How Sleeping Pills increased threefold risk of death and Sleeping More Reduces Alzheimer's

How Sleeping More May Reduces Risk Of Alzheimer's

What is Alzheimer?

 

Alzheimer’s disease is an irreversible, progressive brain disease that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills, and eventually even the ability to carry out the simplest tasks. In most people with Alzheimer’s, symptoms first appear after age 60. Estimates vary, but experts suggest that as many as 5.1 million Americans may have Alzheimer’s disease.

A new study, which will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology's 64th Annual Meeting in New Orleans, April 21st to April 28th, reveals that the amount of shut-eye people sleep may later affect their memory's function and the risk of Alzheimer's. Study author, Yo-El Ju, M.D., from the University School of Medicine, St. Louis, and a member of the American Academy of Neurology, explained, Disrupted sleep appears to be associated with the build-up of amyloid plaques, a hallmark marker of Alzheimer's disease, in the brains of people without memory problems. Further research is needed to determine why this is happening and whether sleep changes may predict cognitive decline.

To determine their findings, the authors analyzed the sleep patterns of 100 patients, aged between 45 and 80, who did not show any signs of dementia. 50% of these patients had a history of Alzheimer's disease in their families, the other 50% did not have any history of Alzheimer's disease in their families. The researchers placed a monitor on the patients in order to record their sleep for 2 weeks. They were also asked to record their sleeping habits and fill out surveys. The study determined that 25% of the patients showed signs of amyloid plaques, which predict Alzheimer's in the future, and

can be seen many years before they are diagnosed with the progressive disease. The mean amount of time the participants slept during the study was 8 hours. However, the average was reduced - to 6.5 hours - because of disruptions in their sleep throughout the night. The people who did not wake up frequently during the night were 5 times less likely to possess the amyloid plaque build-up than the people who did not sleep well. The people who did not sleep well were also found to have a greater chance of having the "markers" of early stage Alzheimer's. This means, those who spent 85% of their time in bed, sleeping soundly, have a lower risk of Alzheimer's than those who spent 85% of the time in bed tossing and turning.

Ju concludes, The association between disrupted sleep and amyloid plaques is intriguing, but the information from this study can't determine a cause-effect relationship or the direction of this relationship. We need longer-term studies, following individuals' sleep over years, to determine whether disrupted sleep leads to amyloid plaques, or whether brain changes in early Alzheimer's disease lead to changes in sleep. Our study lays the groundwork for investigating whether manipulating sleep is a possible strategy in the prevention or slowing of Alzheimer's disease"

How Sleeping Pills Tied To Higher Risk of Death

What are Sleeping Pills?

A sedative or hypnotic drug, especially a barbiturate, in the form of a pill or capsule used to relieve insomnia.

Two distinct categories of sleeping pills are sold in the United States: prescription and over-the-counter drugs. Most prescription sleeping pills have a type of drug known as a benzodiazepine (a central nervous system depressant) as the active ingredient. Benzodiazepines include chlordiazepoxide (Librium) and diazepam (Valium). Pharmacists developed non-benzodiazepine hypnotics in the 1990s, such as zopiclone and zaleplon (Sonata). Over-the-counter sleep aids, which can be bought without a prescription, contain antihistamines. Both prescription and over-the-counter sleep aids can cause side effects, such as next-day drowsiness, and an overdose can be hazardous. The manufacturing of sleeping pills is highly regulated and overseen by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Compared to never using sleeping pills, even using no more than 18 a year is tied to a more than threefold increased risk of death, according to researchers in the US who saw this result after controlling for every possible factor they could think of that might influence it. They also found a more than fourfold higher risk of death and a significant increase in cancer cases among regular pill users. The findings are stark news for the growing number of people who rely on sleeping pills to get a good night's rest, especially as the results showed the link was the same for the newer, more popular sleeping pills such as zolpidem (Ambien) and temazepam (Restoril). First author Dr Daniel F. Kripke, of the Viterbi Family Sleep Center at Scripps Health in San Diego, California, told the media, What our study shows is that sleeping pills are hazardous to your health and might cause death by contributing to the occurrence of cancer, heart disease and other ailments."

Kripke and colleagues write about their investigation in a paper published in the open-access online journal BMJ Open on 27 February.

Their work expands on previously published res earch linking higher mortality with use of sleeping pills.

