Mindfulness can enrich our lives far more than we realize.....
Posted by Health, Wellness and Mindfulness on Monday, June 8, 2015
Monday, June 8, 2015
The importance of Mindfulness
Thursday, April 16, 2015
What is really in our food products and is FDA keeping an eye on it?
The FDA was established as a regulatory overseer to ensure implementation of the 1906
Pure Food and Drugs Act, a law a quarter-century in the making that
prohibited interstate commerce in adulterated and misbranded food and
drugs. Its official title 'Food and Drug Administration' was given in 1930.
Since then FDA has been entrusted with the task of " protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation" ( as defined on the FDA website)
But it is starting to become apparent that some food product manufacturers have found ways around the regulations that ensure public safety, most commonly used is a legal loophole, introduced in 1958, that allows use of additives in food products if deemed by them as 'generally recognized as safe' (GRAS). The most well known example of GRAS is partially hydrogenated fats.
As defined on the FDA site: "Under sections 201(s) and 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), any substance that is intentionally added to food is a food additive, that is subject to premarket review and approval by FDA, unless the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use, or unless the use of the substance is otherwise excluded from the definition of a food additive."
Thus these additives may not require FDA approval or oversight if declared as safe by industry experts. It is at the food companies' discretion whether to ask for FDA for approval or declare them harmless using the GRAS loophole. Such an evaluation by the food company is not required to be reviewed by the FDA, yet again the decision lies with the food companies.
What is worrisome is that in recent years several safety of such GRAS ingredients has been disputed by scientists and consumer groups. There have been documented cases where some GRAS additives have led to serious allergic reactions or other health issues.
The fact is that American consumers are ingesting food products with ingredients that have not be scrutinized and approved by the FDA. The long term effects of such ingredients on general health are not known or understood.
As pointed out in the NPR news article "Why The FDA Has Never Looked At Some Of The Additives In Our Food "
This is true of one of the most known — and vilified — GRAS additives: partially hydrogenated oil, a form of trans fat. Widely used in food products including fried foods and cake mixes, trans fats have been named by public health experts as a contributor to heart disease, stroke and Type 2 diabetes. Despite strong pushback from industry, the FDA in November 2013 made a tentative determination that artificial trans fats should not have GRAS status, and the agency is likely to make that determination final this summer.
The general assumption that these GRAS ingredients are safe is no longer being accepted by major consumer groups. These are now pushing for higher standards of review and scrutiny by FDA.
Researchers for the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Natural Resources Defense Council say that allowing companies to make safety determinations without telling the FDA makes it nearly impossible to identify whether there are health effects caused by long-term exposure to certain ingredients.
Their concerns are heightened because safety decisions often rest in the hands of a small group of scientific experts selected by companies or consulting firms with a financial incentive to get new ingredients on the market. Several of these scientists, a Center for Public Integrity investigation found, previously served as scientific consultants for tobacco companies during the 1980s and 1990s, when the tobacco industry fought vigorously to defend its products.
Unfortunately the steps being taken to control the increasing number of GRAS ingredients being used by food companies are lagging behind, as mentioned in the article;
In the past five decades, the number of food additives has skyrocketed — from about 800 to more than 10,000. They are added to everything from baked goods and breakfast cereals to energy bars and carbonated drinks.
Meanwhile, the FDA's food additive approval system has slowed to a crawl — the average review takes two years, but some drag on for decades.
Many industry experts feel these concerns are exaggerated, but as a consumer we need to take time to read food labels and try to make informed decisions of our own. After all the consequence of what we put in our bodies will primarily effects us and our families.
Since then FDA has been entrusted with the task of " protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation" ( as defined on the FDA website)
But it is starting to become apparent that some food product manufacturers have found ways around the regulations that ensure public safety, most commonly used is a legal loophole, introduced in 1958, that allows use of additives in food products if deemed by them as 'generally recognized as safe' (GRAS). The most well known example of GRAS is partially hydrogenated fats.
