What, a way to look younger? Suddenly many readers are paying more attention.
STANFORD, Calif. - Researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine have reversed the effects of aging on the skin of mice, at least for a short period, by blocking the action of a single critical protein.
The work could one day be useful in helping older people heal from an injury as quickly as they did when they were younger, said senior author Howard Chang, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology. However, Chang and his colleagues warned their finding will likely be useful in short-term therapies in older people but not as a potential fountain of youth.
Imagine the size of the market if this could be done safely. Even a risky way to do this would have a big market if regulatory agencies allowed drugs for restoring youthful appearances to be sold with known publicized risks.
NF-kappa-B regulates gene expression. Gene expression changes as we get older. Suppression of NF-kappa-B restored a more youthful pattern of gene expression and made mice look younger.
Chang said people had long known that NF-kappa-B winds its way into a cell's nucleus to control which genes were active. What they didn't know is that many of those genes regulated by the protein have a role in aging.
Chang and Adler tested whether blocking the activity of NF-kappa-B in the skin of older mice for two weeks had a youthful effect. "We found a pretty striking reversal to that of the young skin," Chang said.
First they looked at the genetic changes resulting from blocking NF-kappa-B. After two weeks, the skin of 2-year-old mice had the same genes active as cells in the skin of newborn mice-a striking difference when compared with the skin of a normal 2-year-old mouse. The skin looked more youthful too. It was thicker and more cells appeared to be dividing, much like the skin of a younger mouse.
Sounds great. So why not just develop drugs that suppress NF-kappa-B and slather them on our faces? We'd run the risk of getting cancer.
Chang and Adler caution that their findings aren't likely to be the source of the long-sought fountain of youth. That's because they don't know if the rejuvenating effects of NF-kappa-B are long-lasting. Also, the protein has roles in cancer, the immune system and a range of other functions throughout the body. Suppressing the protein on a long-term basis could very well result in cancers or other diseases that undermine its otherwise youthful effect.
Effective non-toxic cures for cancer would enable the use of many rejuvenation therapies. Lots of mechanisms by which cells become less active as we age are probably anti-cancer defenses. Turning down the metabolism of old damaged cells reduces their ability to start dividing uncontrollably. Only a very very small fraction of all old cells have accumulated the right set of mutations needed to start a cancer. But the body has to suppress a much larger number of cells in order to make sure the smaller number which are near cancerous won't develop into fully cancerous cells.
Another possibility: Gene therapies will some day repair cells that have mutations that increase the risk of cancer. Then drugs that suppress NF-kappa-B could be applied to the skin without risk of cancer.
This discovery is not consistent with conspiracy theories about how oil companies are holding back discoveries of substitutes. Though I'm confidence dedicated conspiracists can reconcile this announcement. Anyway, ExxonMobil claims a discovery by their researchers will make lithium ion batteries usable in cars.
ExxonMobil Chemical and ExxonMobil's Japanese affiliate, Tonen Chemical, have developed new film technologies for lithium-ion batteries with the potential to improve the energy efficiency and affordability of next generation hybrid and electric vehicles.
These new film technologies are expected to significantly enhance the power, safety and reliability of lithium-ion batteries, thereby helping speed the adoption of these smaller and lighter batteries into the next wave of lower-emission vehicles.
“By developing new film technologies that allow lithium-ion batteries to meet hybrid and electric vehicle requirements, ExxonMobil Chemical is helping to make next generation vehicles more energy and cost efficient, as well as lighter,” said Jim P. Harris, senior vice president, ExxonMobil Chemical Company. “We are currently working with industry-leading battery manufacturers to expand the boundaries of current hybrid and electric vehicle applications.”
The nickel metal hydride batteries found in hybrids like the Toyota Prius don't have enough storage capacity and low enough cost to make pluggable hybrids and pure electric cars practical. The great hope is for both cost and safety breakthroughs with lithium-based batteries. A number of companies are chasing this goal. A123Systems and LG Chem are both in the running to supply next gen batteries to General Motors for the Chevy Volt pluggable hybrid. ExxonMobil apparently is making it easier for more lithium battery makers to compete. Sounds good to me.
The film protects batteries from overheating of the sort that caused laptop batteries to catch fire.
Exxon Mobil developed its film with Japanese affiliate Tonen Chemical. Invented in research labs at Exxon Mobil's Baytown complex, the film is the first to squeeze multiple layers of plastic into a single white sheet the width of a human hair.
The added layers enable the batteries to run at higher temperatures — and produce more power — while still protecting them from overheating, company officials said. It also incorporates features that cause it to shut down if there is a short circuit in the battery.
Exxon and Tonen are going into production with this film at a plant in Gumi South Korea.
Exxon says this film will make a new generation of hybrids possible.
"This new technology for making films, will make the next generation of hybrid and electric vehicles possible," said Jim Harris, a senior vice president at ExxonMobil Chemical Co.
The world is in a race between population growth and resource depletion that cause problems and technological advances that solve at least some of those problems. Advances in battery technologies definitely fit the bill as necessary to deal with resource depletion and population growth.
CAMBRIDGE, England, Nov. 26 -- In otherwise healthy men, low testosterone is associated with an increased risk of death from any cause as well as from cardiovascular causes and cancer, researchers here said.
For all-cause mortality, each increase of six nanomoles of testosterone per liter of serum was associated with about a 14% drop in the risk of death, Kay-Tee Khaw, M.B.B.Ch., of the University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, and colleagues reported in the Dec. 4 issue of Circulation.
These results come from a study on over eleven thousand men enrolled in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer in Norfolk England. If you have low testosterone you especially ought to try to reduce other risk factors.
Lead author Dr Kay-Tee Khaw (University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, UK) commented to heartwire: "This is the largest study of testosterone levels ever conducted. We don't know whether the association shown between higher levels of testosterone and lower mortality is causal or just a marker of something else, but regardless of this, it appears that low testosterone levels do identify a group at increased risk of cardiovascular death who could benefit from more aggressive treatments in terms of cholesterol and blood-pressure lowering."
Curiously, the men with higher testosterone did not appear to have higher risk of prostate cancer.
This result is consistent with some other recent studies on this topic. See my posts Low Testosterone Men Die More Rapidly and Low Testosterone Men Die Sooner.