However, Kripke said it is the first to show that eight of the most commonly used sleeping pills or hypnotic drugs, are linked to increased risk of death and cancer, including the popularly prescribed zolpidem (known as the brand Ambien) and temazepam (Restoril). These newer drugs were thought to be safer because their action is not as long-lasting as that of the older hypnotics.

Between 6 and 10% of adult Americans took a hypnotic drug for poor sleep in 2010. This sector of the US pharmaceutical industry grew by 23% between 2006 and 2010, to an annual sales level of about $2 billion.For their study, Kripke and colleagues examined data on nearly 40,000 patients of average age 54 cared for by a large integrated health system in the northeastern United States.

The data came from an electronic medical record that had been in place for over ten years. Participants included 10,529 patients who received hypnotic prescriptions, and 23,676 matched controls who received no hypnotic prescriptions. All were followed for an average of 2.5 years, from early 2002 to early 2007.

In their analysis, where they looked for li

nks between sleeping pill intake, death by any cause, and cancer, compared to not taking sleeping pills, the researchers adjusted for the usual factors like age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, body mass index, smoking, alcohol use, and also took into account prior cancer and a large number of comorbidities, that is other illnesses and medical conditions that might influence the result.The analysis split the participants into as many as 116 groups, which exactly matched cases and controls by 12 classes of comorbidity.

The results showed that, as expected, patients prescribed any hypnotic had "substantially elevated hazards of dying compared to those prescribed no hypnotics." write the authors.

They also found a dose-response effect, in that for those patients prescribed between 0.4 and 18 doses of hypnotics a year, the hazard ratio HR (95% confidence interval CI) was 3.60 (2.92 to 4.44); for those prescribed between 18 and 132 a year, it was 4.43 (3.67 to 5.36); and for those on more than 132 doses a year, it was 5.32 (4.50 to 6.30).

When they did separate analyses for the common hypnotics, including zolpidem, temazepam, eszopiclone, zaleplon, other benzodiazepines, barbiturates and sedative antihistamines, they found elevated HRs for each of these as well. They also found a higher incidence of cancer cases among the patients in the upper third of hypnotic use (HR 1.35; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.55).

"Results were robust within groups suffering each comorbidity, indicating that the death and cancer hazards associated with hypnotic drugs were not attributable to pre-existing disease," write the authors, who conclude that, "Receiving hypnotic prescriptions was associated with greater than threefold increased hazards of death even when prescribed <18 pills/year."

They write that the association was the same, even when they separately analyzed the commonly used types of sleeping pills, including the newer shorter acting drugs.

Also, when they took into account selective prescription for patients in poor health, this did not explain the higher risk of death.

Second author Dr Robert D. Langer, of the Jackson Hole Center for Preventive Medicine in Jackson, Wyoming, said, We tried every practical strategy to make these associations go away, thinking that they could be due to use by people with more health problems, but no matter what we did the associations with higher mortality held.

But third author, Dr Lawrence E. Kline, medical director of the Viterbi Family Sleep Center, said even though they tried to take as much into account as they could, we should note that the study is based on observational data (and not a clinical trial, for example), so "it's still possible that other factors explain the associations".

"We hope our work will spur additional research in this area using information from other populations," he urged.Kline said he also hopes the study will nevertheless prompt doctors to consider alterantives to sleeping pills when they treat their patients.He said at the Viterbi Family Sleep Center the clinicians use cognitive therapy to help patients understand more about sleep. For example, insomnia sufferers may not need the commonly recommended eight hours sleep every night.Teaching good sleep habits and relaxation is another possible alternative, as is taking advantage of the body's natural rhythms, which follow the rising and setting of the sun."Understanding how to use the circadian rhythm is a very powerful tool that doesn't require a prescription," said Kline.

Sometimes sleep disorder stems from depression and emotional problems. Kripke said in such cases, doctors should treat those underlying causes and avoid prescribing sleeping pills that could make things worse.

(Source- online journal BMJ)

Burn your body Fat fast in 4 minutes- Truth or false (video)

After reading this interesting information in web I was surprised that this is truth and practical.

The name of this training is called Tabata Training. So we want to know what this Tabata Training?

What Is Tabata Training?