As defined on the FDA site: "Under sections 201(s) and 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), any substance that is intentionally added to food is a food additive, that is subject to premarket review and approval by FDA, unless the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use, or unless the use of the substance is otherwise excluded from the definition of a food additive."
Thus these additives may not require FDA approval or oversight if declared as safe by industry experts. It is at the food companies' discretion whether to ask for FDA for approval or declare them harmless using the GRAS loophole. Such an evaluation by the food company is not required to be reviewed by the FDA, yet again the decision lies with the food companies.
What is worrisome is that in recent years several safety of such GRAS ingredients has been disputed by scientists and consumer groups. There have been documented cases where some GRAS additives have led to serious allergic reactions or other health issues.
As pointed out in the NPR news article "Why The FDA Has Never Looked At Some Of The Additives In Our Food "
This is true of one of the most known — and vilified — GRAS additives: partially hydrogenated oil, a form of trans fat. Widely used in food products including fried foods and cake mixes, trans fats have been named by public health experts as a contributor to heart disease, stroke and Type 2 diabetes. Despite strong pushback from industry, the FDA in November 2013 made a tentative determination that artificial trans fats should not have GRAS status, and the agency is likely to make that determination final this summer.
The general assumption that these GRAS ingredients are safe is no longer being accepted by major consumer groups. These are now pushing for higher standards of review and scrutiny by FDA.
Researchers for the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Natural Resources Defense Council say that allowing companies to make safety determinations without telling the FDA makes it nearly impossible to identify whether there are health effects caused by long-term exposure to certain ingredients.
Their concerns are heightened because safety decisions often rest in the hands of a small group of scientific experts selected by companies or consulting firms with a financial incentive to get new ingredients on the market. Several of these scientists, a Center for Public Integrity investigation found, previously served as scientific consultants for tobacco companies during the 1980s and 1990s, when the tobacco industry fought vigorously to defend its products.
Unfortunately the steps being taken to control the increasing number of GRAS ingredients being used by food companies are lagging behind, as mentioned in the article;
In the past five decades, the number of food additives has skyrocketed — from about 800 to more than 10,000. They are added to everything from baked goods and breakfast cereals to energy bars and carbonated drinks.
Meanwhile, the FDA's food additive approval system has slowed to a crawl — the average review takes two years, but some drag on for decades.
Many industry experts feel these concerns are exaggerated, but as a consumer we need to take time to read food labels and try to make informed decisions of our own. After all the consequence of what we put in our bodies will primarily effects us and our families.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Bionic eye, bionic hand... another step closer to the bionic man!
Bionic Eye:
A blind man from Minnesota is able to see his wife for the first time in 10 years, after receiving a bionic eye. Allen Zderad, 68, was diagnosed with a degenerative eye disease around 20 years ago, which eventually left him blind. Minnesota's Mayo Clinic gave Zderad a prototype eye device, known as Second Sight, allowing him to see shapes and human form.
Bionic Hand:
Three Austrian men have become the first in the world to undergo a new technique called “bionic reconstruction”, enabling them to use a robotic prosthetic hand controlled by their mind, according to research published in The Lancet.
References:
A blind man from Minnesota is able to see his wife for the first time in 10 years, after receiving a bionic eye. Allen Zderad, 68, was diagnosed with a degenerative eye disease around 20 years ago, which eventually left him blind. Minnesota's Mayo Clinic gave Zderad a prototype eye device, known as Second Sight, allowing him to see shapes and human form.
Bionic Hand:
Three Austrian men have become the first in the world to undergo a new technique called “bionic reconstruction”, enabling them to use a robotic prosthetic hand controlled by their mind, according to research published in The Lancet.
