# data[].attributes.headline
DOES A GIN AND TONIC A DAY KEEP MALARIA AWAY?

# data[].attributes.subject
DOES A GIN AND TONIC A DAY KEEP MALARIA AWAY?

# data[].attributes.body
Ex-pat employees would prefer a G&T than to take anti-malarial medications in high-risk areas!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To use this website, cookies must be enabled in your browser. To enable cookies, follow the instructions for your browser below.
Enabling Cookies in Internet Explorer 7, 8 & 9

1. Open the Internet Browser

2. Click Tools > Internet Options > Privacy > Advanced

3. Check Override automatic cookie handling

4. For First-party Cookies and Third-party Cookies click Accept

5. Click OK and OK

Enabling Cookies in Firefox

1. Open the Firefox browser

2. Click Tools > Options > Privacy > Use custom settings for history

3. Check Accept cookies from sites

4. Check Accept third party cookies

5. Select Keep until: they expire

6. Click OK

Enabling Cookies in Google Chrome

1. Open the Google Chrome browser

2. Click Tools > Options > Privacy Options > Under the Hood > Content Settings

3. Check Allow local data to be set

4. Uncheck Block third-party cookies from being set

5. Uncheck Clear cookies

6. Close all

Enabling Cookies in Mobile Safari (iPhone, iPad)

1. Go to the Home screen by pressing the Home button or by unlocking your phone/iPad

2. Select the Settings icon.

3. Select Safari from the settings menu.

4. Select 'accept cookies' from the safari menu.

5. Select 'from visited' from the accept cookies menu.

6. Press the home button to return the the iPhone home screen.

7. Select the Safari icon to return to Safari.

8. Before the cookie settings change will take effect, Safari must restart. To restart Safari press and hold the Home button (for around five seconds) until the iPhone/iPad display goes blank and the home screen appears.

9. Select the Safari icon to return to Safari.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To use this website, cookies must be enabled in your browser. To enable cookies, follow the instructions for your browser below.

# data[].attributes.headline
Do you really need to drink eight cups of water a day?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do you really need to drink eight cups of water a day?

# data[].attributes.body
Drinking 8 cups of water per day is well known advice but is it really necessary?
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24464774

Julianne Harte

# data[].attributes.body
Researchers at the University of Wisconsin found that a pint of stout at meal times may work as well in preventing heart attacks as a daily low-dose  aspirin

Researchers gave dogs with narrow arteries a pint of lager or  a pint of Guinness (or was it a pint of lager and a pint of Guinness?)

The Guinness-drinking dogs were found to fall off their bar-stools (only joking) receive the most health benefit.

The study concluded that antioxidants compounds in stout can slow down atherosclerotic cholesterol build up.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
THE ad men were right all along: Guinness is actually good for you, according to a new study on the medicinal benefits of the black stuff.

Researchers at the University of Wisconsin have found that a pint of stout at meal times may work just as well in preventing heart attacks as taking low-dose aspirin every day.

A study comparing the blood-thinning effects of beer found that Guinness is far superior in reducing blood clots than lager.

Dogs, which have narrowed arteries that mimic those in humans with heart disease, were given just over a pint each of lager and Guinness to test the health-giving properties of beer.

The Guinness-drinking dogs were found to receive the most health benefit.

The study concluded that certain compounds in stout, similar to antioxidants found in some fruits and vegetables, can slow down cholesterol from clogging up artery walls.

But Brewing Research International, which conducts research for the brewing industry, was not entirely convinced.

"We already know that most of the clotting effects are due to the alcohol itself, rather than any other ingredients," said a spokesman for Brewing Research International.

But if the research proves, true it would back up claims made by the famous ad campaign by SH Benson in the 1920s, which led to the tongue-in-cheek discovery of a so-called "Vitamin G" found uniquely in Guinness that suggested a recommended daily allowance of three pints a day.

The famous slogan was borne after Guinness drinkers were asked how they felt after a pint. Most people responded that they "felt good" and the catchphrase was born.

Doctors in Ireland and the UK use to give it to post-operative patients and expectant and nursing mothers used to drink it before the link was made between alcohol consumption during pregnancy and foetal alcohol syndrome.

Follow @Independent_ie

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
That's a scoop -- Guinness is good for you - Independent.ie

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
THE ad men were right all along: Guinness is actually good for you, according to a new study on the medicinal benefits of the black stuff. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin have found that a pint of stout at meal times may work just as well in preventing heart attacks as taking low-dose aspirin every day.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bda.uk.com/news/view?id=195

Every year the British Dietetic Association publishes a list of the 5 diets to be avoided starting off the new year. These are the diets that have received the most coverage that year - headline hitters endorsed by celebrities. Here's the list for 2018.

Maybe it's because I'm a dietitian and I work with these misconceptions all the time, but I do think that a large majority of damaging epidemiological myths seem to be about nutrition. It is a very difficult area to study, with multiple confounding factors. And people are always looking for the newest diet that will help them shift the pounds. But unfortunately "Eat less and move more" doesn't make headlines. The diets that do can often be quite damaging in the long-term.

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by Mags 9th Feb 2018
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121126-do-flu-vaccines-give-you-flu

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120417-does-cheese-give-you-nightmares

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/upshot/to-lose-weight-eating-less-is-far-more-important-than-exercising-more.html?mcubz=0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/30/exercise-vs-diet-for-weight-loss_n_5207271.html

# data[].attributes.headline
Cardio vs Strength Training in Weight loss

# data[].attributes.subject
Cardio vs Strength Training in Weight loss

# data[].attributes.body
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/06/health/cardio-lifting-weight-loss-partner/index.html

# data[].attributes.body
The following article written in January of this year I feel is an interesting take on what social media has done to our perception of health and body confidence. Have we become too enthralled in searching for the perfect diet/body and comparing ourselves to online influencers that we can never be happy with our own health achievements?

https://www.irishtimes.com/student-hub/life-on-the-treadmill-they-ve-got-you-hook-line-and-sinker-1.2953509

# data[].attributes.body
posted by Carol Summerville
http://www.newsmax.com/Health/Diet-And-Fitness/low-fat-myth-diet/2016/09/01/id/746256/

# data[].attributes.headline
Top 9 Myths about dietary fat and cholesterol 

# data[].attributes.subject
Top 9 Myths about dietary fat and cholesterol 

# data[].attributes.body
posted by Carol Summerville
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/top-9-biggest-lies-about-dietary-fat-and-cholesterol

# data[].attributes.headline
Reading in dim light ruins your eyesight.Submitted by Evelyn EgarReading in dim light can feel like it is causing difficulty in focusing. It can also reduce blinking and cause discomfort from your eyes drying, especially when squinting. However this is only temporary and doesn’t last. In the past people read in candle light and used lanterns, this involved conditions with much less light. increases in nearsightedness has not increased since then. Hundreds of online expert opinions conclude that reading in low light does not hurt your eyes. The majority of ophthalmologists agree that reading in dim light does not damage or hurt your eyes. (http://www.bmj.com/content/335/7633/1288)

# data[].attributes.subject
Reading in dim light ruins your eyesight.Submitted by Evelyn EgarReading in dim light can feel like it is causing difficulty in focusing. It can also reduce blinking and cause discomfort from your eyes drying, especially when squinting. However this is only temporary and doesn’t last. In the past people read in candle light and used lanterns, this involved conditions with much less light. increases in nearsightedness has not increased since then. Hundreds of online expert opinions conclude that reading in low light does not hurt your eyes. The majority of ophthalmologists agree that reading in dim light does not damage or hurt your eyes. (http://www.bmj.com/content/335/7633/1288)

# data[].attributes.headline
"Them bones, them bones need calcium...."

# data[].attributes.subject
"Them bones, them bones need calcium...."

# data[].attributes.body
Post by Carmel O'Sullivan
These were the lyrics to a milk commercial jingle in Ireland and still ring in my ears!!
So is milk good for us or has the industrialisation of dairy products altered them so much that any health benefits are non-existent??

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Perils of Pasteurized Milk

If you do your own grocery shopping or you've been to a supermarket recently, you'd be aware that pasteurized milk has monopolized the dairy section. Having been around since the late 1800s, pasteurized milk has been widely utilized by the population because of the "safety" it provides, as it's said to minimize the risk of contracting milk-borne bacteria and diseases.

But while this may seem like a plausible idea, pasteurization has been observed to lower or even extinguish the nutrients found in milk. Aside from this, toxins and other harmful chemicals have also been introduced to conventional pasteurized milk, which compromises your health instead of providing a better choice.

Continue reading to learn more about pasteurized milk, the detrimental effects it may have on your body and why raw milk is a better choice.

What Is Pasteurized Milk?

Pasteurization was first introduced in the late 1800s, and was pioneered by Louis Pasteur after his study on the fermentation process of both wine and vinegar. After discovering the difference in the microbes in both substances, he developed the process, determining the exact time and temperature microbes die.

Pasteurization was first applied to dairy products after the spread of numerous milk-borne infections in the population. It refers to the heating of milk to a temperature higher than the boiling point, and then rapidly cooling it.

