A Vaccine Against Fat?

By Denise Foley for Completely You

Imagine there was a vaccine that would allow you to eat what you want and still lose weight.

Well, if you’re a chubby rodent, there is.

In fact, there are two vaccines in the works that could change the entire frontier of obesity, though both are still in the animal testing stage.

One, developed by scientists at Scripps Institute in California, works by zapping the appetite-boosting effects of the hormone ghrelin. It doesn’t exactly help you lose weight, but it significantly curbs weight gain. Rats who got the vaccine and ate whatever they wanted only gained 0.8 grams a day vs. rats on a placebo who gained 1.6 grams a day when allowed to pig out. Add a low-cal diet to the equation and voila -- easier weight loss.

The ‘Flab Jab’
The other vaccine, developed by Braasch BioTech in South Dakota, does help you lose body fat, even if you’re a regular at the all-you-can-eat buffet. This “flab jab,” as the British tabloids dubbed it, works in an entirely different way, by suppressing a hormone that slows down metabolism. Technically speaking, it inhibits the release of growth factor (aka human growth hormone or HGH) from the pituitary gland, allowing it to build to higher levels in the body -- the way it was when we were kids and could eat anything and not gain weight.

The anti-obesity vaccine actually takes aim at fat cells, explains Keith N. Haffer, PhD, president and chief science officer of Braasch. “These cells stop making new fat (lipogenesis) and excrete fat (lipolysis),” he says. “In other words, they’re not making any more fat and burning the fat they have.” (Read the full study here.)

Too Good to Be True?
While the mice in Haffer’s study were all fat-eating obese mice, those that got the vaccine were leaner and lighter than their compatriots, even though they were eating the same number of calories. But that doesn’t mean that, if this vaccine comes to the human market, you can have your cake and lose weight too.

It will work even better if you’re on a healthy diet and exercising, says Haffer.

Haffer created the vaccine originally for the meat and milk industries. Because it naturally increases levels of HGH, it would replace the synthetic version now given to cows and pigs to increase lean meat and milk production and promote faster growth in young animals. That’s a common and now increasingly controversial practice that’s been banned in some places, including the entire European Union, because of fears that it can disrupt normal hormonal functions in humans.

That hasn’t stopped bodybuilders and Internet entrepreneurs from promoting it as a way to build muscle and stop aging. Early research found that people who were injected with synthetic HGH lost weight, fat, and built more lean muscle. And there’s some evidence that HGH can turn back the hands of time in some ways. In fact, a study published on August 6 in Archives of Neurology found that older people with mild cognitive problems had improved memory, concentration and decision-making skills when they took a drug that boosted natural HGH in the body.

Unfortunately, synthetic HGH -- the kind that bodybuilders crave and can be found all over the Internet -- can have some serious side effects in humans, including joint and muscle pain and insulin resistance, a risk factor for diabetes.

When Will It Be Available?
So far, says Haffer, after testing in 20,000 animals, he hasn’t found any appreciable side effects. And, he says, it’s not going to be sold over the Internet.

The vaccine is short-acting -- after a couple of weeks, you’re back to your old sluggish metabolism -- so it needs to be administered again. By your doctor.

“You would definitely have to be monitored,” says Haffer, who is now seeking a U.S. Food and Drug Administration license to release the vaccine for use in animals.

Both this shot and the one being developed by the Scripps Institute are still years away from being approved for human use. But, says Haffer, “we hope this vaccine is seen as a potential tool on the horizon for treating obesity. What consumers want is an anti-obesity drug. And this is an option that the big pharmaceutical companies are not looking at.”

Denise Foley   is Completely You’s “News You Can Use” blogger. She is a veteran health writer, the former deputy editor and editor at large of Prevention, and co-author of four books on women’s health and parenting.

The Health Hazards of Paper Receipts

By Denise Foley for Completely You

The next time a cashier asks you if you want your receipt in your hand or in the bag, opt for the bag. Better yet, if you don’t need the receipt for your records, opt out of it altogether. And pay by credit or debit card so you don’t have to handle money either.

Why the drastic measures? A new study, done in part by the New York State Department of Health, found that thermal receipts, paper currency and other paper products from the U.S. and three other countries contained high levels of bisphenol S (BPS) -- a substitute for the compound bisphenol A (BPA), which has been banned by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in baby bottles and sippy cups because it’s been linked to infertility, cancers and genetic mutations, mainly in animal studies. (Read more about BPA here.)

BPS: A Poor Substitute
Many manufacturers are switching over to BPS in such products as receipt paper to comply with restrictions and regulations around the world. But there’s still a big problem.  Researchers have discovered that like its cousin BPA, BPS is what’s called an endocrine disrupter. That means it mimics our own natural hormones, particularly estrogen, and like BPA, it’s absorbed directly through the skin.