While it may seem like Tabata training is the latest workout trend that's sweeping gyms everywhere, it's not exactly a brand new concept. In fact, it originated from the exercise research of Dr. Izumi









Tabata. Dr. Tabata used a very specific method of interval training for his 1996 study published in the journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. In the study, he had cyclists perform 20 seconds of all-out effort followed by 10 seconds of rest. The participants repeated seven to eight sets of the exertion-rest intervals, equalling just about 4 minutes of actual workout time. The results were so striking that this type of training was named after its creator, hence "Tabata" training.

What Are the Benefits of Tabata Training?

Subjects who performed Tabata training five days a week for six weeks (a total of 120 minutes of exercise over the month and a half) improved both their aerobic and anaerobic endurance. In fact, subject's anaerobic fitness increased by a whopping 28%. The control group exercised the same number of days, but for a full hour per session at a moderate intensity (for a total of 1,800 minutes over the study period). They also saw fitness improvements—but only in aerobic fitness—and it took them much, much more time exercising to achieve those gains.

Fact about This Training

A number of studies have suggested that Tabata training does, in fact, work. Further studies have also made a case for Tabata training and other variations of high intensity interval training. A 2007 study in the Journal of Applied Physiology found that seven sessions of high intensity interval



training over two weeks resulted in marked increases in whole body and skeletal muscle capacity for fatty acid oxidation during exercise in moderately active women. A 2009 study from the same journal found that young men cycling to maximum effort for four bouts of 30 seconds with four minutes of rest doubled their metabolic rate for three full hours after training. Also, a 2008 study in the Journal of Physiology found that these short, yet intense types of interval workouts can be a time-efficient way to get in shape and may help participants achieve fitness improvements comparable to longer, less-intense workouts.

While a number of research studies have explored Dr. Tabitha’s 20-seconds-on, 10-seconds-off interval training format for cycling and running activities, fitness professionals, athletes and casual exercisers are now applying the Tabata training concept to all kinds of different exercises, including weight lifting, swimming, athletic drills and more.  Unlike other intervals where you just want to "work harder," by definition, Tabata training is working at an intensity level that is as hard and as fast as you can physically go—generally an anaerobic effort.

In my next blog you will see how you can do this exercise…

How Rosemary boost brain performance and Junk Food Menu Calorie Counts is not helping Consumers

How rosemary scents boost brain performance

Hailed since ancient times for its medicinal properties, we still have a lot to learn about the effects of rosemary. Now researchers writing in Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology, published by SAGE, have shown for the first time that blood levels of a rosemary oil component correlate with improved cognitive performance.
Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) is one of many traditional medicinal plants that yield essential oils. But exactly how such plants affect human behaviour is still unclear. Mark Moss and Lorraine Oliver, working at the Brain, Performance and Nutrition Research Centre at Northumbria University, UK designed an experiment to investigate the pharmacology of 1,8-cineole (1,3,3-trimethyl-2-oxabicyclo[2,2,2]octane), one of rosemary’s main chemical components.

The investigators tested cognitive performance and mood in a cohort of 20 subjects, who were exposed to varying levels of the rosemary aroma. Using blood samples to detect the amount of 1,8-cineole participants had absorbed, the researchers applied speed and accuracy tests, and mood assessments, to judge the rosemary oil’s affects.

Results indicate for the first time in human subjects that concentration of 1,8-cineole in the blood is related to an individual’s cognitive performance – with higher concentrations resulting in improved performance. Both speed and accuracy were improved, suggesting that the relationship is not describing a speed–accuracy trade off.

Meanwhile, although less pronounced, the chemical also had an effect on mood. However, this was a negative correlation between changes in contentment levels and blood levels of 1,8-cineole, which is particularly interesting because it suggests that compounds given off by the rosemary essential oil affect subjective state and cognitive performance through different neurochemical pathways. The oil did not appear to improve attention or alertness, however.

Terpenes like 1,8-cineole can enter the blood stream via the nasal or lung mucosa. As small, fat-soluble organic molecules, terpenes can easily cross the blood–brain barrier. Volatile 1,8-cineole is found in many aromatic plants, including eucalyptus, bay, wormwood and sage in addition to rosemary, and has already been the subject of a number of studies, including research that suggests it inhibits acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and butyrylcholinesterase enzymes, important in brain and central nervous system neurochemistry: rosemary components may prevent the breakdown of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. “Only contentedness possessed a significant relationship with 1,8-cineole levels, and interestingly to some of the cognitive performance outcomes, leading to the intriguing proposal that positive mood can improve performance whereas aroused mood cannot,” said Moss.