This process supposedly removes the bacteria and other harmful particles found in conventionally produced milk. However, what government health agencies have left out is that pasteurization renders essential enzymes and nutrients inactive.

Conventional Milk May Also Be 'Ultra-Pasteurized'

In addition to this, milk producers have also devised another process for milk production, a process called ultra-heat treatment (UHT), which produces ultra-pasteurized milk. Nowadays, you'll notice that most milk, including organic milk, bear the label "UHT." Milk that is labeled as such is thermally processed at or above 280 degrees Fahrenheit, in contrast to pasteurization, which heats the milk at about 161 degrees Fahrenheit. This prolongs its shelf life under refrigerated conditions.

While a small amount of bacteria can survive the process of pasteurization, ultra-pasteurization produces a nearly sterile milk product. This means that ultra-pasteurized milk can last from 30 to 90 days when unopened, which is good news for milk producers because they can ship to a larger population without the risk of spoilage.

But is ultra-pasteurized milk good for you? No, it isn't. Because of the extreme process, ultra-pasteurized milk contains fewer nutrients than pasteurized milk, and even fewer when compared to raw milk. Researchers and microbiologists have also said that ultra-pasteurization is extremely harmful to milk, as it was found to flatten milk molecules and cause immune responses in the body when digested.

Raw Milk Versus Pasteurized Milk: Which Is Safer and Healthier?

The debate between raw milk and pasteurized milk has plagued the public for numerous years because of both safety and health issues on both sides. Processed milk advocates claim that the pasteurization is essential to avoid the recurrence of milk-borne diseases such as brucellosis, listeriosis and typhoid fever. They also claim that aside from preventing bacterial infections, pasteurization can lengthen the shelf life of milk.

But although pasteurized milk is highly recommended and advertised by both the CDC and FDA, the talks of its safety are questionable. While raw milk enthusiasts are commonly lambasted because they supposedly "expose themselves to a higher risk of milk-borne bacteria," pasteurized milk consumers actually have a higher chance of ingesting chemicals and other toxins from conventional dairy factories.

Because of pasteurization and other filtering processes, factory milk producers are allowed to raise cows in unhealthy, cramped environments, where they are fed an unnatural diet of grains and corn. This is mainly because they are dependent on pasteurization's ability to kill off pathogens or filter antibiotics that may have leaked into their milk products.

But while they claim that this is entirely safe, the nutrient content and the overall quality of these milk products may be compromised. Pasteurization removes the essential nutrients and compounds that are beneficial to the human body. Studies show that this process deactivates the enzymes that are necessary for the human digestion of milk, kills off the good bacteria that may be beneficial to the human body, alters the calcium content and removes most of the vitamin C in raw milk.

By switching to raw milk, you ensure that you get a whole food filled with minerals, proteins, vitamins and beneficial bacteria that assist digestion and metabolism.

The only issue that is often held against raw milk is that it supposedly increases your risk of ingesting pathogens or harmful bacteria, but this can easily be dealt with by locating and sourcing your raw milk from trustworthy producers. Organic, pasture-raised dairy cattle guarantee that you get safe and high-quality raw milk, in contrast to the antibiotic-treated cattle used in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

Possible Side Effects and Dangers of Pasteurized Milk

Due to the numerous chemically manipulated components of pasteurized milk, it may pose numerous threats to your health. This includes the hidden exposure to pesticides, drugs and other harmful chemicals that may have seeped into the milk. The other dangers of the consumption of pasteurized milk include:

* Exposure to hormones and antibiotics. A 2011 research tested various milk products for chemicals that may have contaminated the product. It showed that conventionally sourced milk had high amounts of antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, natural hormones, anti-malaria drugs, steroid hormones, and anti-fungal drugs. This is probably because of the exposure of the cattle to these chemicals inside CAFOs.

Antibiotics are usually given to cattle to treat mastitis, but this eventually seeps into the milk produced by these cattle. The consumption of this type of milk eventually leads to you to acquire these harmful chemicals that aren't even supposed to be in milk.

* Ingestion of glyphosate. Glyphosate is a chemical component of Roundup, a pesticide and herbicide that is usually applied to genetically engineered crops, which are then fed to the cattle. Aside from the possibility of glyphosate contamination in the milk that these cattle produce, you are also exposed to the altered composition of the milk because of the unnatural way that these dairy cows are fed.

* May increase asthma risk. Studies show that pasteurization alters the composition of commercially available milk. Instead of preventing the development of asthma by stabilizing mast cells and preventing inflammation, pasteurized milk destabilizes the mast cells and triggers the release of histamines, causing inflammation and eventually, asthma.

* May lead to bone wasting or osteoporosis. Milk has always been packaged as the primary source of calcium, helping preserve bone density and skeletal health. However, pasteurization has been observed to destroy phosphatase in milk, an enzyme that is crucial for the absorption of calcium. This renders the calcium in milk indigestible and basically useless.

While pasteurization was initially done to protect the population, the process has allowed dairy corporations to hide unnatural and chemically-based milk production processes. Instead of providing a healthier and safer choice for people, pasteurized milk has become a lesser version of what milk is supposed to be, endangering the public and simultaneously depriving people of vitamins and minerals that are absolutely essential for your body.

Instead of consuming pasteurized or UHT-labeled milk, consider switching to raw milk to ensure that you get all the nutrients and enzymes that are supposed to be in dairy. This will guarantee that you're getting whole and healthful milk, in contrast to its sterile counterpart.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Pasteurized Milk

Q: When did pasteurization of milk start?
A: Before pasteurization was developed by Louis Pasteur, William Dewes proposed the heating of milk before feeding infants during the prevalence of milk-borne diseases. It was only knowingly applied to milk in the late 1880s by dairy producers.

Q: Is organic milk pasteurized?
A: Unfortunately, most brands of organic milk in the United States are still pasteurized. But although most of the organic milk available still undergoes this damaging process, studies show that it is still a better choice compared to conventional homogenized or pasteurized milk.

Q: Is cultured milk pasteurized?
A: Yes. According to the regulations that are enacted by the FDA, the production of cultured milk requires the addition of microbial culture to pasteurized or homogenized milk.

Q: Is pasteurized milk sterile?
A: Not entirely. Pasteurization kills off a significant amount of the pathogens found in milk. There are instances where a small amount can survive this process. UHT, on the other hand, processes the milk to the point that the milk is virtually sterile.

Q: Is pasteurized milk safe to drink?
A: Despite claims of its safety, pasteurized milk can expose you to different harmful toxins that may have seeped into the milk, especially if the pasteurized milk comes from conventional dairy farms. It should be noted that pasteurized milk contains a lower concentration of the beneficial components found in unprocessed and raw milk.

Q: Is pasteurized milk safe during pregnancy?
A: Because of the possible chemical components of pasteurized milk, its consumption may cause different repercussions for both you and your unborn child. Consider drinking raw milk from trustworthy distributors so that you can get the whole array of nutrients and enzymes in milk, without the risk of exposing yourself to possible toxins in conventional milk products.

Q: Is raw milk better than pasteurized milk?
A: Yes raw milk is the highest quality milk you can get. Nutritionally, raw milk contains active enzymes, vitamins and minerals, which are deactivated in pasteurized milk. Consumption of raw milk also ensures that you do not unknowingly expose yourself to possible harmful components found in pasteurized milk.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you do your own grocery shopping or you've been to a supermarket recently, you'd be aware that pasteurized milk has monopolized the dairy section. Having been around since the late 1800s, pasteurized milk has been widely utilized by the population because of the "safety" it provides, as it's said to minimize the risk of contracting milk-borne bacteria and diseases.

# data[].attributes.headline
Fluoride in your water lowers your risk of cavities.

# data[].attributes.subject
Fluoride in your water lowers your risk of cavities.

# data[].attributes.body
Post by Carmel O'Sullivan
The health dangers of fluoride far outweigh the benefits to your teeth. Benefits are only seen from topical applications, so why swallow fluoride

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Trained as a chemist, specializing in environmental chemistry, Dr. Paul Connett is known throughout the world as a leader in the movement against water fluoridation because of his knowledge base.

He is truly dedicated to the cause of ending water fluoridation, and heads up an organization called the Fluoride Action Network or www.fluoridealert.org that contains a wealth of information.

In addition, his book, The Case Against Fluoride, is scheduled for release in late September, but is available for pre-order.

In this timely and important book, Connett and his two co-authors, Beck and Micklem, take a new look at the science behind water fluoridation and argue that just because the medical establishment endorses a public health measure, that doesn't mean it's safe.

In the case of water fluoridation, the chemicals used to fluoridate the water that more than 180 million people drink each day are not pharmaceutical grade, but rather hazardous waste products of the phosphate fertilizer industry; it is illegal to dump these into rivers and lakes or release the parent gases into the atmosphere.

In addition, water fluoridation is a prime example of one of the worst medical practices possible-forced medication with no control over the dose or who gets it. Perhaps most shocking of all, it is not subject to any federal regulation.