Although BPS might be less potent than BPA, it also may be less biodegradable. While further study is needed, BPS is being introduced into the environment -- and into your hands and the recesses of your wallet -- every day.

In the current study, published in Environmental Science and Technology, all of the receipt paper, 87 percent of the paper currency and 52 percent of the recycled paper contained BPS. The study also suggests that people may be absorbing BPS in large doses through the skin. (Read more about the study here.)

So What Should You Do?
You can avoid the potential threat by asking for e-receipts and handling paper receipts and money as little as possible. Or “wash your hands soon after touching” the tainted paper, says researcher Kurunthachalam Kannan of the Wadsworth Center at the New York State Department of Health and the State University of New York at Albany.

There are other good reasons to avoid receipts. According to Market Watch in The Wall Street Journal, ATM receipts are one of the top sources of planetary litter. They estimate that if everyone in the U.S. would refuse one receipt, it would save a roll of paper more than 2 billion feet long. That would circle the equator 15 times. And that’s one paper trail we don’t want to follow.

For more great health & lifestyle content, visit me here at Completely You
Denise Foley   is Completely You’s “News You Can Use” blogger. She is a veteran health writer, the former deputy editor and editor at large of Prevention, and co-author of four books on women’s health and parenting.

A New Way to Eat Less

By Denise Foley for Completely You


By Denise Foley for Completely You

Betcha can’t eat just one. Remember that Lay’s potato chip ad slogan from the ’60s?

Even if you don’t, research over the last five decades proves that it was absolutely accurate. Once you rip open the bag or pop the top of that can of potato chips, you probably can’t stop at one, let alone two, three, four, 10 … oops, did I just eat all that?

But a new study from Cornell University’s Food and Brand Lab -- whose researchers came up with the idea that serving food on smaller plates and bowls helps you eat less -- has found that people who find one chip dyed red, which marked either one or two servings, eat about half of what others with no “edible stop signs” consume. (Read more about it here.)

Why We Need Stop Signs
"People generally eat what is put in front of them," explains Brian Wansink, who holds a doctorate in marketing, is the director of the lab and wrote the best-selling Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We Think. Unless, that is, they see something -- a visual cue -- that tells them to stop. Like a red potato chip.

Wansink says that he and his colleagues settled on painting chips after discarding other ideas, like putting a little paper sleeve between the chips that would tell people how many calories they’d just eaten. “We were afraid people would think, ‘Is this edible?’ and try eating the paper,” he said -- joking, I think.

Some snack food manufacturers already have warmed to the idea of calorie-controlled packaging, producing 100-calorie snack packs of everything from cookies to chips. Trader Joe’s even sells almonds in individual packages containing exactly 22 nuts, the recommended serving.

Wansink thinks it’s a good idea. After all, he experimented with it back in the ’90s, then told food producers, “Hey, when you shrink the size of a portion down to 125 calories, people ate a whole lot less and were willing to pay a whole lot more.” In fact, he found that people were willing to shell out about 20 percent more for pre-portioned packaging. “It was a win-win,” says Wansink.

He got some pushback from manufacturers who thought they made more money when people ate more. But Wansink, who’s made a career of studying what makes people eat, told them what really happens: “You have people who eat your chips or cookies, then say, ‘That tasted really good, but I ate too much. I’m not going to do that again for a long time.’ ”

Taking Portion Control out of Our (Greedy) Hands
Today, he says, food producers are more likely to see the logic. In fact, several major ones are considering inserting such obvious “stop signs” into product packages.

As for consumers, about 70 percent of us respond to visual cues to stop eating. The other 30 percent “eat about the same amount, maybe even more,” says Wansink.

But he’s still a big proponent of calorie-controlled packaging. “The average snack is about 180 calories,” he points out. “If you eat one of those packs, you’re eating 80 fewer calories than you normally would. Even if you eat two, you’re only eating a little more, and it’s a whole lot less than if you picked up a candy bar, which has 260 to 280 calories.”

For more great health and lifestyle content, visit me here at Completely You
Photo: @iStockphoto.com/paci77
Denise Foley   is Completely You’s “News You Can Use” blogger. She is a veteran health writer, the former deputy editor and editor at large of Prevention, and co-author of four books on women’s health and parenting.

Could Our Drinking Water Be Causing Autism?

By Denise Foley for Completely You

I used to joke that we could achieve world peace if we just added Prozac to the drinking water.

