Americans Drug Their Children with 300 Percent More Psychotropic Meds

 (NaturalNews) Psychotropic drugs are prescribed to children in the United States at three times the rate of children in Europe, according to one of the first studies to rigorously compare such prescription patterns between different countries.

"There is significantly greater use of atypical antipsychotics and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)-type antidepressants for child mental health treatment in U.S. than in Western Europe," lead researcher Julie Zito said.

Zito and colleagues from the University of Maryland's School of Pharmacy examined the prescription of psychotropic drugs, including stimulants such as Ritalin and antidepressants such as Prozac, to more than 600,000 people under the age of 20 in the United States, Germany and the Netherlands between 1999 and 2000. They found that 6.7 percent of children in the United States, 2.9 percent of those in the Netherlands and 2 percent of those in Germany were taking at least one psychotropic drug at the time.

Among U.S. children between the ages of five and nine, the rate was more than 8 percent, or four times the European rate. The use of more than one drug at a time by U.S. children was also widespread.

Looking specifically at different classes of medications, the researchers found that U.S. children were prescribed antidepressants and stimulants at three or more times the rate of children in Europe, and antipsychotics at between 1.5 and 2.2 times the European rate.

In the United States, more than 75 percent of psychotropic drugs were prescribed to children "off-label," for uses not approved by the FDA.

The findings were published online in the journals Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health and BioMed Central.

Zito noted that the prescription of psychotropics in the United States has probably increased in the eight years since the study's completion.

"The US trends appear to be continuing," she said.

The researchers proffered several possible explanations for the vast differences in prescription rates between the United States and Europe.

Part of the difference may be due to different diagnosis systems, with less stringent requirements in the United States for a diagnosis of mental illness in children. For example, the criteria for a U.S. diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are much easier to meet than for the equivalent European hyperkinetic disorder. Likewise, a diagnosis of childhood bipolar disorder is much more common in the United States.

Other differences in the medical establishments include a much higher per capita number of child psychiatrists in the United States (meaning there are more people to write psychotropic prescriptions) and the European public health system's aversion to prescribing expensive, patented antidepressants and antipsychotics. European doctors are also less comfortable prescribing stimulants to children; the practice was actually banned in France while the study was being conducted.

Another possible explanation is cultural: doctors and patients in the United States are much more likely to turn to pharmaceutical remedies than Europeans are.

"Direct-to-consumer drug advertising, which is common in the U.S., is also likely to account for some of the differences," the researchers wrote. "The increased use of medication in the U.S. also reflects the individualist and activist therapeutic mentality of U.S. medical culture."

"It has been said many times that the U.S. has a sick-care system, rather than a health-care system, with a particular emphasis on use of drugs and procedures for diagnosed conditions," said David L. Katz, director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University School of Medicine. "This study reaffirms that pattern, with more use of medication for various mental health conditions among children in the U.S than other countries."

Zito warned that with most psychotropics being used by children off-label, much more caution is needed in prescribing and post-prescription monitoring.

"Until we have better evidence, we need to be conducting close monitoring of off-label use to assure parents that the benefits of medications outweigh the risks of unnecessary use (when the benefit is inadequate) or risk of adverse events such as increased glucose levels and lipid levels for youth receiving atypical neuroleptics," she said.

http://www.naturalnews.com/025375.html

Billions to Suffer Food Shortages

 (NaturalNews) Scientists are warning that approximately half of the entire world population may face severe food shortages by the end of the century due to increasing temperatures affecting crop yields.

Elevated temperatures are threatening crops such as rice and maize and these crops may decline by 20 to 40 percent during the tropic and sub tropic growing season. In addition, warmer temperatures in these regions are predicted to increase the likelihood of drought. This would further exacerbate the predicted crop losses.

The hardest hit areas are expected to be the poor and densely inhabited regions along the equatorial belt. Demand for food in these areas is already increasing due to a rapid increase in population.

A recent study in the US Journal Science determined that there is a 90 percent chance that the coolest temperatures during the growing season in the tropic regions will be more than the hottest recorded temperatures between the years 1900 and 2006. Other more temperate regions like Europe may see their previous high record temperatures become the normal temperatures by the year 2100.

The affect of temperatures alone is expected to be substantial, but this does not factor in the problem of water supplies being affected by elevated temperatures. These two situations typically go together.

Food shortages are historically severe in response to rising temperatures and heat waves. For example, in Western Europe in 2003 a record heat wave was responsible for the deaths of approximately 52,000 people. Crop yields of wheat and fodder were reduced by a third. Additionally, in 1972 a heat wave during the summer months in southeast Ukraine and southwest Russia was responsible for a decrease in wheat and grain yields by 13 percent. The affect on the global cereal market lasted for two years after this occurred.

Another problem is that historically when there were crop and weather difficulties for various areas from year to year there were other places to find food. In the future there may not be other places to turn to for food without careful planning.

The tropic and sub tropic regions are the home of approximately 3 billion people. These increases in temperatures are predicted to have a greater impact in the tropic regions because the food grown there is not as resilient to climate changes. In addition, the population in these areas is predicted to come close to doubling by the end of this century.

The bottom line is that hundreds of millions of additional people are going to be hungry and searching for food because they will not have it where they now have it. The key to withstanding a climate change of this sort is an investment in research to learn how to adapt to the changing climate.

http://www.naturalnews.com/025370.html

Vegetarian Author John Robbins Financially Hit Hard by Madoff Ponzi Scheme Collapse

 (NaturalNews) The $50 billion Ponzi scheme operated by Wall Street criminal Bernie Madoff has reportedly struck a victim in the vegetarian foods community: John Robbins, author of Diet For A New America and other popular food culture books has been reportedly wiped out.

A letter on VegSource.com (http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/...) asks readers to send money to Robbins and help him and his wife pay their mortgage, saying "To economize, the family has rented out every extra room in their house and every spare space on their property. Still, it is not clear if they will be able to pay their mortgage or keep the property they share with their son, his wife and their two grandsons. Both Michelle and Deo have taken on part time jobs, and Deo has also taken over the formerly paid for day care for their special needs grandchildren."

I'm not sure what to make of all this, actually. Robbins is a legend in the health food movement, and I tremendously admire and respect his work. He's a hugely inspiring, uplifting individual who should probably be put in charge of the USDA in my opinion.

I'm not sure that his investment loss rises to the level of a grassroots call for action, however. What's essentially happening here, folks, is that the vegetarian community is being asked by VegSource.com to raise bailout money to reimburse Robbins for personal investment losses.