References:
Blind man sees wife for first time in 10 years (The Guardian -Feb 14, 2015)
Mind-controlled bionic hand using nerve transplants restores function (RT news- Feb 25, 2015)
Mind-controlled bionic hand using nerve transplants restores function (RT news- Feb 25, 2015)
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Could light Pollution be another hazardous consequence of urban living?
Living in cities has always been known to increase most individual's stress level. The busy streets, crazy traffic, high noise level and air pollution are some of the things that might be adding to the toll a fast paced city life can take on one's health. Now scientists are adding the super bright nightlights of cities to the list and calling it 'Light Pollution'.
Lockley calls any light after dusk as unnatural, he says that with any such exposure "our daytime physiology is triggered and our brains become more alert, our heart rates go up, as does our temperature, and production of the hormone melatonin is suppressed".
The article also mentions Ken Wright at the University of Colorado in Boulder who conducted studies on camping. He found that for campers midnight meant middle of the night, whereas in urban areas the constant presence of light prolongs the daytime, thus leading people living in cities to stay awake longer, sleep later and hence sleep less. This could be causing health problems not yet clearly documented.
Lockley raises a thought-provoking question; "As a society we need to think, do we really need some of these amenities that are putting light pollution into the environment?" adding "Do we need 24/7 garages, do we need 24/7 supermarkets, do we need 24/7 TV? It was only in 1997 that the BBC turned off and there was the national anthem and we all went to bed."
Here are some excerpts of Ellie's article;
The International Dark Sky Association is an organisation of astronomers that aims to teach how to preserve the night sky. Member Scott Kardel says he believes in balance: “While we need certain amounts of light at night for safety, commerce and more, we also need to be more careful about how much light we use, where we use it and for how long.”
But at a more abstract level, Kardel also believes that “having bright skies takes something away from us. All of our ancestors had star-filled skies that inspired countless people in art, literature, religion, science and philosophy.”
It might not be plausible to put the metropolis to bed at dusk, but cities can mitigate some of the worst light pollution. “Proper outdoor lighting,” says Kardel, “conserves energy, reduces glare” and cuts back on so-called light trespass, for example when your neighbour’s bedroom light bleeds into your sitting room.
Lockley thinks LEDS are the “problem, but also the solution: they allow much more sophisticated lighting systems.” The blueness can be fixed, he says. “It is possible to create LED light with multiple colours – you can alter the colours for the right time of day and the right application.”
“We might not quite be at the point where cities are putting in those types of tuneable street lamps,” he adds. But many communities in the UK have either adopted or trialled “part night lighting”, switching off the lights where they’re not needed or lowering illumination levels for part of the night. Motion-sensing technologies are being tested in the Netherlands and Ireland.
At the centre of this shift is a change in the attitudes of city residents and their governments. In Hong Kong, until only a few years ago the government avoided even using the term “light pollution”, says Pun. “They wouldn’t even admit such a thing exists. If you call it something else, like ‘light nuisance’, then I guess it will make life a little easier. Even though it seems like a gloomy situation, no pun intended, I do see a change of mindset.”
In the end the article has some wonderful tips on how to reduce light pollution.
It’s an obvious one, but switch off any lights you are not using.
• Ensure indoor and outdoor lighting is directed at what you’re trying to light and that it’s shaded. Table and floor lamps are better for this than overhead lights.
• Use low-watt lightbulbs – you’ll save on bills and reduce glare.
• Install dimmer switches so you can alter brightness to suit ambient light.
• Use motion sensors or timers so outdoor lights are only on when they need to be.
• Install thick curtains or blinds to minimise light escaping your home at night.
• Ask your local councillor to get street lamps fitted with directional, low energy lights – after all, residential areas don’t need to be lit up like football pitches 24 hours a day.
