Showing posts with label will. Show all posts
Showing posts with label will. Show all posts
Sunday, March 8, 2015
New Years Resolution Heres What Will Make You 10 Times More Likely To Lose Weight
When it comes to making New Year’s resolutions, weight loss tops many people’s list, with as much as 21 percent of the population (me included) vowing to slim down. Within six months, fewer than half of us will still be trying, according to research by John C. Norcross, Ph.D., who teaches psychology at the University of Scranton.
Kinda depressing, right? It gets worse when you realize that while two-thirds of Americans will attempt a diet this year, only about 20 percent will actually lose weight and keep it off this year, according to the Loyola University Health System. You might just want to bang your head on the refrigerator and have another piece of pie.
But that would be a big mistake. While it’s true that most of us resolving to lose weight (or make just about any major lifestyle change) fail at first, we’re still about 10 times more likely to succeed than if we never tried at all, Norcross found.
Why not find new ways to try? Consider making changes that are more like un-resolutions, focusing on specific behavior interventions that may lead to weight loss, without actually vowing to lose weight.
Resolved: I will honor my values. A new study asked women to write for 15 minutes—just once—about things they valued most: music, creativity, close relationships. Those who did lost an average of 3.41 pounds in the following one-to-four months. The women in a control group, who wrote about why a value might be important to someone else, actually gained weight, putting on just over two pounds. The theory? These re-affirmations help build defenses against the mundane stress that can drain the mental resources we need for self-control, writes lead researcher Christine Logel, of the Renison University College in the University of Waterloo, Ontario.
Resolved: I will master the math Underestimating calories consumed and overestimating calories burned are a primary reason for diet failure, report the Loyola researchers. Use measuring cups to check portions, and pay attention to serving sizes. To lose a pound a week through exercise, youd need to burn 500 calories per day, which would take 60 very sweaty minutes of vigorous activity.
Resolved: I will eat more often. Poor timing of meals is a major cause of diet failure. When we get too hungry, we’re more prone to overeat or cave in to cravings, researchers say. Strive to eat breakfast within an hour of waking. Eat again every three to four hours.
Resolved: I will sleep more. People who routinely sleep six hours or less have more ghrelin, an appetite-stimulating hormone.
Resolved: I will be the little dieter that could. Psychologists have found that self-efficacy—believing that you can resist those office donuts or takeout pizza—is what makes a difference. Dieters who believed in their skills lost 5% more weight than those who didn’t. Go on. You got this.
By Sarah Mahoney
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/18/habits-weight-loss-_n_6336580.html
Friday, March 6, 2015
Will Even Normal Testosterone Levels Increase Your Cancer Risk Recent Study Makes it Sound Like it At First Sight!
 |
| Dont fall for someone who overgeneralizes, misreports or -interprets study results to tell you that healthy mid-range testosterone levels were a major trigger of cancer development. |
You have no clue what I am talking about? Well, I am about to elaborate. You just have to stay with me for the rest of a comparatively long, but insightful (I promise) analysis of the study and related contemporary evidence.
If its not testosterone its usually meat thats blamed to increase your cancer risk.
Meat-Love: You May Eat Pork, too!
You Eat What You Feed!
Meat & Prostate Cancer?
Meat - Is cooking the problem
Meat Packaging = Problem?
Grass-Fed Pork? Is it Worth it?
Well, as I said, this is the mainstream interpretation. And interpretation anyone could identify as being fundamentally flawed by simply reading the abstract carefully. In fact, you dont even have to read the whole 268 words! It would suffice to read the end of the first line of the result section, where it says:
"For risk of early death after cancer, for men [...]" (Ørsted. 2014)Did you notice it? There is an "after cancer" in this sentence. This means, your risk of dying, if you develop cancer is increased, if [whatever follows]. Now, that which follows is ...
- if you are in the 2nd quartile, your risk will be increased by 30%,
- if you are in the 3rd quartile, your risk will be increased by 31%,
- if you are in the 4th quartile, your risk will be increased by 52% and
- if you are in the 5th quartile, your risk will be increased by 80%.