If Robbins were having his freedom or his health threatened, that would be different. I'd be the first to jump to his aid and ask for grassroots donations. I'd do the same for any number of other visionary leaders of the health revolution movement. But should the natural health community members really be asked to raise bailout money for one individual (even a visionary leader) that got taken by Wall Street?

You can voice your opinion below by posting in the comment section. If you wish to send a donation to support Robbins, you can send it to John Robbins, c/o Patti Breitman, 12 Rally Court, Fairfax, CA 94930. Make the check out to John Robbins.

If Robbins were in danger of having his freedom threatened (if he were arrested by the FTC, for example), or if his health were in jeopardy, I would be among the first to jump to his aid. But is it really appropriate to call for a grassroots fundraising campaign to reimburse a celebrity author for riches they lost due to a bad or unlucky investment decision?

Robbins is in no way starving, after all. And the money he lost is likely a sizable fortune that most health-conscious consumers could never hope to save in a lifetime. Robbins is simply experiencing the same financial disaster that has befallen countless other Americans with far poorer prospects for earning it back.

In fact, what Madoff did to Robbins, the Fed is doing to everybody!

None of us are going to escape this financial implosion unscathed. We would all do well to focus on what's important in life: Health, family, spirituality and purpose. And in that department, Robbins is steeped in great riches.

By the way, just so you know I'm not adhering to some sort of double standard here, I'm currently living on less than $1,000 a month in expenses. That's because I sold my house in 2006 (before the crash), and I recently moved to a small, simple house with a single-car garage, donating away entire truckloads of belongings I had been clinging to for years. It was a spiritually freeing experience, and I've found so much greater happiness living a simple, low-cost life than I ever experienced when I used to live in a large home filled with stuff. I've come to realize that the bigger your house, the poorer you really are because your stuff owns you!

I have no debt, no mortgage and virtually no furniture other than a bed, a couch and a computer desk. I own no jewelry (other than a wedding ring) and no fancy decorations. I drive a Toyota and my wife and I make most of our own food at home, using simple, low-cost ingredients. This transformation has occurred in the last two years. In 2006, for example, I lived in a magnificent home with an expensive mortgage and lots of nice stuff. I gave all that up and found much greater happiness and a lot less stress living a simple, low-cost lifestyle that's 100% free from debt and credit card bills.

Robbins gets that. He's the kind of transformative individual that, if forced to sell his house and live in a tent, would likely manage to find great inspiration in it. He'd write his next bestselling book based on the spiritual enlightenment gleaned from the situation, and the royalties on that book would earn him new financial riches that could once again pay the mortgage.

Losing money sucks. Losing ALL your money sucks even worse. But Robbins has not lost his health, his incredible mental capacity, his family, his freedom or his remarkable ability to write bestselling books and earn his way back to significant riches.

In other words, Robbins' worst day is better than the best days of many people. And while sending a check to Robbins right now is a wonderful expression of human compassion for someone who lost a fortune, I can think of a long list of other people in far more devastating circumstances who need the money more. I also believe Robbins likely agrees with everything I'm saying in this article, and it's worth noting that he himself never asked anybody for financial assistance. This is being done on his behalf by VegSource.com, most likely without his knowledge or permission.

This is a fascinating moral issue that I think deserves discussion among the natural health community. The question is: What should be the criteria for calling for a grassroots campaign to raise money for an individual or a cause?

Personally, I do not believe that an individual's private financial investment decisions, no matter how bad the outcome, rise to a level that should trigger a call for a grassroots fundraising campaign from the health-conscious community. You may disagree, and that's fine. If you do disagree, please share your own process for deciding where to donate money. Should donations be based on need? Celebrity status? Popularity? Emotional connection? If Al Gore lost his fortune on Wall Street, would you donate money to Al Gore? I don't mean these questions to be satirical in any way. They are serious, mindful questions asked here with all sincerity.

Postpartum Depression can be Prevented without Drugs

 (NaturalNews) It's not unusual to have some mood swings after giving birth. After all, new mothers are usually sleep deprived for a while and they can be extra tired from the rigors of childbirth, too. But for some women, serious depression occurs. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), postpartum depression affects around 10 to 15% of women a few weeks to a year after they give birth. Symptoms include feeling restless, anxious, sad, having a sense of worthlessness and sometimes worrying about hurting themselves of their babies.

Like actress Brooke Shields, who went public with her account of her own struggle with postpartum depression, many women are prescribed antidepressant drugs, usually SSRIs like Prozac or Paxil. But are those often side effect-loaded medications necessary?

According to a new University of Toronto study just published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), there's an effective non-drug way to prevent postpartum depression in many moms after childbirth. The key is a common sense, practical strategy no doubt used by countless mothers throughout history -- heart-to-heart talks with other women who have given birth and understand the experiences moms go through taking care of newborns.

Dr. Cindy-Lee Dennis, an associate professor at the Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing and Canada research chair in perinatal community health at the University of Toronto, headed the research which studied the effectiveness of telephone peer support for new mothers. The researchers screened more than 21,000 women from seven health regions in Ontario and then recruited 701 high risk mothers who were randomized to receive standard postnatal care or standard care and the support of a peer volunteer. All the peer volunteers were women who had "been there, done that" when it comes to both childbirth and experiencing postnatal depression themselves.

By 12 weeks, the peer support had cut the risk of postpartum depression by 50% in the group of high risk women, compared to those in the control group. The new moms were receptive to the heart-to-heart chats with their volunteer peers and more than 80% reported they were pleased with the experience and would recommend this kind of support to other new mothers.

"Women and family members need to be educated about postnatal depression so they can recognize the symptoms. Treatment needs to be convenient and accessible to new mothers," Dr. Dennis stated in an editorial in the BMJ accompanying her study. She also pointed out that many women don't want to take the often-prescribed antidepressants, especially when they want to breastfeed their babies.

http://www.naturalnews.com/025365.html

Allergies Linked to Reduced Cancer Risk

 (NaturalNews) In the instant-solution and quick-fix world that is the present day, allergy reactions are often quelled using chemical drugs in order to bring about a quick end to any physical discomfort which one may be going through. However, recent research published in The Quarterly Review of Biology has strongly suggested that allergies have an important role to play - protection against toxic substances which cause certain types of cancer.