References:
Urban light pollution: why we're all living with permanent 'mini jetlag' (The Guardian- Oct 23rd 2014)
In the article Urban light pollution: why we're all living with permanent 'mini jetlag'(The Guardian) Ellie Violet Bramley writes about studies that have shown that exposure to light after dusk is quite literally
unnatural, and may be detrimental to health. Astronomer Dr Jason Pun of the Hong Kong University department of physics has been studying light pollution and has done several studies on the subject. Recently they set up 18 stations around Hong Kong stretching from commercial urban sector to residential neighborhoods and on to rural areas. When they compared the levels of light to the standard (meaning how bright the sky would be without artificial lights), they found that the lit areas were about a 1000 times brighter.
 |
| Hong Kong Skyline By Barry Chum (Own work) [CC-BY-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons |
According to Dr. Pun, “Similar studies in major capitals like Berlin and Vienna, would find something more of the order of 100 to 200 times brighter.”
Most cities like Hong Kong, New York, Tokyo and Las Vegas may be proud of their super bright nightscapes and get many visitors who come to see these illuminated cities. But these brightly lit skies may also be causing health problems. Steven Lockley, a neuroscientist and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School has been studying the effect of light on alertness, sleep, melatonin levels and its overall impact on human physiology.
Lockley calls any light after dusk as unnatural, he says that with any such exposure "our daytime physiology is triggered and our brains become more alert, our heart rates go up, as does our temperature, and production of the hormone melatonin is suppressed".
The article also mentions Ken Wright at the University of Colorado in Boulder who conducted studies on camping. He found that for campers midnight meant middle of the night, whereas in urban areas the constant presence of light prolongs the daytime, thus leading people living in cities to stay awake longer, sleep later and hence sleep less. This could be causing health problems not yet clearly documented.
Lockley raises a thought-provoking question; "As a society we need to think, do we really need some of these amenities that are putting light pollution into the environment?" adding "Do we need 24/7 garages, do we need 24/7 supermarkets, do we need 24/7 TV? It was only in 1997 that the BBC turned off and there was the national anthem and we all went to bed."
Here are some excerpts of Ellie's article;
The International Dark Sky Association is an organisation of astronomers that aims to teach how to preserve the night sky. Member Scott Kardel says he believes in balance: “While we need certain amounts of light at night for safety, commerce and more, we also need to be more careful about how much light we use, where we use it and for how long.”
But at a more abstract level, Kardel also believes that “having bright skies takes something away from us. All of our ancestors had star-filled skies that inspired countless people in art, literature, religion, science and philosophy.”
It might not be plausible to put the metropolis to bed at dusk, but cities can mitigate some of the worst light pollution. “Proper outdoor lighting,” says Kardel, “conserves energy, reduces glare” and cuts back on so-called light trespass, for example when your neighbour’s bedroom light bleeds into your sitting room.
Lockley thinks LEDS are the “problem, but also the solution: they allow much more sophisticated lighting systems.” The blueness can be fixed, he says. “It is possible to create LED light with multiple colours – you can alter the colours for the right time of day and the right application.”
“We might not quite be at the point where cities are putting in those types of tuneable street lamps,” he adds. But many communities in the UK have either adopted or trialled “part night lighting”, switching off the lights where they’re not needed or lowering illumination levels for part of the night. Motion-sensing technologies are being tested in the Netherlands and Ireland.
At the centre of this shift is a change in the attitudes of city residents and their governments. In Hong Kong, until only a few years ago the government avoided even using the term “light pollution”, says Pun. “They wouldn’t even admit such a thing exists. If you call it something else, like ‘light nuisance’, then I guess it will make life a little easier. Even though it seems like a gloomy situation, no pun intended, I do see a change of mindset.”
In the end the article has some wonderful tips on how to reduce light pollution.
It’s an obvious one, but switch off any lights you are not using.
• Ensure indoor and outdoor lighting is directed at what you’re trying to light and that it’s shaded. Table and floor lamps are better for this than overhead lights.
• Use low-watt lightbulbs – you’ll save on bills and reduce glare.
• Install dimmer switches so you can alter brightness to suit ambient light.
