You are here: Home / 2012 / Archives for September 2012

Coffee update: It’s actually good for you

September 26, 2012 By Leave a Comment

Here at EBL, we’ve written about coffee before. But given that more than 60 percent of Americans consume coffee on a daily basis, we think it’s an important to understand its effects. We were excited to come across a new systematic review on America’s favorite drink and its relationship to heart failure.

The review included five prospective studies of more than 140,000 people in total measuring the relationship between regular coffee consumption and the risk of heart failure. Across all of the studies, more than 6,500 participants suffered heart failure.

According to the analysis, consuming a moderate amount of coffee was inversely related to risk of heart failure: people who drank four servings of coffee a day had the smallest risk of heart failure.  Those who drank significantly more or less than four servings a day were found to have a higher risk heart failure. The review found there were no variance between men and women, or for participants who had a history of heart attack or diabetes.

Clearly, there is more to this story, and further study is warranted on the health benefits of coffee are warranted. But to date, the evidence indicates that drinking coffee regularly isn’t risky and may actually protect you against heart failure.

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

The science of political campaigns, Part 2

September 21, 2012 By Leave a Comment

Next month, President Barack Obama and Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney will face off on national television on four separate occasions to share their ideas for governing America and explain why voters should chose them.

While it’s not clear how many Americans make their voting decisions based on the debates, we do know they are an important part of the campaign. So I was thrilled to find some evidence on how to consider the candidates responses critically.

Todd Rogers, a behavioral psychologist at Harvard University, is among a growing group of researchers applying social science to issues effecting political campaigns. (We’ve written about his work on get-out-the-vote phone calls.)  He wanted to address the issue of how candidates respond when get asked a question that they don’t want to answer – and whether the public notices when politicians dodge a question by talking about a different topic instead.

Rogers and his colleague Michael Norton, an associate professor at the Harvard Business School, designed a study to determine under what conditions people can get away with dodging a question, and under what conditions listeners can detect what’s happening.

In their study, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, they recorded a speaker answering a question about universal healthcare. Then they paired that answer with three separate questions: the correction question about health care, one about illegal drug use and another about terrorism.  They showed the three question-and-answer pairings to separate groups of people and asked them to rate the truthfulness of the speaker.

Their research found that when the question and answer sounded somewhat similar – such as in the case where the speaker was asked about drug use but responded about healthcare –  the audience rate the speaker as trustworthy.  (In fact, most of the people who head the answer about illegal drug use couldn’t even remember the question.) But when the answer was very clearly addressing a different topic – such as when the speaker was asked about health care but responded about terrorism – the audience detected the dodge.

In another part of the study, Rogers and Norton used the same questions and answers, but posted the question on the screen in for some viewers. They found  viewers who saw the question posted on the screen while the speaker answered were more than twice as likely to detect a dodge, even in subtle cases.

Rogers advocates for posting the questions on the screen during the presidential candidates debates, although he concedes it’s unlikely to happen this year.

You can hear an interview with Rogers  and learn about other research on political campaigning in last week’s episode of NPR’s Science Friday.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, In The Media, policy Tagged With: , , ,

Can we fend off chronic disease? The evidence says yes

September 18, 2012 By 1 Comment

We have all heard that physical fitness is an important factor in health, but how important a factor?  And is it ever too late to get fit?

A study published earlier last month in the Archives of Internal Medicine suggests that becoming fit in middle age, even if you haven’t previously exercised, can stave off illness later in life.

In the study, researchers collected medical records for more than 18,000 healthy middle-aged men and women who’d visited the Cooper Institute in Dallas, Texas for a check-up since 1970. Each subject took a treadmill test to determine their aerobic fitness at their first check-up. Then the researchers checked their Medicare records from 1999 through 2009.

The study found that people who were least fit at the time of their initial check-up were the most likely to developed chronic conditions such as heart disease and cancer early in the aging process. Those who were most in middle-age developed the same conditions, but significantly later in life compared to the less fit.

The take-home message of this study actually parallels a lesson shared in Karl’s book 30 Lessons for Living, which shares advice from America’s elders. The lesson is: It’s not dying you should worry about – it’s chronic disease.

This study provides evidence that you can actually do something to help prevent chronic disease later in life – exercise!