Details and Findings of Study

The article, which was written by researchers from Cornell University, has given an indication that the symptoms of allergies may help ward off cancer by doing their part to expel foreign particles, some of which may be carcinogenic or carry carcinogens with them, from the body. Allergic reactions also serve as alarm bells for potential harmful substances in the air.

A link between allergies and cancer has long been postulated in the medical community. But after many studies carried out on the subject, confusion still persists, with some studies finding positive correlation between the two (i.e. cancer patients suffered from more allergies), some finding the opposite, and some unable to establish any association at all.

But some light was shed when the Cornell study team looked at close to 650 previous studies carried out in the last half a century and examined the effects of different types of cancer as well as specific types of allergic reactions. Their findings were more than interesting.

Stronger Link Found in Organs Which Had Direct Contact With Environmental Particles

Negative correlation between allergies and cancer were a lot more likely to be found with regard to cancers of organs which had direct contact with particles from the environment external to the body. These include the mouth, throat, cervix, pancreas, glial brain cells, colon as well as rectum. Just to recap, a negative correlation means that those who suffered more from allergies were less likely to also have cancer - this implies a protective effect of the former on the latter.

Such negative correlation, however, was less likely for cancers of tissues which were more isolated, such as the breasts, prostate and meningeal brain cells; correlation was also weaker for myeloma, myelocytic leukemia and non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

With regard to specific types of allergic reactions, negative correlation between allergies and cancer was only found for those reactions associated with bodily tissues which had direct exposure to external attacks - namely eczema, food allergies, meat allergies, hay fever and hives.

Exception for Asthma and Lung Cancer

It seems that an exception may exist for asthma and lung cancer, though. Most of the previous studies analyzed had found a positive correlation between the two. And the study team explained that, "essentially, asthma obstructs clearance of pulmonary mucous, blocking any potentially prophylactic benefit of allergic expulsion". On the flip side, other lung-related allergies have protective effects.

Should We Be Suppressing Allergic Reactions?

The key takeaway from this study is that, if allergies are the body's natural means of protecting itself against disease, then why are we turning this mechanism off via artificial intervention?

According to the study team, more research in this area will be needed. "We hope that our analyses and arguments will encourage such cost / benefit analyses. More importantly, we hope that our work will stimulate reconsideration [...] of the current prevailing view [...] that allergies are merely disorders of the immune system which, therefore, can be suppressed with impunity," wrote the team, which was led by Paul Sherman, a professor of neurobiology and behavior at Cornell.

The Importance of Uncomfortable Symptoms

In reality, the findings of this study will not come as a huge surprise to those who are vaguely familiar with the basics of natural health and healing. Running noses, coughs, skin breakouts and other symptoms are the body's way of eliminating toxins and unwanted materials which it finds it cannot carry out via the more usual channels. While conventional medicine likes to suppress them, natural healers know that they can be valuable for healing.

In fact, some natural healers even deliberately induce symptoms to speed up the body's recovery processes. One symptom which comes to mind is fever, which helps to kill invading organisms, stimulates the body's production of more immune cells, as well as increases the activity of these cells.

Suppressing symptoms may bring short-term relief for physical discomfort, but it has the potential to do untold harm to the body in the long run. Unfortunately, that is exactly what most people are doing today via the use of chemical medications, which are themselves a source of toxins for the body. What a strange irony.

http://www.naturalnews.com/025364.html

Pomegranate Juice Consumption Boosts Sperm Quality, Motility

 (NaturalNews) Pomegranate juice may improve the health and mobility of sperm when consumed regularly, according to a new study conducted by researchers from Firat University in Turkey and published in the journal Clinical Nutrition.

Twenty-eight male Wistar rats were divided into four groups, and given either 1 mL of water, 0.75 mL of water mixed with 0.25 mL of pomegranate juice, 0.50 mL of water mixed with 0.50 mL of pomegranate juice, or 1 mL of pomegranate juice once per day for seven weeks. At the end of that time, the researchers tested the blood and sperm of the rats.

Compared with the mice drinking only water, the mice drinking concentrated pomegranate juice experienced a 48.5 percent decrease in their blood levels of the reactive carbonyl malondialdehyde (MDA), and a 63.5 percent decrease in the levels of the chemical in their sperm. According to the researchers, sperm cells' high concentration of polyunsaturated fats, which are used to regulate the sperm's growth and development, makes them particularly susceptible to damage from MDA and other peroxidative compounds,.

The researchers also found that due to decreased peroxidation of lipids, the rats that drank the concentrated pomegranate juice had "increased spermatogenic cell density, epididymal sperm concentration, sperm motility and decreased abnormal sperm rate."

They noted that only the concentrated juice, and not the 25 or 50 percent mixtures, showed any benefit when compared with water alone.

Pomegranate juice is known to be rich in antioxidants, particularly a chemical known as punicalagin. It is these compounds that are believed to be behind the fruit's benefits for heart health, cancer and Alzheimer's prevention, and the slowing of cartilage loss from arthritis.

In late 2007, a pilot study published in the International Journal of Impotence Research reported that pomegranate juice had showed success as a way to manage erectile dysfunction.

http://www.naturalnews.com/025359.html

Average Retired Couple Will Pay $376,000 Out-of-Pocket for Health Care Costs, Warns Report

 (NaturalNews) The average couple that does not have its health care subsidized by former employers will need to pay $376,000 for adequate health care after retirement, according to a report released by the Employee Benefit Research Institute.

Researchers calculated the estimated post-retirement Medicare expenses for men, women and couples depending on whether a former employer was subsidizing the costs or not and on how comprehensive of coverage people were willing to pay for. They classified "low risk" coverage as 90 percent likely to be able to cover all medical bills, "medium risk" coverage as only 75 percent likely, and "high risk" coverage as 50 percent likely.

The average 65-year-old man with a former employer subsidizing his health care will need $64,000 for high risk coverage, $96,000 for medium risk and $122,000 for low risk. Without help from a former employer, those numbers go up to $102,000 for high risk, $154,000 for medium risk and $196,000 for low risk.

The average 65-year-old woman with a former employer subsidizing her health care will need $86,000 for high risk coverage, $112,000 for medium risk and $140,000 for low risk. Unsubsidized, the costs increase to $137,000 for high risk, $179,000 for medium risk and $224,000 for low risk.

For subsidized couples, high-risk insurance will cost an average of $154,000, medium risk will be $198,000, and low risk $235,000. For the growing numbers who do not have employer-subsidized coverage, the cost of high-risk insurance will be $246,000, medium risk will be $317,000 and high-risk will be $376,000.

