The theory behind how exercise works to improve mood centers around endorphins, “feel-good” chemicals made by the brain. Working out increases endorphin levels, which improves mood and gives some people a “runner’s high.” Research back in 2007 suggested that yoga might not have a large an impact on endorphin levels, but did effect levels of something called GABA, or gamma-Aminobutyric acid, a neurotransmitter. Low GABA levels aren’t just associated with depression, but also with anxiety.

Now those researchers are back with a new, bigger study. The results? Yoga did improve GABA levels. More importantly, test subjects doing 3 hours of yoga a week “reported lower levels of anxiety and increases in their mood” than control subjects who walked 3 hours a week. This was true even though the yoga group burned fewer calories and did not get their heart rates into what most people consider the aerobic exercise “zone” of 65-85% of maximum estimated heart rate. However, they did confirm that yoga resulted in improved strength, flexibility, and balance.

The bottom line is that yoga can lighten you up in addition to making you stronger and more flexible.

Her Take: If your doctor has recommended exercise to help improve your mental health, don’t neglect flexibility! A bit of yoga can be helpful in addition to cardio exercise such as walking, particularly if you suffer from anxiety.

Tweet This Post

The doctors behind this idea claim that most statins can easily counteract the fat found in “a quarter pounder with cheese and a small milkshake,” although they do concede that it would have almost no impact on someone who only eats such a meal once a year. Their target is the person who eats a fast food meal most days. They also claim that this additional “condiment” wouldn’t cost any more than a packet of ketchup.

It’s worth pointing out that “Representatives from Merck, which manufactures Lipitor, and Pfizer, maker of Zocor, declined to comment on the idea.” They stand to make a lot of money if such an idea is implemented, yet they remain silent. Even many doctors criticize the idea, saying things like:

Let’s get real; we should be encouraging healthy lifestyles, not pill popping. This is an unwelcome addition to the ‘pill for every ill’ attitude that’s already much too common. The danger of this research is that some people will become even more complacent about eating fatty food and high calorie food, and might even increase their intake of them.

Or this:

“The suggestion that the harmful effects of a junk food meal might be erased by taking a cholesterol-lowering statin tablet should not be taken literally. Statins are a vital medicine for people with, or at high risk of developing, heart disease. They are not a magic bullet.”

Statins may have a low risk of side effects, but there are side effects and drug interactions to consider. In fact, some research suggests that even doctors underestimate the side effects their patients experience. Moreover, a recent metastudy shows that statins do not reduce the risk of death by heart disease, leading others to join the chorus suggesting that statins are over-prescribed in the United States. Another problem to consider is that some people may overdose on these proposed free statins, either because they take it in addition to their prescription or because they are eating multiple fast food meals daily.

Her take: This was an ill-conceived idea that should have been published on April Fools Day, if at all. I have no idea how this made it’s way into the pages of the American Journal of Cardiology, a generally respected peer reviewed journal. Not even the makers of statins are willing to stand behind this ludicrous idea.

Tweet This Post

From the abstract of the research paper (emphasis added):

Traditionally, glucose and fructose have been considered as interchangeable monosaccharide substrates that are similarly metabolized, and little attention has been given to sugars other than glucose. However, fructose intake has increased dramatically in recent decades and cellular uptake of glucose and fructose uses distinct transporters. Here, we report that fructose provides an alternative substrate to induce pancreatic cancer cell proliferation. Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different; in comparison with glucose, fructose induces thiamine-dependent transketolase flux and is preferentially metabolized via the nonoxidative pentose phosphate pathway to synthesize nucleic acids and increase uric acid production. These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation.

In short, the human body does absolutely treat glucose and fructose differently, and cancer cells — at least pancreatic cancer cells — like fructose better than glucose. Fructose makes cancers grow faster. This is such big news that even some political sites are picking it up, some suggesting that those with cancer or a cancer risk should probably avoid HFCS. In truth, based on the research, cancer patients might be well advised to avoid added sugars in general and perhaps even limit fruit intake in favor of vegetables.

It is true that HFCS is not pure fructose. It’s also true that table sugar, honey, and even fruit contain fructose in addition to glucose — just less fructose that HFCS. However, it is also true that for the typical American on an average “western diet,” the overwhelming majority of the fructose likely to be consumed is in the form of HFCS. It’s in your soft drinks, in your cheap plastic wrapped pastries, in your afternoon pick-me-up candy bar. Corn syrup is even in places you wouldn’t expect it, like pre-made pasta sauce.

Her take: While the study points out that “fructose intake has increased dramatically in recent decades” in the United States, it does not go the one step further to ponder whether this increase might have something to do with the obesity epidemic that has risen at the same time.

Tweet This Post

Enter the SelectTech 552,  the smaller of the adjustable weight sets made by Bowflex. Bowflex is owned by Nautilus, which also makes a variety of exercise equipment under its own name, Schwinn, and Universal Home Fitness. The 552 allows the user to lift between 5 and 52.5 pounds and switch easily between various weights. But at a retail price of $399, the price seems steep. Is it worth the investment?