At once painstakingly-documented and also highly-readable, The Case Against Fluoride brings new research to light, including links between fluoride and harm to your brain, bones, and kidneys, and shows that while there is possible value in topical applications like brushing your teeth with fluoride toothpaste, the evidence that swallowing fluoride reduces tooth decay is surprisingly weak.

In this interview, Dr. Connett shares important information about fluoride and water fluoridation that you may have not been aware of before, and offers practical advice for what you can do to help get fluoride removed from the water supply of the United States and in other fluoridating countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Water Fluoridation May Be Harmful to Your Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Trained as a chemist, specializing in environmental chemistry, Dr. Paul Connett is known throughout the world as a leader in the movement against water fluoridation because of his knowledge base. He is truly dedicated to the cause of ending water fluoridation, and heads up an organization called the Fluoride Action Network or www.fluoridealert.org that contains a wealth of information.

# data[].attributes.body
In the early part of the 20th century, dancing was thought to be dangerous, most particularly for females.

# data[].attributes.body
Diabetes is curable !! the biggest secret in medical history revealed.

Pseudoscientific propaganda activists tend to use the same tactics:

·         Usually they give you a demonizing hint directed towards doctors and health authorities.

·         Stressing on the corruption and profits making drives of the pharmaceutical industry.

·         No harm of circulating some fake news about people who lost their lives in a mysterious way after they published the researches.

·         Then come the promise of the final cure and the end of miseries.

The link below is a long article on how Diabetes is a curable disease , and the Diabetes industry is hiding the truth from people..

http://www.rense.com/general58/diabetes.htm

# data[].attributes.headline
"Don’t leave this house with wet hair ... you will catch pneumonia!!!” 

# data[].attributes.subject
"Don’t leave this house with wet hair ... you will catch pneumonia!!!” 

# data[].attributes.body
This is a favourite threat of Irish Mammy’s and no doubt mothers everywhere. However, there is no evidence to suggest that exposure to cold or wet hair for that matter increases the risk of contracting pneumonia or any other infectious disease. Sorry Mammy!!!  Orna Rooney

# data[].attributes.body
Scientists have zeroed in on a family of fragile molecules known as cocoa flavanols. Research suggests they can relax blood vessels, improve blood flow and, as Small found in his study, even increase activity in a part of the brain involved with age related memory loss.

Deirdre O' Driscoll

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Well, you can - aim for a dark chocolate with a minimum of 74% cocoa solids...
When it comes to dieting, chocolate is often seen as something to be avoided at all costs. Something which, if indulged in, will leave you quickly piling on the pounds and undoing all of your hard work. But is it really so bad? Here at Bodychef, we're going to show you how eating chocolate needn't necessarily be a guilt-ridden experience; that indulging in the odd bar won't cause too much damage to your diet, as long as you follow certain rules.

To help you out, we've listed a few common myths about chocolate, and why they're not necessarily true:

Myth 1: Chocolate is loaded with saturated fat and is bad for your cholesterol levels

In fact, the main saturated fat found in chocolate is stearic acid. While this may not sound too healthy, research has shown that having stearic acid in your diet can help to raise the levels of 'good' HDL cholesterol in your bloodstream. Increased levels of HDL can help to lower blood pressure and ease the strain on your heart.

Myth 2: Chocolate causes cavities

Contrary to popular belief, eating chocolate doesn't necessarily result in cavities. In fact, some of the elements found inside chocolate-phosphate, calcium, and protein-can all contribute towards healthy tooth enamel. What's more, chocolate also leaves the mouth quicker than other sweets, meaning that its sugars are in contact with the teeth for a far shorter period. This means less chance of cavities.

Myth 3: Chocolate causes acne

Despite what you may have heard from parents and grandparents, eating chocolate doesn't necessarily lead to acne or bad skin. In fact, the anti-oxidants found in dark chocolate can help to detoxify your system and improve your complexion.

Myth 4: Chocolate has no nutritional value

In fact, chocolate (particularly darker versions) can be a great source of magnesium, iron, copper, and zinc. And that's not all-chocolate also contains small amounts of phosphate, calcium, protein, and various phenolic compounds which can help to lower your insulin resistance. This can result in lower blood pressure and a healthier heart.

Myth 5: Chocolate causes headaches

While chocolate is often seen as a culprit for headaches and migraines, scientific research has found no link between the two.

Myth 6: Chocolate is high in caffeine

While eating chocolate can seem like a good way of 'perking' yourself up, the amount of caffeine found in the average bar is minimal. For instance, a 40 gram piece of chocolate contains around 6mg of caffeine-about the same as a cup of decaf coffee. Compare that to a regular cup of coffee, which can often contain as much as 135mg of caffeine, and it becomes clear that chocolate is unlikely to keep you up at night.

Myth 7: Chocolate causes weight gain

Although one of the most prevalent myths surrounding chocolate, this isn't necessarily true. When eaten in moderation, chocolate can contribute towards a healthy diet, especially when accompanied by regular exercise. And remember: when it comes to chocolate, the darker the better, so aim for a minimum of around 74% cocoa solids.

Get some balance back into your life by choosing a Bodychef Home Delivery diet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Well, you can - aim for a dark chocolate with a minimum of 74% cocoa solids... When it comes to dieting, chocolate is often seen as something to be avoided at all costs. Something which, if indulged in, will leave you quickly piling on the pounds and undoing all of your hard work.

# data[].attributes.headline
Myth: Excessive Exercise is Good for Your Health

# data[].attributes.subject
Myth: Excessive Exercise is Good for Your Health

# data[].attributes.body
Most people believe that running long distances and lifting light weights for many repetitions is good and that running 10K's and marathons are healthy. Long distance cardiovascular exercise increases cortisol secretions which inflame the body and damage joints & ligaments leading to injury/over-training and possible weight gain.

Deirdre O' Driscoll

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Training very hard may be as bad for you as not putting on your running shoes at all, a report in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology says.

Scientists studied more than 1,000 healthy joggers and non-joggers over a 12-year period.

The study suggests jogging at a steady pace for less than two and a half hours a week was best for health.

UK guidance says adults should aim for 150 minutes of exercise each week.

No exercise recommendations across the globe mention an upper limit for safe exercise, but perhaps there is one
Jacob Louis Marott, Researcher

'Upper limit'

The Danish study asked participants to register how frequently they jogged, for how long and at what intensity - as well as requesting details of their health.

The scientists concluded the ideal pace to jog was about 5mph (8km/h) - and that it was best to jog no more than three times a week or for 2.5 hours in total.

Researcher Jacob Louis Marott, from the Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, said: "You don't actually have to do that much to have a good impact on your health.

"And perhaps you shouldn't actually do too much.

"No exercise recommendations across the globe mention an upper limit for safe exercise, but perhaps there is one."

This is a small study, particularly when it comes to the people in the most active groups - only 36 were classified as "strenuous" joggers and just two of this group died.

So experts caution this makes it harder to detect and be confident of the differences between each group.

But the paper does build on previous research, such as this study in mice, which suggested exercise affected heart rhythm, and other work which has suggested long-term strenuous endurance exercise can damage the heart.

'Brisk walking'

Maureen Talbot, senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, said: "This study shows that you don't have to run marathons to keep your heart healthy.

"Light and moderate jogging was found to be more beneficial than being inactive or undertaking strenuous jogging, possibly adding years to your life.

"National guidelines recommend we do 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity a week.

"It may sound like a lot, but even brisk walking is good exercise. And if you're bit of a couch potato, this is a good place to start."
Update 6 February 2015: This story, which was first published on 3 February, has been amended to give more detail of the scale of the study.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Training very hard may be as bad for you as not putting on your running shoes at all, a report in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology says. Scientists studied more than 1,000 healthy joggers and non-joggers over a 12-year period.

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by Iman Ahmed Feb.15.2017

Whey supplements are a craze, linked to athletecism, endurance, body shape. The extra protein we take as supplement will simply be burned as calories, excreted or worse of all converted to fat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Walk into any health-food store and you're bound to see rows of brightly coloured tubs of protein powders that promise to help you achieve peak performance and a well muscled body. With names like Muscle Milk, CytoGainer, MyoFusion and MuscleOn you'd think these products would guarantee you a ticket to the Vancouver 2010 Olympics.

If you're serious about exercise, you're probably no stranger to protein. After all, it's the stuff muscles are made of. More protein means bigger, stronger muscles, right? Not necessarily.

Not every aspiring athlete, body builder or soccer mom needs protein shakes to help them get fit. Getting more protein than you need for exercise won't help you build bigger muscles. In some cases, those extra calories can spell unwanted weight gain.

Before you find a permanent place for a tub of protein powder in your pantry, you need to determine whether you really need it. If you do, choosing a product that's right for you can be a daunting task given the overwhelming choice in health-food stores.

Don't get me wrong. Protein is an important part of any active person's diet. Protein-rich foods such as meat, poultry, egg whites, dairy, beans and tofu supply amino acids, the building blocks used for muscle growth and repair. Getting enough protein - and calories - will help you recover from heavy workouts and allow you to train harder.