The major medical expense included in the report's figures is medication.

"Understand what it's going to take to cover these expenses," said report co-author Paul Fronstin. "Don't be in denial about whether you are going to have benefits through a former employer in the future."

The researchers noted that their figures do not include the costs of daily living expenses or nursing homes, which would cost extra.

http://www.naturalnews.com/025355.html

Reviews support acupuncture for chronic headache
Last Updated: 2009-01-21 9:43:31 -0400 (Reuters Health)
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - People who need relief from frequent migraines or tension headaches may find some help from acupuncture, two new research reviews suggest.
The reviews, published in the Cochrane Library, pulled together results from 32 clinical trials of using acupuncture to relieve migraine pain or chronic tension-type headaches.
In general, researchers found, migraine patients tended to fare better when acupuncture was added to their standard care, which usually consisted of medication to treat acute migraine attacks.
Overall, 47 percent of patients who had acupuncture added to their care said their number of headache days dropped by half. That compared with 16 percent of those who stayed with standard care alone.
And in four clinical trials that compared acupuncture with drugs used to prevent migraines, acupuncture patients tended to have fewer headaches and fewer side effects.
Similarly, the researchers found that acupuncture cut the frequency of tension headaches -- the common form of headache that, in some people, can cause debilitating pain.
Collectively, the findings show that acupuncture is "an option" for people with frequent migraines or tension headaches, lead researcher Dr. Klaus Linde, of the Technical University of Munich in Germany, told Reuters Health.
"The available findings suggest that the effects can be stable for up to 6 to 12 months," he noted, adding that there have not yet been any well-controlled studies looking beyond that time period.
Acupuncture has been used for more than 2,000 years in Chinese medicine to treat a wide variety of ailments. According to traditional medicine, specific acupuncture points on the skin are connected to internal pathways that conduct energy, or qi ("chee"), and stimulating these points with a fine needle promotes the healthy flow of qi.
Modern research has suggested that acupuncture may help ease pain by altering signals among nerve cells or affecting the release of various chemicals of the central nervous system.
In their review, Linde and his colleagues found that "true" acupuncture using traditional points on the skin was no more effective for migraine pain than "placebo" versions of the procedure -- using blunt needles that do not pierce the skin, for example, or needling non-acupuncture points on the skin.
"Skeptics," Linde said, might consider this to be a sign that acupuncture works only by placebo effect -- that is, patients think their pain is better because they've received the therapy. But, he added, the fact that acupuncture bested preventive drugs in some trials suggests otherwise.
"So it is effective," Linde said, "but other mechanisms besides correct location of needles seem to have a major role."
SOURCE: Cochrane Library, online January 21, 2009.

Drugs For Children Are Not Safe Enough, German Analysis Finds

ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2009) — Drugs are regularly prescribed to children in outpatient care that have not been licensed for children. Pharmacologist Bernd Mühlbauer and his colleagues present the result of their health services analysis in the new edition of Deutsches Ärzteblatt International.
In 2005, about 14 million children and adolescents were prescribed drugs under the statutory health insurance funds. However, not all the prescribed drugs have been licensed for use in this age group.
The authors' analysis contained the first analysis of the approval of medical prescriptions of 289,000 patients aged between 0 and 16 years and insured with the German statutory health insurance provider GEK.
“Off-label use” means that a drug is used outside the approved characteristic, such as age. The main deficiency is that safety is not always guaranteed for infants.
Only 42.5% of prescriptions for neonates were approved and only 82.8% for babies. These figures were under average; prescriptions for older children were mostly in accordance with approval.
At the same time, the authors systematically examined the quality of the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC), i.e., the information for physicians for the medication in question. Because of the lack of information, it was impossible to determine the licensing status for one drug in five.
Bernd Mühlbauer, Katrin Janhsen, Josef Pichler, Petra Schoettler. Off-Label Use of Prescription Drugs in Childhood and Adolescence: An Analysis of Prescription Patterns in Germany. Dtsch Arztebl Int, 2009; 106 (3): 25-31 [link]
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090120074832.htm

Many Of China’s 140 Million Old People Find The Crowd To Be Lonely

ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2009) — China has 20 per cent of the world’s population with 1.4 billion people – but China’s rapid economic and social change has caused its pensioners to feel lonely and alienated, a new study suggests.
Although capitalism has brought prosperity and increased political power to China, it has also caused the weakening of a traditional society that had collectivism and strong family ties at its heart.
The study by Durham University and the University of Reading, published in Ageing and Society, examined in detail two surveys of Chinese people aged 60 years and over in 1992 and 2000 (1). The percentage of older people who said they were lonely has doubled from about 16% in 1992 to 30% in 2000.
While loneliness can severely impact a person’s quality of life, it can also be a triggering factor for mental health issues. The findings suggest that policy makers in China need to take urgent action to assess what is needed to improve the quality of life for its 140 million older people, who collectively amount to the largest older population in the world.
The Durham and Reading University study suggests potential causes for loneliness include a widespread move since the late1970s from highly collectivised communities, where several generations lived under one roof in close proximity to their neighbours, to communities dominated by the nuclear family, many living in impersonal city apartment blocks.
Under the collectivised system in rural areas, communes, brigades and teams were not only responsible for agricultural production but many other community affairs, meaning a high level of social interaction for all.
In today’s economic climate, sons and daughters are more likely to have moved long distances from the country to the city or from one city to another in search of work, often leaving their parents behind. They can work long hours, juggling childcare with the demands of full-time work, and although they send money home, visits can be infrequent. The single-child policy means that older people are increasingly left without a selection of offspring for company and care in their old age.
Lead study author Dr Keming Yang, a Durham University sociologist who hails from China’s third largest city, Tianjin, said: “While economic development has brought many benefits for China, such as money, increased political power and better standards of living, loneliness is one of its negative effects.
“Mao has been roundly criticised for many aspects of his leadership but - like it or not - the way the society was structured at the time effectively provided opportunities for a high level of social interaction, either good or bad.
“There was a lack of competition and a slower pace of life where people had more control over their schedule. Members of the community tended to attend long meetings where they would talk to others about not merely business but personal issues as well.”
But the study authors point out that more detailed research is needed to obtain a more accurate picture outlining the extent of the loneliness problem: Dr Yang added: “While concentrating on economic advancement it is easy to ignore the wider social effects of a richer but more competitive society.
“Experience of capitalist societies to date suggests it is very likely that many other sections of the population, especially young people who are under huge amounts of pressure at school and home, are feeling the same sense of isolation.”
Co-author Professor Christina Victor, of the University of Reading, said: “Levels of loneliness in China are now comparable, or higher than, those observed in Western Europe; therefore, this is not just a problem seen in developed countries.”
Dr Yang said a potential solution for the Chinese authorities to tackle loneliness in the old was to ensure the local community played a greater role in engaging older people in social and group activities, although this would require some financial support.
Footnote:
(1) The surveys used for the study were the Survey of the Support System for the Elderly in China (1992) and the Survey of the Aged Population in China (2,000). Differences in the design of the two studies mean they can not be used as an exact comparison but they are the best statistical indication to date of the problem of loneliness.