• Use motion sensors or timers so outdoor lights are only on when they need to be.
• Install thick curtains or blinds to minimise light escaping your home at night.
• Ask your local councillor to get street lamps fitted with directional, low energy lights – after all, residential areas don’t need to be lit up like football pitches 24 hours a day.
References:
Urban light pollution: why we're all living with permanent 'mini jetlag' (The Guardian- Oct 23rd 2014)
Music and your health.
"If music be the food of love, play on"
(William Shakespeare)
When we read that we are bound to agree. Music has been an integral part of most civilizations and still is. Mankind has used music in so many ways; to entertain, to express emotions and get feelings across, to heal and recover, to relax and meditate, and to learn or record facts and history to name a few.Music is like the soundtrack of our lives. How often we hear a song and can right away be transported to another time, another place where we heard it first or where it impacted us. How often has music brightened up our mood or helped us relax. How many times has music brought so many together, that is why it is the universal language. It is clear that we need music in our lives, “Without music, life would be a mistake.” as Friedrich Nietzsche concluded.
Over the decades, countless studies and continued research work has repeatedly supported the belief that music can be more than just food for the soul, it can have real beneficial effects on our overall health and well-being. Here are some of those benefits:
Physical benefits
Pain:
According to a study published in Frontiers of Psychology, scientists found that listening to music that is relaxing, highly pleasant, familiar, and self-chosen, reduced pain and increase functional mobility in fibromyalgia patients.
Endurance:
British researchers studied 12 healthy male college students riding stationary bikes while listening to six different songs of their choosing, each with a different tempo. It was observed that not only their pedaling speed changed along with the tempo of the music so did their overall affect. As tempo slowed, they slowed the pedaling, their heart rate decreased, breathing slowed and mileage fell. But as music tempo increased so did their pedaling speed, heart rate, distance covered and showed reduced exertion. Hence the conclusion 'healthy individuals performing submaximal exercise not only worked harder with faster music but also chose to do so and enjoyed the music more when it was played at a faster tempo."
In another study, researchers had 20 moderately active adults (22±4 y), unfamiliar with interval exercise, complete an acute session of SIT(Sprint Interval training) under two different conditions: music and no music. Leading to the conclusion ' Music enhanced in-task performance and enjoyment of an acute bout of SIT.'
Post-exercise recovery:
After a workout music not only helps relax, it also helps the body recover faster. A study published in the Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research showed beneficial effect of both music and rhythm was greater toward the end of the recovery period. Results suggest that listening to music during non structured recovery can be used by professional athletes to enhance recovery from intense exercise.
Sleep:
A study showed classical music to improve the quality of sleep in individuals with poor sleep. Relaxing classical music can thus be used to help alleviate insomnia instead of sleep inducing medications.
Eating Habits:
A recent study found that with softening of the music and lighting while eating, diners end up eating less and enjoying the food more, suggesting that a more relaxed environment increases satisfaction and decreases consumption.
Blood Flow:
Previous studies have demonstrated that music may influence physiologic parameters such as heart rate and blood pressure. A study of the effect of music on endothelial function showed an increased blood flow and a happier mood.
Mental Benefits
Stress:
Over the past years, music has been increasingly used as a therapeutic tool in the treatment of different diseases in healthy and ill subjects over recent years (e.g., the so called "Mozart effect"). Music has been found to lead to release of biochemical measurable stress-reducing effects in some individuals. Some kinds of music have also been known to cause changes in cardiac and neurological functions.
It has also been seen that music helps individuals perform better under pressure if listening to music. Such a study involving basketball players known to choke under pressure, showed improved performance by the same players when listening to upbeat music and lyrics.
Meditation:
Music has been found to cause actual change in brainwave. Researchers found that most music combines many different frequencies that cause a complex set of reactions in the brain, but researchers say specific pieces of music could enhance concentration or promote relaxation.