Ease of use

There is no question that SelectTech weights are easy to use and generally quick to switch between various weights. This makes them ideal for DVD workouts where there is often not much time to change the plates on traditional dumbbells. All you need to do is crank the dials on each end to your desired weight. Unused plates sit in the base after you lift the adjusted dumbbell. While it does adjust more quickly and easily than other adjustable sets we have tried, every now and then it will stick, but a quick jerk or shake returns the weights to normal function. Also, if you move the base by itself, you may end up dropping a plate by accident — hopefully not on your toes.

Between 5 and 25 pounds, you can adjust in 2.5 pound increments, which is handy for those times when perhaps you’re not sure you can handle five more pounds. Between 25 and 50 pounds, you only get 5 pound increments. In this range, they anticipate that you are probably working the large muscles of the lower body, so the extra weight is not generally a liability.

The shaped, rubberized grips are solid. Those with delicate hands will appreciate the fact that this grip is less likely to rip up your hand or leave calluses than cast weights. You’ll have to work really hard to get sweaty enough to shake your grip on these weights, but it is doable.

Space friendly

SelectTech brags on their site that the 552 set replaces 15 sets of weights and the larger 1090 (10 to 90 lbs) set replaces 17 sets of dumbbells. It can be a challenge to find room for a full rack of dumbbells in most home exercise spaces, so this is a big plus. The SelectTechs can easily be put in the corner out of the way when not in use, particularly if you opt for the ergonomic rolling 2-in-1 stand (an additional $149).

Durability

If you drop a cast dumbbell, your floor is more likely to be damaged than the weight! Not so with SelectTechs. While we have not had any issues, the tumbler mechanism for changing the weight settings is a little delicate; the manufacturer warns you not to drop the weight, or you’ll risk damaging it. Online you can find accounts of broken weights, but we suspect it’s harder to do than not. Our SelectTechs have been in daily use for over a year with no problems whatsoever.

Size Matters

The fact that SelectTech offers two sizes tells us a bit about their target demographic. Buyers of the 552 set are more likely to be women, or at the very least relatively novice weightlifters. The ad copy even says “gradually increase your strength without bulking up” — something mostly the ladies will want. Big guys who have been lifting a while may scoff at  a mere 52.5 pounds of resistance in each hand! They are likely to want the big 1090 set. Even then they may get to the point where they have to visit a full service weightlifting gym with machines or heavy barbells — and other big strong guys who can act as spotters.

Another size issue is not so obvious. The weight itself is physically large: 16 5/8″, or 42 cm long. For those with small frames or short arms, this length can be a liability during certain exercises. The size can interfere with form during some types of curls for instance.

Value

In addition to not taking up as much space as 15 sets of weights, you won’t have to buy all those weights either. It turns out that a full set can run $800-1000, without the rack (easily another $100). Granted, if you are a beginning lifter, you won’t need all that weight right away and can purchase dumbbells as you need them (what is your time worth?), but it will cost you even more by the time you get to 50 lbs. As pricey as SelectTechs seem, they also compare favorably to the cost of a gym membership over the course of just a year.

The Verdict

We’re happy with ours, and gladly recommend them for the strength portion of your workout.

Tweet This Post

Many scientists agree that humans evolved to eat roughly equal amounts of Omega 3 to Omega 6 fatty acids. Unfortunately, the modern Western diet that many Americans eat has roughly 15 times as much Omega 6 as Omega 3. This is partly because of modern agricultural practices including feeding corn to meat animals. According to one metastudy (emphasis added):

In the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, a ratio of 4/1 was associated with a 70% decrease in total mortality. A ratio of 2.5/1 reduced rectal cell proliferation in patients with colorectal cancer, whereas a ratio of 4/1 with the same amount of omega-3 PUFA had no effect. The lower omega-6/omega-3 ratio in women with breast cancer was associated with decreased risk. A ratio of 2-3/1 suppressed inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and a ratio of 5/1 had a beneficial effect on patients with asthma, whereas a ratio of 10/1 had adverse consequences.

Research to be published in a few days paints an even more bleak picture:

To perform their experiments, the researchers exposed four generations of mice to a Western-style diet, characterized by these same omega 6/omega 3 ratios. As a result, they saw a gradual increase in fat mass over several generations. They also observed the onset of metabolic disorders such as insulin resistance, which is the first step in the development of type 2 diabetes and a stimulation of the expression of the inflammatory genes involved in obesity.

Each generation of mice was fatter than their forebears while eating a diet high in Omega 6 fatty acids. There was no change in diet or activity level over the 4 generations; more of the same resulted in fatter mice with each generation. Scientists speculate that they may have found just one cause of the increasing obesity epidemic.

This is not to say that there is no point in putting your dietary house in order today. On the contrary, it’s a reason for parents to be more diligent in selecting quality, healthy foods for their families.

Her take: I do take issue with the last sentence of the press release on this research: “The agrifood industry needs to take greater account of the implications of these findings.” The “agrifood industry” is in the business of making money, and the existence of some of the chemistry sets sold as food — particularly to children — should alert you to the fact that our health is not their primary goal. It is our responsibility as consumers to make our best effort to be informed and choose healthy food. If more consumers demanded healthier products such as grass-fed beef, the “agrifood industry” would find a way to make it available to us.

Tweet This Post