Global Impact Of Climate Change On Biodiversity

ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2009) — When three undergraduates set off on an expedition in 1965 to trap moths on Mount Kinabalu in Borneo, little did they realise that they were establishing the groundwork for a study of the impacts of climate change.
New research led by the University of York has repeated the survey 42 years later, and found that, on average, species had moved uphill by about 67 metres over the intervening years to cope with changes in climate.
This is the first demonstration that climate change is affecting the distributions of tropical insects, the most numerous group of animals on Earth, thus representing a major threat to global biodiversity.
University of York PhD student I-Ching Chen – first author of the new study – said: “Tropical insects form the most diverse group of animals on Earth but to-date we have not known whether they were responding to climate change. The last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change AR4 Report showed a gaping hole in the evidence. Our new study is good in that it increases the evidence available, but it is potentially bad for biodiversity.”
Professor Thomas added: “Large numbers of species are completely confined to tropical mountains, such as Mount Kinabalu: many of the species found by the expeditions have never been found anywhere else on Earth. As these species get pushed uphill towards cooler conditions, the amount of land that is available to them gets smaller and smaller. And because most of the top of the mountain is bare rock, they may not be able to find suitable habitats, even if the temperature is right. Some of the species are likely to die out.”
The New Expedition in 2007 was joined by Henry Barlow, one of the members of the original survey, whose life-long enthusiasm for moths helped I-Ching Chen, who is from Taiwan, to come to terms with the sheer diversity of moths she had to identify.
Jeremy Holloway, a Research Associate at the Natural History Museum in London, and another member of the 1965 expedition, devoted his career to the identification (taxonomy) of moths from South East Asia, enabling the research team to identify the new samples. Armed with the data from 1965, moth-trapping equipment, tents, sleeping bags and rations, I-Ching and colleagues set out to repeat the original survey.
“Photographs from the 1965 expedition led us back to exactly the same sites sampled 42 years ago”, said Dr Suzan Benedick, expedition member, and Universiti Malaysia Sabah entomologist.
The new survey involved climbing the mountain and catching moths up to an elevation of 3,675 metres above sea level. Once all of the specimens had been caught and identified, then the team compared the heights at which each species had been found in 1965 and again in 2007. The results revealed a highly statistically significant shift, indicating that the moths are now found higher on the mountain than previously.
There is a more positive note, however. As the highest and coolest location between the Himalaya and New Guinea, Mount Kinabalu represents an extremely important “climate change refuge”. Species that begin to find conditions too hot (or dry) in the surrounding lowlands may be able to find suitable conditions by moving upwards on the slopes of this mountain. “The critical thing is to protect the forests surrounding the mountain, so that the lowland species are able to reach the cooler conditions that they may need,” said Dr Jane Hill, expedition member, and one of I-Ching Chen’s advisors.
I-Ching Chen, Hau-Jie Shiu, Suzan Benedick, Jeremy D. Holloway, Vun Khen Chey, Henry S. Barlow, Jane K. Hill and Chris D. Thomas. Elevation increases in moth assemblages over 42 years on a tropical mountain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, (in press)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121091239.htm

Side Effects Are Doctors' Loyalties Divided? Critics Say Doctors' Speeches Raise Costs, Influence Care Events Amount to Marketing for Drug Companies, They Say Second of Two Parts

