That's Fit

Want to build a better body and help the environment at the same time? An easy way to go about doing this is to run or bike to work every day, but let's take that a step further by also running or biking to the gym. And, once at that gym, your conservation efforts don't end there; in fact, they increase. This is the philosophy behind a growing trend in the fitness industry: Green Gyms.

The New York Times recently did a piece (titled "How Powerful is Your Gym?") about a gym in Portland, OR, one of many around the country that are dedicated to protecting the environment. In addition to utilizing solar-powered electricity for their energy-efficient treadmills and elliptical machines, many of these same machines are actually constructed to generate energy.

Environmentally-conscious people from all walks of life are drawn to green gyms. Some enjoy the no-frills approach to fitness they offer (many don't even have showers or drinking fountains), while others appreciate the opportunity to make a difference by reducing their carbon footprint. In all cases, people seem to be hip to the idea, and that creates a very promising outlook for the future of our health and the health of the world we live in.

If you recall, not very long ago there was a great deal of fervor over a report linking diet soda to an increased risk of obesity. The story appeared everywhere; on the AOL homepage, in the New York Times, and yes, here on That's Fit. I'll admit, at first I was a bit skeptical; to me it seemed more like an issue of correlation than causality. At the time, there really wasn't any explanation for the statistically significant relationship between diet soda and obesity rates -- all that was known is that there was clearly some sort of link.

Since then, a number of studies have produced information to explain how and why there may be validity to this connection. Most recently, a Purdue University study published in the journal Behavioral Neuroscience revealed that rats that consumed yogurt sweetened with an artificial sweetener gained 20 percent more weight over time than rats fed yogurt sweetened with natural sugar.

Evidently, the artificial sweetener caused the body to falsely believe that it needed to increase metabolism to digest more calories than were actually contained in the yogurt. Then, over time, when the rats were fed sweet food that was also high in calories, they tended to overeat in order to compensate for what their body mistakenly perceived to be an insufficient amount of calories.

A new article in Women's Health magazine sheds some interesting light on the efficacy of antidepressant drugs. According to the article, which summarizes findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine, thirty-one studies on antidepressants were never published by the FDA. What's more, of those thirty-one studies, thirty of them contained negative information about these pharmaceutical drugs.

On the other hand, 94 percent of the published studies on antidepressants were positive. But, when all the studies are taken into account (i.e. when the information from the unpublished studies are factored in), the positive findings drop by 51 percent. The study's lead author, Dr. Erick Turner, was quoted in the article as saying that antidepressants' "batting average is not as high as you might have thought."

For more information on this study, pick up the issue of Women's Health now in stores or follow this link to a short reprinting of a January 2008 article in the NY Times on this matter.

As Bethany reported yesterday, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) is raising a red flag over the chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) used in polycarbonate plastics. BPA is commonly found in hard plastic water bottles (e.g., Nalgene), plastic baby bottles, canned foods, dental sealants and other products. Unless you're living off the land and drink directly from a well, it's pretty much stuff we all use. BPA is connected with precancerous tumors, urinary problems and early puberty in animals. It's a known endocrine disrupter.

After hearing NTP's report I wondered, "What's happening over at Health Canada?" I previously reported the Canadian government's chemical review program has been testing BPA -- and in a surprising move last December, Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-Op (kinda like our country's REI) swept BPA-containing food and beverage containers off their shelves. That bold move garnered serious public attention. It prompted me to run out and purchase two BPA-free water bottles.

According to this NYT article, the word on the street is Canada is likely poised to declare BPA a toxic chemical. Rick Smith, the director of Environmental Defence, a Canadian group advocating against BPA, succinctly stated, "If the government issues a finding of toxic, no parent in their right mind will be using products made with this chemical." The tidal wave against BPA is growing -- over the last couple days major Canadian retailers such as Sears, Home Depot and Wal-Mart have removed some BPA-containing items from their shelves. I suspect lobbying for the removal of BPA, and staying away from the chemical until it's forced out of products, will be a no-brainer for many Canadians. Is America next?

If you're one of the 21 percent of the American public that still smokes, it's possible that you're also part of the large percentage (70 percent) that would like to quit, but for some reason can't. Fortunately, there may be good news for you on the horizon.

A new vaccine, designed to curb the urge to smoke, may be available in the U.S. Administered by injection, this new vaccine will stimulate antibodies, reducing the amount of nicotine that makes it to the brain and releases dopamine. In trials, conducted by the University of California San Francisco, 16 percent of smokers who received this anti-smoking shot put out their cigarettes for good in a year, as opposed to only 6 percent of smokers who were given placebos.

Look for the vaccine, which is tentatively being called NicVax, to be on the market by around 2012.

