REPORTING POINT EXPRESS 10-02
AEROMEDICAL NEWS
Live healthy...live well”
HEALTH NEWS
by Larry Kline
SWAPA Voice Mailbox 511/email: skyguy737@cox.net
A BAD “BUTT” JOKE - a study involving nearly 800,000 subjects published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute notes that long-term smokers are 40 percent more likely to die of colon cancer than nonsmokers. The report concludes that colorectal cancer should be classified as a “smoking-related cancer.” The CDC estimates that cigarette smoking causes more than 400,000 premature deaths annually. Men’s Fitness 3/01.
DOES THE PILL CAUSE BREAST CANCER? - some women may find that the answer is yes. Researchers at the Mayo Clinic have found that the risk of developing breast cancer is three times higher for women who took the pill before 1975 and have a mother or sister with the disease than for women with the same family history who chose a different method of contraception.
Early formulations of the pill packed triple the estrogen of today’s version - and high doses of estrogen are what is thought to raise breast cancer risk. The study found that even short-term use of the pre-1975 pill can raise risk.
If the higher-dose estrogen pill has been used, get mammograms regularly and talk to your doctor about a new procedure called ductal lavage (see article below.)
The birth-control pill available today has a much lower estrogen level - enough to be considered safe - at least for people who are not already at high risk. Health 1/01.
CREATINE CRITIQUE - creatine is an ergogenic aid, supplements that are supposed to improve athletic performance. Creatine supplementation has been likened to carbohydrate-loading, except that the latter boosts performance in endurance (aerobic) events such as marathons, while creatine is used for high-intensity (anaerobic) activities lasting less than one minute, such as sprinting, jumping, and weight lifting.
Creatine is an amino acid, but unlike most amino acids it is not incorporated into protein. The best sources are meat, poultry, and fish. In the body it is found mostly in the muscles (in the form of creatine phosphate), where it plays a unique role in energy production - it helps restore a compound called adenosine triphospate (ATP), which supplies quick energy. On average, people get 1 to 2 grams of creatine a day from food. The body also makes it in the liver, pancreas, and kidneys.
There have only been a few short-term studies (sponsored by supplement companies) which have found that creatine may slightly boost short-term muscle strength and the body’s ability to perform very short, high-intensity activities. Most have involved only young, highly-trained athletes. Other studies have found no benefits.
If creatine does have an effect, it would help only in activities that require such short, explosive bursts of energy. That would limit its usefulness to only a small group of athletes. It won’t help with aerobic performance, and may, in fact, impair it. That is a big drawback, since most sports and types of exercise call for both aerobic and anaerobic energy.
Reported side effects of creatine supplementation include diarrhea, dizziness, and cramping, which can impair performance, though these have not occurred in most studies.
The long-term health effects of high doses of creatine are unknown, especially for people who have liver or kidney problems or diabetes. Taking creatine supplements may depress the body’s own synthesis of the substance, which may not return to normal once you stop taking the supplements. At high doses, kidney damage is a possibility, though probably not if you take them for only a few days.
The muscles can store only so much creatine. Most people have adequate levels, so taking the supplements would have little or no effect.
If creatine did improve performance, the difference would be very small. Such a small edge might be important some competitive athletes, but it is meaningless for casual exercisers or players.
The creatine regimen is not simple (you take it four times a day). It comes in pills, powders, capsules, and liquids, but the powdered form is most common. It is expensive (cheaper brands simply contain less of the stuff). As with any supplement, there is no guarantee that the creatine is pure or correctly labeled, since there is no government oversight. University of California Berkeley Wellness Letter 4/02.
SNORING SOLUTIONS - there are currently over 300 patented devices - mouthpieces, neck collars, straps and pillows - on the market to cure snoring problems. Now there is a new injection available that may actually work.
Snoring is caused by the fluttering of soft tissues at the back of the mouth - the palate and uvula. Effective current treatments employ electric needles or lasers to stiffen the area, but these methods tend to be painful and costly. Now an Army physician at the Walter Reed Medical Center has tried injecting sodium tetradecyl sulfate into the palate. The solution, already approved for the treatment of varicose veins, hardened the floppy tissue and muffled the snoring. The procedure retains its effectiveness for at least a year, at which time it can be redone. So far, the only complaint from patients is a mild sore throat for two to three days following the injection. It appears to be safe and costs about a hundredth as much as laser treatment and only take about 15 minutes to perform.