Athletes do have higher protein requirements than sedentary folks in order to repair muscle damage that occurs during exercise and to support muscle building.

Sedentary individuals require 0.8 grams protein per kilogram body weight a day. For a 190-pound (86-kg) male, this translates into roughly 69 grams of protein, an amount equivalent to 7 ounces of chicken and 21/2 cups of milk or soy beverage.

Studies suggest that endurance athletes need to consume 1.2 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day.

Resistance exercise such as weight lifting is thought to increase protein needs even more. It's recommended that strength athletes consume 1.2 to 1.7 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight a day.

More is not better, however. Studies have consistently shown that consuming more than the recommended amount does not lead to further increases in muscle size or strength, since there's a limit to the rate at which protein can be synthesized into muscle.

Unlike carbohydrates and fat, the body can't store protein. The excess will either be burned for energy or, if you're getting the calories you need, it will be stored as fat.

Studies also show that most athletes can easily meet their daily protein requirements from diet alone.

But some people do need protein shakes to help them meet their daily requirements. Low-calorie dieters, vegetarians, haphazard eaters and those who train very heavily may benefit from a protein supplement.

If you do use protein supplements, timing is important. Providing you're meeting your daily calorie needs, you'll build muscle more effectively if you consume protein within one hour of strength training.

According to a recent study from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., the optimal dose is 20 grams of protein to maximize muscle growth - an amount found in 3 ounces of meat, chicken or fish, 6 egg whites, or 1 scoop of many brands of protein powders.

It's also important to consume your post-workout protein with carbohydrates (e.g. a fruit smoothie with protein powder or a tuna sandwich). Ingesting carbohydrates triggers an increase in the hormone insulin, which helps delivers those amino acids to muscle cells.

Use the following guide to choose a protein supplement wisely.
Whey protein
The most heavily marketed protein supplement is whey, a byproduct of cheese-making. Whey protein generally contains a higher amount of essential amino acids - amino acids the body can't make on its own - than other protein sources. It also contains proteins that may help maintain immune function during intense training periods.

Depending on the processing method, there are different forms of whey protein. Whey protein isolate is the most concentrated form and contains 90 per cent or more protein and little, if any, fat and lactose.

Whey protein concentrate is less refined. It has anywhere between 20 per cent and 89 per cent protein. As the protein content increases, the fat and lactose content decreases.

On the downside, for some people whey protein can cause bloating and stomach upset.

When choosing a product, look for one that's free of artificial flavours and sweeteners. Avoid brands that contain excess sugar in the form of fructose, dextrose and maltodextrin. Pure whey protein powder should have less than 2 grams of sugar per 30 grams of protein.

Avoid spending extra money on products with added ingredients touted to maximize performance like creatine, growth peptides and glutamine. In most cases there's scant evidence to show they help and even if they do, the amount added is usually too small to provide a benefit.
Soy protein
Made from defatted soy flour, soy protein powder is an alternative for vegetarians. Products typically contain soy protein isolate, a highly purified form of soy that has the carbohydrates removed, leaving 90 per cent protein.

Like whey, soy protein also contains all essential amino acids that the body can obtain only from diet.

Studies suggest that soy protein may have benefits that extend beyond muscle repair. A regular intake of soy protein may help manage Type 2 diabetes, prevent diabetic nerve complications, increase bone density and lower LDL cholesterol. (If you're a woman at high risk for breast cancer, avoid using soy protein powders.)
Whole plant protein powders
Derived from the seeds of the hemp plant, hemp protein also supplies all essential amino acids. While it contains less protein per serving than soy, hemp protein is not refined; it also delivers naturally-occurring essential fatty acids and fibre. It can be mixed into juices, smoothies and protein shakes and added to baked-good recipes.

Vega Complete Whole Food Optimizer blends whole hemp, rice and pea proteins to boost the essential amino acid and fibre content.
Where's the protein?
Protein (grams)
Leslie Beck, a Toronto-based dietitian at the Medcan Clinic, is on CTV's Canada AM every Wednesday. www.lesliebeck.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Walk into any health-food store and you're bound to see rows of brightly coloured tubs of protein powders that promise to help you achieve peak performance and a well muscled body. With names like Muscle Milk, CytoGainer, MyoFusion and MuscleOn you'd think these products would guarantee you a ticket to the Vancouver 2010 Olympics.

# data[].attributes.headline
An Apple a Day ... Manufacturing Public Health Opinion

# data[].attributes.subject
An Apple a Day ... Manufacturing Public Health Opinion

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by: Iman Ahmed Feb.15.2017
The article below in my view shows how weak epidemiological evidence and the authority of publicaton outlets such as Harvard Health Publication are ued to persuade the public to beleive in something that is not scientifically proven. The "apple a day" myth has occupied our minds for quite a few decades with no strong proof. Biased studies have been used, without proper isolation of other factors influencing health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I don't know about you, but I am a longstanding apple-a-day guy. There's always a big wire basket of Galas or Fujis in my kitchen, and I break my fast with an apple over morning email. The enjoyment of apples in my home even crosses the species barrier, as our Giant Schnauzer maws down his twice-daily thyroid pill in meaty quarters of apple.

So I read with great interest a report entitled "Association Between Apple Consumption and Physician Visits: Appealing the Conventional Wisdom That an Apple a Day Keeps the Doctor Away" in this week's edition of JAMA Internal Medicine.

The report was published in the journal's inaugural April Fools' Day issue by a pack of parodists from Dartmouth College, the University of Michigan School of Nursing, and the Veteran Affairs Medical Center in White River. It's based on actual national nutrition data collected from nearly 8,400 men and women - 753 of whom ate an apple a day - and follows rigorous study methods.

Disappointingly, the study concludes, "Evidence does not support that an apple a day keeps the doctor away; however, the small fraction of US adults who eat an apple a day do appear to use fewer prescription medications."

Apples may have failed this critical scientific test, but you'll have to pry this tasty fruit from my cold, dead fingers. I wondered if Harvard nutrition experts shared my ardor for apples.

"I do not eat an apple every day," admits registered dietitian Kathy McManus, director of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women's Hospital. "However, I do love apples and eat them frequently."

McManus reassured me that, even though the JAMA study is published with tongue in cheek, you can trust your taste buds if you are an apple fancier. Biting into an apple regularly offers some real health benefits.

For one thing, you can't beat the convenience of an apple, McManus points out. "They are an easy go-to snack." Since apples are about 85% water by weight, they can help fill you up without a lot of calories.

Apples also follow kindergarten rules, since they play nicely with other healthy foods. "I often encourage my patients to combine a healthy carb with a healthy fat and protein by spreading peanut butter on an apple," McManus says. "Low fat cheese also goes well with apple. Apples are great in salads and salsas, too."

It seems the nutritional street cred of apples seems beyond repute. But can we be sure? In the health field, invisible agendas are omnipresent. After all, the JAMA authors warn, the health benefits of frequent apple intake have been "promoted by the lay media and powerful special interest groups, including the US Apple Association."

Health reporters need to ask the hard questions. The people demand to know why apples are healthy. I asked McManus to bottom-line it for me.

"In fresh fruit and vegetables you get a complete package of healthy nutrients," she says. "There is good data to show that the soluble fiber in apples can help prevent cholesterol from building up on artery walls. Apples contain a good amount of potassium, which can be beneficial for those who are watching their blood pressure."

McManus disclosed no financial relationships with the apple industry. I, on the other hand, can be bought for a paltry peck of Newtown Pippins. It seemed sensible to contact the U.S. Apple Association for comment (and see if they would make me an offer I couldn't refuse).

In a somewhat carefully prepared statement, Wendy Brannen, Director, Consumer Health & Public Relations for U.S. Apple Association (USApple) said, "Here at USApple, we are all for research and always happy to put the age-old 'apple a day' adage to the test."

However, Brannen asserted, she and her apple-promoting colleagues "are of the mind that an apple a day really does keep the doctor away - or at the minimum make your doctor visits much more palatable."

Brannen added: "We realize this is going in JAMA's April Fools' issue, but it's foolish to even imply enjoying an apple a day doesn't support good, preventative health."

No offense, but I'd call that sour grapes! Thank goodness for objective, evidence-based apple epidemiology.

It would be irresponsible not to address the most controversial public health issue regarding apples: Is apple juice as good for you as a whole apple? McManus is clear on this: "I strongly suggest you eat the whole apple. Juice does not have the fiber a whole apple does, and a good part of the beneficial nutrients are in the skin. Apple juice is not equal to a real apple."

Are you listening, Apple Juice Industrial Complex?

What we need to resolve this controversial issue is better data. So here's a suggestion for next year's April Fools' issue: "Juice Box or Jawbone: A Randomized Clinical Trial Assessing the Health Benefits of Liquid or Solid Preparations of Apples."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An apple a day may not keep the doctor away, but it's a healthy choice anyway - Harvard Health Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I don't know about you, but I am a longstanding apple-a-day guy. There's always a big wire basket of Galas or Fujis in my kitchen, and I break my fast with an apple over morning email. The enjoyment of apples in my home even crosses the species barrier, as our Giant Schnauzer maws down his twice-daily thyroid pill in meaty quarters of apple.