Instead of avoiding fats it probably makes a lot more sense to eat less carbo.
Eating foods high on the glycemic index, which measures the effect of carbohydrates on blood glucose levels, may be associated with the risk for developing type 2 diabetes in Chinese women and in African-American women, according to two studies in the November 26 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives journals. However, eating more cereal fiber may be associated with a reduced risk for type 2 diabetes in African-American women.
Researchers remain uncertain regarding exactly how diet, including carbohydrate intake, affects the development of type 2 diabetes, according to background information in the articles. Studies have revealed that the body absorbs carbohydrates from different foods at different rates. This leads to varying effects on levels of blood glucose and the hormone insulin, which converts glucose into energy. Foods high on the glycemic index, such as rice and other simple carbohydrates, cause a rapid spike and then a drop in blood glucose, whereas high-fiber foods tend to be lower on the glycemic index and have a more gradual effect. Some evidence has linked high–glycemic index foods with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
In one study, Supriya Krishnan, D.Sc., of Boston University School of Public Health, and colleagues examined data from 40,078 U.S. black women who filled out a food questionnaire in 1995. The glycemic index and glycemic load—a measure of the amount of carbohydrates from glucose—were calculated. Every two years through 2003, the women answered follow-up questionnaires about their weight, health and other factors.
A high carbohydrate diet with high glycemic index foods almost doubled the risk of type 2 insulin resistant diabetes.
During the study, 1,608 of the women developed diabetes. Women who consumed more carbohydrates overall were more likely to develop diabetes—when they were split into five groups based on carbohydrate intake, those in the group consuming the most (about 337.6 grams per day) had a 28 percent higher risk than those in the group consuming the least (about 263.5 grams per day). Women who ate diets with a higher glycemic index and who ate more staples such as bread, noodles and rice specifically also had an increased risk. Women who ate 300 grams or more of rice per day were 78 percent more likely to develop diabetes than those who ate less than 200 grams per day.
Chinese women who eat more rice are at higher risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cut way back on grains consumption. If you eat grains then at least eat whole grains. Also, pasta is lower in glycemic index than bread. Check out this long list of foods and their glycemic index values. Shift toward beans and away from grains. Eat more fruits and vegetables and nuts. Also see this cool sortable database of glycemic index and glycemic load of foods.
Here is yet another reason to eat more salmon.
Quebec City, November 26, 2007—Omega-3 fatty acids protect the brain against Parkinson’s disease, according to a study by Université Laval researchers published in the online edition of the FASEB Journal, the journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. This study, supervised by Frederic Calon and Francesca Cicchetti, is the first to demonstrate the protective effect of a diet rich in omega-3 fatty acids against Parkinson’s.
Parkinson’s disease is caused by the progressive death of the neurons responsible for producing dopamine, a neurotransmitter closely linked with movement control. The disease is usually diagnosed when 50 to 80% of these neurons are already dead, and there is currently no medication to stop that process.
The Université Laval research team’s findings could help prevent the disease and, potentially, slow down its progression.
The researchers observed that when mice were fed an omega-3 rich diet, they seemed immune to the effect of MPTP, a toxic compound that causes the same damage to the brain as Parkinson’s. “This compound, which has been used for more than 20 years in Parkinson’s research, works faster than the disease itself and is just as effective in targeting and destroying the dopamine-producing neurons in the brain,” points out Calon.
By contrast, another group of mice that were fed an ordinary diet developed the characteristic symptoms of the disease when injected with MPTP, including a 31% drop in dopamine-producing neurons and a 50% decrease in dopamine levels.
Analyses revealed that omega-3 fatty acids—in particular DHA (docosahexaenoic acid), a specific type of omega-3—had replaced the omega-6 fatty acids already present in the brains of the mice that had been given omega-3 supplementation.
I eat salmon 5 times a week. Most other omega 3 fatty acid sources are inferior in comparison. Though mackerel, sardines, and herring have high omega 3 concentrations close to salmon. But if you are worried about mercury then avoid mackerel since it has very high mercury concentrations.
MIT researchers have shown that a cocktail containing three compounds normally in the blood stream promotes growth of new brain connections and improves cognitive function in rodents. The treatment is now being tested in Alzheimer's patients and could hold promise for other brain diseases and injuries.
The mixture, which includes a type of omega-3 fatty acid, is part of a new approach to attacking Alzheimer's. That approach focuses on correcting the loss of synapses, or connections between neurons, which characterizes the disease.
Each of the components of the mixture boosted synapse growth. But the combination of the 3 substances produced the biggest increase.
In the Brain Research paper, the MIT team reported that rodents given a cocktail of DHA (a type of omega-3 fatty acid), uridine and choline showed a greatly increased concentration of dendritic spines, which receive messages in the postsynaptic neuron. That indicates that synapse regeneration has occurred, which is unusual, Wurtman said.
Synapse regrowth could also prove an effective treatment for other brain diseases, such as Parkinson's, or for brain injuries, he said.
Salmon and eggs might deliver a double punch for increased brain performance.
Omega-3 fatty acids are not produced in the body but are found in a variety of sources, including fish, eggs, flaxseed and meat from grass-fed animals. Choline can be synthesized in the body and obtained through the diet; it is found in meats, nuts and eggs. Uridine cannot be obtained from food sources, but is a component of human breast milk and can be produced in the body.
Nuts and eggs and salmon. That's the ticket.
A couple of New York Times pieces on wind power illustrate some of the obstacles in the way of growth in wind power.
In the United States, one of the areas most suited for wind turbines is the central part of the country, stretching from Texas through the northern Great Plains — far from the coastal population centers that need the most electricity.
In Denmark, which pioneered wind energy in Europe, construction of wind farms has stagnated in recent years. The Danes export much of their wind-generated electricity to Norway and Sweden because it comes in unpredictable surges that often outstrip demand.
In 2003, Ireland put a moratorium on connecting wind farms to its electricity grid because of the strains that power surges were putting on the network; it has since begun connecting them again.
Denmark was able to scale up wind power because it can buy electricity from neighbors when the wind doesn't blow. But if the neighbors do it as well then Denmark will eventually need to build more fossil fuel backup power plants to run when the wind doesn't blow.