Mood:
A study found arousal and mood regulation to be the most important dimension of music listening closely followed by self-awareness.
Cognitive function:
Research has shown that upbeat music improves the efficiency and accuracy in performance of workers on assembly lines or quality-control operators. It helps them to stay focused on their work even though what they’re doing is not necessarily interesting, and attention would normally fade over time.
Anxiety:
When used in conjunction with conventional cancer treatments, music therapy has been found to help patients promote a better quality of life; better communicate their fear, sadness, or other feelings; and better manage stress, while alleviating physical pain and discomfort.
Patients:
There is sufficient practical evidence that listening to music while resting in bed after open heart surgery can reduce patients' stress level. Therefore it is recommended that music intervention be offered as an integral part of the multimodal regime offered to patients after cardiovascular surgery. It is a supportive source that increases relaxation. Music is also effective in under conditions and music can be utilized as an effective intervention for patients with depressive symptoms, geriatrics and in pain, intensive care or palliative medicine. However, music used should be carefully selected incorporating a patient's own preferences to offer an effective method to reduce anxiety and to improve quality of life. The most benefit on health is seen in classic music, meditation music whereas heavy metal music or technosounds are even ineffective or dangerous and will lead to stress and/or life threatening arrhythmias.
References:
5 Science-Backed Reasons Why Music is Good for You (Health- Nov 11, 2014)
20 surprising, science-backed health benefits of music (USA Today- Dec 17, 2013)
Effect of Rhythm on the Recovery From Intense Exercise (Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research- April 2013)
Music improves sleep quality in students. (Journal of Advanced Nursing- May 2008)
Fast Food Restaurant Lighting and Music can reduce Calorie intake and increase Satisfaction
(Psychological Reports- Aug 2012)
Positive Emotions and the Endothelium: Does Joyful Music Improve Vascular Health? (Circulation- 2008)
From music-beat to heart-beat: a journey in the complex interactions between music, brain and heart. (European Journal of Internal Medicine-Aug 2011)
Alleviating Choking: The Sounds of Distraction (Journal of Applied Sport Psychology- April 2009)
Symposium looks at therapeutic benefits of musical rhythm
(Stanford News Service- May 2013)
Music and health--what kind of music is helpful for whom? What music not? (Published in a German Medical Journal- Dec 2009)
Physical benefits
Pain:
According to a study published in Frontiers of Psychology, scientists found that listening to music that is relaxing, highly pleasant, familiar, and self-chosen, reduced pain and increase functional mobility in fibromyalgia patients.
Endurance:
British researchers studied 12 healthy male college students riding stationary bikes while listening to six different songs of their choosing, each with a different tempo. It was observed that not only their pedaling speed changed along with the tempo of the music so did their overall affect. As tempo slowed, they slowed the pedaling, their heart rate decreased, breathing slowed and mileage fell. But as music tempo increased so did their pedaling speed, heart rate, distance covered and showed reduced exertion. Hence the conclusion 'healthy individuals performing submaximal exercise not only worked harder with faster music but also chose to do so and enjoyed the music more when it was played at a faster tempo."
In another study, researchers had 20 moderately active adults (22±4 y), unfamiliar with interval exercise, complete an acute session of SIT(Sprint Interval training) under two different conditions: music and no music. Leading to the conclusion ' Music enhanced in-task performance and enjoyment of an acute bout of SIT.'
Post-exercise recovery:
After a workout music not only helps relax, it also helps the body recover faster. A study published in the Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research showed beneficial effect of both music and rhythm was greater toward the end of the recovery period. Results suggest that listening to music during non structured recovery can be used by professional athletes to enhance recovery from intense exercise.
Sleep:
A study showed classical music to improve the quality of sleep in individuals with poor sleep. Relaxing classical music can thus be used to help alleviate insomnia instead of sleep inducing medications.
