Die Aerztin Suzanne de la Monte postuliert einen Zusammenhang zwischen dem Einsatz von Nitrat in der Landwirtschaft und Nitrit als Konservierungsmittel für u.a. Fleischprodukte und der wachsenden Zahl von Alzheimer-, Parkinson- und Diabetesfällen:
Led by Suzanne de la Monte, MD, MPH, of Rhode Island Hospital, researchers studied the trends in mortality rates due to diseases that are associated with aging, such as diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, diabetes and cerebrovascular disease, as well as HIV. They found strong parallels between age adjusted increases in death rate from Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes and the progressive increases in human exposure to nitrates, nitrites and nitrosamines through processed and preserved foods as well as fertilizers. Other diseases including HIV-AIDS, cerebrovascular disease, and leukemia did not exhibit those trends. De la Monte and the authors propose that the increase in exposure plays a critical role in the cause, development and effects of the pandemic of these insulin-resistant diseases.
De la Monte, who is also a professor of pathology and lab medicine at The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, says, „We have become a ’nitrosamine generation.‘ In essence, we have moved to a diet that is rich in amines and nitrates, which lead to increased nitrosamine production. We receive increased exposure through the abundant use of nitrate-containing fertilizers for agriculture.“ She continues, „Not only do we consume them in processed foods, but they get into our food supply by leeching from the soil and contaminating water supplies used for crop irrigation, food processing and drinking.“
Ihr Artikel (das ist der Medientext dazu) erschien in der Zeitschrift Journal of Alzheimer’s disease
Anders Ahlbom et al. vom Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm nennen ihr Paper im Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports „Golf: a game of life and death – reduced mortality in Swedish golf players„. Bei Lichte betrachtet kommt die Studie, die die Sterblichkeit der 300’000 schwedischen Golferinnen und Golfer untersuchte, zum Schluss: Regelmässig spazieren gehen und dabei eine gute Zeit mit Freundinnen und Freunden verbringen, ist gut für die Lebenserwartung. Intuitiv leicht nachvollziehbar. Die Schlagzeile „Golf erhöht die Lebenserwartung“ verkürzt die Sache aber vielleicht etwas gar sehr… Denn zum Spazieren und Freunde treffen, muss ich ja nicht einem Golfclub beitreten. Ausser, dass der Rahmen des Golfclubs vielleicht hilft, tatsächlich das regelmässig zu tun, wovon wir wissen, dass es uns gut tut.
Eine Literaturstudie, publiziert im aktuellen BMJ, kommt zum Schluss, dass die gesundheitsfördernde Wirkung von Omega-3-Fettsäuren sich nicht hart belegen lässt. Das dazugehörende Communiqué meint:
A study published online by the BMJ today doesn't find evidence of a clear benefit of omega 3 fats on health. These findings do not rule out an important effect of omega 3 fats, but suggest that the evidence should be reviewed regularly, say the researchers. Consumption of long chain omega 3 fatty acids, found in oily fish and fish oils, and a shorter chain omega 3, found in some plant oils, is thought to protect against heart disease. UK guidelines encourage the general public to eat more oily fish, and higher amounts are advised after a heart attack. Researchers analysed 89 studies (48 randomised controlled trials and 41 cohort studies) to assess the health effects of long and short chain omega 3 fats on total mortality, cardiovascular events, cancer, and strokes. (…) Pooling the results showed no strong evidence that omega 3 fats have an effect on total mortality or combined cardiovascular events. The few studies at low risk of bias were more consistent, but they also showed no effect of omega 3 on total mortality or cardiovascular events. (…) They therefore conclude that it is not clear whether long chain or short chain omega 3 fats (together or separately) reduce or increase total mortality, cardiovascular events, cancer, or strokes.
Eine im aktuellen Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health publizierte Studie untersucht den Zusammenhang zwischen niedrigem Geburtsgewicht und vorzeitiger Geburt einerseits und Kindsmisshandlung und -vernachlässigung andererseits. Ihr Datenmaterial besteht aus den Informationen über 119’771 Kinder, die zwischen Januar 1993 und Dezember 2001 in West Sussex zur Welt gekommen sind. Die Autoren kommen zum Schluss, dass ein linearer Zusammenhang besteht zwischen den Variabeln. Je früher und mit je weniger Gewicht ein Kind zur Welt kommt, desto höher ist sein Risiko, später von Kindsmisshandlung und -vernachlässigung betroffen zu werden. Ueber die Gründe, können die Autoren nur spekulieren:
There are a number of possible explanations for the associations reported here. Preterm infants or those with poor fetal growth may have characteristics that make them more vulnerable to all forms of abuse. It is possible that such infants may be more likely to provoke hostile parental feelings leading to increased risk of abuse. Early separation, more commonly experienced by preterm and small for gestational age infants, may interfere with parent-infant bonding, although this is unlikely to be an important factor except at the extremes. Alternatively, preterm birth and poor fetal growth may share a common pathway with abuse, for example, through maternal characteristics that predict increased risk of both poor pregnancy outcomes and child abuse. It is also possible that an unidentified confounding variable explains the apparent association. The design of this study does not permit definitive comment on these explanations. However, this study does suggest that any explanation must be consistent with the findings that all main categories of abuse broadly show the same association with both fetal growth and preterm birth and the association is not confined to infants born very early or very small but shows a trend across the range of fetal growth and gestational duration.
Das integrale Paper.
… wenn man’s positiv sehen will. Diese Meldung macht heute die Runde:
Memory, speed of thinking and other cognitive abilities get worse over time with marijuana use, according to a new study published in the March 14, 2006, issue of Neurology, the scientific journal of the American Academy of Neurology.
The study found that frequent marijuana users performed worse than non-users on tests of cognitive abilities, including divided attention (ability to pay attention to more than one stimulus at a time) and verbal fluency (number of words generated within a time limit). Those who had used marijuana for 10 years or more had more problems with their thinking abilities than those who had used marijuana for five to 10 years. All of the marijuana users were heavy users, which was defined as smoking four or more joints per week.
„We found that the longer people used marijuana, the more deterioration they had in these cognitive abilities, especially in the ability to learn and remember new information,“ said study author Lambros Messinis, PhD, of the Department of Neurology of the University Hospital of Patras in Patras, Greece. „In several areas, their abilities were significant enough to be considered impaired, with more impairment in the longer-term users than the shorter-term users.“ (…) In a test where participants needed to remember a list of words that had been read to them earlier, the non-users remembered an average of 12 out of 15 words, the shorter-term users remembered an average of nine words and the long-term users remembered an average of seven words.