The article says that Sweden is better suited for an increase in wind energy because they can use wind electric to pump water up into reservoirs to flow downhill later to generate electricity when the wind doesn't blow. But what's the cost of doing that?
Germany is also hitting limits on wind power.
In Germany, where 20,000 wind turbines generate 5 percent of the electricity, advocates say wind will be critical to meeting the government’s goal of generating at least 20 percent of all power from renewable methods by 2020. But the industry’s growth is slowing for a variety of reasons.
Germany is running out of places to put the turbines because of restrictions on the location and height of the devices. And rising raw material prices are making wind farms more expensive to build.
Germany is responsible for over half the world's photovoltaic demand even though it is so far north and therefore receives lower amounts of sunlight. The Germans are trying very hard to get green with energy. But their country is so densely populated and so far north that they are not well suited for wind and solar as compared to, say, the US great plains for wind or Arizona for sun. The Germans are better candidates for nuclear power than the United States but greenie opposition to nukes there currently has nuclear power on a path to a phase-out there. German Chancellor Angela Merkel might succeed in turning around that phase-out though.
Rising raw materials prices are also making coal plants, nuclear plants, and other electric power plants more expensive to build as well. So it is not clear that wind's relative competitive position is declining due to cost reasons. I suspect in wind's case part of the problem is that manufacturing capacity needs to catch up with the surge in demand.
What I'd like to know: Are more advanced wind turbine designs going to lower wind's cost more rapidly than that of other electric power sources?
The Europeans are putting in wind farms in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Since we are running out of fossil fuels this is the wrong motivation. But fortunately these wind farms will provide very energy when Russian oil deliveries start declining and later when natural gas deliveries start declining as well.
So on the road from Grand Gorge to Stamford you see the yard signs popping up in front of barns and houses — “Yes to Clean Energy” on some, “No Industrial Wind Turbines” or “Save Our Mountains” on others.
It’s a long way from the hellish fires in Southern California or the scary drought in the Southeast to the Catskills. But for those contemplating the issues of climate change and the roadway to greener energy, it’s not so far away at all. Whatever role climate change may be playing right now, it’s clear that even something so elemental as the wind is as subject to the vagaries of politics, self-interest and community dynamics as anything else.
“I will say this just once: not in my backyard,” Mr. Many said, when asked to characterize the discord. “People in Delaware County think it ought to be in the Adirondacks. People in the Adirondacks think it should be in the ocean off Massachusetts. Teddy Kennedy thinks it should be somewhere else. Everyone wants alternative energy, but no one wants it where they have to look at it.”
I love NIMBYism. In this era of so much faux concern for others it is refreshing to hear such clear selfish declarations. But can't we be more practical in our NIMBYism? Both nuclear and solar have much less esthetic impact. If I was going to get my view of mountains and valleys ruined by a wind far that covers a wide area I'd argue for a nuclear plant that covers a much smaller area and produces far more power. I'd also argue for an acceleration of research on photovoltaic materials such as thin films and nanotubes.
Of the big four sources of net generation (coal, nuclear, natural gas, and conventional hydroelectric), only hydroelectric generation showed a decrease from August 2006 to August 2007, as it was down by 7.9 percent. According to NOAA, “severe to extreme drought” affected about 29 percent of the contiguous United States and approximately 44 percent of the contiguous United States fell in the “moderate to extreme drought” category. Coal generation in August 2007 was up 0.6 percent from August 2006 and net generation attributable to nuclear sources was up 1.0 percent over the same period. Natural gas-fired generation was up 13.6 percent from its August 2006 level as more peaking generation was needed in the warmer month. Petroleum liquid-fired generation was down 10.9 compared to a year ago, and its overall share of net generation was still quite small compared to coal, nuclear, and natural gas-fired sources. Wind-powered generation was 47.8 percent higher in August 2007 than it was in August 2006.
But a look at wind's contribution in absolute terms yields a different picture. The absolute increase in nuclear generation, at 6.2 million MWh more, was much greater than the absolute increase in wind generation, at 3.6 million MWh more. To put dollar signs on this keep in mind that average retail electricity sells for about 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. So that represents an increase in nuclear power sales of about $620 million and for wind power about $360 million. Maybe cut those numbers in half to get an idea of how much money was paid to the actual generating companies. Anyone have a more accurate way to estate that?
The biggest absolute increase came from natural gas and the second biggest came from coal. Even the increase from petroleum liquids was greater than that from wind.
Year-to-date, net generation was 1.6 percent higher (43.1 million MWh more) than the same period in 2006, as the economy continued to grow, according to the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. Net generation attributable to coal-fired plants was up by 1.4 percent (19.0 million MWh more) compared to the same period in 2006, and nuclear net generation was up by 1.2 percent (6.2 million MWh more). Generation from petroleum liquids was 19.8 percent higher (6.3 million MWh higher) while generation from natural gas was 6.9 percent higher (39.0 million MWh higher). Year-to-date, net generation attributable to conventional hydroelectric sources was 13.4 percent lower (down 28.5 million MWh) than it was in 2006 due to the aforementioned drought conditions. Wind-powered generation year-to-date was 21.0 percent higher than in 2006 and contributed over 3.6 million MWh, or 8.4 percent of the increase in net generation year to date. Even with these significant increases, the contribution of wind-powered net generation to the National total year-to-date was only 0.7 percent through August 2007.
At 0.7% wind power is still a very minor electric power contributor. Electricity, in turn, is only one of the ways we use energy. Given all the non-electric use of natural gas, oil, and other fossil fuels wind power's contribution to the total power usage is even smaller.
I find the increase electric generation from petroleum liquids puzzling. Oil is about 3 times more expensive than natural gas per million BTUs. So why the big increase in petroleum liquids for electricity? Anyone know?
We need to shift more uses of energy from oil to electricity. Oil production is near a peak and we are going to need to move away from it by using more electrically powered devices. Cheaper wind (though not in my backyard or on any mountain range I like to look at) is part of the solution. But we really need photovoltaics cost breakthroughs, more nuclear power, and more research into ways to make nuclear power cheaper. I think solar and nuclear power should be our biggest sources of energy in the future with wind in third place.
Update: Another New York Times article discusses the growing anti-wind movement in many countries due mostly to esthetic considerations.