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel  01-21-09
Madison -- Amid the evening din of customers ordering martinis and carving up steaks, a few doctors seated themselves at a table in the private dining room at Johnny Delmonico's restaurant.
Wine, steak and a white tablecloth helped set the atmosphere for the guest speaker, Melissa Meredith, a physician and associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health.
Moonlighting for the drug company Amylin, Meredith was there to give a promotional talk about the diabetes drug Byetta.
Meredith was one of more than 40 UW physicians in 2007 who were paid to work as speakers or authors by drug or medical device companies, records show.
The doctors earned annual fees ranging from less than $5,000 to undisclosed amounts exceeding $20,000, according to records. Even if doctors earned hundreds of thousands on the side, they would have to disclose only that they received "more than $20,000."
In most cases, they worked for at least two companies, and sometimes three or four. Several doctors described their work as promotional. It was not uncommon for them to earn at least $2,000 or $2,500 a day, and possibly much more.
It's a practice that increasingly is drawing criticism because of concerns that it can influence patient care and raise the cost of treatment, in addition to blurring the line between research and marketing.
The deans of the state's two medical schools say they would like to ban the practice or severely limit it.
"I am very bothered by our faculty using our school's name in giving non-academic promotional, marketing talks," said Robert Golden, dean of the UW medical school. "It's a major issue we are talking about now."
In October, the Wisconsin Medical Society, as part of its recommendations for ethical behavior, said doctors should not serve as speakers. The group has no authority to regulate or stop the practice.
Drug companies have another tool to promote their products: the use of private firms that act as conduits between pharmaceutical companies and university doctors. On numerous occasions, those firms have hired UW doctors to give talks, and the university acknowledges that it does not know how much they are paid or whether their talks are promotional or educational.
These for-profit firms receive money from drug companies, which then can be used to pay doctors to give talks at conferences and educational events. While the doctors must disclose receiving money from the intermediary company, they do not have to disclose that the money ultimately might have come from a drug company.
Steve Nissen, a cardiologist with the Cleveland Clinic who no longer accepts drug company money, said he is especially worried about university physicians being hired as drug company speakers because of their ability to influence others.
"We're teachers," he said. "It's critically important for academics to be independent."
Company-sponsored lecturing by doctors who work for public universities also raises questions about whether taxpayers are being well-served, said Lisa Bero, a professor in the Department of Clinical Pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco.
"I (as a taxpayer) am paying them to teach students and see patients," Bero said. "I'm not paying them to be a jet-setter on behalf of a multibillion-dollar drug company."
Pharmaceutical companies say university doctors can help educate other doctors about the proper use of drugs.
But drug companies also seek out academic physicians because of their influence. The companies refer to them as key opinion leaders or luminaries.
More prescriptions
Academic physicians can be especially influential on the prescribing habits of other doctors when drug companies hire them to give lectures or to write articles, critics say.
"If they can get one of them to favor their product, it will influence others," Nissen said. "Why would they spend the money if it wasn't effective?"
Often it works like this: A drug company pays a university doctor to give a talk at a local restaurant, clinic or other location to a group of private doctors who are invited by a drug company representative. The doctors may get a nice free dinner. The speaker might get $2,500. The drug company, if it is lucky, will get more doctors writing prescriptions for its drugs.
"They love steakhouses," Nissen said. "I don't believe a talk put on at a steakhouse with a biased speaker is the best way to educate colleagues."
Meredith wouldn't say exactly how much she was paid, but it was in the range of $500 to $2,000, she said.
"In this part of Wisconsin, I am the diabetes doctor," she said.
The talk was one of the 20 or so she says she has given for drug companies in each of the last two years.
"It's promotional," she said. "We all know why we are there and what we are going to hear. You are going to hear about that drug."
Amylin declined to allow a Journal Sentinel reporter to attend the meeting, so the reporter visited the restaurant unannounced and watched the meeting from an adjacent room.
It was a low-key affair -- a handful of people sat at the table with Meredith and the drug representative. Meredith said she talked to the guests about when to use the drug and how to use it correctly. The group drank wine and spent several hours at the restaurant.
Why would a drug company want to shell out thousands of dollars just to get a few doctors to listen to a pitch about one of its drugs?
The answer may be in the math: Byetta, a daily injectable drug, costs each patient about $250 a month, or $3,000 a year.
If just one doctor is swayed to begin prescribing the drug to one patient, it could cover the cost of the talk. If five doctors show up at a talk and begin prescribing the drug to five of their patients, it could mean $75,000 in additional annual sales.
In an interview, Meredith acknowledged that she used slides approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which were provided by the drug company.
"We're just talking heads," she said.
She said she does the talks to supplement her UW pay, which was $135,000 in 2007.
Unreported speeches
Meredith admitted that she did at least 40 such talks in the last two years. But she didn't report a single speech to the university in her conflict-of-interest statements.
She said she did not think work done for drug company speakers bureaus had to be reported.
Golden, dean of the UW medical school, said an investigation into Meredith's consulting work now is being conducted. He said he could not comment beyond that because it was a personnel matter.
However, he said the policy is clear: Faculty members have to report all outside income from organizations in their field, including any income such as giving talks for drug companies.
"I like to think that people here pay attention to regulations," he said. "I have no reason to believe there is any dishonesty among our faculty."
In a statement, Amylin officials said doctors who prescribe the company's medicines should be able to hear from and be trained by other doctors who know the benefits and risks.
The company said it submits its presentation materials to the FDA before they are used by speakers, and Amylin monitors its speaker programs to make sure they comply with FDA regulations.
In August, the FDA said it had received six reports of life- threatening inflammation of the pancreas in Byetta users. Two of the patients died, and the other four were recovering after being hospitalized. The cases involved either bleeding or tissue death in the pancreas.
That follows an FDA alert in October 2007 involving 30 reports of acute inflammation of the pancreas in Byetta users.
Anne Erickson, an Amylin spokeswoman, said: "It has not been established that Byetta causes pancreatitis; however, we cannot rule out that possibility."
She said the company is monitoring the situation and working to "fully understand this very rare occurrence."
Opposition from doctors
Physicians increasingly are speaking out against the practice of drug companies hiring academic physicians to give dinner talks.
Many of the speaking fees are nothing more than de facto gifts, paid to reward doctors for writing lots of prescriptions, said Brian Hurley, a recent medical school graduate and president of the American Medical Student Association.
"When you have them accepting money for speaking on these drugs, essentially doing marketing, in our view, that's incompatible with their role as a teacher," Hurley said. "They are paid for their reputation. When people take their academic education and essentially sell it to industry, their academic credibility goes out the window."
The same doctors who give drug company-paid talks also are teaching impressionable medical students, said Arnold Relman, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and a doctor since 1946.
"I think it is unethical, and it should be banned," he said.
In interviews and disclosure filings, UW doctors said their talks can range from promotional to talking about a disease. In a few cases, they say, they did not mention the name of a drug made by the company that was paying them.
Golden said it is hard to distinguish marketing and education, especially when the talks are done at restaurants and are not accredited as official continuing medical education.
Golden said the medical school is in the process of bolstering its conflict-of-interest policy; that might mean a ban on such talks, but that might not be feasible because of faculty governance and free-speech issues.
"I have no doubt it is going on," he said. "There is a reasonable chance we may end up banning them."
Golden said that if he can't ban such talks, he would like to change the school's conflict-of-interest policy so faculty cannot mention their UW affiliation or use the university's name or logo when giving the talks.
"It would be a huge change," he said.
Any change likely would take effect beginning July 1, he said.
Golden's counterpart at the state's other medical school, the Medical College of Wisconsin in Wauwatosa, said he is planning this year to ban dinner talks and speeches by its doctors that are not part of an accredited continuing medical education event.
Jonathan Ravdin, dean of the Medical College, said he also plans to prohibit the use of drug company-provided slides and scripts.
"This is not benign activity," Ravdin said. "A lot of these industry relationships are marketing."
Ravdin declined to allow the Journal Sentinel to examine disclosure documents filed by Medical College doctors, including money they were paid to give talks for drug companies.
In recent years, the nature of the talks has changed, said UW cardiologist Patrick McBride.
Training sessions
Drug companies started pushing doctors paid to give talks to attend speaker training sessions. The companies also began requiring them to use company-provided slides and scripts, he said.
In 2005 and 2006, McBride gave talks to other doctors that were paid for, respectively, by Merck and Schering-Plough. The two companies jointly market the cholesterol drug Vytorin.
McBride, now associate dean for students, said his talks were about cholesterol, not about a specific drug. And the talks never were promotional, he said.
He said the talks focused on meeting more stringent goals for lowering LDL cholesterol, though Merck and Schering-Plough knew that to meet those goals, their product might have to be used.
"They felt they had a good product, and if I talked about cholesterol, it (Vytorin) would have to come up," he said.
In 2006, it was revealed that Merck had withheld crucial data about its painkiller Vioxx, which was taken off the market in 2004 because it increased the risk of heart attacks, strokes and death.
In December 2007, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce launched an investigation looking into whether there was a delay in revealing the results of a clinical trial of Vytorin until nearly a year and a half after the trial ended. The trial showed that the heavily promoted blockbuster drug did not reduce the buildup of plaque in arteries.
"I really felt like . . . they were acting unethically regarding the reporting of data," McBride said. "I just felt like I didn't want to work with them anymore."
On the disclosure form McBride filed with the university in April, he reported doing no speaking work for drug companies, though he did perform one day as a consultant for each of the two companies.
Firms act as conduits
The full extent of drug company money paid to university doctors for speaking is obscured by the frequent use of for-profit entities known as medical education and communication companies. They are funded by drug companies and used to pay doctors to give speeches, usually as part of continuing medical education programs.
At least a dozen UW doctors were paid to do consulting work by more than 20 such firms.
UW medical school officials acknowledged that they have no idea where the money paid by the firms to UW doctors comes from.
And because of the potential for drug companies to use the go- between firms to get favorable talks about their drugs, UW is considering stricter rules regarding such talks, Golden said.
The university needs to be able to separate the legitimate talks from "the slipperier ones that are just acting as a conduit for laundering support from drug companies," he said.
The growing use of the companies has come under fire by those who say they can be fronts for drug companies, allowing them to reward doctors who give favorable speeches, but without any direct connection between the drug company and the doctor.
One concern is that accredited medical programs are being used by drug companies to market expensive, brand-name drugs, exposing patients to greater risks than they would face with older drugs with more established safety and efficacy. At the same time, those programs might be used to skirt laws that prohibit drug company promotion of off-label uses.
James Stein, a UW cardiologist, said the firms have become a cottage industry over the last several years. While talks put on by the companies often can be educational, oversight can be "pretty lax."
"It is not complete money laundering, but they are partial fronts," he said. "I would say that more than half are bad. They are solely driven by commercial interests. They are promotion-driven."
http://www.lef.org/news/LefDailyNews.htm?NewsID=7803&Section=Disease