# data[].attributes.headline
Eating Fat does not make you fat: "Top 9 Biggest Myths About Dietary Fat and Cholesterol"

# data[].attributes.subject
Eating Fat does not make you fat: "Top 9 Biggest Myths About Dietary Fat and Cholesterol"

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by: Iman Ahmed Feb 15.2017

For nearly 5 decades, we have been bombarded and cornered by biased studies demonizing dietary fat and telling us to stop eating fat, alter our current eating habits and totally abandon some natural food elements. From eggs to ghee, our diet has been dissected and selectively named and shamed.  The link below debunks 9 myths about dietary fat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The areas of nutrition and disease prevention are full of incompetence.

We have been wrongly advised to avoid saturated fat and cholesterol, despite no evidence of harm.

Here are the top 9 biggest myths about dietary fat and cholesterol.

Back in 60s and 70s, many prominent scientists believed that saturated fat was the main cause of heart disease, by raising the "bad" cholesterol in the blood.

This idea was the cornerstone of the low-fat diet.

Because of a few bad studies and misguided political decisions, this diet was recommended to all Americans in the year 1977 ( 1).

However, there wasn't a single study on this diet at the time. The American public became participants in the largest uncontrolled experiment in history.

This experiment didn't turn out very well and we are still suffering the consequences. This graph shows how the obesity epidemic started at almost the exact same time the low-fat guidelines came out ( 2):

The diabetes epidemic followed soon after.

Of course, a graph like this doesn't prove anything. Correlation does not equal causation.

But it seems plausible that the low-fat recommendations made things worse because people started eating less of healthy foods like meat, butter and eggs, while eating more processed foods high in sugar and refined carbohydrates.

Even though there was little evidence at the time, the low-fat diet has actually been thoroughly studied in the past few years and decades.

It was put to the test in the biggest controlled trial in nutrition history, the Women's Health Initiative.

In this study, 48,835 postmenopausal women were split into two groups. One group ate a low-fat diet (with the whole grains and all that) while the other group continued to eat "normally."

After a period of 7.5-8 years, the low-fat group weighed only 0.4 kg (1 lb) less than the control group and there was no difference in the rate of heart disease or cancer between groups ( 3, 4, 5, 6).

Other huge studies also found no advantages for the low-fat diet ( 7, 8, 9).

But it doesn't end there, unfortunately... the low-fat diet recommended by most nutrition organizations is not only ineffective, it may even be downright harmful.

In multiple human studies, the low-fat diet has actually made some important risk factors worse, raising triglycerides, lowering HDL (the good) cholesterol and making the LDL particles smaller ( 10, 11, 12, 13).

Despite miserable results in the studies, many nutritionists all over the world continue to recommend the low-fat diet that is hurting more people than it helps.

Bottom Line: There is no evidence that low-fat diets have any benefits. They do not cause weight loss in the long-term or reduce the risk of chronic diseases. Some studies show that they may even cause harm.

Nutrition professionals have had remarkable success with demonizing perfectly healthy foods.

Probably the worst example of that is eggs, which are among the healthiest foods on the planet.

Just think about it... the nutrients in an egg are enough to turn a single fertilized cell into an entire baby chicken.

Even so... because eggs contain large amounts of cholesterol, they were believed to cause heart disease.

However, studies actually show that the cholesterol in the diet does NOT raise the bad cholesterol in the blood. Eggs raise HDL (the good) cholesterol and are not associated with an increased risk of heart disease ( 14, 15, 16, 17, 18).

What we're left with is an incredibly healthy food... loaded with vitamins, minerals and powerful nutrients that are important for the eyes and brain ( 19, 20, 21).

Keep in mind that almost all the nutrients are found in the yolk... the white is nothing but protein. Telling people to ditch the yolks may be just be the most ridiculous nutrition advice in history.

Bottom Line: Eggs were demonized because of the high amount of cholesterol, but new studies show that they don't raise cholesterol in the blood or contribute to heart disease. Eggs are among the most nutritious foods on the planet.

Probably the biggest mistake in modern medicine is focusing too much on Total and LDL cholesterol levels as indicators of heart attack risk.

Well... it is true that elevated levels of both are associated with increased risk ( 22).

But the whole picture is much more complicated than that.

Total cholesterol actually includes lots of things... including HDL, also known as the "good" cholesterol.

Having high HDL actually raises your Total cholesterol number.

LDL cholesterol isn't just LDL either... there are subtypes.

We have the small, dense LDL particles (very bad) and then we have the large, fluffy LDL (good). The small particles are associated with heart disease, while the large ones are mostly benign ( 23, 24, 25, 26, 27).

Studies actually show that Total and LDL cholesterol are poor indicators of risk compared to other markers, like the Triglyceride:HDL ratio ( 28, 29).

One study found that out of 231,986 patients hospitalized for heart disease, half of them actually had normal LDL levels ( 30)!

There are also studies showing that high cholesterol can be protective. In old individuals, the higher the cholesterol, the lower your risk of heart disease ( 31, 32).

Not to mention that cholesterol levels that are too low are actually associated with increased risk of death... from other causes, like cancer and suicide ( 33, 34).

Despite the weak predictive value of Total and LDL cholesterol, people with elevated numbers are often instructed to lower cholesterol by any means necessary... including a low-fat diet (which doesn't work) and statin drugs.

Right now, millions of people all around the world are taking cholesterol lowering drugs without needing them, unnecessarily suffering the risk of serious side effects.

Bottom Line: Total and LDL cholesterol levels are actually quite poor markers of heart disease risk. Many people are being unnecessarily medicated because doctors tend to focus on these numbers.

For some very strange reason, processed seed- and vegetable oils became recognized as health foods.

Humans only started consuming them about a 100 years ago, because we didn't have the technology to process them until then.

Yet, somehow the nutrition geniuses figured that these would somehow be very healthy for humans and certainly better than the "dangerous" saturated fats.

These oils, which include soybean, corn and cottonseed oils, are very high in polyunsaturated Omega-6 fatty acids, which are harmful in excess and can contribute to inflammation ( 35, 36, 37).

Despite these oils being recommended to reduce heart disease, there are actually multiple studies showing that they increase the risk ( 38, 39, 40, 41).

In a study that looked at common cooking oils on the U.S. market, they found that 0.56% to 4.2% of the fatty acids in them were highly toxic trans fats ( 42)!

However... these oils are actually recommended by the beloved organizations that are supposed to be in charge of protecting our health.

This is one example of where blindly following the conventional nutritional wisdom can put you in an early grave.

Bottom Line: Processed seed- and vegetable oils are very unhealthy, loaded with Omega-6 fatty acids and trans fats that can contribute to disease.

The "war on saturated fat" has been a miserable failure.

It was initially based on flawed studies, but somehow became public policy (with disastrous consequences).

The worst part is... the governments and health organizations have yet to change their position despite overwhelming evidence that they've been wrong all along.

Actually, saturated fat doesn't really raise LDL that much. The effect is weak and inconsistent and appears to depend on the individual ( 43, 44, 45).

When saturated fat does affect LDL, it changes the particles from small, dense (very, very bad) to Large LDL, which is mostly benign ( 46, 47, 48).

Saturated fat also raises HDL cholesterol, which is associated with a reduced risk of heart disease ( 49, 50).

If anything, saturated fats actually improve the lipid profile, NOT the other way around.

In the past few years, many massive studies have examined the link between saturated fat and heart disease risk.

One of these studies included 347,747 participants and looked at data from 21 studies. The conclusion: there is no evidence that saturated fat increases the risk of heart disease ( 51).

Many other studies confirm these findings. Saturated fat is harmless ( 52, 53).

The truth is... saturated fat never has been and never will be proven to cause heart disease, because it simply isn't true.

Bottom Line: Despite decades of anti-fat propaganda, saturated fat has never been proven to cause heart disease. In fact, saturated fat improves some of the most important risk factors for heart disease.

Trans fats are unsaturated fats that have been chemically modified to be more solid and have a longer shelf life.

They are also known as partially hydrogenated fats.

The manufacturing process is very disgusting... involving high pressure, high heat, a metal catalyst and hydrogen gas.

The fact that anyone thought these nasty fats would be suitable for human consumption is baffling.

Some of the major health organizations have started to confuse people by grouping trans fats together with saturated fats, calling them the "bad fats" ( 54).

However... like I outlined above, saturated fat is completely harmless, but the same can NOT be said for trans fats.

Trans fats are highly toxic and can cause insulin resistance, inflammation and significantly raise the risk of serious diseases like heart disease ( 55, 56, 57, 58).

Even though consumption has gone down, trans fats are still found in processed foods and the FDA still categorizes them as "Generally Regarded as Safe" (GRAS).

If you want to avoid chronic disease... then eat your butter, meat and coconut oil, but avoid trans fats as if your life depended on it (it does).