Turns out I was wrong. There’s already Prozac in the drinking water and there’s no world peace. The fact is, in many places, the water is a complex cocktail of drugs, including the antidepressant Prozac and other psychoactive medicines. Roughly one in 10 Americans takes a drug for depression; about 80 percent of chemicals in those drugs are flushed from the body in urine and back into the water system.

Now a controversial new study suggests that happy pills bring anything but world peace. Researchers at Idaho State University found that these drug residues may turn on genes linked to autism . (See the study here.)

The concentrations of pharmaceuticals in drinking water are thought to be much lower than prescription doses. But the study’s researchers hypothesize that even small doses of drugs that affect the nervous system could have unanticipated effects in a fetus. “In a developing brain, the dosage may be doing something very different than it does in an adult human brain,” says Michael Thomas, Ph.D ., associate professor of bioinformatics at Idaho State and lead author of the study.

Thomas and his colleagues mixed a cocktail of three commonly prescribed psychoactive drugs (the anti-epileptic carbamazepine, and the two common antidepressants fluoxetine, aka Prozac, and venlafaxine, aka Effexor) at a concentration that was five to 10 times higher than seen downstream from sewage plants, but lower than the prescribed dose. They exposed fathead minnows to the drugs for 18 days, then analyzed the genes that were turned on -- the scientific term is “expressed” -- in the fishes’ brains.

They expected that the drugs would activate genes linked to many neurological disorders. But it was only the 324 genes associated with autism, mainly those involved with early brain development, which were changed.

What should you do?
The Idaho study is in line with other research that has found that women who take antidepressants while pregnant are more likely to have children with autism. But, cautions Thomas, fish aren’t humans. They’re not even mammals. So there’s no reason to avoid tap water if you’re pregnant, explains Thomas.

 However, if you are concerned, it could pay to invest in a reverse osmosis water filter, which can remove these drug residues, as well as other contaminants, from your drinking water. You can read more about these filters here and check out the National Drinking Water Database to see how contaminated the water is in your town.

For more great health and lifestyle content, visit me here at Completely You

Denise Foley   is Completely You’s “News You Can Use” blogger. She is a veteran health writer, the former deputy editor and editor at large of Prevention, and co-author of four books on women’s health and parenting.

How to Turn Your Dreams Into Reality

By Denise Foley for Completely You

Americans are so optimistic and rah-rah that it should come as no surprise that cheerleading was invented here.

We’re also the country of origin for The Power of Positive Thinking, the ‘50s book by minister Dr. Norman Vincent Peale; the positive psychology movement, founded by psychologist Martin Seligman; and Oprah Winfrey, an outspoken proponent of the philosophy that if you dream it, it will happen.
We tend not to tolerate pessimism. In our culture, being realistic is, well, a downer.

So it should come as no surprise that when we fantasize about what we want out of life -- a new job, a vacation in faraway places, even just to look like Sarah Jessica Parker in Manolo high heels -- we tend to forget that nothing’s perfect. In fact, say researchers at New York University, nurturing our idealized fantasies makes us forget that there could be some negatives embedded in our heart’s desires.

In other words, our pros-and-cons lists tend to be light on the cons. (You can read the full study here.)

“There’s been a lot written about the benefits of positive thinking,” says researcher Heather Kappes, who conducted the study in which she and her colleagues induced positive fantasies in a group of college student volunteers about wearing high heels, investing in the stock market and exotic vacations. But she says no one ever considers the negative aspects of such optimism.

The Negatives of Being Positive
The dark side of fantasizing is that it may take some of the steam out of action. “If you imagine everything positively and put yourself mentally where you want to be, you can trick your brain into thinking that you’re already there, so you don’t think about the work you have to put in and don’t muster up the energy to get there,” says Kappes.

You also may overlook some vital information that can help you make the right decision: That new job could have you in the office 24/7; high heels hurt and while Australian beaches are beautiful, they’re also home to the largest number of poisonous creatures in the world. Bummer.

But that doesn’t mean you should abandon fantasizing altogether.  “Daydreams give us a lot of joy and hope in life,” says Kappes. “Positive thinking can be useful when you’re talking yourself into setting a goal, such as deciding what to do in the future or to lose weight. If you didn’t think you could achieve those things, you’d have no reason to strive for anything.”

How Fantasies Can Lead to Fulfillment
Positive fantasies also keep your dreams alive until you can fulfill them. For instance, you may want to go to Fiji, but your salary will only cover a staycation. Or you’d like to work at Woods Holes Oceanographic Institute, but your only marine biology experience is with a tank full of guppies in your dorm room. A little more time at the job, a few salary hikes and a tad more education can get you within striking distance of your fantasy life.

