottom line
Soy foods can be part of a healthy diet for men and women. Eating 2-3 servings per day of soy foods is safe and very healthy. Soy contains important protein, amino acids, fiber, calcium, potassium, zinc, iron, and folic acid.
For more information:
www.soyconnection.com
www.soyjoy.com
This post, Is Soy Safe?, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Brian Westphal.
June 17th, 2009 by Peter Lipson, M.D. in Better Health Network, Quackery Exposed
Tags: Chronic Lyme, Infectious Disease, Journalism, Lyme Disease, Propaganda, Science, Under Our Skin
No Comments »
It might seem a bit undemocratic, but science, like medicine or dentistry, is a profession. One doesn’t become a scientist by fiat but by education and training. I am not a scientist. I apply science. My colleague Dr. Gorski is a scientist (as well as physician). He understands in a way that I never will the practical process of science—funding, experimental design, statistics. While I can read and understand scientific studies in my field, I cannot design and run them (but I probably could in a limited way with some additional training). Even reading and understanding journal articles is difficult, and actually takes training (which can be terribly boring, but I sometimes teach it anyway).
So when I read a newspaper article about science or medicine, I usually end up disappointed—sometimes with the science, and sometimes with the reporting. A recent newspaper article made me weep for both. Local newspapers serve an important role in covering news in smaller communities, and are often jumping off points for young, talented journalists. Or sometimes, not so much.
The article was in the Darien (CT) Times. The headline reads, in part, “surveys refute national Lyme disease findings.” Epidemiologic studies, such as surveys, are very tricky. They require a firm grounding in statistics, among other things. You must know what kind of question to ask, how many people to ask, how to choose these people, etc, etc, etc. So what institution conducted this groundbreaking survey on Lyme disease?
Actually, they are quoting the famous work of one Kent Haydock, chairman of the Deer Management Committee. But I’m sure he outlined his methods carefully. Or not.
Haydock conducted:
[T]wo surveys — which polled 41 Darien households after a showing of the Lyme Disease film, Under Our Skin, at the Darien Library last month… . In the 41 households that completed the questionnaire, 47 total Lyme disease cases were reported. In 64 percent of those cases, the patient had relapses after an initial Lyme treatment, which required additional treatment for a chronic or long-term conditions.
So, Haydock showed the agitprop chronic Lyme advocacy film Under Our Skin to local families, presumably not selected at random, and then asked them if they had signs of Lyme disease and if it was ruining their lives. Not surprisingly, the answers to both questions were “yes” a remarkably high percentage of the time.
His conclusion: the surveys “show that Lyme not only exists in great numbers, but also in debilitating, chronic and long-term cases.”
This is not epidemiology. This is not science. This is an uninformed opinion dressed up with meaningless numbers. If you get together a group of people who are interested in Lyme disease, show them a propaganda film, and query them about it, the only thing you’ve “measured” is your ability to count people who come to a movie and hold a certain belief. If there were any valid conclusions to be drawn (and with these numbers, there probably aren’t) it’s that many people in this small group think they have Lyme disease—and even that’s over-reaching.
It’s bad enough that the deer commissioner did this. But arguably, it’s much worse that the reporter and editor published it. The only thing this accomplishes is fanning the fears of the readers.
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
June 16th, 2009 by MotherJonesRN in Better Health Network, Opinion
Tags: Bedside, Clinical Nursing, Nursing, Patient Care, Quality Care
3 Comments »
Do you remember this person? She is a bedside nurse. She walks up and down hospital hallways in her white nursing shoes all day long while caring for her patients. She is trained for active duty. I’m asking you this question because nursing researchers have had an epiphany. They believe that they have discovered something new in the field of bedside nursing.