Bottom Line: Trans fats resemble saturated fat in consistency and shelf life, but the chemical composition is still very different. While saturated fats are harmless, trans fats are highly toxic and should be avoided.

Fat is the stuff that lodges under our skin and makes us look soft and puffy.

Therefore, eating more fat should make us store more of it. You are what you eat, right? Well, it actually isn't that simple.

Even though fat has more calories per gram compared to protein and carbs, foods that are naturally high in fat are very fulfilling and hard to overeat.

In fact, studies on diets that are high in fat (and low in carbs) show that these diets cause more weight loss than diets that are low in fat ( 59, 60, 61).

Low-carb, high-fat diets also lead to all sorts of other benefits... increased HDL cholesterol, lower triglycerides, lower blood sugar and insulin levels, more abdominal fat loss and improved size of LDL particles ( 62, 63, 63, 65).

Despite this, many nutrition professionals still have the audacity to call low-carb diets harmful, then continue to peddle the failed low-fat diet that has been proven, time and time again, to be completely ineffective.

Bottom Line: Despite fat having more calories per gram than carbs or protein, studies show that high-fat (and low-carb) diets actually lead to more weight loss than low-fat diets.

Because of the war on saturated fat, butter became recognized as an unhealthy food.

Food manufacturers jumped on the bandwagon and started producing butter replicates like margarine.

Most margarines contain large amounts of processed vegetable oils, often with trans fats added to the mix.

It is hard to imagine how people could think that processed, factory made margarine would be healthier than butter, which is completely natural and humans have been eating for a long time.

The studies also do NOT support the idea that margarine is healthier than butter. In the Framingham Heart Study, margarine was associated with an increased heart disease risk compared to butter ( 66).

Many other studies have looked at high-fat dairy products and found no evidence that they contribute to any disease... in fact, high fat dairy is associated with a lower risk of obesity ( 67, 68).

Despite all the fear mongering, high fat dairy products like butter are extremely healthy, especially if they are derived from grass-fed cows.

Bottom Line: Margarine is an unhealthy fake food produced in factories, usually containing trans fats and processed vegetable oils. Butter is a much healthier choice, especially if it comes from grass-fed cows.

Because of the ridiculous low-fat advice, food manufacturers removed the fat from some of their foods.

But there was a major problem... natural foods taste terrible without the fat.

The food manufacturers realized this and added a whole bunch of sugar to compensate for the missing fat.

For this reason, most "low fat" foods are actually loaded with sugar, which is seriously harmful ( 69, 70, 71).

If a food has "low fat" or "diet" on the label, then you will probably find sugar, corn syrup and various artificial chemicals on the ingredients list.

However, sales of these foods have skyrocketed because many nutrition organizations still advise people to eat them... even though the "normal fat" alternatives are much healthier!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top 9 Biggest Myths About Dietary Fat and Cholesterol

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The areas of nutrition and disease prevention are full of incompetence. We have been wrongly advised to avoid saturated fat and cholesterol, despite no evidence of harm. Here are the top 9 biggest myths about dietary fat and cholesterol.

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by Elias Abdullah

1) Drink at least eight glasses of water per day: There is no evidence that a person has to drink that much water to satisfy an adequate fluid intake. On the contrary, drinking too much water can have negative consequences.
2) We use only 10% of our brains:  The remaining 90% are not futile or non functioning.
3) Hair and finger nails continue to grow after death:    It seems so because of dehydration which causes skin/soft tissue to under go shrinkage. The skin shrinks away from hair and nails, thus appearing  that these structure are growing.
4) Reading in dim light ruins your eyesight:  Dim light might not be the most ideal condition for reading or focusing, but it's unlikely to cause any permanent changes in the structure of the eyes.
5) Shaving causes hair to grow back faster and coarser: Shaving has no effect on the thickness or rate of hair growth. Shaved hair appears more course because it doesn't have the fine tapered ends as found with the unshaved hairs.
6) Mobile phones are dangerous in hospitals:   Mobile phones have minimal interference and only at very close distances to certain machines.
7) Eating turkey makes people drowsy:   Eating any large meal can potentially make a person sleepy.

http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/news/20071220/7-common-medical-myths-debunked

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dec. 20, 2007 -- Can you separate medical myth from fact? A new report may help you do just that.

Take a look at these seven medical myths, noted in BMJ (formerly called the British Medical Journal).

The debunkers include Rachel Vreeman, MD, a fellow in children's health services research at Indiana University's medical school in Indianapolis.

1. Medical Myth: Drink at least eight glasses of water per day.

Reality: There's no evidence that you have to drink that much water to assure adequate fluid intake -- and drinking too much water can be unhealthy.

2. Medical Myth: We use only 10% of our brains.

Reality: Most of the brain isn't loafing. Detailed brain studies haven't found the "non-functioning" 90% of the brain.

3. Medical Myth: Hair and fingernails continue to grow after death.

Reality: Hair and fingernails don't keep growing after death. But it may seem that way because dehydration can make the skin shrink back from hair and nails, making them look longer.

4. Medical Myth: Reading in dim light ruins your eyesight.

Reality: Dim light isn't great for focusing, but it's "unlikely to cause a permanent change in the function or structure of the eyes," Vreeman's team writes.

5. Medical Myth: Shaving causes hair to grow back faster or coarser.

Reality: "Shaving does not affect the thickness or rate of hair regrowth," write Vreeman and colleagues. But shaved hair doesn't have the fine taper of unshaved hair, making it seem coarser.

6. Medical Myth: Mobile phones are dangerous in hospitals.

Reality: "Rigorous testing in Europe found minimal interference and only at distances of less than one meter [about 3.28 feet]," write the researchers. But that may be a point of controversy. In September, Dutch doctors reported that cell phones may interfere with critical care equipment and shouldn't be used within a meter of medical equipment or hospital beds.

7. Medical Myth: Eating turkey makes people especially drowsy.

Reality: Turkey isn't all that rich in tryptophan, the chemical linked to sleepiness after eating turkey. But eating a big, decadent meal can cause sleepiness, even if turkey isn't on the menu.

Do you believe these medical myths? Talk about it on WebMD's Health Cafe message board.

Sources

SOURCES: Vreeman, R. BMJ, Dec. 22-29, 2007; vol 335: pp 1288-1289. WebMD Medical News: "Turn Off Cell Phones in Hospital Rooms."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dec. 20, 2007 -- Can you separate medical myth from fact? A new report may help you do just that. Take a look at these seven medical myths, noted in BMJ (formerly called the British Medical Journal). The debunkers include Rachel Vreeman, MD, a fellow in children's health services research at Indiana University's medical school in Indianapolis.

# data[].attributes.headline
Dr Oz and miracle cures for weight loss.

# data[].attributes.subject
Dr Oz and miracle cures for weight loss.

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by Sinead van der Hoeven
Dr Oz has made many dubious claims on his TV show but the one which landed him in front of a senate inquiry was his claim that green coffee extract was a miracle weight loss cure. He suggested that using this extract meant there was no need for diet or exercise, thus incorrectly influencing millions who watched his show. At the senate inquiry, his claims were totally debunked.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dr. Mehmet Oz, host of "The Dr. Oz Show," faced grilling by senators on Capitol Hill about the promotion of weight loss products on his show.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Insurance, led the panel that on Tuesday looked at false advertising for weight loss products. Subcommittee members took issue with assertions that Oz has made on his show about products that don't have a lot of scientific evidence to back them up, such as green coffee beans.

"The scientific community is almost monolithic against you in terms of the efficacy of the three products you called 'miracles,' " said McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat. She said she was discouraged by the "false hope" his rhetoric gives viewers and questioned his role "intentional or not, in perpetuating these scams."

"I don't get why you need to say this stuff when you know it's not true. When you have this amazing megaphone, why would you cheapen your show? ... With power comes a great deal of responsibility."

The Federal Trade Commission is in charge of protecting consumers from "unfair or deceptive advertising and marketing practices that raise health and safety concerns." In May, the FTC sued the sellers of Green Coffee Beans for deceiving consumers through fake news sites and invented health claims.

The commission said that weeks after "The Dr. Oz Show" promoted the benefits of Pure Green Coffee, some companies that marketed the product used video from his show to increase sales.

The scientific evidence supporting green coffee bean extract as a weight loss supplement is weak.

A small study published in 2012 found chlorogenic acid, the main ingredient in green coffee beans, helped 16 human participants lose, on average, 18 pounds over 22 weeks. But another study on chlorogenic acid in mice found that the acid did not help mice lose weight and in fact, increased their insulin resistance.

A 2011 meta-analysis of three studies on green coffee extract found the supplement produced, on average, a five-pound loss among study participants. But all three studies were short term and included a small number of participants, leading the meta-analysis authors to conclude: "More rigorous trials are needed to assess the usefulness of GCE as a weight loss tool."

Oz told the panel that he does use "flowery language" to describe certain products on his show but added he believes in them so much he has given them to his family.

"My job, I feel, on the show is to be a cheerleader for the audience, and when they don't think they have hope, when they don't think they can make it happen, I want to look, and I do look everywhere, including in alternative healing traditions, for any evidence that might be supportive to them," Oz said.

