Month: October 2011

Diet

Poll Watch: More Americans a Normal Weight Than Overweight

Posted on
Share

According to the latest Gallup Poll.

The percentage of Americans who are overweight or obese declined slightly in the third quarter of 2011, while the percentage who are a normal weight increased. For the first time in more than three years, more Americans are a normal weight (36.6%) than are overweight (35.8%).

The overweight and normal weight trend lines have tracked closely together since Gallup and Healthways started monitoring Americans’ weight situation daily in January 2008. Though it is noteworthy that more adults are now a normal weight than overweight, it is too early to tell if this shift is temporary or permanent.

The recent slight decline in the nation’s obesity rate is a positive contrast to the rising levels found in 2009 and throughout most of 2010. However, the majority of Americans are still at an unhealthy weight — either overweight or obese (61.6%).

The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index uses respondents’ self-reports of their height and weight to calculate body mass index (BMI) scores. Individual BMI values of 30 or higher are classified as “obese,” 25.0 to 29.9 are “overweight,” 18.5 to 24.9 are “normal weight,” and 18.4 or less are “underweight.”

Good news, but there is still more weight to lose.

Obesity Rates Down Across Demographic Groups

Black Americans, the middle-aged, and those with low incomes remain the most likely to be obese across major demographic subgroups in an aggregate of the data collected in all three quarters of 2011 — as generally has been the case historically.

However, obesity rates for each of those groups and all others included in this analysis are either trending down or are statistically unchanged so far in 2011.

The chart:

So, what does this all mean?

Although a majority of Americans remain overweight or obese, it is a good sign that the obesity rates are trending downward. Perhaps Americans are learning more about adopting a healthy diet and exercise program. Perhaps it is the economic recession and folks are eating out less at fast-food restaurants that have menus that are high in caloric and fat content?

It is hard to say.

But, let’s hope that the trend continues in a downward direction = for better health.

Share
Health

Steve Jobs and Why Pancreatic Cancer is SO Deadly

Posted on
Share

Apple’s Steve Job had a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. Apple Inc. announced his death Wednesday

As we all know, Apple, Inc’s CEO Steve Jobs passed away last night from cancer.

What kind of cancer did Jobs have and why was it so deadly for such a young individual?

As the technology world mourns computing visionary and Apple, Inc. co-founder Steve Jobs, it’s worth taking a closer look at the disease he publicly battled.

Jobs had a rare form of pancreatic cancer called a neuroendocrine tumor. Patrick Swayze, Joan Crawford, Margaret Mead and Luciano Pavarotti all died from a more common form of pancreatic cancer, called adenocarcinoma. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer in February 2009 and, 18 days later, returned to the bench.

“Right now, pancreatic cancer is getting publicity, but it’s a neglected disease,” said Dr. Michaela Banck, medical oncologist at the Mayo Clinic, who treats patients with neuroendocrine tumors. “It doesn’t draw the same attention as colon cancer and breast cancer. Activist groups raise small amounts of money, since it’s a rare disease. It’s a complicated disease. We don’t have enough money to make progress as fast as we’d like to.”

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of death from cancer in the United States, after lung, colon and breast cancer. The lifetime risk of developing it is about 1 in 71. This year, about 44,030 people will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, and the disease will kill about 37,660 people, according to the American Cancer Society.

About 95 percent of people with pancreatic cancer die from it, experts say. It’s so lethal because during the early stages, when the tumor would be most treatable, there are usually no symptoms. It tends to be discovered at advanced stages when abdominal pain or jaundice may result. Presently, there are no general screening tools […]

Researchers are working on better understanding the way in which pancreatic tumors grow and spread, Libutti said.

“There are a number of agents that are being looked at in clinical trials that focus on pathways that may allow pancreatic cancer to evade normal processes,” Libutti said.

One is an antibody that blocks a particular protein called PD-1 on the surface of pancreatic cancer, meaning chemotherapies would be more effective because there would be an enhanced immune response against the tumor. That work is being done by the National Cancer Institute.

Libutti’s lab is working on targeted nanoparticle therapies for metastatic neuroendocrine tumors. The idea is that tiny particles are coated with material that hones in on tumor cells and delivers drugs to kill them without harming healthy tissue, reducing the toxicity to the body in general. This research is still in animal models.

“We’re hopeful that in the not-too-distant future, we’ll be ready to move into clinical trials,” he said.

Another line of research is focused on finding biomarkers of pancreatic cancer so that a simple blood or urine test could be developed. Unlike screenings for other conditions such as colon, breast and prostate cancers, there is no routine way to see whether a patient has a tumor in the pancreas.

The future of medicine to help people with pancreatic cancer will involve genetics, said Banck. This would involve matching a person’s particular type of tumor using genomic information with treatment.

“What’s going to make real difference in the future is the revolution of the genomic era,” she said.

Read it all……

Steve Jobs will be missed.

Share
Health

Smokers Twice as Likely to Have Strokes and Younger Too

Posted on
Share

According to a new study.

Not only are smokers twice as likely to have strokes, they are almost a decade younger than non-smokers when they have them, according to a study presented October 3 at the Canadian Stroke Congress.

Between January 2009 and March 2011, researchers studied 982 stroke patients (264 smokers and 718 non-smokers) at an Ottawa prevention clinic. They found the average age of stroke patients who smoked was 58, compared to age 67 for non-smokers.

“The information from this study provides yet another important piece of evidence about the significance of helping people stop smoking,” said Dr. Andrew Pipe of the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, one of the study’s authors. “It also alerts the neurology community to the importance of addressing smoking in stroke patients.”

Smoking causes a build-up of debris on the inside of blood vessels, a condition called atherosclerosis, and it contributes to a higher likelihood of clots forming, said Dr. Pipe.

The Ottawa Hospital study, led by principal investigators Dr. Mike Sharma and Dr. Robert Reid, found smokers have double the risk of a stroke caused by a dislodged blood clot (ischemic stroke) and four times the risk of a stroke caused by a ruptured blood vessel (hemorrhagic stroke) than the non-smoking population.

In addition, smokers have a greater chance of having more complications and recurrent strokes. Patients who have had a minor stroke are 10 times more likely to have a major stroke, especially if they continue to smoke, said Dr. Pipe.

Stroke is preventable.

So, quit smoking, follow a healthy diet and exercise regularly – for your health’s sake.

Share
Health

Do Mother and Baby Risk Factors Predict a Child’s Obesity?

Posted on
Share

The answer is YES, according to a new study.

Targeting four modifiable maternal and infant risk factors may make a large impact on reducing childhood obesity, researchers found.

The four factors were maternal smoking during pregnancy, gestational weight gain, breastfeeding duration, and infant sleep duration, according to Matthew Gillman, MD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston.

At age 7, children with adverse levels of all four risk factors had a substantially greater risk of obesity than those with healthy levels of all four (28% versus 4%). Gillman reported those findings at the Obesity Society meeting here.

“These four factors, which are potentially modifiable, explain a large proportion of obesity in childhood, and the implication is that, if we can mount interventions to change these things, we can go a long way toward preventing childhood obesity,” Gillman said.

If we can modify these four factors, then it will be a worthwhile attempt for better baby health. Of course, more study is required.

Share