Supporters see modern wind turbines not as Don Quixote’s ferocious giants but as elegant symbols of a clean-energy future. But as the industry expands amid global pressure to cut carbon emissions and fight climate change, an increasingly mobilized anti-wind farm lobby in Europe, North America and elsewhere is decrying the turbines as ugly, noisy and destructive, especially for picturesque locales that rely on tourism. “These are not just one or two turbines spinning majestically in the blue sky and billowing clouds,” said Lisa Linowes, executive director of Industrial Wind Action Group, an international advocacy group based in New Hampshire that opposes wind farms.
Greeks are fighting against wind because 16% of their economy is based on tourism. Englishmen don't want their views of castles and Hadrian's Wall ruined by 100 meter high wind towers with huge blades.
“The eyes are constantly drawn to them,” said John Ferguson, a member of S.O.U.L. (or Save Our Unspoilt Landscape), a group opposing the nine-turbine Barmoor Wind Farm in the lush northeastern English county of Northumberland. Several wind farm developers are considering Northumberland, whose castles and national parks are a big tourist draw.
There's a solution to this problem. It is called nuclear power. SOUL has used Photoshop or a similar program to show what huge wind towers will look like in different locations in English countryside. I've been unenthused about wind power for a long time on aesthetic grounds. I'm happy to hear opposition has become more organized. If you are wondering whether wind towers might get built near you check out maps of wind speed at 80 meters high above the ground.
Lead toxicity to the brain appears to kick in at pretty low blood levels of lead.
Even very small amounts of lead in children's blood -- amounts well below the current federal standard -- are associated with reduced IQ scores, finds a new six-year Cornell study.
The study examined the effect of lead exposure on cognitive function in children whose blood-lead levels (BLLs) were below the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) standard of 10 micrograms per deciliter (mcg/dl) -- about 100 parts per billion. The researchers compared children whose BLLs were between 0 and 5 mcg/dl with children in the 5-10 mcg/dl range.
"Even after taking into consideration family and environmental factors known to affect a child's cognitive performance, blood lead played a significant role in predicting nonverbal IQ scores," says Richard Canfield, a senior researcher in Cornell's Division of Nutritional Sciences and senior author of the study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. "We found that the average IQ scores of children with BLLs of only 5 to 10 mcg/dl were about 5 points lower than the IQ scores of children with BLLs less than 5 mcg/dl. This indicates an adverse effect on children who have a BLL substantially below the CDC standard, suggesting the need for more stringent regulations," he said.
Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and B1 (thiamine) enhance lead excretion. Screening of children in high risk neighborhoods might identify neighborhoods where children should take a multivitamin that will raise their IQs by reducing lead toxicity. A 5 point IQ jump would pay back the cost of the screening and vitamins many times over.
Some people think women need to go on diets after giving birth in order to take off weight gained while pregnant. But the weight gained while pregnant might not be the biggest problem. Time taken to care for babies might cause a state of sleep deficiency that causes weight gain.
Mothers who reported sleeping five hours or less per day when their babies were six months old had a threefold higher risk for substantial weight retention (11 pounds or more) at their baby’s first birthday than moms who slept seven hours per day, according to a new study by Kaiser Permanente and Harvard Medical School / Harvard Pilgrim Health Care.
The study, published in the November issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology, is the first to look at the impact of sleep deprivation on postpartum weight retention. Previous studies have looked at the effect of early postpartum sleep deprivation on mothers’ cognitive and emotional health but never associated weight gain.
“We’ve known for some time that sleep deprivation is associated with weight gain and obesity in the general population, but this study shows that getting enough sleep – even just two hours more – may be as important as a healthy diet and exercise for new mothers to return to their pre-pregnancy weight,” said Erica P. Gunderson, PhD, an investigator at the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Oakland and the lead author of the study.
This result is consistent with other studies which find sleep deficiency promotes weight gain. The interesting twist on this study is that the stereotype of women losing their figures when they have kids might be explained by lack of sleep rather than by a permanent change in their metabolism caused by pregnancy.
What to do about it? Babies are oblivious to the needs of their mothers and some babies wake up a lot in the middle of the night.
The lack of sleep is stressful and increases disease risks.
The study also found that mothers who slept fewer hours at one year postpartum than they did at six months postpartum had twice the risk of substantial weight retention. Other studies have shown that persistent sleep deprivation causes hormonal changes that may stimulate appetite. Shorter sleep duration has not only been linked to obesity in women, but coronary artery disease and diabetes as well.
Some research backs up the idea of letting babies cry themselves to sleep.
Mothers who learn to let their babies cry themselves to sleep have better nights and suffer less postnatal depression, research suggests.
A report in the British Medical Journal found that teaching mothers "controlled crying" techniques significantly reduced sleep problems.
Another method is called core night. See some other techniques for getting babies to sleep/.
Babies reach for wooden dolls which they see help other dolls?
New Haven, Conn.—In the first evidence of its kind to date, Yale researchers find that infants prefer individuals who help others to those who either do nothing, or interfere with others’ goals, it is reported today in Nature.
“This supports the view that our ability to evaluate people is a biological adaptation—universal and unlearned,” said the authors of the study.
The study included six-and-10-month-old babies whose preferences were determined by recording which of two actors they reached towards.
In the first experiment, infants saw a wooden character with large glued-on eyes known as “The Climber.” At first, the climber rested at the bottom of a hill. The climber repeatedly tried without success to make it up the hill and was then either helped to the top by a triangular character that pushed the climber from behind, or hindered by a square character that pushed the climber down the hill.
During the test phase—after the infants had sufficiently processed the events—the researchers measured the infants’ attitudes towards the helper and hinderer by seeing which characters they reached for. Fourteen of the 16 10-month-olds, and all 12 six-month-olds, preferred the helper. A second experiment ruled out the possibility that the infants were merely responding to the direction in which the figures were moving. In a third experiment, infants of both ages preferred a helper to a neutral party, and then a neutral party over one who hindered.
What about the two infants that reached for the hinderer? Young Eric Cartmans? Bad to the bone? Or dumb clueless Forrest Gumps? Do the kids with autism or Asperger's Syndrome express a preference for the helpers?
Get a pedometer to measure your walking and adopt a goal.