So testosterone is still bad, right? Yes, but anything that is "anabolic", i.e. promotes the growth of all cells in your body is "bad" for someone who has cancer. Guess what chemotherapy will to do your testosterone levels and the amount of other pro-anabolic factors in your body? It will wreak havoc on your testes (Wallace. 1997), reduce their size to that of dried raisins, increase your risk of gynecomastia and reduce your testosterone levels to exactly those 6-10 nmol/L (Whitehead. 1982) of which the previously cited study by Ørsted et al. found that they are associated with the least risk of dying from already existing cancer in your body.
 |
| Figure 1: If you look at a random assemble of the myriad of risk associations that have been established for low T, the results of the study at hand do no longer appear to be that frightening - right? |
But there is also an increase in cancer risk, no?
Yes, there is. According to the scientists it is (I quote) "1.07 (95% CI 0.98–1.18) and 1.06 (0.93–1.22) for men and women" if you compare say a man with 10nmol/L to a man with 20nmol/L. Now, as far as I can remember a 95% confidence interval, which is what you see in brackets, i.e. for men 0.98-1.18, defines the range in which the chance that the hypothesis that is tested, i.e. "testosterone influences the risk of prostate cancer" has a 5% chance of not being bullocks... ah, I mean statistical significant.
You really got to look closely: A statistically significant association between an increase in cancer risk for men was found only for oral cancer. Not for lung, prostate, colon, bladder, pancreas, stomach, blood (Leukemia), skin, oesophagus, kidney, larynx or liver. And while the increase in cancer risk for the highest vs. lowest quintile for oral cancer was high (60%), knowing that the same limitations, i.e. no adjustment for family history of cancer (which increases the risk by 160% | Garavello. 2008), diabetes (which is more than 2x more common in patients with diabetes | Ujpál. 2004), etc. (see list below), apply all results of this study, helps to put the "shocking" results into perspective and to read any upcoming media hype with the necessary calmness.
So, the scientists are 95% sure that a 2x higher testosterone level will be associated with a 2% decrease and 18% increase in... does this ring a bell? Yeah, thats not exactly a reliable prediction considering the fact that the researchers adjusted for smoking status, cumulative smoking, body mass index, alcohol consumption, level of education, and level of income for men and women, but "forgot" to adjust for...- family history of cancer, which is one of the, if not the main correlate of your risk of developing various cancer, such as prostate cancer (1000% increase, no typo | Steinberg. 1990), colon cancer (up to 59% risk increase depending on the region | Slattery. 1994) or breast cancer (145% risk increase with first-degree relative having breast cancer | Slattery. 1993)
- diabetes, which has been found to be associated with a 60% increase in colorectal cancer risk in patients who have been diagnosed with diabetes 10+ years ago (La Vecchia. 1997), a
- the level of visceral fat, where high levels (relative to total body fat) are associated with 850% increased risk of breast cancer (Schapira. 1994) and up to 1000% increased prostate cancer risk (Hafe. 2004)
- low sleep duration and quality, which has been associated with an increased risk of developing almost every form of cancer you can think of (Blask. 2009), including 60% increased breast cancer risk for women working the "graveyard shift" (Davis. 2001)
A general word on the androgen hypothesis of cancer: "Data from all published prospective studies on circulating level of total and free testosterone do not support the hypothesis that high levels of circulating androgens are associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer," says a 2006 review by Jean-Pierre Raynaud and goes on "[... a] study on a large prospective cohort of 10,049 men, contributes to the gathering evidence that the long standing “androgen hypothesis” of increasing risk with increasing androgen levels can be rejected, suggesting instead that high levels within the reference range of androgens, estrogens and adrenal androgens decrease aggressive prostate cancer risk. Indeed, high-grade prostate cancer has been associated with low plasma level of testosterone." (Raynaud. 2006) Or, as Morgentaler put it: "there is not now—nor has there ever been—a scientific basis for the belief that T causes pCA to grow" (Morgentaler. 2006)
Bottom line: Never freak out about the results of a single study. Specifically, if you have only read about it in "second" or "third hand" information sources like science magazines, blogs or the mainstream media. Testosterone is a welcome scapegoat, because it distracts us so nicely from the real culprits: Genetic disposition, and most importantly diabetes, being fat (not just overweight) and leading an overal pro-carcinogenic lifestyle as 90% of the inhabitants of the Western Obesity Belt (USA, Europe & Co) do. I mean, if we accepted that the latter were to blame (i.e. everything except genetics), this would mean that each of us would have to do something against it and "doing something" is is not exactly popular. Specifically, if "it" includes working out, eating healthy, practicing sleep hygiene and all those nasty thinks that are totally against our drive to make everything as "convenient" as possible.
