|
It turns out such supplements
are as prolific as an insomniac’s sheep,
with name like Liquid Clenbutrx, MD6, Metabolic
Complete, Hydroxycut, Xenadrine RFA-1 and Stacker
3, to mention just a few. Some are available as
liquids; others come in large, multi coloured
pills. But generally they promise the same thing:
by speeding up your metabolism, they can reduce
your fat, a claim I could not substantiate even
after hours online and calls to several manufacturers.
These
supplements are supposed to work by increasing
thermogenesis, that is, by converting more of
the food you eat into heat before it can b e stored
as fat. Being able to do this safely would, of
course, be a welcome way to avoid the buildup
of fat and keep off extra pounds, but there are
few if any studies in the scientific literature
showing that these products can do this effectively
or safely. Even so, thanks to a marketing blitz,
the supplements have become a multibillion dollar
industry.
What’s
distressing is that although they don’t work,
they are not risk free. Most contain the controversial
ingredient ephedra (a Chinese herb also known
as mahuang) or ephedrine. The U.S. Food and Drug
Administration has received reports of 80 deaths
and about, 1,400 instances of adverse effects
that may be associated with the use for the herb,
and has issued strong warnings about the use of
ephedrine-containing products. Their potential
side effects include heart attack, stroke, seizures,
psychosis and death. The products are even packaged
with a long list of user warnings.
More
dangerous still are variants containing combos
of ephedrine, caffeine, pseudo-ephedrine and the
more potent norephedrine. While the last two ingredients
are used in common over-the-counter cold remedies,
they can produce dangerous side effects similar
to those of the banned drug methamphetamine.
If you
want to increase your metabolism, there is really
only one safe and reliable way to do it. Increase
your physical activity, whether it’s walking
briskly, lifting weights or playing a vigorous
game of tennis. Not only will the exertion help
you shed some pounds, but it’s also more
beneficial to the heat and skeletal muscles. Keep
your money in your pocket. There are no shortcut
pills to a leaner body.
Shady
Deals
By
J.K. Tukra
Could
your sunglasses be damaging your eyes?
How to shop for the best kind of protection?
Whether
you’re headed for the beach or the
lake, or whether you just plan to hand
out in the garden this summer, you probably
already know how to protect your skin
against the sun’s harmful rays. Just
slip on a shirt, slap on a hat and slop
on plenty of sunscreen, preferably with
an SPF rating of at least 30. But are
you doing everything you can to safeguard
your eyes? Don’t be so sure the answer
is yes, even if you sport the latest in
designer sunglasses.
|
Many
shades on the market don’t
fully block the two main types of
ultraviolet radiation (A and B)
that have been linked to everything
from wrinkles to sunburn to skin
cancer. Ophthalmologists are increasingly
convinced that prolonged exposure
can lead to a host of vision problems
as well.
Sometimes
the trouble shows up right away.
Water skiers, or snow skiers for
that matter, can develop a type
of temporary blindness, called photokeratitis,
that occurs when reflected sunlight
actually burns the cornea, the clear
covering over the eye. Other conditions
may be triggered after years of
exposure. Studies have linked UV
radiation to an increased risk of
cataracts, in which the lenses of
they eyes become cloudy, as well
as to macular degeneration, in which
the cells in the central part of
the retina slowly die.
The
right pair of sunglasses doesn’t
have to burn through your bank account.
Whether you’re eyeing a real
bargain or an expensive pair of
Persols, make sure there’s
an official decal indicating that
the lenses absorb 99% to 100% of
the UVA and UVB rays. What you shouldn’t
accept, however, is any nonspecific
wording such as "UV block"
or "maximal UV protection."
Specific numbers should always be
attached.
Without
the right decal, deeper tints can
actually make things much worse.
It’s normal for our eyes to
widen and let in more light when
we wear dark glasses. Unless the
lenses are already designed to absorb
ultraviolet light, the risk damaging
the eyes only grows.
For
a little extra margin of safety,
choose lenses that are "polarized."
This cuts down on glare by deflecting
the sunlight that bounces off such
smooth surfaces as sand, water and
pavement.
The
style for the frames can be as important
as the lenses, and the trick here
is to protect your eyes not only
from direct light but also from
the light that strikes at different
angles, whether from above or the
sides. Wraparound frames that fit
snugly against your face are most
effective at closing off these open
spaces. Even those large Jackie
O frames that have come back into
style are a good choice because
they cover all of the eye socket
and surrounding areas.
Don’t
forget the kids. Chances are they
are outdoors more than you. Whatever
you do, don’t toss your sunglasses
once summer is over. Ultraviolet
radiation doesn’t disappear
on cloudy days or in winter. Preserving
your vision is a year-round job.
|
Stents
& Clots
By
R.A Chan
Clotting
in the wake of a procedure to
widen clogged blood vessels may
be three times more common than
doctors previously estimated,
a new study says. Researchers
say the risk of potentially life-threatening
thrombosis after the placement
of a stent to improve blood flow
is as high as 3.5 per 100 operations.
Earlier estimates put that rate
at about 1 percent to 1.5 percent.
|
|
Stents,
wire mesh sleeves that help restore
normal blood flow in blocked vessels,
are becoming increasingly common
in the United States. Nearly 500,000
are installed each year, usually
after angioplasty to open a narrowed
channel. But the devices are prone
to two serious complications. One
is restenosis, when the vessel narrows
and again crimps blood flow. The
other is the formation of blood
clots that can break off and lead
to heart attacks. The clots generally
occur within two weeks to a month
after the stent procedure and are
thought to be a direct result of
trauma to the vessel lining when
doctors install the device.
Dr.
Thaddeus Tolleson, leader of the
Duke University research team, says
prior estimates of stent-related
clotting are based on studies that
excluded patients with acute coronary
syndrome, a condition marked by
critically impaired blood flow to
the heart muscle that produces serious
chest pain and can even lead to
a small heart attack. Yet the condition
is relatively common and accounts
for as much as 40 percent to 60
percent of the caseload for the
average cardiologist.
So
the researchers looked at data from
two large trials that included subjects
with acute coronary syndrome. Both
trials compared sibrafiban, the
so-called "super aspirin,"
with regular aspirin to prevent
recurrent heart attacks.
Of
the nearly 16,000 patients in the
two studies, 4,641 underwent angioplasty
followed by the placement of a stent.
They were also given an anti-platelet
drug to reduce the risk of clotting.
In the first trial, 2.1 percent
of patients suffered clots at the
stent site. The number was 4.7 percent
in the second trial. Diabetics,
women, the elderly, those who've
suffered at least one heart attack
and those who already had angioplasty
were more at risk of clots. Patients
with more than one of these risk
factors had an even greater chance
of clotting. The findings shouldn't
be interpreted as a reason to discourage
stenting. That should definitely
not be the take-home message because
there's not an alternative that's
better. The risk of clotting may
be higher than previously believed.
"the chances are still 97 percent
that you'd fly through [a stent
installation] without any problems.
However, the researchers say the
results should encourage cardiologists
to look for ways to drive down the
likelihood of stent-related clots,
especially in patients with one
or more risk factors for the complication.
Such work already is well under
way, as doctors now commonly pre-treat
stent patients with anti-platelet
drugs and stents that are coated
with clot-busting compounds. Another
view is that this might be due to
differences in anti-platelet therapy
from what's now the standard of
care.
But
if the work does hold up, it might
make cardiologists think twice about
placing stents in patients at high
risk of clotting, since the complication
is extremely serious. You have to
reopen the artery immediately, which
is a somewhat more dangerous procedure
than the initial angioplasty.
|
|
|