Typically comprising 35-45% by volume of rosemary essential oil, 1,8-cineole may possess direct pharmacological properties. However, it is also possible that detected blood levels simply serve as a marker for relative levels of other active compounds present in rosemary oil, such as rosmarinic acid and ursolic acid, which are present at much lower concentrations. (Source- Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology)

Why Fast-Food Menu Calorie Counts is not helping Consumers

Calorie listings on fast-food chain restaurant menus might meet federal labelling requirements but don't do a good job of helping consumers trying to make healthy meal choices, a new Columbia University School of Nursing (CUSON) study reports. The study, by Elizabeth Gross Cohn, RN, NP, DNSc, assistant professor of nursing at CUSON, and colleagues, was published online in the Journal of Urban Health. The researchers studied the calorie counts for 200 food items on menu boards in fast-food chain restaurants in the New York inner-city neighbourhood of Harlem. Since 2006, the City has had a standard menu libelling law that includes some, though not all, of the new federal requirements.

"Although most postings were legally compliant, they did not demonstrate utility," the authors say. "Menu postings for individual servings are easily understood, but complex math skills are needed to interpret meals designed to serve more than one person. In some items, calories doubled depending on flavour, and the calorie posting did not give enough information to make healthier selections." The federal health reform law passed in March 2010 requires restaurants with 20 or more locations to provide calorie data and additional nutritional information for menu items and self-service foods. The Food and Drug Administration is now considering how best to guide chain restaurants in posting calorie counts on menu boards. Easily understood calorie listings could be helpful to consumers trying to make healthy food choices, especially in light of the increasing prevalence of obesity among American adults and children. The trend is a particular problem in low-income and inner-city neighborhoods, where sources of more healthful foods might not be as common as fast-food fare. Studies suggest that consumers are generally unaware of, or inaccurately estimate, the number of calories in restaurant foods.

To collect the data, volunteers equipped with digital cameras worked in pairs and canvassed each designated area block by block to identify national restaurant outlets. A total of 70 menus and menu boards from 12 restaurant chains were photographed, and 200 food items rated, using a measure of "practical utility" that the researchers developed to calculate (1) what constitutes a single serving and (2) the number of calories in a single serving. The researchers then combined this measure with current FDA guidelines to develop a seven-item "menu rating tool." The researchers found that, while most restaurants studied have posted calorie counts, in the majority of cases there was insufficient information to make use of them at the point of purchase. One reason for this was that the majority of the items on the menu boards studied were combination meals rather than individual items. Furthermore, it was increasingly difficult to calculate calories per meal when the posting included anything more than an individual unit of measure.

Calorie counts became more challenging as the food items became more complex, especially combination and multi-serving items, which represented the largest percentage of items recorded. These required several mathematical and nutritional calculations, which might be more challenging among low socioeconomic groups in urban areas where fast-food chain restaurants tend to be most concentrated. For example, the study reports, a bucket of chicken was listed as 3,240 to 12,360 calories, but the menu board did not contain enough information to determine the number of pieces of chicken in a serving size. Similarly, a hero combo meal ranged from 500 to 2,080 calories, but no information was provided on how a consumer would order within the lower range of this menu item. Specialty pizzas were offered in wide ranges without a clear explanation as to how they differed, since the calorie count was based on a standard size and standard set of toppings. The authors note that their study was limited to one urban community and did not focus on actual food purchasing behavior but rather on the posted menu boards in chain restaurants. Still, they say, their work suggests the need for more understandable and useful calorie information in posted menus. "As further legislation is developed, we support the FDA in their commitment to having menu boards that are useful at all levels of literacy," they conclude. Specifically, the authors support a system that uses dashes or slashes to more intuitively associate calorie counts to food combinations instead of the current system of ranges. In such a revised system, a breakfast sandwich, for example, would be listed as "egg with ham/bacon/sausage 350/550/750."

"In low-income communities with a high density of chain restaurants, and where educational attainment of consumers may be low, simplifying calorie postings and minimizing the math required to calculate calories would increase menu board utility," they say.

(Source- Journal of Urban Health)