Eating Habits:
A recent study found that with softening of the music and lighting while eating, diners end up eating less and enjoying the food more, suggesting that a more relaxed environment increases satisfaction and decreases consumption.
Blood Flow:
Previous studies have demonstrated that music may influence physiologic parameters such as heart rate and blood pressure. A study of the effect of music on endothelial function showed an increased blood flow and a happier mood.
Mental Benefits
Stress:
Over the past years, music has been increasingly used as a therapeutic tool in the treatment of different diseases in healthy and ill subjects over recent years (e.g., the so called "Mozart effect"). Music has been found to lead to release of biochemical measurable stress-reducing effects in some individuals. Some kinds of music have also been known to cause changes in cardiac and neurological functions.
It has also been seen that music helps individuals perform better under pressure if listening to music. Such a study involving basketball players known to choke under pressure, showed improved performance by the same players when listening to upbeat music and lyrics.
Meditation:
Music has been found to cause actual change in brainwave. Researchers found that most music combines many different frequencies that cause a complex set of reactions in the brain, but researchers say specific pieces of music could enhance concentration or promote relaxation.
Mood:
A study found arousal and mood regulation to be the most important dimension of music listening closely followed by self-awareness.
Cognitive function:
Research has shown that upbeat music improves the efficiency and accuracy in performance of workers on assembly lines or quality-control operators. It helps them to stay focused on their work even though what they’re doing is not necessarily interesting, and attention would normally fade over time.
Anxiety:
When used in conjunction with conventional cancer treatments, music therapy has been found to help patients promote a better quality of life; better communicate their fear, sadness, or other feelings; and better manage stress, while alleviating physical pain and discomfort.
Patients:
There is sufficient practical evidence that listening to music while resting in bed after open heart surgery can reduce patients' stress level. Therefore it is recommended that music intervention be offered as an integral part of the multimodal regime offered to patients after cardiovascular surgery. It is a supportive source that increases relaxation. Music is also effective in under conditions and music can be utilized as an effective intervention for patients with depressive symptoms, geriatrics and in pain, intensive care or palliative medicine. However, music used should be carefully selected incorporating a patient's own preferences to offer an effective method to reduce anxiety and to improve quality of life. The most benefit on health is seen in classic music, meditation music whereas heavy metal music or technosounds are even ineffective or dangerous and will lead to stress and/or life threatening arrhythmias.
References:
5 Science-Backed Reasons Why Music is Good for You (Health- Nov 11, 2014)
20 surprising, science-backed health benefits of music (USA Today- Dec 17, 2013)
Music reduces pain and increases functional mobility in fibromyalgia (Frontiers of Psychology- Feb 11, 2014)
Effects of music tempo upon submaximal cycling performance. (Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports- Aug 2010)
Music Enhances Performance and Perceived Enjoyment of Sprint Interval Exercise. (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise- Sep 8, 2014)Effect of Rhythm on the Recovery From Intense Exercise (Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research- April 2013)
Music improves sleep quality in students. (Journal of Advanced Nursing- May 2008)
Fast Food Restaurant Lighting and Music can reduce Calorie intake and increase Satisfaction
(Psychological Reports- Aug 2012)
Positive Emotions and the Endothelium: Does Joyful Music Improve Vascular Health? (Circulation- 2008)
From music-beat to heart-beat: a journey in the complex interactions between music, brain and heart. (European Journal of Internal Medicine-Aug 2011)
Alleviating Choking: The Sounds of Distraction (Journal of Applied Sport Psychology- April 2009)
Symposium looks at therapeutic benefits of musical rhythm
(Stanford News Service- May 2013)
The psychological functions of music listening (Frontiers in Psychology- May 24, 2013)
Music therapy in a comprehensive cancer center. (Journal of the Society of Integrative Oncology- Spring 2008) Music and health--what kind of music is helpful for whom? What music not? (Published in a German Medical Journal- Dec 2009)
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Teenagers smoking weed daily far less likely to graduate high school
As the Global Commission on Drug Policy
denounces the so-called “war against drugs” as a failure and suggests
new approaches prioritising human rights and health, new studies on
increased weed use by teenagers show significantly damaging outcomes. Hence the debate about the consequences of adolescent cannabis use is continuing.
