Nobelist Talks about Exercise and Chromosome Integrity

I've always known that longer telomeres in our cells was an indication of health.  I've also known that as we age our telomeres get shorter, so the DNA in our cells are less protected from mutation.  I just heard this Scientific American 60 Second Science podcast (see below)

Nobelist Talks about Exercise and Chromosome Integrity - Scientific American  I'm amazed that exercise apparently can restore, or increase the length of the telomeres and, in effect, reduce the effect of aging. Elizabeth Blackburn won a nobel prize for her research on telomeres

Scientific American has The entire 27-minute Google Hangout with Mariette DiChristina and Nobel Laureate Elizabeth Blackburn is on their Web site. Just google Hangout and Elizabeth Blackburn.  Other research done at UCSF has now shown that telomere length can actually be reversed with exercise and a healthy lifestyle

Fried and grilled meat may raise risk of diabetes and dementia | Science | The Guardian

This appears to be another potential breakthrough on diet, health and ageing.

Fried and grilled meat may raise risk of diabetes and dementia | Science | The Guardian

I never understood why some people seem to get alzheimers, and others don't.  Why some get diabetes, and others don't.  It may be partially caused by genes.  However in so many cases, it doesn't seem to be directly related to inherited traits.  Yes, it could be caused by being overweight, over eating, too much sugar etc.  But there are so very many people who eat poor diets who don't "catch" these horrible diseases.

Maybe these scientists are on to something.  However there needs to be a lot more work to identify the "smoking gun" at the cell-mechanism level to understand why this is true.

The sad thing is that all of these dietary recommendations seem to infringe on the pleasure we get from eating.

Dogs trained to detect prostate cancer with more than 90% accuracy | Society | The Guardian

The Guardian had an article by James Meikle that described an experiment done in Milan Italy using dogs to detect prostate cancer.  This experiment seems to prove that it will be possible to detect prostate cancer using smell.  Yes, it would be good to train dogs to detect disease.  That could be a lot better than many of our current medical screening systems.
Dogs trained to detect prostate cancer with more than 90% accuracy | Society | The Guardian

There have also been tests demonstrating similar capability to detect lung cancer using smell. (see this link)  If we can build an electronic "sniffer" that can discriminate the various scents (see this link), we may be able to use it to diagnose many other diseases, in addition to cancer.  The world needs a simple, low cost, non-invasive screening system to identify diseases while in the early stages.  It could also help for maintaining quarantines, since it would provide a quick screening technique to use at borders.

I sure hope that governments are providing adequate incentives to accelerate this technology. It appears that NIH is participating this test in Israel.   If such a device could be built to reliably screen for many types of diseases using only smell, the overall cost of medical care in the world would go down, and the quality of health could go up, because of more accurate earlier diagnosis.  

Weight loss agent for women..being tested soon

Potential weight-loss agent from a tree is almost too good to be true http://lat.ms/1wKnexK

Where's the War on Alzheimer's?

I saw this excellent article in the  Jan/Feb 2015 AARP Bulletin by T.R.Reid concerning the rapid growth of Alzheimer's in the country, and the relative lack of expenditure by the Government to try and find a prevention or cure for the disease.
See this link: AARP Bulletin - January/February 2015 - Page 14-15
The article shows projections of over 13 million patients costing over a trillion dollars per year to care for by 2045.  It also points out that there has NEVER been any patient cured of the disease.   Meanwhile, the US Government is spending around $566 Million on research into the cause and cure of Alzheimer's disease.
Spending on research can sometimes be a waste.  For example, there are some problems that we could dump immense amounts of money to solve, but there are no viable paths to study.  So spending more money would generally result in massive waste. .  In the case of Alzheimer's however, according to this article there are some potentially fruitful studies that could be done to hopefully find a cure.  The Alzheimer's association believes that there is a need for about $2 Billion in spending per year to get to a cure.
As in many cases of spending on research, it is a gamble.  By putting money into research, we would be betting that a cure would be found that would avoid the costs in dollars and lost lives that would more than pay off in the long run.  If AARPs projections are correct, expending $2 Billion per year now could help avoid some or all of the possible $1 Trillion/per year in future cost.  That sounds like a good payoff!  I really think the US should be spending more on this important problem.  It should be at least proportional to the impact of the disease on the US population.  Apparently we're spending $5.4 Billion on cancer, and $1.2 Billion on heart disease, and the cost impact of those diseases is probably lower than the cost impact of Alzheimer's disease.  Below are the costs in 2014 of the disease in the United States according to the Alzheimer's Association

