You are here: Home / 2011 / Archives for November 2011

Sniff, sniff: What the evidence says about colds

November 29, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Have you got your first cold of the season yet?  Our family has cycled through an entire round already – each of us taking turns coping with runny noses, hacking coughs and sore throats.

While typically not a life-threatening illness, the common cold is one of the most widespread diseases in the world and a leading cause of doctor visits and absenteeism from school and work.  Beyond that, having a cold is just plain uncomfortable.  So of course, I was on the hunt a treatment that actually works.

I immediately turned to the Cochrane Collaboration, which has published dozens of reports on preventing and treating the common cold.  Here are a few that interested me most;

  • The data on heated, humidified air is completely split.  The Cochrane Collabortion review, which included six trials with a total of 387 participants,  found that in some studies inhaling steam helped symptom and in others it did not.
  • I’ve long increased my orange juice intake when I have a cold with hopes that the extra Vitamin C would help. But a systematic review found no consistent effect on the duration or severity of cold symptoms.
  • A review of seven trials found that over-the-counter nasal decongestants like Sudafed do help, but only slightly. Users reported a 6 percent improvement in symptoms after one dose, and a 4 percent improvement over several days. For me, personally, I wonder if such a small improvement is worthwhile.
  • The most promising treatment for the common cold, according to the evidence, is zinc. The systematic review of 15 randomized controlled trials found that zinc lozenges and syrup are both effective in reducing the duration and severity of the common cold in healthy people, when taken within 24 hours of onset of symptoms.

Needless to say, my medicine cabinet is now stocked with zinc lozenges so that our family is ready for any other colds that come our way this season.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness Tagged With: , , ,

The simple facts on layway – and a grateful reminder

November 22, 2011 By Leave a Comment

During undoubtedly the biggest shopping week of the year, several major retailers  – including Walmart, Sears and Toys R Us – are bringing back a purchasing tool of by-gone days: layaway.

The concept is simple.  If you can’t afford a purchase, the store will set it aside for you (for a fee, or course) and allow you to make payments on it.  Once you’ve paid off the item, you’re free to take it home. The system was set up before credit cards were common-place in American homes.

But there’s a problem with layaway. Compared to credit card interest rates, layaway fees are exorbitant. Louis Hyman, an assistant professor at Cornell’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations, explains in a New York Times column:

“Imagine a mother going to Walmart on Oct. 17 and buying $100 worth of Christmas toys. She makes a down payment of $10 and pays a $5 service fee. Over the next two months she pays off the rest. In effect, she is paying $5 in interest for a $90 loan for two months: the equivalent of a credit card with a 44 percent annual percentage rate, a level most of us would consider predatory.

“In comparison, even a card with an 18 percent A.P.R. would charge only half as much interest — and she could take those presents home the same day.

“Then consider what would happen if she couldn’t finish all the payments. Walmart would give her the money back, less $10. If she borrowed that $90 and paid $15 in interest for two months, she would have the equivalent of a jaw-dropping interest rate of 131 percent.”

The bottom line is that most layway program don’t pay.  Instead, it’s better to save up for your holiday presents.

***

During this week of Thanksgiving, we’d also like to remind you that the feeling of thankfulness or gratitude is actually good for you.  Before you head out the door for those Black Friday sales, take a few minutes to remember what you’re grateful for.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness Tagged With: , , ,

I’m eating what? The evidence about nutrition labels

November 18, 2011 By Leave a Comment

We’ve all had the experience, right?  You’re at the grocery store on a Saturday morning. The aisles are crowded, and you’ve stopped to read the back of package of crackers to ascertain if they are really good for you.  Only you can’t find the information you’re looking for, and you notice some strange items in the ingredient list. But you’re creating a traffic jam in the grocery aisle, so you give up and toss the box into your shopping cart.

In fact, systematic reviews do find nutrition labels do provide useful information, and those who use them consume healthier diets.

But a new report by the federal Institute of Medicine has found that nutritional labels are far too confusing for the average consumer.

After a systematic review of the literature about how consumers make food choices, the IOM concludes “it is time for a fundamental shift in strategy, a move away from systems that mostly provide nutrition information without clear guidance about its healthfulness, and toward one that encourages healthier food choices through simplicity, visual clarity, and the ability to convey meaning without written information.”