The latest research on the subject was published in the British journal The Lancet Psychiatry this month. It was seen that teenagers who smoked weed daily were 60% less likely to graduate high school and far more likely to attempt suicide.
Researchers studied adolescents using marijuana, gathering data on frequency of marijuana use from over 3700 students from Australia and New Zealand and followed their developmental outcomes upto 30 years of age. They found a significant association between frequency of cannabis use during adolescence and most young adult outcomes investigated, even after controlling for potential confounding factors including age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, use of other drugs, and mental illness. Teens who smoked weed were seen to have far more negative outcomes then their counterparts who didn't smoke weed, thus supporting the case against marijuana use by adolescents no matter how infrequent.
Here are some excerpts from The Washington Post article Study: Teens who smoke weed daily are 60% less likely to complete high school than those who never use by Christopher Ingraham on the research.
In a conference call, study co-author Edmund Sillins said that the relationship between cannabis use and negative outcomes is significant even at low levels of use (e.g., less than monthly), and that "the results suggest that there may not be a threshold where use can be deemed safe" for teens.
According to the study, there are significant relationships between cannabis use and high school graduation, college graduation, suicide attempts, cannabis dependency (not wholly surprising), and other illicit drug use.
The author points aptly out that;
A person who uses cannabis less than monthly would have slightly lower odds of graduating high school or getting a college degree, compared to a person who doesn't use at all. Increased use further decreases this likelihood. On the other hand, a person who uses cannabis monthly would have roughly 4 times the likelihood of becoming dependent on cannabis as a person who doesn't use at all.
(Continue reading)
P.S:
Study: Teens who smoke weed daily are 60% less likely to complete high school than those who never use
(Washington Post - Sept 9, 2014)
Young adult sequelae of adolescent cannabis use: an integrative analysis (September 2014)
The latest research on the subject was published in the British journal The Lancet Psychiatry this month. It was seen that teenagers who smoked weed daily were 60% less likely to graduate high school and far more likely to attempt suicide.
Researchers studied adolescents using marijuana, gathering data on frequency of marijuana use from over 3700 students from Australia and New Zealand and followed their developmental outcomes upto 30 years of age. They found a significant association between frequency of cannabis use during adolescence and most young adult outcomes investigated, even after controlling for potential confounding factors including age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, use of other drugs, and mental illness. Teens who smoked weed were seen to have far more negative outcomes then their counterparts who didn't smoke weed, thus supporting the case against marijuana use by adolescents no matter how infrequent.
Here are some excerpts from The Washington Post article Study: Teens who smoke weed daily are 60% less likely to complete high school than those who never use by Christopher Ingraham on the research.
In a conference call, study co-author Edmund Sillins said that the relationship between cannabis use and negative outcomes is significant even at low levels of use (e.g., less than monthly), and that "the results suggest that there may not be a threshold where use can be deemed safe" for teens.
According to the study, there are significant relationships between cannabis use and high school graduation, college graduation, suicide attempts, cannabis dependency (not wholly surprising), and other illicit drug use.
The author points aptly out that;
A person who uses cannabis less than monthly would have slightly lower odds of graduating high school or getting a college degree, compared to a person who doesn't use at all. Increased use further decreases this likelihood. On the other hand, a person who uses cannabis monthly would have roughly 4 times the likelihood of becoming dependent on cannabis as a person who doesn't use at all.
(Continue reading)
P.S:
Study: Teens who smoke weed daily are 60% less likely to complete high school than those who never use
(Washington Post - Sept 9, 2014)
Young adult sequelae of adolescent cannabis use: an integrative analysis (September 2014)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)