Eight Ways To a Healthy Brain

Lancaster New Era Lancaster, PA   01-21-09
If you feel like your memory is getting worse with every passing birthday, you aren’t alone: It happens to all of us as we age.
The good news is, there are ways to help prevent or lessen memory loss, New Era columnist Dr. Andrew Weil says:
Challenge yourself. Medical evidence suggests that lifelong stimulation is the key to building and maintaining brain cells, staving off memory loss and maybe even preventing Alzheimer’s disease.
Take a daily low-dose aspirin. Some studies link the use of aspirin and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) with reduced risk of Alzheimer’s.
Supplement with vitamins C and E. A study at Johns Hopkins University suggested that when taken together, the vitamins might slow the progression of Alzheimer’s.
Use a daily multivitamin that provides adequate levels of folic acid and other B vitamins. They help the body reduce levels of homocysteine, an amino acid formed by the breakdown of animal protein. At elevated levels in the bloodstream, it has been linked with increased risks of Alzheimer’s.
Use healing spices in your cooking: Turmeric, ginger and red pepper can add zing to meals and are all natural anti- inflammatories.
Eat a diet rich in omega-3 fatty acids, including wild Alaskan salmon, sardines, freshly ground flaxseed and walnuts.
Incorporate plenty of fresh organic fruits and vegetables in your meals.
Reduce your intake of polyunsaturated vegetable oils (such as sunflower, corn and safflower oils), replacing them instead with a high-quality extra-virgin olive oil.
http://www.lef.org/news/LefDailyNews.htm?NewsID=7801&Section=Vitamins