Sadly, the article points out that many of the existing medications and therapies don't work all that well in slowing down the progress of the disease.  At one time it was thought that daily aspirin, daily physical exercise, and brain exercise puzzles might prevent the disease.  But none of these appeared to have any statistical significance in tests. The world needs a medical solution to the problem!

In Sep 2015, Bradley Fikes of Union Tribune reported on a new breakthrough in the understanding of how Alzheimer's works in the brain, which will hopefully lead to new techniques to prevent or cure the disease.  

I would think that the rest of the world is experiencing the same problem with the rising cost of this horrible disease.  Therefore, other countries should be more than willing to share in the cost and participating in the research.  I wonder if there are international efforts to coordinate research so we can minimize waste and share findings.  However, I would bet that "big pharma" is also working hard on this problem.  If one of the companies does discover a "magic pill" that could prevent a person from getting the disease, or cure a patient with the disease, it could be worth a lot!  However, I hope we don't get into a situation where the treatment could cost $100,000 per patient.

‘America’s Bitter Pill,’ by Steven Brill - NYTimes.com

I saw 60 minutes this evening where Leslie Stahl interviewed Steven Brill of the New York Times.  Apparently he has written a new book about how the medical "industry" is now making huge profits from Obamacare --even "non profit" hospital businesses are "profiting" by paying their executives extremely high salaries, which, in turn drives up the costs.

Here is a link to the book review.

‘America’s Bitter Pill,’ by Steven Brill - NYTimes.com


After seeing this 60 minutes piece and reading the book review, I also read the book.  On the surface, the book is simply a chronological description of the development, passing and implementation of the Affordable Care Act.  It doesn't sound too exciting?    It describes step-by-step who was involved in the development and writing of the law, how it got modified in order to pass, and then how the implementation of the law unfolded, including the development of the healthcare.gov website.  However, I did find it somewhat exciting even though I knew what happened.  Brill was able to make the story interesting by providing some personal information about each of the major players, so we understood better about the motivations behind each individuals position or role.

I think  it is a shame that all of our US Congress and Senators didn't pull together to help develop the Affordable Care Act in a cooperative spirit.  Yes, it is possible that there are flaws in the law.  It may have been better if all sides worked to make necessary corrections.  After the act was passed, and problems were identified, it would have been good to have congress pass minor changes to the act to make those necessary corrections.  As it is, hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours have been spent fighting against the act and wasting lawyers and judges time on somewhat trivial problems or flaws in the wording.

I don't understand who is against the act, or who is behind the vehement effort the Republicans have mounted to fight against the law.  I can't see how any businesses involved in the health care industry would be against it.  They are ALL making lots of money, as are the CEOs.  Hospitals, insurance companies, doctors, pharmaceuticals, medical device manufacturers are all making seemingly windfall profits from the law.  States are getting assistance from the Federal Government to improve the health of all of their citizens.  More of our citizens are now contributing to their own health care by paying for their insurance.  Because more people have insurance, more Americans are able to obtain preventative health care which should eventually reduce the overall cost.  What is not to like?  I have tried to read and listen to the complaints issued by the Republican Party as they have continually tried to stop or repeal the Affordable Care Act with many different parliamentary and legal procedures.  They all say it is bad --but they never have been able to explain why and even when they have presented alternative approaches, it is clear that the alternatives have not been thought through.   

Red meat cancer link explained --and additional research still needed

San Diego Union Tribune had a front page article by Bradley Fikes that explains new research concerning the link between red meat and cancer:  Red meat cancer link explained | UTSanDiego.com. I also found UCSD article.