Dena M. Bravata, M.D., M.S., of Stanford University, Calif., and colleagues evaluated the association between pedometer use and physical activity and health outcomes among adults. The authors searched databases for studies and articles on this topic, and identified 26 studies with a total of 2,767 participants that met inclusion criteria (eight randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 18 observational studies). The participants’ average age was 49 years and 85 percent were women. The average intervention duration was 18 weeks.
In the RCTs, pedometer users significantly increased their physical activity by 2,491 steps per day more than control participants. Among the observational studies, pedometer users significantly increased their physical activity by 2,183 steps per day over baseline (2,000 steps is about one mile). Overall, pedometer users increased their physical activity by 26.9 percent over baseline. Among the intervention characteristics, having a step goal was the key predictor of increased physical activity. The three studies that did not include a step goal had no significant improvement in physical activity with pedometer use in contrast to increases of more than 2,000 steps per day with the use of a 10,000-step-per-day goal or other goal.
Intervention participants significantly decreased their body mass index by 0.38 from baseline. This reduction was associated with older age and having a step goal. Participants also significantly decreased their systolic blood pressure by 3.8 mm Hg, which was associated with greater systolic blood pressure at baseline and change in steps per day.
Use technology to give you immediate feedback in progress toward goals. Makes sense.
I'm thinking I ought to get a pedometer.Go for the the pocket Omron HJ-720ITC or the corded Omron HJ-112? Does the pocket one work as well?
Led by Dr. Randall Holcombe, director of clinical research at the Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at UC Irvine, the study followed up on previous in vitro studies showing that resveratrol, a nutritional supplement derived from grape extract, blocks a cellular signaling pathway known as the Wnt pathway. The Wnt pathway has been linked to more than 85 percent of sporadic colon cancers, which is the most common form of colon cancer.
The UC Irvine researchers conducted their study with colon cancer patients. One group was given 20 milligrams daily of resveratrol as a pill; another drank 120 grams daily of grape powder mixed in water; and a third drank 80 grams daily of grape powder.
While the supplements did not have an impact on existing tumors, biopsied colon tissue showed that Wnt signaling in the patients taking 80 grams of grape powder was significantly reduced. Similar changes were not seen in patients taking the higher dose of grape powder or the resveratrol pills.
So excess is not always best and the whole food has advantages over the supplement pill.
Up for a pound of grapes every day?
Eighty grams of grape powder equal a half glass of wine or 1 pound of grapes, which is equivalent to three dietary servings of grapes, according to the USDA.
The wine has alcohol that will increase your risk of some cancers. Grape juice might be more effective.
My general take on studies about specific foods is that they typically are too short in duration and each food has such limited effect that we can't tell whether eating that food for years and years will increase your odds of survival. Remember, you can reduce your risk of a single disease but as a side effect increase your risk of something else. Or maybe you weren't at much risk of, say, colon cancer in the first place.
Whereas studies about whole categories of foods (e.g. vegetables and fruits) typically involve larger groups of people for longer periods of time. So we can state with some confidence that eating lots of fruits and vegetables will increase your life expectancy. But how much of the benefit is coming from particular fruits or vegetables is less clear.
Some of the benefit of fruits and vegetables is probably coming from a displacement effect. The fruits and vegetables displace less healthy foods from the diet. Eat a lot of vegetables and therefore eat less white flour and other refined high glycemic index foods.
The US federal government isn't doing much to improve home heating furnace energy efficiency.
Under the new rule, the US Department of Energy (DOE) in 2015 will require nonweatherized gas-fired furnaces – the kind most used for home heating – to be 80 percent energy efficient. That's up from the current mandate of 78 percent.
...
But that slight uptick won't have much impact on natural gas use since 99 percent of furnaces sold are already at that level, industry data show.
The manufacturers didn't want to be forced to a higher minimum standard since that would make the cheapest gas burning furnace more expensive. That would cause them to lose some sales to heat pumps, oil furnaces, and other heat generators. Well, the industry got its way.
My guess is a higher standard would have been cost justifiable. I especially suspect that since I expect natural gas prices to go up faster than the overall rate of inflation.
Under the DOE's new efficiency standards, consumers will save $700 million and prevent 7.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from wafting into the atmosphere, over 24 years, DOE says. Had DOE instituted a 90 percent standard, consumers would save at least $11 billion and prevent the release of 141 metric tons of CO2 over the same time period, according to separate analyses from the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy as well as Dow Chemical and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Some states (at least Maryland, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island) impose higher standards. So how much more do gas furnaces cost in those states?
Various heating devices come at more than one efficiency level. For example, heat pumps from the same manufacturer come at different efficiency levels. So if you want to get a new furnace or heat pump make sure you compare and consider how much efficiency you gain in the more expensive models.
I found a web calculator page for comparing cost effectiveness of different heating methods. Note that their default values for the energy sources are from a few years back and you need to put higher costs in for just about every energy source. For electricity use 10 cents per kwh or use the number for your state in that chart or check your electric bill. At the time of this writing heating oil in the US is averaging $3.21 per gallon. For propane the cost is $2.43 per gallon. At those prices a ground source (geothermal) heat pump is about a fourth the cost of oil or propane per BTU of generated heat. At least in the Baltimore area natural gas is going for about 92 cents per therm. That makes natural gas less than a third the cost of oil for heating. Geothermal heat pumps produce the most heat per dollar spent on energy inputs than other sources. But geothermal heat pumps also cost the most for initial installation ($18,000.00 to $35,000.00).
In colder climates where natural gas is not available the geothermal heat pumps already pay back quickly enough. Plus, since heat pumps run off of electricity their operating costs won't go up as fast as oil or natural gas. Natural gas prices are going to rise as US and Canadian natural gas production declines and as more users of oil shift to natural gas. But I do not expect the inflation rate for electricity to be as high as the inflation rates for oil or natural gasl. Electricity has a long run cost ceiling that isn't much higher than the cost of electricity today because nuclear power only costs about 2 cents a kwh more than coal. Though electricity prices can go higher when fossil fuels start running out and before a lot of nuclear plants and wind towers can get built. But once oil production starts declining the cost advantage of using electricity to drive heat pumps will become much bigger.
Space heat and hot water account for about 4.9% of US oil usage. So a replacement all oil furnaces by geothermal and air heat pumps would reduce US oil usage by almost 5%. This is a shift that will pay for itself in dollars saved.