The treatment is called injection snoreplasty and may not be available at your ENT specialist for a year or two. Also, it cannot solve more serious snoring disorders like sleep apnea. Health 1/01.
BEATING A HANGOVER - according to research from the National Headache Foundation, a couple of spoonfuls of honey immediately before or after drinking may help prevent a hangover. Honey contains fructose, a type of sugar that helps the body process alcohol more quickly. Tomato juice is another good source of fructose - partially explaining why a Bloody Mary in the morning is sometimes considered a hangover remedy. Men’s Health 3/02.
BATTLING BREAST CANCER - for years, mammography has been the only test that can tell if a woman has breast cancer. Now, a breast surgeon, Susan Love, has developed a new procedure, called ductal lavage, that can detect cancer earlier than a mammogram and therefore can potentially save even more lives.
The new procedure is a nonsurgical exam that allows a doctor to sample cells in the lining of the milk duct, where all breast cancers originate. First, she applies a suction device to the nipple to determine if any of the breast’s six to eight ducts contain fluid. If one or more do, the doctor will anesthetize the nipple and insert a hair-thin catheter to “wash” the ducts with a salt-water solution, collecting a sample of breast cells that can be checked for precancerous changes.
The problem with mammography is that by the time a lump is detected, it has been there for eight to ten years. That means it is all that much more advanced and harder to treat. With access to the ducts, abnormal cells that are not cancerous yet, may be detected. The evolution of cells from abnormal to cancerous is mostly stoppable, and perhaps even reversible - through hormonal stimulation. Tamoxifen is the current therapy for hormonal stimulation, and it seems to be more effective the earlier the cancer is detected. Women at high risk for breast cancer who took tamoxifen reduced their chance of getting the disease by 50 percent - those who already had atypical cells reduced the risk of the disease by 88 percent.
If abnormal cells are detected by ductal lavage, treatment is going to vary with the circumstances of the woman. In all cases, a mammogram should be done to see if there is cancer in the breast. If the mammogram is negative, the tamoxifen therapy may be sufficient to reduce risk. But if the woman is from a high-risk family, she may opt for a mastectomy. If the mammogram does detect cancer, conventional therapies (radiation, lumpectomy, chemotherapy) will be necessary.
There are currently 20 centers around the nation that participated in trials and have trained a number of doctors in the procedure - the cost should be less than $1,000. A mammogram is less expensive because a technician can do the x-ray. Lavage should be used in addition to mammography, not instead of it. It is very effective at detecting early-stage cancers, but past studies have suggested that it is not as good at finding cancers later on that are bigger.
Women should begin having mammograms at age 50, and women at higher risk because of family history or other factors should start sooner. Many women do not follow these guidelines - about 40% of women age 50 and older have not had a mammogram in the past two years. Health 1/01, University of California Berkeley Wellness Letter 3/02.
THE COLA CHRONICLES - soft drinks are junk food - sugary drinks that are high in calories but supply no nutrients. They now account for at least 27% of our refined sugar consumption. The standard 6-ounce Coke bottle of the 1950's has been replaced by jumbo sizes - up to 64 ounces. An occasional soft drink won’t hurt, but many people consume much, much more.
As soft drink consumption has increased in this country, so have obesity rates. Obviously soft drink consumption is not the only reason for the increase in obesity. A 12-ounce cola contains the equivalent of 10 teaspoons of sugar and 150 calories. If you are consuming and burning 2,000 calories a day, and you add one soft drink to your daily diet, with no other changes in intake or physical activity, you will gain weight. That many extra calories could add up to 15 pounds over a year. Sugary soft drinks, like all junk foods, seem to crowd out good foods from our diets.
The sugar in soft drinks contributes to tooth decay, as does the sugar in fruit juices - but the fruit juices do contain some vitamins and minerals. If you drink diet sodas, you still are damaging your teeth. All sodas are acidic, and like any acidic food or beverage, they can break down tooth enamel. Diet soft drinks, unlike those with sugar, do not promote the growth of decay-producing bacteria or the formation of plaque. Diet colas or acidic drinks of any kind, such as fruit juice, could pose a problem for those with chronic dry mouth, which is a side effect of some medications.