What Obama means for functional foods and supplements: Part I

Foodnavigator-USA.com, 20-Jan-2009

As we enter the Obama era today, NutraIngredients-USA.com examines the likely effects of the much-awaited Congressional shift on the functional foods and dietary supplements industries. According to industry veteran Loren Israelsen, the road ahead could be less than positive – especially for supplements.
By all accounts, the election and inauguration of Barak Obama as 44th President of the United States is an event matched by few others in modern American history.
Despite a very severe financial crisis and economic recession, there is a palpable sense of hopefulness that he will reestablish America as a global partner that listens, cooperates and understands the role of government to act as a protector and conservator of natural resources, and as a sensible regulator that protects consumers’ interests while not stifling business growth and opportunity.
Big job. But first, let’s take a look at the truly big picture. President Obama inherits: A deep recession; a jobless rate that will likely climb into the double digits; an auto industry on life support; a massive federal deficit that will push past $2 trillion; banking and retail industries that teeter on the edge; and a tremendous urgency to address and repair Medicare, Medicaid and, most important, America’s healthcare system.
Against this backdrop, the dietary supplement and functional food industry is a minnow in a sea of sharks. Notwithstanding, there are big issues awaiting us. In this article, we will look at some of the players on the supplement/functional food chess board.
The White House chess board
President Obama comes to our industry tabula rasa. We know little about his personal views or use of supplements. His only legislative history is sponsoring a bill to ban the sale of ephedra in the state of Illinois while in that state’s legislature. There are many tantalizing – possibly mythical – rumors of organic gardens on the White House grounds, which if true suggest he and his well-liked wife Michelle fit the profile of LOHAS consumers. But all of this remains to be seen.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services will be Tom Daschle – former majority leader of the Senate and author of a book titled ‘Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis’.
Widely seen as a good choice, Secretary Daschle’s biggest challenge will be entitlement programs: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. He will also have to deal with rebuilding a dispirited and ‘broken’ FDA that has been heavily criticized for approving new prescription drugs only to have them withdrawn from market for safety problems, bungling the management of food safety, and losing many of their best and brightest employees who grew weary over the political meddling of the past White House.
Joining Secretary Daschle is Bill Corr, Deputy Secretary of HHS and a former staff member to Congressman Henry Waxman. Another name to remember is Mark Childress who has been named HHS Chief of Staff. Mr Childress was formerly of Senator Kennedy’s staff and not a friend to the supplement industry.
Finally, another former Waxman staffer, Phil Schillero, has been named White House Legislative Director. We will return to Congressman Waxman shortly.
The Senate threat to DSHEA
Elsewhere in the Senate, our long-time champions Senators Hatch and Harkin remain the primary defenders of DSHEA and the natural products industry. They remain very senior and respected members of the Senate, and yet they will be called upon once again to protect and build on DSHEA, with no new champions of equal stature on the horizon. There are a number of younger members who have signaled their interest and support for natural health issues, and must now be seasoned and tested to demonstrate they can share the work of advancing DSHEA and related matters in the new Congress.
The two key players to follow will be Senator Richard Durbin, Senior Senator of Illinois and No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, and Chairman Henry Waxman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Senator Richard Durbin was one of the first important political figures to endorse Senator Obama and has become a trusted friend, confidant and advisor. Senator Durbin is the most vocal critic of DSHEA in the US Congress.
Herein lies the greatest threat to DSHEA – not an open legislative challenge of current law but rather a quiet discussion between the President and a key advisor that would both set a tone and create the pathway to change DSHEA or grant FDA new authority that could have the effect of limiting access to dietary supplements.
Then we have Chairman Henry Waxman, also a vocal critic of supplements in the Congress and now Chairman of the most powerful committee in the House (Energy and Commerce) which has direct jurisdiction over FDA.
Many of the key White House and HHS appointments noted above have worked for Chairman Waxman, thus creating a fraternity of experienced and now very influential policy makers who have both motive and means to take up the issue of how supplements should be regulated. Again, there are many other pressing issues that demand first attention, but we are now on notice that a battle once won may not be over yet.
Principle piece of the puzzle
The final piece of this puzzle will be the FDA Commissioner yet to be named. There are several names being floated, but at this writing there has been no one confirmed as yet.
That position will truly determine the political zeitgeist for the supplement and functional food world for years to come.
If I had to list a few flashpoint issues that will likely arise in the coming months, they would include:
· The use of stimulants in foods and supplements. How should they be regulated?
· The role of supplements in the military.
· A crack-down on imported drugs and dietary ingredients that contain undeclared spiked pharmaceuticals.
· The need to ‘sift’ the materials coming from China to screen out the bad while encouraging the high end manufacturers that produce superior quality ingredients.
· June 2009 is the effective date for the majority of the supplement industry for GMP compliance. Will FDA dramatically increase inspections, and will we see a true reform of manufacturing quality as a result?
In the coming months, we will have a much clearer understanding of how this new cast of players will begin to affect the world of supplements and functional foods. One thing I can say for sure is there will be changes.
Loren Israelsen is executive director of the supplements trade group United Natural Products Alliance (UNPA), which was instrumental in the development and passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994.
Part II in this series will be published in coming weeks, and will examine the potential impact on industry of the new FDA Commissioner.
What-Obama-means-for-functional-foods-and-supplements-Part-I

Reduced CoQ10 shows superior bioavailability: SGTI study

Nutraingredients.com, 21-Jan-2009

A reduced formulation of Coenzyme Q10 was better absorbed than a standard commercial formulation in a senior population sample, suggests a small company-sponsored study.
Published this month in the Journal of Functional Foods, the study tested the bioavailability of a branded CoQ10 from Californian Soft-Gel Technologies Inc (SGTI).
The firm’s reduced CoQH-CF preparation was found to have “far superior” bioavailability to a commercial formulation supplied by Canada’s Nutri-Chem, according to the authors of the study, which was conducted at the KGK Synergize clinic in London, ON, Canada.
SGTI markets its CoQH-CF as an “enhanced delivery system for ubiquinol” (reduced CoQ10). ‘CF’ stands for ‘crystal-free’, as CoQ10 naturally is in a crystal/powder state.
Absorption obstacles
CoQ10 – or coenzyme Q10 – is a powerful antioxidant, which plays a vital role in the production of chemical energy in mitochondria – the 'power plants' of the cell – by participating in the production of adenosince triphosphate (ATP), the body's co-called 'energy currency'.
It has been studied for its role in cognitive health, heart health, and anti-ageing (in oral and topical formulations). It has also been shown to benefit those suffering from angina, heart attack and hypertension.
Its use in supplements, particularly in the US, has been boosted by the rise in popularity of statin drugs which deplete the body's natural stores of CoQ10.
However, CoQ10 is not easily absorbed by the body, which has spurred the need for innovation in the sector to improve its bioavailability – or the levels that reach the human bloodstream.
“The biggest issue with CoQ10 products is absorption, so instead of focusing on the biological function of CoQ10, it’s almost more important to show better absorption,” said Steve Holtby, president and CEO of SGTI, which sponsored the new study.
“We found that using food-grade d-limonene broke down the CoQ10 crystals without altering its chemical structure, and the idea behind smaller CoQ10 molecules is better absorption (…) Now with this study demonstrating superior absorption in a cohort of aging individuals, our CoQH-CF offers the optimal, ultimate coenzyme Q10 efficacy benefits shown in the years of efficacy research,” he said.
Double-blind
The researchers recruited ten healthy subjects for the study, all over the age of 60. Eight of the participants were female and two were male.
They were randomly and blindly assigned to receive a single dose of one of two test materials, each formulated to contain 100mg of CoQ10.
SGTI’s formulation was encapsulated in a soft gel capsule, while the Nutri-Chem product came in a hard shell capsule.
Blood samples were taken before the CoQ10 was taken, and with the subjects on an empty stomach. They were then given the test dose, together with water and breakfast.
More blood samples were taken two, four, five, six, eight and 12 hours after the dose was administered. Meals were provided after the four- and eight-hour sampling. Participants then left the clinic and returned for more blood samples after 24, 48 and 72 hours.
“Though the pattern of the plasma response curves was similar, the results demonstrated that the plasma total CoQ10 response was 4.3-fold (430 per cent) higher after supplementation with CoQH-CF as compared to the CoQ10 commercial formulation,” wrote the researchers.
“The reduced CoQH-CF preparation was found to be far superior to the commercial formulation for bioavailability and warrants consideration not only as a dietary supplement, but also for clinical application,” they concluded.
Source:
‘A Randomized, Double-Blind, Crossover Trial Comparing the Bioavailability of Two CoQ10 Formulations’
Journal of Functional Foods, I (2009) 65-73
doi: 10.1016/j.jff.2008.09.010
Authors: Malkanthi Evans, Joshua Baisley, Sonya Barss, Najla Guthrie
Reduced-CoQ10 bioavailability study