Update If you are considering putting in a wood boiler furnace regulatory risk should be a consideration. Many municipalities are restricting or banning wood boilers as heat sources due to air quality concerns.
Concerned about air quality and neighborhood disputes, Hampden joined a growing number of communities nationwide setting their own rules on the increasingly popular wood boilers, which are not federally regulated. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommends emissions and air quality standards, but does not regulate where and when the wood-fired burners can be installed or used.
Rules are patchy on the state level, too.
Some states, including Connecticut and Maine, have regulations and let their municipalities adopt even stricter limits or ban the boilers altogether. Massachusetts has considered statewide rules but has not enacted them, while Michigan offers a model ordinance that local governments can adopt in the absence of statewide standards.
More sparsely populated rural areas are less likely to regulate the use of wood for heat. So if you have few neighbors you probably have minimal regulatory risk from spending $10,000 to $15,000 on a wood furnace. Though once fossil fuels production declines the rising demand for wood for both heating and biomass energy conversion will probably drive up prices of wood. My guess is electricity doesn't face as much upside price risk as wood.
Update: Migration of heating to geothermal heat pumps should be treated as an urgent matter. Why? See the October 23, 2007 CalTech lecture by Matthews Simmons "Is The Future Of Energy Sustainable" (PDF format). The production of oil is going to go into steep decline. We need to shift in advance as many processes as possible away from oil before that decline becomes steep and highly disruptive.
Update II: Also read the excellent Simmons Bermuda presentation (PDF format).
In a paper to be published Nov. 22 in the online edition of the journal Science, a team of University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers reports the genetic reprogramming of human skin cells to create cells indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells.
...
The new study was conducted in the laboratory of UW-Madison biologist James Thomson, the scientist who first coaxed stem cells from human embryos in 1998. It was led by Junying Yu of the Genome Center of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center.
For several years I've been expecting clever scientists to figure out ways to basically program around the limitations on embryonic stem cell research. By finding ways to turn the knobs on genetic switches in the cell it was inevitable that scientists would figure out how to make cells change state into embryonic cells. They will next find more genetic knobs to turn in order to convert embryonic cells into precisely desired cell types and they will even find ways convert between various non-embryonic cell types while totally avoiding an intermediate state where the cells are like embryonic cells. Cells are just complex state machines. The next few decades of advance in biotechnology can be seen as a series of advances in techniques for causing desired and useful cell state transitions.
Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University led a separate team that also accomplished this same goal of reprogramming adult skin cells to turn them into pluripotent stem cells
The same feat is reported in the journal Cell by Prof Yamanaka with colleagues in Japan and America, the scientist who pioneered this approach of "nuclear reprogramming" in mice. He too reports that a simple recipe turns human skin cells into embryonic stem cell-like cells, he calls "iPS" cells.
From about 50,000 human cells treated with four factors introduced by a virus, his team obtained 10 distinct kinds of embryonic like cells.
"This efficiency may sound very low," said Prof Yamanaka but in practice it means a single experiment in a Petri dish will yield several lines of embryo like cells, while cloning would require dozens of human eggs to achieve the same feat.
Each team introduced 4 genes into the nucleus to create this effect.
Doug Melton, a stem-cell researcher at Harvard University, heralded the breakthrough.
Yamanaka, of Kyoto University in Japan, last year was the first to reveal the successful creation of reprogrammed cells in mice; he and two other research groups published improvements on that step this July. Many scientists thought it would take years to do the same with human cells.
"We appear to be closer than we ever thought we might be to a day when we could use this alternative method," Melton said in prepared remarks.
Though Thomson and Yamanaka both reprogrammed human skin cells using four genes, their methods differed slightly. They used different viruses to deliver the genes. Both used genes called Oct4 and Sox2, but Thomson used two others called Nanog and Lin28, while Yamanaka used c-Myc and Klf4.
These results aren't surprising. The most important difference between embryonic cells and adult cells is whch genes are activated. These scientists basically figured out how to apply a software patch to human cells that made them express genes that make them act like embryonic cells. Scientists have already identified these genes as active in early stage embryonic stem cells and have experimented with activating them in mouse cells.
These results might not yet provide perfect substitutes for embryonic stem cells.
"While this is exciting basic research, it could still take years to get this to work in humans in a way that could be used clinically," said Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer of Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass. "I cannot overstate that this is early-stage research and that we should not abandon other areas of stem cell research."
It seems unlikely that these cells have been pushed into a state that is exactly like the state of an embryonic stem cell. That state might have very subtle aspects that are important in ways we have not yet discovered. The cells created by these two new methods might suffer lingering effects from the introduced genes and a technique to silence those genes at some later step might be needed. But then cloning didn't produce perfect embryonic stem cells either.
Christian opponents of embryonic stem cell research are celebrating this discovery since the result reduces the advantage of working with embryo-derived cells.
Today, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins praised the research of Dr. James Thomson and Dr. Shinya Yamanaka. Thomson, the first to grow human embryonic stem cells, and Yamanaka from Japan, published results in the journals Science and Cell, respectively, showing that embryonic-type stem cells can be produced directly from ordinary human skin cells, without first creating or destroying human embryos
Here's yet another group opposed to embryonic stem cell research who are hailing this result
Wesley J. Smith, the Discovery Institute's Senior Fellow in Bioethics and author of Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World, hailed the breakthrough as demonstrating that ethical science is also good science: "Everyone should applaud this tremendous scientific achievement. We now have the very real potential of developing thriving and robust stem cell medicine and scientific research sectors that will bridge, rather than exacerbate, our moral differences over the importance and meaning of human life."
They are happy about this result because it probably will make the use of embryonic stem cells unnecessary. But the result also seems to show that the difference between embryonic stem cells and other cells is just different settings on a few genetic switches in the cell. So doesn't this result make embryonic stem cells seem less magical and less supernatural?
On the front page today the Wall Street Journal basically legitimized the coming of peak oil.
A growing number of oil-industry chieftains are endorsing an idea long deemed fringe: The world is approaching a practical limit to the number of barrels of crude oil that can be pumped every day.