The UC San Diego study was led by: Dr Ajit Varki, and was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and this link is to the abstract of the report:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/12/25/1417508112.abstract.  The incidence of cancer increases due to the presence of a compound called Neu5Gc (also called "

N-Glycolylneuraminic acid" that is present in red meat.  The research appears to have been performed very carefully with the necessary proper discipline, however after publishing, there still could be peer review findings that could indicate errors in the research tests or reported results.

It seems that this research might be a major breakthrough, and it can help dispel the many dietary myths and recommendations that have built up concerning the eating of red meat.  For example, the concern that has been reported for many years about eating grilled meats as worse than "stewed" meats. It also seems to explain why vegetarians who avoid dairy products can reduce the probability of getting cancer.  Certain dairy products and cheeses  (goat cheeses?) have the Neu5Gc compound.  Fish are OK, except for fish eggs!  Who knew?

The report also says that possibly eating red meat while we are young is OK, but as we get older, the bad effects of eating it has a higher probability of leading to cancer.  I can see how this might make sense from a biological and an anthropological standpoint.

The good news is that now that we are gaining an understanding of the cause, we may be able to develop types of animals who produce little or no Neu5Gc in their bodies, or develop "antidote" foods or food supplements which could neutralize the Neu5Gc compound in the meat, or in our digestive tract.

I think there are other studies that will probably be performed to help us design good diets.   If a person has an ounce or so per week, is that just as bad as eating a couple of pounds per week?  Are those of us who have eaten red meat all of our lives "doomed?"  --or is there "salvation" in becoming a vegetarian now?  Below are some studies that I believe NIH and the livestock industry may want to fund and start working on ASAP:

• What is the dose sensitivity of the body to Neu5GC?  
• How much red meat would cause all cells of our body to contain Neu5Gc? 
• If we stop eating red meat, will the residual Neu5Gc in our body's cells gradually diminish?  How fast does it go away?
• How far down does the amount of Neu5Gc in our body have to go before the cancer risk becomes negligible from this cause, of course
• The testing techniques for measuring the amount of Neu5Gc in foods and in animal cells (human cells) appears to be complex and expensive using chromatograms.  Are there possible techniques that are quicker and easier to perform that provide adequate measurement for clinical use? 
• The research seemed to test only the amount in animal's liver. The research indicated it may be higher in liver, prostate, and several other locations. What is the typical distribution of Neu5Gc in human organs? Is it evenly distributed in all organs? Or does it concentrate in certain ones?
• Can the amount in a person's body be estimated by taking a biopsy, a blood sample, urine sample, or saliva?
• Are there chemicals, drugs, food supplements, cooking methods, or other techniques that reduce the amount of Neu5GC in the food, or that is absorbed into our body?
• Are there chemicals, drugs, food supplements that will help our body eliminate Neu5Gc from our body?
• Are there parts of red meat animals that have more, or less amounts of the Neu5Gc? For example is there more in fat, organ meat, broth?
• Is there some way of reducing the amount of Neu5GC in red meat animals (feed, exercise, breeding, or other types of care?  
• How long after stopping eating of red meat does it take for our body to be free of  Neu5GC?
• If we eat small amounts of red meat or red meat byproducts, (gelatin, broth, flavoring in french fries for example) will we be exposed to Neu5GC?  Will our body then have as much as if we ate a lot of red meat? Or do we have to go completely "vegan" to avoid even accidental ingestion of residual amounts.
• What is the "age curve" vs probability of getting cancer from having Neu5GC in our bodies? The research was done using mice and autopsy at 85 weeks near end of life. If they had eaten red meat while young but none after middle age, would that reduce the probability of cancer a lot? Or only a little bit?

I think it will take many years for more definitive research to be done.  I also suspect that the red meat industry will try dis-information campaigns similar to what the tobacco and anti-global warming group did.  That type of modest campaign will spread doubt about the research, and slow down spending on research about this process,   It will also take a long time to see the effect of this research on the recommendations of nutrionists.  There are some, however,who are already expressing concern about red meat -- but generally they are already vegetarians who are in the "told you so" mode.  See this Dr. Mirkin website as example.

It is also interesting to learn the archeological history of Neu5Gc in humans and other animals.  See this article on phys.org website.  Human ancestors used to make their own Neu5Gc, but between 2 and 3 million years ago, they lost that capability.