Ah, and did I actually mention that I have repeatedly written about studies that show that normal and even high normal testosterone levels are not associated with an increased cancer risk - not even for the prostate (Stattin. 2004; Morgentaler. 2006; Roddam. 2008)? No? Well, now you know it, anyway ;-) | Comment on Facebook!
Ah, and did I actually mention that I have repeatedly written about studies that show that normal and even high normal testosterone levels are not associated with an increased cancer risk - not even for the prostate (Stattin. 2004; Morgentaler. 2006; Roddam. 2008)? No? Well, now you know it, anyway ;-) | Comment on Facebook!
- Araujo, Andre B., et al. "Endogenous testosterone and mortality in men: a systematic review and meta-analysis." The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 96.10 (2011): 3007-3019.
- Blask, David E. "Melatonin, sleep disturbance and cancer risk." Sleep medicine reviews 13.4 (2009): 257-264.
- Davis, Scott, Dana K. Mirick, and Richard G. Stevens. "Night shift work, light at night, and risk of breast cancer." Journal of the national cancer institute 93.20 (2001): 1557-1562.
- Garavello, Werner, et al. "Family history and the risk of oral and pharyngeal cancer." International journal of cancer 122.8 (2008): 1827-1831.
- Hafe, Pedro, et al. "Visceral fat accumulation as a risk factor for prostate cancer." Obesity research 12.12 (2004): 1930-1935.
- La Vecchia, Carlo, et al. "Diabetes mellitus and colorectal cancer risk." Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 6.12 (1997): 1007-1010.
- Morgentaler, Abraham. "Testosterone and prostate cancer: an historical perspective on a modern myth." european urology 50.5 (2006): 935-939.
- Raynaud, Jean-Pierre. "Prostate cancer risk in testosterone-treated men." The Journal of steroid biochemistry and molecular biology 102.1 (2006): 261-266.
- Roddam, Andrew W., et al. "Endogenous sex hormones and prostate cancer: a collaborative analysis of 18 prospective studies." Journal of the National Cancer Institute 100.3 (2008): 170-183.
- Slattery, Martha L., and Richard A. Kerber. "A comprehensive evaluation of family history and breast cancer risk: the Utah Population Database." Jama 270.13 (1993): 1563-1568.
- Slattery, Martha L., and Richard A. Kerber. "Family history of cancer and colon cancer risk: the Utah Population Database." Journal of the National Cancer Institute 86.21 (1994): 1618-1626.
- Schapira, David V., et al. "Visceral obesity and breast cancer risk." Cancer 74.2 (1994): 632-639.
- Shores, Molly M., et al. "Low serum testosterone and mortality in male veterans." Archives of internal medicine 166.15 (2006): 1660-1665.
- Stattin, Pär, et al. "High levels of circulating testosterone are not associated with increased prostate cancer risk: a pooled prospective study." International journal of cancer 108.3 (2004): 418-424.
- Steinberg, G. D., Carter, B. S., Beaty, T. H., Childs, B. and Walsh, P. C. (1990), Family history and the risk of prostate cancer. Prostate, 17: 337–347. doi: 10.1002/pros.2990170409
- Tsai, Henry K., et al. "Androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer and the risk of cardiovascular mortality." Journal of the National Cancer Institute 99.20 (2007): 1516-1524.
- Ujpál, Márta, et al. "Diabetes and Oral Tumors in Hungary Epidemiological correlations." Diabetes care 27.3 (2004): 770-774.
- Wallace, Euan M., et al. "Effects of chemotherapy-induced testicular damage on inhibin, gonadotropin, and testosterone secretion: a prospective longitudinal study." The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 82.9 (1997): 3111-3115.
- Whitehead, E., et al. "The effects of Hodgkins disease and combination chemotherapy on gonadal function in the adult male." Cancer 49.3 (1982): 418-422.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)