Some predict that, despite the world's fast-growing thirst for oil, producers could hit that ceiling as soon as 2012. This rough limit -- which two senior industry officials recently pegged at about 100 million barrels a day -- is well short of global demand projections over the next few decades. Current production is about 85 million barrels a day.
The WSJ writers refer to peak oil theorists as "debased" and try to put distance between the supposedly more legitimate statements now coming from the titans of the oil industry and the predictions of supposed peak oil nuts. I think these writers are unfair in their treatment of the lower status and, in their eyes, less legitimate theorizing of petroleum geologists and physicists. How dare anyone but owners and top managers of capital get taken seriously? But the titans of industry were not long ago painting a far rosier energy picture (as were inept national and international energy information agencies) and I'm finding it hard to see them as the more legitimate experts on this topic. The sharpest peak oil theorists are looking a lot more accurate in their assessments than the CEOs of big oil companies.
It is becoming harder to label someone as a fringe kook for saying that Peak Oil is coming Real Soon Now. You can still tell us we are wrong. But I'm no longer fringe on this topic and that of course makes all the difference in the world. It creates a problem for me personally. How can I be cutting edge? Now I've got to find more topics to be fringe on since some of my major themes are heading into mainstream legitimacy and acceptance.
Who are these non-fringe people who say we are nearing the peak? ConocoPhillips CEO James Mulva says we'll never hit 100 million barrels per day.
"I don't think we're going to see the supply go over 100- million barrels a day. Where is it all going to come from?" Conoco CEO Jim Mulva said at an investor conference in New York.
I've got readers complaining to me that I need to take global warming seriously and get out of the denial mode. Well, Peak Oil is going to do far more to cut CO2 emissions than the Kyoto Accords would have done had they actually been adhered to. All those models that projected future CO2 emissions based on the world using 130+ million barrels of oil a day are based on unrealistic assumptions. I doubt we'll even reach 95 million barrels per day. Then comes the downhill slope. Or are we already on it?
Jeffrey J. Brown (aka Westexas at The Oil Drum) says the real problem is that net exports will decline even more rapidly than total production.
Kenneth Deffeyes predicted that world oil production (note that he used crude + condensate, not total liquids) would peak between 2004 and 2008, most likely in 2005. He observed that world crude oil production probably peaked in 2000, but he never backed off what his mathematical model showed.
The cumulative shortfall between what the world would have produced at the May, 2005 rate and what it has actually produced is over 700 mb (EIA, crude + condensate). So, the crude oil data suggest that we probably did peak in 2005.
However, the real problem is net export capacity. We are working on our final written report on the top five net oil exporters (about half of current world net oil exporters), but note that their total liquids net exports fell by -3.3%/year from 2005 to 2006, and the decline in net exports is almost certainly going to accelerate from 2006 to 2007. This is the fundamental reason for high oil prices--we are bidding against other importers for declining net oil exports.
Brown and his often co-writer khebab (Samuel Foucher) argue that oil exported from current net oil exporters (countries that make more oil than they use internally) will decline more rapidly than oil production in those exporters. They call this the Export Land Model as they group all the oil exporters into "Export Land" and the rest of us in "Import Land". They expect more rapid growth in demand in oil exporters will cause their exports to drop even before their production does. This is an extremely important observation. The amount of oil available to buy will go down even faster than the decline rate of oil production. Worse yet, the number of people bidding on that oil is going up due to population growth and economic growth. Asian economic growth - especially in China - is going to bid oil prices up so much that oil imports into the United States, Europe, and Japan will decline more rapidly than oil exports from producers.
Think about that.
There's a wild card that could make the short to medium term picture even worse: Countries with large oil reserves could decide to lower production even more rapidly in order to conserve oil to sell later. With prices in the stratosphere why sell as much as you can sell now if the high prices at a lower production rate will give you plenty of cash to run your government and placate your population?
Given the plateau and decline in world oil production (the second graph is really bad news) and khebab's guesses on possible future trends in production I gotta say I'm feeling job insecurity. Stuart Staniford thinks production declines in some big existing fields might even accelerate. Not good. China might take any increase in oil production in 2008 (but Hamish McRae is being optimistic in assuming there'll be an increase for China to take).
The present climb in the oil price has coincided with rising demand from China. Put it this way: China used about three-quarters of the additional supply of oil in the world last year. The economic team at ING Bank notes that China may account for all the additional production this year. If China is to go on using all the additional oil that is available, or more, the rest of the world will have to get by with less. This makes the present surge in the oil price different from all previous oil shocks: it is caused by rising demand rather than restricted supply.
Recently I've gone through a shift in my thinking about Peak Oil. I'm no longer worried about trying to figure out when it will come. The analytical curiosity about future events has been replaced with something that is beginning to feel more like fear. Peak Oil looks to be coming soon enough that I'm thinking more along the line of how to earn a decent living while economies around the world go through one year after another of wrenching recession.
Got any constructive thoughts about adaptation? I'm keen to hear them.
Given the trend in world oil production (the second graph is really bad news) we urgently need new energy technologies. Luckily, we can find plenty of signs that venture capitalists recognize the scope of the problem and the opportunity to massively profit from new energy sources. (and you VCs feel free to offer me a job)
Nick Parker, chairman of the Cleantech Group of analysts, said: "There is no doubt this year will break records in terms of the amount invested. But this year will also be notable for the amount of commercial take-up of clean technologies."
Last year, more than $4bn (£1.9bn) of venture capital was invested in environmental technologies such as renewable energy, water technologies and carbon reduction technologies. The sector is now the biggest recipient of venture capital funds in the US, and in the first three quarters alone about $3.8bn of venture capital was invested, Mr Parker said.
Take all these figures with a grain of salt. There are lots of types of investments getting counted up together in broad categories relating to energy and the environment. But all signs are that energy has become a very attractive area for VC funding.
Venture capital firms poured nearly $900 million - a record - into U.S. startups developing clean and green energy systems in the three months that ended Sept. 30, according to a report out today.
The total flow of dollars to all U.S. startups - $8.07 billion - rose 8 percent compared with the same three months last year, and the energy category soared 28 percent, according to data furnished by the San Francisco office of Dow Jones Venture One.
The quarterly MoneyTree report by the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers and the trade group National Venture Capital Association finds venture capital funding going up in general with a big surge in energy.