At that point, if you’re still serious about making your dreams come true, take the blinders off, says Kappes. “If the con side of your pro-and-con list is so much shorter, it could be because you want it so much. Pause to ask yourself if there are downsides you haven’t considered.”

For more great health and lifestyle content, check out the rest of Completely You
Denise Foley   is Completely You’s “News You Can Use” blogger. She is a veteran health writer, the former deputy editor and editor at large of Prevention, and co-author of four books on women’s health and parenting.

Could Exercise Be Bad for You?

By Denise Foley for Completely You

It’s the news that couch potatoes have been waiting for: A new study has found that in about 10 percent of people who exercise, at least one standard measure of heart health (levels of insulin, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides, as well as blood pressure) got worse. And in 7 percent who exercise, at least two of those measures got worse.

That’s right -- exercise is actually bad for them.

But don’t hang up your sneakers just yet. Dr. William Kraus, a cardiologist who is  the paper’s co-author and a member of the committee behind the government’s national exercise recommendation that Americans get 150 minutes of moderate exercise a week, points out that an equal number of people in the six exercises studies the researchers reviewed got better – much better.

In fact, “10 percent of people were super-responders, and did way better than predicted,” says Kraus, who is also a professor of medicine at Duke University. So the take-home message of the study isn’t that exercise is dangerous to your health. “If people use this as an excuse [not to exercise], they’re just looking for excuses,” says Kraus. And that’s a very bad idea for most of us. Read the full study here.

Should you exercise or not?
The truth is, it’s impossible to know in advance where you fall on the spectrum when it comes to benefiting from exercise, any more than you can predict whether a statin drug will lower your cholesterol.

Comparing exercise to a drug is a good analogy, says Kraus. “A certain percentage of people respond unfavorably to drugs. In some people, statins raise levels of HDL (good cholesterol). In a small percentage of people, they lower them. This is why we have a panoply of treatment options.”

But what this means, says Kraus, is that doctors aren’t going to be able to assure patients that if they exercise more they’re going to reduce their risks of heart disease -- at least, not until they see how an individual patient reacts. The link between physical activity and heart health comes mainly from studies of large groups of people. “What this paper had uncovered is the individual variation,” says Kraus.

In other words, you’re going to have to become a study of one. What if exercise doesn’t work for you? “If your HDL drops, maybe exercise isn’t the answer for you,” says Kraus. “For some people, changing their body composition [by losing weight] helps and for others, there are drugs, like niacin, which is very good for raising HDL.”

And who knows -- maybe you’ll be one of the super-responders whose HDL shoots into the stratosphere after a few weeks of daily walks. In any case, the numbers don’t lie: Only 10 percent of people can’t seem to exercise their way to better health. That means the other 90 percent have no excuse.

For more great health & lifestyle content, visit Completely You
Denise Foley   is Completely You’s “News You Can Use” blogger. She is a veteran health writer, the former deputy editor and editor at large of Prevention, and co-author of four books on women’s health and parenting.

Fight Food Addiction

Ever wonder why, when it comes to your favorite foods, one bite always leads to another? Why single-serving packages don’t stop you from eating the equivalent of one entire sleeve of chocolate chip cookies or a whole bag of potato chips?

Come on, you know why. Because it tastes so good.

But science has come up with yet another reason. When you eat because it’s pleasurable and not because you’re hungry, your body activates chemicals that are linked to your brain’s reward system. Yes, that’s right -- just like drugs. Even worse, when your reward system is activated, it overrides the chemical signals that tell your body that you’re full. (Like we need that.)

Italian researchers found this out when they tested eight adults who had already eaten and were full. They fed each of them their own personal favorite foods and then fed them a less palatable food of equal calories. Then, they measured levels of 2-AG, a chemical released by the brain’s reward system, and the appetite-boosting hormone ghrelin. Both were elevated when the study participants were chowing down on their favorite foods, but not when they were eating the other meal. (Read a synopsis of the study here.)

That led scientists to raise the possibility that food can be an addiction in the same way drugs are. In fact, there are ongoing studies looking at whether naltrexone, the medication that diminishes the appetite for certain recreational drugs, may have the same effect on the appetite for food. (Learn more about how your brain chemistry can make you binge here.)

Until those studies are completed, we may be left with 100-year-old advice from humorist Mark Twain, who wrote, “The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don’t want, drink what you don’t like, and do what you’d rather not.”

It’s not pleasant, but there you have it.

For more great health and lifestyle content, check out the rest of Completely You
Denise Foley   is Completely You’s “News You Can Use” blogger. She is a veteran health writer, the former deputy editor and editor at large of Prevention, and co-author of four books on women’s health and parenting.