The study is backed up by several systematic reviews. One published in the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport found physical activity helps prevent heart disease, cancer and diabetes. Another published in Obesity Reviews found individual who are overweight but have good aerobic fitness are at lower risk of cardiovascular disease compared with individuals with normal weight and poor fitness.

The bottom line: Physical fitness can help you lead a healthier, happier life no matter what your age.

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

Is organic food really better for you?

September 10, 2012 By 7 Comments

Over the past decade, our society is growing increasingly aware of our reliance on chemical products and their impacts on the environment and our health. So last week, a new study by Stanford University researchers on the benefits of organic foods received a lot of media coverage.

The systematic review, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, examined 240 studies organic and non-organic fruits, vegetables, grains, meat, poultry eggs and milk — 17 studies of humans and 223 studies of nutrient and contaminant levels.

It found that more one-third of conventional produce had detectable pesticide residues, compared with 7 percent of organic produce samples. And it found organic meats were one-third less likely to carry bacteria resistant to antibiotics than conventionally produced meat.

But the study also found that organic foods, on the whole, don’t contain any more vitamins or nutrients than conventional foods.

It’s good to have a wide-ranging review of organic foods. Even more interesting is the media coverage of the study. Some new stories, like this one from the Guardian, have focused on the lack of a difference in nutrient levels. Other news coverage has pointed out that the purpose of purchasing organic foods is to avoid pesticide use because of its impact on human health and the environment.

The bottom line: it’s important to understand all of the findings in a study. Sometimes, that requires looking past the headlines in media outlets so that you can get the full story.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness, In The Media

Football frets: The evidence on repetitive head injuries

September 6, 2012 By 1 Comment

With football season underway, many Americans are spending their weekends cheering on their favorite teams at stadiums and tuning in to watch televised games.  Personally, I enjoy following my college football team. But I always feel a sense of dread when a player takes an especially hard hit.

It turns out, those repeated hits add up to some real neurological problems for football players.

A study published this week in the journal Neurology followed nearly 3,500 football players who played at least five seasons in the N.F.L. from 1959 to 1988.

Over the course of the study, 334 of the players died. When researchers from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health reviewed their death certificates, they found Alzheimer’s disease was an factor in seven of the deaths and Lou Gehrig’s disease was a factor in seven others. These rates are more than three times what you would expect to see in the normal population.

This new study is part of a growing body of research on the neurological repercussions of repeated head injuries. Another study published earlier this year found repetitive head impacts over the course of a single season may negatively impact learning in some collegiate athletes.

And a center at the Boston University School of Medicine has documented evidence of a condition called Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, or CTW, a progressive degenerative disease of the brain found in people with a history of repetitive brain trauma.

The N.F.L. is investing in more research. This week, the organization donated $30 million to the National Institutes of Health for research on the connection between brain injuries and long-term disorders. That’s a good thing, because this is one topic we need more evidence on.

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

Slimming it down? New evidence on low-calorie diets

September 4, 2012 By 5 Comments

Over the past few years, you may have heard the buzz about the potential for a low-calorie diet to prolong life and prevent chronic medical conditions like heart disease and cancer.

While the concept of restricting calories has been around for decades, a longitudinal study of monkeys published in 2009 seemed to provide definitive evidence that eating less was good for you. The study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin found a diet of moderate caloric restrictions over 20 years lowered the incidence of aging-related deaths and reduced the incidence of diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and brain atrophy.

But last week, a new longitudinal study of different species of monkey raised questions about the idea of restricting calories to improve health. The study included 121 monkeys split into two groups. The experimental group was fed 30 percent fewer calories than the control group.

In the study published last week, which was sponsored by the National Institute on Aging, the monkeys on restricted diets did not live any longer than those with normal diets. Rates of cancer and heart disease were the same for monkeys on restricted diets and normal diets. While some groups of monkeys on restricted diets had lower levels of cholesterol, blood sugar and triglycerides, they still did not live longer than the monkeys who ate normally.

The study is interesting from a health perspective because it raises questions about the notion of restricting calories to improve health. But it’s also a prime example of why it’s important to collect data from more than one study.

“This shows the importance of replication in science,” Steven Austad, interim director of the Barshop Institute for Longevity and Aging Studies at the University of Texas Health Science Center, told the New York Times. Austad, who was not involved in either study, also explained that the first study was not as conclusive as portrayed in the media.

The take home message: It’s important to collect evidence from multiple studies before drawing conclusions, even when the data seems extremely convincing.

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