The idea is to create a point system where foods were assigned a number depending on how healthy they are. The higher the number, the healthier the food. This number would be displayed on the front of food packages, making it easier for consumers to make healthy choices. 

And possibly reducing the frequency of grocery aisle traffic jams as well.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness Tagged With: , , ,

The facts on honey

November 15, 2011 By Leave a Comment

It’s sticky, it’s sweet and it tastes wonderful on a warm biscuit. Honey is a natural sweeter that’s been that provides a natural form of instant energy. And it’s been used for centuries as an antibacterial agent.

Now new evidence from the Food Safety News shows that the majority of honey available in U.S. grocery stores is missing the pollen, which would lead it to fail quality standards set by many of the world’s food safety agencies.

The pollen in honey serves several purposes. It provides some nutritional benefits, it is thought to help minimize seasonal allergies, and it helps food safety officials track where the honey is from.

The pollen is removed from honey using a technique called ultra filtering, where honey is heated, sometimes watered down and then forced at high pressure through extremely small filters to remove pollen.

There’s no way to tell whether ultra-filtered honey is coming from an unsafe source.  In the past, some imported honey was found to contain high levels of antibiotics and heavy metals.

The take-home message: Do your best to buy honey from a known local source, such as a farmer’s market or cooperative grocery store.

As a sidenote, Cornell happens to be one of the nation’s leading resources for information about honey bees. It houses the largest and most comprehensive apiculture library in the world as well as the Dyce Laboratory for Honey Bee Studies.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness Tagged With: , , ,

New data on the flu vaccine

November 7, 2011 By 3 Comments

It’s abundantly clear that winter is coming when you start seeing signs for flu vaccines clinics around town.  So far, I’ve seen them advertised at the mall, the pharmacy and our local pediatrician’s office. 

The flu vaccine is a topic we’ve written about before. But I think it’s always helpful to revisit any new information on medical decisions.

Wouldn’t you know, a new meta-analysis coming out of England reviewed the effectiveness of the flu vaccine in preventing seasonal flu infections. 

The analysis included 31 studies conducted from 1967 to 2011.  Research on both the trivalent inactivated vaccine, or TIV – the flu injection – and live attenuated influenza vaccine, or LAIV – the nasal spray flu vaccine – was included.

Pooling the results of these studies showed that the flu injection was effective at preventing seasonal flu in 59 percent of adults.

Data on the nasal spray flu vaccine was only available for children ages six months to seven years, but the studies showed that it was effective in 83 percent of the children studied.  Clearly, more research is needed in this area to determine whether the nasal spray is also more effective in adults.

The analysis underscores the current thinking on the flu vaccine: while it’s not 100 percent effective, it does help prevent the flu in the majority of people who receive it. So it’s worth lining up for one of the flu vaccine clinics in your town.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness Tagged With: , ,

Updated info: Babies and toddlers should skip the screen

November 3, 2011 By 1 Comment

New findings about screen-time for babies and kids is something I keep a close eye on.  As parent of an infant and a three-year-old, I want to do what’s best for them. And yet there’s always the temptation to use the television – “just one show” – when I need to get something done.

So I paid careful attention last month when the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended the first two years of life remain “as screen-free as possible.”

The full report, published in the journal Pediatrics, cited studies that educational programming for children is only beneficial if the children understand the context – a milestone typically not reached until after age 2. The report found that babies and toddlers learn best through unstructured play and interactions with older children and adults.

The report also found that children under age 2 who engage in heavy media use – more than an hour or two a day – may have delays in speech and language.

What does all of this mean?

Rachel Dunifon, a Human Ecology faculty member and expert in child and family policy, says that while research supports that idea that too much media use is likely not ideal for children, parents should know that the studies showing linkages between media use and child well-being are not causal, and that the specific time limits and age cut-offs are somewhat arbitrary. 

While limiting media use is a great goal for parents, she says it is also important that parents not take these recommendations as another source of stress or guilt in their lives.

At our house, not a lot will change despite the new guidelines.  We’ll continue to let our three-year-old watch up to an hour a day of an educational program – most often while the baby is napping. My husband and I will continue to reserve our own TV-viewing until after the kids go to bed – with some special exceptions like the Superbowl and the Royal wedding. 

And yes, every once in a while, I’ll turn on Sesame Street and plunk both kids down in the living room so that I can get something done.  But we’ll try our best to make that a rare exception.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, In The Media, Youth Development Tagged With: , , ,
Skip to toolbar