In "no way, really?" news ...

A study in this month's "Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition" (Vol. 54, Issue 9) has shown a correlation between eating away from the home, and anthropometric changes (e.g. obesity, increase in waist circumference).

The authors reviewed 15 prospective studies, and following a review of the quality of the data contained within, selected seven of them for analysis. What they found probably shouldn't surprise anybody: if you eat away from home "frequently", you're probably going to weigh more than somebody who eats at home less "frequently". The authors of the review further looked at different types of food sources away from the house, and (surprise again!) found that fast-food outlets had a higher correlation with these negative anthropometric implications than traditional restaurants. It's noted in the article that "other out-of-home foods" are lacking the research to declare correlation between consumption and negative body changes, and suggests more research be undertaken.

While nobody should be surprised by the results of this literature review, it's likely that the restaurant industry will be quick to point out that other factors lead to a healthy lifestyle besides just your choice of eating location, including exercise, lifestyle, genetics, etc. Though the article looked at long-term prospective studies, it did not indicate any other potential sources of anthropometric change besides where the meals were consumed.

Another consideration is that the articles reviewed by the authors range in date published between 1998 and 2011. There have been many changes in the types of food being served "away from the home" over the past 15 years, both for marketing reasons (I'm looking at you fast-food salads) and for legislative reasons (see: BC's Public Health Impediments Regulation dealing with trans fats). Presumably, a prospective study undertaken now and published in 10 years time would show similar outcomes, but perhaps not quite to the same extent.

Policy makers and food-industry regulators should take heed of this research. Though some legislation has been put in place that makes "out-of-home food" more healthy (see above in re trans-fat laws), there is still work to be done to ensure that when people are unable to eat at home for whatever reason, they are not putting themselves at risk of significant health issues.

Source: Dossa, R. A., Nago, E. S., Lachat, C. K., & Kolsteren, P. W. (2014). Association of Out-of-Home Eating with Anthropometric Changes: A Systematic Review of Prospective Studies. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 54(9), 1103-1116.

Abortion and Crime

Scanning through an article on the Freakonomics Blog that I meant to read about 3 weeks ago, I'm finding it interesting that abortion and crime are roughly inversely proportional. That is to say, as abortion rates increased after legalization in the 1970's, the crime rate decreased. Unwanted kids apparently commit to lives of crime. Recently, abortions in the USA have dropped to a 30 year low ... does that mean that crime is going to start increasing?

Everbody Hates Jarvik

Yeah, you probably remember my previous post about not-so-Dr. Jarvik, and his lack of medical training. And you may wonder why I keep going on about him. I just do, ok? Drop it.

So firstly, ABC News is reporting that Dr. J was paid (at least) $1.35million for the Lipitor ads (Link). Yup ... that sounds like a pretty decent sum to row your boat on TV. But wait ... what? That's not Dr. J in the boat? He doesn't even row? The plot thickens! Here's an awesome quote for you:

"He's about as much an outdoorsman as Woody Allen," said a longtime collaborator, Dr. O. H. Frazier of the Texas Heart Institute. "He can't row."

American Congress is still upset about all this nonsense, because it's (assumedly) some sort of false advertising. To be fair to Dr. J, you can find his side of the story at his website:

Greasy Dr. Jarvik

By jove, he's done it!

The geniuses at the J. Craig Venter Institute have managed to synthesize, in it's entirety, the genome of a bacterium. They started with E. coli, which was used to store the artificial chromosomes, and then hi-jacked the replication mechanism of S. cerevisae to assemble the genome.

It's important to note that they've not created an organism, per se, but just the genome. So, says Hamilton Smith, their next step will be inserting the genome into a cell, to see if it will reproduce.

Can you imagine if your job was creating a genome? Man, you'd get all the ladies.

Might as well face it, you're addicted to tetracycline

I just finished reading an insane article on Wired about a company that has genetically modified A. aegypti mosquitoes, making them pass on a "programmed death" gene to their offspring. The males are mutated, and released into the wild to breed with normal females. The offspring then die before they can reproduce. Essentially, the mosquitoes are "addicted" to the antibiotic tetracycline: if they don't get it, they'll literally die. So they keep the males alive in the lab (by giving them tetracycline) until they are of breeding age. The offspring, who receive the "I need tetracycline" gene, die before they reach reproductive maturity (unless they magically get a fix of the antibiotic). While currently the genetic technology appears to only work with A. aegypti (carrier of the Dengue virus and Yellow Fever virus), I see no reason why this couldn't be applied to Culex pipiens, the carrier of West Nile virus (which will soon affect us here in B.C.)

When discussing this breakthrough with colleagues, we decided that Greenpeace might not be totally wrong in protesting this (don't tell anybody that I said that). I'm all for GMO's as an idea, but I would think that this needs some further testing. Or perhaps it has gone through further testing, and I'm ignorant (which is fully possible). The main concern brought forth in my mind is how this will affect the ecosystem as a whole. I'm not sure what species prey primarily on A. aegypti (frogs, birds, bats?), but tests should be done (if they haven't already) on how these higher organisms respond to the genetically modified males (maybe they don't taste as good?)

On the flip side (because, as I mentioned, I'm all for GMO's), the mutant males are only in the wild for a short period of time before they die. Remember: they require tetracycline to live, so after they reproduce, they're finished. So, in theory, they'd be a relatively small source of food.

Now if only we can do something about that damn tse-tse fly

The Blackest of the Black

News out of Rice University (wait, where?) that researchers have discovered the darkest material EVAR! Well, at least the darkest material on Earth. I'm pretty sure that black holes are ... blacker (though those are, by definition, the lack of matter, so can't really be classified as a "material", per se). This black material is made up of Carbon nanotubes, and reflects only 0.045% of incident light, which is useful for light-sucking-intensive applications, such as solar panels.

The report was published in the journal "Nano Letters" (wait, what?) to which I currently have no access (go figure). When I get home I'll see if I can pull it up and post an update (though I'm guessing there's nothing super groundbreaking within the published article that I haven't already mentioned here).

Source:Houston Chronicle

PUT DOWN THE CLARITIN!

Or any antihistamine, really. Researchers at the University of Zurich have found that mice who are given antihistamines after an initial exposure to bee venom react more violently to subsequent exposures than mice who are not given antihistamines

They believe this is because the mice aren't able to build up tolerance to a given level of allergen. The researchers also found that exposure to antihistamines lowered the effectiveness of future immunotherapy, contrary to popular reports.

The study can be read in full in the most recent issue of "Clinical and Experimental Allergy"

Source:Nature News

Dr. Jarvik: I looked up to you!

Have you ever seen those commercials for Lipitor, with Dr. Robert Jarvik (inventor of the Jarvik artificial heart!), the greasy-haired short fellow, who goes running with what appears to be his son? Well, it turns out the good doctor is not such a good doctor. In fact, he's really a doctor in name only. Read on, friends, to uncover the truth

This, from the Wall Street Journal: "[Jarvik's] grades as an undergrad at Syracuse University weren’t good enough for U.S. med school, so he attended the University of Bologna in Italy, leaving after two years. In 1976, Jarvik graduated from the University of Utah’s med school, but he never did an internship or practiced medicine".

Yeah, he's just the type of doctor I want to be taking drug advice from. Maybe Dr. Nick can be next in line to hock something for Pfizer.

Source: WSJ Health Blog