In addition to green coffee beans, McCaskill called out Garcinia cambogia as another weight loss product Oz has promoted.

"Thanks to brand new scientific research, I can tell you about a revolutionary fat buster," Oz said on his show in November 2012 with the words "No Exercise. No Diet. No Effort" on the screen behind him. "It's called Garcinia cambogia." ‎

A 1998 study of 135 participants found Garcinia cambogia did not significantly help people lose weight any more than a placebo. But a 2013 meta-analysis of Garcinia cambogia studies hedged on the supplement's ineffectiveness, saying its weight loss benefits "remain to be proven in larger-scale and longer-term clinical trials." Whether it helps people lose weight or not, the Garcinia cambogia does not seem to be unsafe to use, some other studies say.

Oz testified Tuesday that he could not be held responsible for what certain companies say online about the products. He said he's toned down some of his language and will publish a list of products he thinks really can help people lose weight.

"To not have the conversation about supplements at all however would be a disservice to the viewer," Oz said in a prepared statement after the hearing. "In addition to exercising an abundance of caution in discussing promising research and products in the future, I look forward to working with all those present today in finding a way to deal with the problems of weight loss scams."

The Food and Drug Administration does not regulate weight loss supplements. Under current law, companies selling these products do not need FDA approval before marketing them to the public.

"Just because you see a supplement product on a store shelf does NOT mean it is safe or effective," the FDA website says. "When safety issues are suspected, FDA must investigate and, when warranted, take steps to have the product removed from the market. However, it is much easier for a firm to get a product on the market than it is for FDA to take a product off the market."

These weight loss products, even those that claim to be all natural, may contain toxic ingredients, the FDA says, or they may interact badly with other medications. Make sure to check with your doctor before taking any supplement.

The FTC told Elizabeth Cohen, CNN senior medical correspondent, that there are just "too many" weight loss products using deceptive advertising to sue them all. But consumers should be wary of certain phrases that are most certainly false, the FTC said, including any that claim to help you lose weight without diet and exercise.

Bottom line -- don't believe everything you see. Do your homework online and make sure any claim about a weight loss product is backed up by scientific evidence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
dr. oz dietary supplements under investigation - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
By Jen Christensen and Jacque Wilson, CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dr. Oz dietary supplements under investigation - CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Mehmet Oz, host of "The Dr. Oz Show," faced grilling by senators on Capitol Hill about the promotion of weight loss products on his show. Sen. Claire McCaskill, chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Insurance, led the panel that on Tuesday looked at false advertising for weight loss products.

# data[].attributes.body
Even after the first published data linking smoking to lung cancer, it was still being promoted as good for you in the 1970s. This was particularly true among women, to help them stay in shape.  It is still being promoted today despite all our evidence. http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1911796,00.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Silent films tended to depict only promiscuous women or prostitutes with cigarettes, and in a 1920 survey, British women's consumption of cigarettes was considered too low to even record.

But as the Second World War drew near, tobacco firms began seeking new customers - and women were the obvious target.

Advertisers homed in on women's desire to keep slim, creating the illogical link between smoking and beauty that still persists.

The new advertisements were typically placed in women's magazines, with one of the first, for Lucky Strike cigarettes in the early 1930s, urging women to 'Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet'.

The advert said smoking meant 'you will avoid over-indulgence in the things that cause excess weight, and maintain a modern graceful form'.

In the post-war years adverts suggested smoking was a feminine activity that showed women's independence and modernity, and often depicted wives sharing cigarettes with their husbands.

Special cigarettes targeted at women were developed.

One brand, De Reszke Minors 'Red Tips for Red Lips' - advertised with a picture of film star Gracie Fields - boasted a red tip, which the manufacturers said 'prevents lipstick from showing on a cigarette, and helps men to preserve their beautiful illusions'.

Craven 'A' cork-tipped cigarettes, meanwhile, were promoted with the claim that 'they do not readily cause finger stain or interfere with make-up'.

By 1968, tobacco giant Philip Morris had launched Virginia Slims, which played upon both the 'feminine' appearance of the thinner-than-normal cigarettes, and the continuing belief that smoking helped you slim.

And in the 1970s, when more than half of young women smoked, magazines often featured cigarette adverts promoted with offers of saving stamps towards 'free gifts' of household goods - so women could feel they were providing for their families while smoking.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When smoking was good for you! Advertisers used to claim cigarettes would keep women slim and beautiful

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Silent films tended to depict only promiscuous women or prostitutes with cigarettes, and in a 1920 survey, British women's consumption of cigarettes was considered too low to even record. But as the Second World War drew near, tobacco firms began seeking new customers - and women were the obvious target.

# data[].attributes.body
By Emma Noone
If you are coeliac or gluten sensitive, gluten is problematic. Otherwise, the body is technically able to process gluten. The absence of gluten in a food does not automatically make it healthier. A lot of gluten-free breads are made with refined starches, which are not healthy. However, shunning gluten from your diet doesn't put you at any sort of nutritional risk either.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gluten is a protein found in certain grains, like wheat, barley, and rye. Some people need to avoid it, but should you? Let's dig into the truth.

# data[].attributes.headline
Myth that antibiotics cure coughs and colds

# data[].attributes.subject
Myth that antibiotics cure coughs and colds

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by Bernadette Leggett
Many people still believe that antibiotics can be used to treat colds. They do not inderstand that a cold is a virus and therefore antibiotics are useless against it. The only thing that taking anitbiotics for a cold is doing is increasing the chance of mutli drug resistance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A quarter of people wrongly believe antibiotics work on most coughs and colds, a Health Protection Agency survey has found.

However antibiotics cannot treat viruses, which cause most respiratory tract infections.

The HPA poll of 1,800 people in England also found one in 10 people keep leftover antibiotics - and many would self-medicate next time they got ill.

A leading GP said antibiotics were not a "cure all".

An expert in immunity and infection is also warning that the misuse of antibiotics, and drug companies' failures to develop new ones, could lead to a rise in untreatable infections.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control said that antimicrobial resistance "is one of the most serious public health challenges that we face in the EU" and could cost at least 1.5bn euros.

Speaking on European Antibiotics Awareness Day, the HPA's Dr Cliodna McNulty said self-medicating was unsafe and could fuel drug resistance.

Dr McNulty, head of primary care for the HPA, said: "The majority of people can treat themselves at home using over-the-counter medicines to relieve symptoms."

Of those polled, 500 had been prescribed antibiotics in the previous year, with 11% reporting they had leftovers and 6% saying they might take them if they had future infections.

Dr McNulty said that while the numbers might appear small, they could translate into large numbers given that 30% of people take antibiotics every year.

She said: "There is evidence that the more antibiotics you have, the more likely you are to develop resistance. And you're also more likely to develop antibiotic-related diarrhoea."

But 70% were aware of the problem of antibiotic resistance in hospitals, and a similar number were aware that they or their family could be affected.

'Not a cure-all'

The HPA says health professionals must learn to resist demands from patients for treatments they know have little or no effect on coughs and colds. It found 97% of those questioned said that the last time they had asked their GP or nurse for an antibiotic, they were prescribed one.

TOP TIPS FROM THE HPA

Most coughs and colds get better on their own - antibiotics will not speed recovery

Talk to your GP about whether you need them

Coughing up phlegm on its own is not a reason to need an antibiotic - even if it is yellow

A sore throat plus runny nose with phlegm suggests the infection is less likely to respond to antibiotics

A high temperature, red throat and feeling really ill means you probably need an antibiotic

If you feel able to stop taking them early, you may well not have needed them

Always take all doses for as long as instructed

Never keep any leftovers - what's prescribed for one infection might not work for the next

GPs can give a delayed antibiotic prescription for you to take only if things get worse

In cases of severe illness, antibiotics can save lives

Fergus Walsh on antibiotics
Dr McNulty added: "Despite many years of public health campaigns advising people that antibiotics don't work against coughs, colds and flu, our research results show that these myths prevail.

"We understand people feel very unwell with coughs, sore throats, flu and colds, but for the majority of people these symptoms are unpleasant but short-lived."

The Department of Health issued fresh guidance on antibiotic prescribing in hospitals on Friday, with doctors and nurses being urged to "think twice" before offering them to patients.

Dr Clare Gerada, chair of the Royal College of GPs, said: "Antibiotics are a wonderful thing when used properly, but they are not a cure-all for every condition, and should not be seen, or used, as such.

"The opposite is often true and, when used excessively or inappropriately, they can actually do more harm than good - reducing a patient's immunity to illnesses, or building up an immunity to antibiotics, both of which can have negative consequences for good health."

Writing in The Lancet Infectious Diseases medical journal, Prof Laura Piddock of the school of immunity and infection at the University of Birmingham warned there were global implications from the misuse of antibiotics, and drug companies' failures to develop new ones.

She warned: "The demise of antibacterial drug discovery brings the spectre of untreatable infections."