Over the years I’ve observed that the more degrees and letters that a lot of academic nurses get behind their name, the more out of touch they become with bedside nursing. This came to light once again when I attended a mandatory inservice at work. I was told that we were going to talk about an innovative concept that was going to revolutionize patient care and the nursing profession. Imagine my surprise when the speaker talked about hourly rounds. Did you know that nursing researchers have discovered that patients are happiest when their nurses spend time with them at the bedside every hour, and anticipate their needs? Wow, what a concept. Academic nurses living in the ivory tower of higher learning have discovered through years of painstaking research that patients also want nurses to answer their call light promptly when they need help getting to the bathroom. Holy cow! Hourly rounds decreases the amount of time patients spend using their call lights, decreases injuries due to patient falls, and increases patient satisfaction while they are in the hospital.
Did I miss something? I remember learning all this stuff years ago when I was attending a lowly diploma nursing program. We were always walking up and down the halls in our nursing shoes. No one conducted studies on how to make patients happy back then. A little common sense goes a long ways. The formula to good patient care starts with clean bed sheets and a filled water pitcher, and ends with a connection to your patient. That’s not new. That’s nursing.
*This blog post was originally published at Nurse Ratched's Place*
June 15th, 2009 by KevinMD in Better Health Network
Tags: Costs, End Of Life Care, Finance, Futile Care, General Surgery, Healthcare Costs, Oncology, Pancreatic Cancer
No Comments »
A 90-year old man with a pancreatic mass, almost definitely pancreatic cancer, was admitted to a hospital.
Surgeon Jeffrey Parks does the initial surgery consult on this terminal case, and recommends hospice care.
The next evening, he’s shocked by the “astounding amount of medicine [that] had been practiced” during the day:
Consults had gone out to GI, oncology, and nephrology. The GI guy had ordered an MRCP and, based on some mild distal narrowing of the common bile duct, had scheduled the patient for a possible ERCP in the morning. A stat CT guided biopsy of the liver lesions had also been done. The oncologist had written a long note about palliative chemotherapy options and indicated he would contact the son about starting as soon as possible. The nephrologist had sent off a barrage of blood and urinary tests.
It’s often said that we spend the most money in the world on futile care, often with little benefit to the patient. The preceding account was that phenomenon in action, replicated thousands of times on a daily basis.
A microcosm of what’s wrong with American medicine indeed.
*This blog post was originally published at KevinMD.com*
June 15th, 2009 by Paul Auerbach, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Tips, News
Tags: Beaches, Beachwater, E. Coli, Infectious Disease
No Comments »
Summer has arrived and so many of us are headed for the beaches that line the coasts of the United States as well as those of our inland waters, such as lakes and rivers. There are plentiful healthcare concerns for beachgoers. These include sunburn, drowning, jellyfish stings, sprains, strains, and cuts and bruises. What perhaps doesn’t receive as much attention as it deserves is ocean water quality – specifically, whether or not the water is contaminated by environmental toxins and/or harmful bacteria.
Nearly a year ago, reports circulated in the press that indicated that at least 7% of beach water samples in the U.S. exceeded acceptable (from a health perspective) levels of bacteria. A writer for the New York Times reported, “The number of beach closings and health warnings issued to swimmers as a result of pollution fell in 2007 from a record level in 2006,” according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). But the writer continued that the NRDC noted “that American beaches ‘continue to suffer from serious water pollution that puts swimmers at risk.'” He cited that the NRDC analyzed “data obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency on more than 3,500 beaches,” revealing “that beaches across the country closed because of pollution or issued pollution-related health advisories for a total of more than 22,000 days in 2007, down from more than 25,000 days in 2006.”
A reporter for the Los Angeles Times wrote that the NRDC found that “Los Angeles County is home to the dirtiest beaches in the state (California), with repeat offenders Avalon on Santa Catalina Island and Santa Monica among those with the highest levels of fecal bacteria in ocean water.” Overall, the NRDC found that, “Illinois has the most coastal beaches in the country with water samples exceeding acceptable levels of (potentially harmful) bacteria, such as E. coli.”
The NRDC posts an informative page on beach pollution. The major takeaway is that the beachgoer should be well aware of the current situation with regard to pollution or contamination of any body of water for which human entry is contemplated.
Here is the status of the federal Beach Protection Act of 2008, as reported by OpenCongress:
Read more »
This post, Contaminated Beachwater May Be Hazardous To Your Health, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Paul Auerbach, M.D..