Caffeine has long been known as a diuretic; a drug that elevates the rate of bodily urine excretion and, consumed in excess, could lead to dehydration.

This has been the prevailing belief among medical experts for a number of years, although research has never confirmed this notion. According to the New York Tims, the results of a 2005 study, which were published in The International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, revealed that caffeine has about the same diuretic effect as does water itself. In this particular study, 59 active adults were given either a caffeine capsule or a placebo. After 11 days, researchers did not find any significant differences in excreted electrolyte levels or urine volume.

As I've mentioned before, there have been an estimated 21,000 studies conducted on caffeine to determine if it is good for you or not. Clearly, this study is just one of many that leaves us still wondering.

Scientists from the biotechnology company Novocell reported yesterday that they were able to regulate diabetes in mice by harnessing human embryonic stem cells. This research moves us a step closer to the possibility of one day using embryonic cells to treat the disease in people.

To effectuate these results, scientists changed stem cells into insulin-producing cells in mice, and those cells continued to keep blood sugar stable after the mice's own insulin-producing cells were destroyed.

In an interview with New York Times reporters, Dr. Camillo Ricordi, director of the Diabetes Research Institute at the University of Miami (but not involved in the study), stated "For those who say there is not much evidence that embryonic stem cells can cure diabetes, there you go,"

However, there are still some significant hurdles for the researchers to overcome before any human trials could take place. For one, a small number of the mice developed tumors. And, many experts feel that the cells might not be well-characterized enough for use in people. So, it may be quite some time before we hear more about this research. Nevertheless, it is great to know that such significant strides in the battle against diabetes are being made.

When something big happens in a bloggers life, their first instinct is to, well, blog about it. But is the stress of needing to keep up-to-date on blogs causing health problems in their writers? Consider this story from the New York Times: Renowned blogger Om Malik suffered a heart attack on December 28th ... and then blogged about it only a few days later on January 3rd to explain his absence. In the wake of his announcement, there's been speculation that being one of the world's more well-known bloggers may have had something to do with the Malik's heart problems.

I can see the connection: When you're a public figure, someone who shares their thoughts with the world almost daily, someone who's job it is to keep on top of stories, someone who feels accountable to thousands of readers, the stress can get to you. And when your name is your business, I can imagine that the pressure of maintaining it can be overwhelming. As a professional blogger, I don't find it overly stressful, but then again, I'm relatively 'small potatoes' compared to Mr. Malik.

I'm curious to know what you think -- is blogging too stressful?

As far as I ever knew, doctors only made house calls on TV and in black and white movies. In real life, however, if you aren't feeling well, you shouldn't wait around for the doctor to come to you. But, according to a New York Times article, some doctors are going old school and taking their practice to their patients.

Whether it be at home, at the office, or even at a hotel, a number of doctors nationwide are available to treat you for a variety of ailments. Some even travel with a portable X-ray or ultrasound machine, in addition to writing prescriptions and sometimes providing medication right there and then.

Be aware, though, that these house calls come at a hefty price; usually in the range of $250-$400 per visit, oftentimes with extra fees for some tests and the cost of meds. Plus, most insurance companies will only cover a portion of the expense, so you may be paying a fair amount of money out-of-pocket.

According to a June, 2007 New York Times article, Americans are being exposed to inordinately high amounts of radiation, due almost chiefly to the increase in exposure to X-rays.

From 1980 to 2006, the average per capita exposure to ionizing radiation from imaging exams (such as CT scans, mammograms, and traditional X-rays), rose by almost 600%. There is no question that imaging of this kind has revolutionized modern medicine and, specifically, diagnosis. However, there are risks inherent to X-ray exposure, which is why the World Health Organization and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have classified them as carcinogenic.

Again, there's simply no disputing the fact that imaging procedures are often necessary. But, what should be taken into account is the overall exposure to X-rays over a given period of time.

Their weather is miserable and their diet is depressing, but yet citizens of Denmark are happier than the rest of the Western world. What gives?

According to researchers, it's because Danes have low expectations. "If you're a big guy, you expect to be on the top all the time and you're disappointed when things don't go well. But when you're down at the bottom like us, you hang on, you don't expect much, and once in a while you win, and it's that much better," says Kaare Christensen, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Southern Denmark in Odense. Sounds like Dr. Christensen practices what she preaches.

When surveyed, the Danish consistently report gloomy outcomes for the year to come. So, even though they're genetically very similar to their depressive Scandinavian cousins in Sweden and Norway, when Danes discover, much to their surprise, that "not everything is getting more rotten in the state of Denmark," they're pumped.

Say it with me: "this day is going to suck." There, don't you feel better?