With investments in the emerging "clean tech" industry continuing to soar, Silicon Valley companies received more than $2.48 billion in venture capital in the third quarter of 2007 - a sign that the valley's entrepreneurial culture is thriving despite broader economic worries.
The quarterly MoneyTree Report found that the valley's total venture investments, while dipping slightly from the previous quarter, represented robust 9 percent year-over-year growth. As usual, Silicon Valley and the broader Bay Area outpaced other tech hubs by a wide margin, reaping 35 percent of the $7.1 billion in venture investments in the United States.
My guess is that the big surge in clean tech funding is due to rising oil prices. The regulatory environment for pollution and recycling just hasn't tightened up fast enough this year to account for such a huge surge in funding.
Nationally, the clean tech industry, which crosses traditional MoneyTree sectors and comprises alternative energy, pollution and recycling, power supplies and conservation, saw record investment levels with $844 million going into 62 deals in the third quarter. This represented an 80 percent increase in the dollar level and 35 percent increase in the number of deals in the sector over the second quarter of the year.
A list of top 10 VC deals in 3Q 2007 has 2 energy entrants.
2. $100 million in GreatPoint Energy, which converts coal and biomass into clean, natural gas.
...
4. $77 million in HelioVault, developer of technology for depositing thin-film photovoltaic coatings.
Also in 3Q Konarka got $45 million for solar photovoltaics.
Interest in clean energy was especially keen, as oil prices soared toward $90 a barrel. In addition to the GreatPoint deal, one of the largest financing rounds ever in the alternative energy field, Konarka Technologies Inc., a Lowell company developing solar cells for building materials and mobile phones, raised $45 million.
Some of these companies are going to succeed. I am cheering them on. Declining world oil production is going to make the development of substitutes a very urgent matter. The economic disruption due to declining oil is going to be enormous. Even with great substitutes hitting the market in the nick of time we are still going to get hit by obsolescence of massive amounts of capital equipment and personal possessions that are dependent on oil-based products to make them work. The need to replace all that equipment will therefore lower living standards during the transition period to solar, wind, nuclear, and geothermal power.
This trend toward larger amounts of VC funding for energy did not just start. See my December 2005 and March 2007 posts about venture capital funding for energy.
A decade ago, the saiga antelope seemed so secure that conservationists fighting to save the rhino from poaching suggested using saiga horn in traditional Chinese medicines as a substitute for rhino horn.
...
In 1993, over a million saiga antelopes roamed the steppes of Russia and Kazakhstan. Today, fewer than 30,000 remain, most of them females. So many males have been shot for their horns, which are exported to China to be used in traditional fever cures, that the antelope may not be able to recover unaided.
By way of Alex Tabarrok.
The demand for folk medicine in China is wiping out lots of species. The World Conservation Union says most of the bear species are threatened with extinction and Chinese medicine is one of the causes.
Six of the world's eight species of bear are threatened with extinction, according to a report from the World Conservation Union (IUCN).
The smallest species of bear, the sun bear, has been included on the list for the first time, while the giant panda remains endangered, despite comprehensive conservation efforts in China.
China is going to keep industrializing and Chinese buying power for parts of endangered species is going to keep rising. At the same time, deforestation driven by Asian industrialization, population growth, and other factors will continue.
The main threat to bears across south-east Asia comes from poaching. Although illegal, poachers are prepared the risk the small chance of being caught against the lucrative gains they can make from sales on the black market.
Prized bear body parts include the gall bladder, which is used in traditional Chinese medicine, and their paw, which is considered to be a delicacy.
Another threat to bear populations comes from living in close proximity to human settlements. Bears are often killed when they prey on livestock or raid crops, or killed when the roam too close to a village because they are seen as a threat to human safety.
The Chinese raise incarcerated bears to extract bile for medicine. That probably saves some of the wild bears from death. But animal rights campaigners oppose using captive bears for bile extraction.
Even with a new state-approved "free drip" method of extracting bile, China's incarcerated bears lead miserable, pain-wracked lives, said campaigner Jill Robinson, who says she won't rest until the 7,000 bears kept on China's farms are free.
Tigers are in rapid decline too.
In the past 100 years, tiger populations around the world have declined by 95 percent. In India, home to at least half of the world’s tigers, only an estimated 1,500 remain, a decline of more than 50 percent since 2001, according to the government-run National Tiger Conservation Authority. In the past six years, it is believed, tigers have been killed at a rate of nearly one a day.
Over the next 20 years, the tiger population could “disappear in many places, or shrink to the point of ecological extinction,” according to a 2006 report by the World Wildlife Fund and the Smithsonian National Zoological Park in Washington.
Several factors have contributed to the decline in India, including a growing human population. There is also a demand for tiger parts from places such as China, where tiger skins priced at $12,000 and more are used for luxury clothes and wall hangings, and where equally pricey tiger bones are used in traditional medicines. Compounding the problem, wildlife activists say, is a pro-development Indian government more concerned with the economy than the environment.
Other types of species are also threatened.
More than 30 per cent of the world's amphibians, 23 per cent of mammals and 12per cent of birds are now threatened with extinction. More than 75 per cent of fish stocks are fully or overly exploited. Six in 10 of the world's leading rivers have been either dammed or diverted. One in 10 of these rivers no longer reaches the sea for part of the year. More than two million people die prematurely every year from indoor and outdoor pollution. Less than 1 per cent of the world's marine ecosystems are protected.
Humans are like "a plague of ravenous insects".
Humans affect, and are affected by, the environment to an enormous degree. The GEO-4 report includes a number of disquieting statistics on humanity. The global population has grown by 1.7 billion in the 20 years since 1987, to a grand total of 6.7 billion. And these 6.7 billion humans consume like a plague of ravenous insects. One small example noted in the report: every year, 1.1million to 3.4million tonnes of undressed wild animal meat, or bushmeat, is eaten by people living in the Congo basin.
Except the insects serve as food for birds and other animals. Humans are on the top of food chains.
Humanity's footprint on ecosystems keeps getting larger. This can't continue indefinitely. All exponential trends must stop eventually. I would like this one to stop short of ecological disaster.
A study in Plos One reports cocaine abuse alters gene expression in ways that might make coke heads remember and hunger for another dose of coke.