Those who consume large amounts of soft drinks are less-likely to consume milk, leafy greens, and other calcium sources, which can increase the risk of bone fractures. Everyone under age 25, especially teenage girls, needs a high calcium intake to build strong bones for later years; those over 50 also need high levels of calcium (at least 1,200 mgs./day). One good way to get calcium is to drink low-fat or nonfat milk - but soft drinks often take the place of milk. In addition, the phosphorus content of colas may lead to calcium loss and weaker bones. Animal studies show that excessive intake of phosphorus, an essential mineral, may be linked to bone loss.
Many soft drinks, not just colas, contain caffeine - from 20 to 70 mgs. per serving, compared with 20 to 100 for a cup of brewed tea, and 80 to 175 mgs. for a cup of brewed coffee. Diet drinks may contain slightly more caffeine (12 ounces of Coke has 34 mgs., Diet Coke has 45 mgs. of caffeine). Some clear soft drinks, such as Mountain Dew and Mello Yellow, also contain caffeine. If you don’t want caffeine, check the label. Soft drinks with no caffeine sometimes say so.
Colas are not addictive, but the caffeine in colas may be mildly addictive. Those with a substantial caffeine intake daily may experience headache if the caffeine amount is reduced suddenly.
Finally, the carbonation of soft drinks is generally not harmful. Consumed in large amounts, carbonated drinks can cause temporary bloating and possibly stomach upset. Carbonated drinks may cause heartburn (gastroesophageal reflux) in some people. University of California Berkeley Wellness Letter 1/02.
From the Flight Surgeon:
"WHAT, ANOTHER ANTHRAX ARTICLE?"
(insert Dr. Joe jpg here-LK)
by Joe Battersby, D.O.
FAA Medical Examiner
(edited for this publication from “America’s Flyways,” 2/02-LK)
Sure why not? Hopefully, one that will add background and understanding. Perhaps the most important element in our discussion is not the anthrax germ itself but rather a man. A man whose study of this organism opened the doors to a understanding of a whole world, saved countless lives literally both animal and human. The man's name was Louis Pasteur; his gifts to generations was proof of the Germ Theory of Disease, but you have already guessed! At a time when the causes of many illnesses and deaths were blamed by evil spirits, bad air, jealous husbands, mothers-in-law or unappeased gods, Pasteur established the groundwork of sciences we now know as bacteriology and virology. Being a "street guy" kind of scientist rather than exclusively a "lab rat", in May of 1881, on a small farm in France, he inoculated sheep with (you guessed it again!), a successful anthrax vaccine. Given that you might think Pasteur was a veterinarian or a physician, he was in fact, a chemist. He had created, based on his belief that certain organisms are responsible for certain kinds of disease, a vaccine that "worked" against anthrax. Thus, this germ in addition to its role in the establishment of the Germ Theory of Disease, ironically (in view of our present Middle East situation) again finds itself at center stage.
To return closer to present time, I have a few other thoughts about anthrax at this time.
First, the chances of contracting anthrax are very, very slight. In spite of the panic and media hype we would do well to disregard it as a clear and present danger. Freaking out about it is not an option. If you doubt my statement check with your county health people.
For whatever reason the antibiotic Ciprofloxacin has been most broadly advertised. The Feds have been reported as having purchased huge quantities of this substance at great cost to taxpayers. This, in spite of the fact that several other generic antibiotics have been proven effective as well. Doxycycline is very effective and generic. “Doxy” may discolor teeth of young children and cause vaginal infections. OK, but Cipro is not wisely used by diabetics or those requiring anti-coagulants. Additionally the “floxins” lose effectiveness against bacteria at a fairly rapid rate. (Do I smell a deal here? It’s happened before.) Our enemies would have to keep us scared bleep-less - don’t let them! If you feel the need, get your info from your neighbor liberal arts maven - or better, from www.bt.cdc.gov. Be thankful we don’t have to take any antibiotic for two months straight! Talk about “no such thing as a free lunch”!
I’m not usually arrogant enough to suggest what others might like to read but with all that’s going on at this time you might enjoy “Microbe Hunters” by Paul DeKruif. Good historical background source you don’t have to be a biology major to read, enjoy, and understand.
Things to be thankful for:
1. My Mother’s gentle and caring life and her gentle passing.
2. Great working days with “our guys” and Mary Jane and Margaret.
3. The hugs I get from everyone every day. (Margaret)
Best,
Joe
