Do we sit too much?

Computers are great but problem is, we don't have to expend much energy using them (says she sitting in her easy chair writing this blog)! :)

Will sitting too much kill us? Well, it depends on how much we move otherwise and all of this is very unproven, anyway although if you listen to the scare tactics in the news, you might get the impression, it's well proven! hmmm. Fact remains, even with our cars, and sitting most of the time, we today, are living decades longer than our active ancestors. Perhaps one can go too far in getting upset about lifestyle? Just make sure you get in a 30 or more minute cardio workout daily or most days, and do get up from your desk every so often but even if you don't do this, you will likely live a lot longer than your active ancestors lived. Thank modern medicine - also modern nutrition, sanitation and a myriad of factors! :) At the link below are some good suggestions that those of us who sit a lot at computers can do to help our bodies and our hearts. Of course, they emphasize the "dangers" of obesity - they missed that there are no studies which found that obesity ALONE kills - ooops...and in re-visiting this infographic (which I originally put up here because the person asking me to do so was charming - ok...not the best reasoning...anyway, in re-visiting it, I find several things on it which are either unproven or questionable. Because of that I have removed the infographic but you can still view it at the link below. I think some of the info on it may be outdated or unproven. Take-away message - if you sit at work all day, get up from your chair, once every hour or so and walk around. During lunch or breaks, take a little walk - no evidence that you will survive longer than the office chair potato (cousin of the couch potato) but at least the exercise will invigorate you and send blood to the brain etc. i.e. it's all good! :)...

See InfoGraphic at: Infographic about sitting too much and the dangers thereof

Crestor reduces heart disease by 50 percent

The latest study on statin drugs boasts that the medication, Crestor, reduces heart attacks by 50 percent.

As several have pointed out, this study called "The Jupiter Study" was financed by the manufacturer of Crestor and in the FenPhen trials, Wyeth petitioned to not have to testify in court about their removal of negative results from the FenPhen studies because the removal of negative study results was "common practice" in the pharmaceutical field. Their petition was granted and this aspect was never saw the light in court.

Additionally, several (including Dr Mercola and Dr Linda Bacon, in "HEALTH AT EVERY SIZE") have cited studies which suggest that the corporation which finances a study is likely to find positive results FROM the study for THEIR product. In the post graduate class about de-coding studies, students were taught that the first step is to ask who is financing the study.

Supposedly according to Dr Mercola, in the group of 17,000 participants in the Jupiter study, less than 2 perent had a cardiovascular incident (these were generally healthy people with high C Reactive protein levels). That is, 2 percent in the control group and 1 percent in the Crestor group.

True that can be expressed as a 50 percent less chance of heart disease in those on Crestor but in reality the percentage is only 1 percent less which isn't exactly astounding.

It is enough to create a splashy headline though and sell lots of Crestor, even to people of normal cholesterol levels. (As if they are not selling enough already - I guess never too much in sales is the rule here). :)

But for a 1 percent less chance of heart attack is it really worth it to deal with the side effects of Crestor which include (according to Dr Mercola):

• Anemia
• Acidosis
• Frequent fevers
• Cataracts
• Muscle pain and weakness
• An increase in cancer risk

But many will rush out and ask their doctors for Crestor and the cha-ching of the money coming in, will be heard 'round the world. Another successful endeavor by the pharmaceuticals...

Doctors knew the dangers of cigarettes in 1900?

Today I got quite a shock when someone sent me an article from a website about Lucy Page Gaston. Apparently she waged quite a battle against cigarette smoking, even almost managing to get it prohibited in Illinois in 1907. Wait a minute. 1907? But didn't we see the cover of the American Medical Association Journal (JAMA) in 1938, featuring a group of doctors, all smoking cigarettes and telling folks how healthy smoking was? And what about all the doctors in the 1950's who advocated this or that brand of cigarette in TV ads.

So how exactly DID Ms Gaston almost get smoking banned in 1907. Well, it seems that she was supported by quite a few doctors who had noticed that their patients who smoked had more respiratory disease and heart disease than those who did not smoke!

Another shocker. Gaston wasn't connecting smoking with what one may THINK it might be connected back in the dark ages of the 1900's i.e. immorality, lack of courtesy etc. Gaston was connecting smoking with what it now is KNOWN to be connected with as a DIRECT cause. i.e. heart disease and COPD!

Lung cancer, which had been virtually unknown, was formally recognized as a disease for the first time in 1923 and became widespread in the 1930s.

So if many doctors had joined Gaston's movement, where was the mainstream medical establishment? It seems they ignored the Gaston crowd saying there was "no evidence based research suggesting the risks of smoking". But why when so many doctors had observational evidence, weren't some studies started?

Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that the profits of the tobacco industry were an obscene 2.5 BILLION bucks at the turn of the 20th century. Can you imagine? When the average working man made $5-10 dollars a week for six 12 hour days of work?

Despite all of Gaston's efforts, annual cigarette sales in the United States had soared from 2.5 billion at the turn of the century to nearly 80 billion when she died. ... Cigarette consumption continued climbing, even after the U.S. Surgeon General issued a landmark report on its dangers in 1964.
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2008/The-Smoking-Gun/

The conclusion we must draw is sad. Seems the medical industry could be bought even 100 years ago and excluding the few lives that Lucy Gaston saved through her hard work, many people died (including my own father) partially, due to a medical industry which apparently may not have had the best interests of the people at heart.

Even now, if a slim person who smokes goes to the doctor, they may or may not be told that "perhaps they should consider cutting down their smoking" but if an obese person goes to the doctor, the first thing they typically hear is "LOSE WEIGHT OR DIE" even though to date there is neither observational NOR evidence based research DIRECTLY connecting obesity and disease (only lifestyle in folks of all weights and disease).
http://obesitysurgery-info.com/fatoid.htm

We know about the profit motive there. The diet industry in the USA profits a whopping 50 BILLION yearly.

We as consumers should know about the possibility that some things being sold to us (or not sold to us) by our medical providers may or may not be tainted by profit interests. The AMA itself has written a lot about pharmaceutical companies enticing providers with gifts, dinners, trips etc to prescribe certain medications and even some surgeries sold, may be influenced by the profit motive. We do know that most medical providers allow the pharmaceutical companies to educate them about the latest and greatest in medicine because their overburdened schedules often do not allow them to read the books which are not tainted by the need to sell certain procedures and medications.

What we didn't know is that even in the "good old days" the profit motive loomed ominously behind medical care (or lack thereof).

But Lucy Page Gaston, in her blunt manner, lives on, in cyberspace, warning us from the distinct past to always remember even WITH medicine "let the buyer beware".