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control estimated, in 2009, that each year 25,000 Europeans die as a direct consequence of a multidrug-resistant infection.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A quarter of people wrongly believe antibiotics work on most coughs and colds, a Health Protection Agency survey has found. However antibiotics cannot treat viruses, which cause most respiratory tract infections. The HPA poll of 1,800 people in England also found one in 10 people keep leftover antibiotics - and many would self-medicate next time they got ill.

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by Bernadette Leggett

People wrongly believe that certain foods labeled "super foods" can prevent or almost cure cancer. This is not true and there is no concrete scientific evidence to prove this claim. And there is no proof that they have any health benefits. They are giving people false hope.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Going to work on an egg may be good for you after all" reported The Times. Widespread media coverage was given to new research that challenges the idea that eating

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by Bernadette Leggett
People were advised to avoid eating eggs as it was believed that were extremely high in cholesterol it has now been proven that it is okay to eggs on a regular basis

# data[].attributes.body
Submitted by Carla Donnery

The 1997 study conducted by Andrew Wakefield, published in "The Lancet" suggested that the MMR vaccine caused autism in children. Although the article was retracted, discredited and Andrew Wakefield lost his medical license, some parents still distrust vaccines, and worry about their potential risks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since 2003, there have been nine CDC-funded or conducted studies that have found no link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and ASD. These studies also found no link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and ASD in children. Learn more about the CDC Studies on Thimerosal in Vaccines pdf icon [PDF - 2 pages] .

Even before studies showed that thimerosal was not harmful, there was a national effort to reduce all types of mercury exposures in children. As precaution, thimerosal was removed or reduced to trace amounts in all childhood vaccines between 1999 and 2001. Currently, the only type of vaccine that contain thimerosal are flu vaccines packaged in multidose vials. There are thimerosal-free alternatives available for flu vaccine. For more information, see the Timeline for Thimerosal in Vaccines.

Besides thimerosal, some people have had concerns about other vaccine ingredients in relation to ASD. However, no links have been found between any vaccine ingredients and ASD.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is no link between autism and any vaccine or vaccine ingredient. Get the facts and the latest science from CDC.

# data[].attributes.body
Submitted by Carla Donnery

Countless articles have been published in the media stating that aerosol deodorants stop or block the body from removing toxins, which can lead to cancer, however, no research has ever confirmed this link.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Download pdf (128kbs)
Origin of the myth

The myth that deodorant causes cancer has been circulated via emails, on websites, and even in newspapers. The story varies from source to source, but contains some or all of the following elements:

Aluminium-containing antiperspirants prevent toxins from being expelled by the body. These toxins clog up lymph nodes around the armpits and breasts and cause breast cancer.

The aluminium in deodorants is absorbed by the skin. It affects the blood brain barrier and has been linked with the onset of Alzheimer's disease.

The risk is higher for women who apply deodorant after shaving. This is because nicks in the skin increase absorption of aluminium and other chemicals.

Current evidence

The Journal of The National Cancer Institute published a study in 2002 exploring the relationship between breast cancers and antiperspirants or deodorants in 1606 women. The findings did not show an increased risk of cancer amongst deodorant or antiperspirant users, or amongst women who shaved before using deodorant or antiperspirant. ¹

Another small case control study, in 2006 found that 82% of the controls (women without breast cancer) and 52% of cases (women with breast cancer) used antiperspirants, indicating that using the under arm product might protect against breast cancer. ² While the study is too small to make such a claim, it certainly does not support the 'antiperspirants cause cancer' story.

Furthermore, antiperspirants work by aluminium salts blocking sweat glands, not lymph nodes. Although lymph nodes do remove toxins, they do not remove them by sweating. Most carcinogens are removed through the liver or kidneys and excreted out. 3,4 It is also pertinent to note that breast cancer starts in the breast and spreads to the lymph nodes, not the other way around.

Studies show that there is no relationship between antiperspirant use and Alzheimer's disease. Humans are exposed to aluminium from food, packaging, pans, water, air and medicines. From the aluminium we are exposed to, only minute amounts are absorbed, and these are usually excreted or harmlessly stored in bone. At any one time, the average human body contains much less aluminium than an antacid tablet. The Alzheimer's Society states that the link between environmental Aluminium and Alzheimer's disease seems increasingly unlikely. ⁵

Reputable organisations like the American National Cancer Institute, Cancer Research UK, the American Cancer Society and most other major authorities suggest the link between deodorant or antiperspirant use and breast cancer is unconfirmed, or simply a myth.

It is impossible to ignore when researching this question that the large majority of the research articulating the possible link between underarm cosmetics and breast cancer comes from one research group. And it seems despite the absence of evidence to support the link, their search to prove the theory persists.

Summary

There is insufficient evidence to support the myth that applying deodorant or antiperspirant after shaving will increase the risk of cancer, as demonstrated by the 2002 study mentioned above. The American Cancer Society (ACS) states that the main risk related to using theses products is that they can cause skin irritation if a razor nick or cut is infected.

References

1. Mirick DK, Davis S, Thomas DB. Antiperspirant use and the risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002 Oct 16;94(20):1578-80.
2. Fakri S, Al-Azzawi A, Al-Tawil N. Antiperspirant use as a risk factor for breast cancer in Iraq. East Mediterr Health J. 2006 May-Jul;12(3-4):478-82.
3. Darbre PD. Aluminium, antiperspirants and breast cancer. J Inorg Biochem. 2005 Sep;99(9):1912-9.
4. Exley C. Does antiperspirant use increase the risk of aluminium-related disease, including Alzheimer's disease? Mol Med Today. 1998 Mar;4(3):107-9.
5. Alzheimer's Australia. Aluminium and Alzheimer's Disease. 2008 [cited 10/07/2015]. Available from: https://fightdementia.org.au/sites/default/files/helpsheets/Helpsheet-DementiaQandA19-Aluminium_english.pdf

Return to cancer myths page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Deodorants and breast cancer-cancer myth - Cancer Council Western Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Download pdf (128kbs) The myth that deodorant causes cancer has been circulated via emails, on websites, and even in newspapers. The story varies from source to source, but contains some or all of the following elements: Aluminium-containing antiperspirants prevent toxins from being expelled by the body.

# data[].attributes.headline
Edwina Currie crashes the egg market in the UK

# data[].attributes.subject
Edwina Currie crashes the egg market in the UK

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by Sinead van der Hoeven

In 1988, an off the cuff claim by the then UK Junior Minister for Health Edwina Currie, saw the collapse of the egg industry in the UK. Currie remarked that most of the egg production in the UK was affected by Salmonella, causing widespread panic. Currie was forced to retract her comments and resign her post.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Comments made by MP Edwina Currie on the prevalence of salmonella in eggs led to a dramatic fall in egg sales and a similarly rapid collapse in her own political ambitions on this day in 1988.

Currie had become junior health minister in 1986 - and swiftly made her mark with outspoken comments about Aids, the elderly and the diet (and "ignorance") of Northerners. But it was her 1988 claim about the risk of salmonella in eggs which led to her ministerial downfall.

Speaking about the rising number of cases of salmonella in the UK, Currie told TV reporters that: "Most of the egg production in this country, sadly, is now affected with salmonella."

The minister admitted later that it had been a slip of the tongue - she had intended to say "much" rather than "most" - but the damage had been done.

Her remarks caused outrage and anger among poultry farmers and the egg production industry. Egg sales in the UK plummeted by 60% - leading to the slaughter of four million hens - and the British Egg Industry Council called her remarks "factually incorrect and highly irresponsible", saying that the risk of an egg being infected with salmonella was less than 200 million to one.

Although Currie appeared to have the backing of both Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Health Secretary Kenneth Clarke, agriculture ministers were reported to be extremely angry at her comments and the Government was threatened with writs from farmers, including the National Farmers' Union.

On December 16, just two weeks after she made the remarks which made her position untenable, 'Eggwina' was forced to resign.

In 1990, in an attempt to make amends with the egg industry, she led the National Egg Awareness Campaign, which included advising people on how to cook them properly.

[Read more: May 16, 1990 - Minister John Gummer enlists daughter's help in fight against mad cow disease]

Interviewed in 2013, Currie said that she didn't regret her salmonella remarks - although she admitted she would have been more careful about her exact wording. "Faced with 500 new cases of sick people every week, what would you have done? More important, what would you have wanted ministers to do?" she told ITN News.

"I was public health minister. If something wasn't done during the winter of 1988, I could foresee that we would have an epidemic on our hands in a hot summer - and fingers would be pointed at me. So I would rather be criticised for doing the right thing, not for silence in the face of wrong-doing."

Also on this day: December 3, 1989 - Gorbachev and Bush declare Cold War over at Malta summit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
December 3, 1988: Edwina Currie sparks outrage with 'salmonella in most eggs' claim

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Comments made by MP Edwina Currie on the prevalence of salmonella in eggs led to a dramatic fall in egg sales and a similarly rapid collapse in her own political ambitions on this day in 1988. Currie had become junior health minister in 1986 - and swiftly made her mark with outspoken comments about Aids, the elderly and the diet (and "ignorance") of Northerners.