Wednesday, May 1, 2013

3 reasons your diet is making you fat

Many of us get discouraged when we look at the scale while dieting and don’t see the number dropping or maybe you even gained a pound or two! There are a few reasons why your diet maybe having the opposite effect.

1.       A diet throws your body off balance. Most of the time when we diet we make the diet too strict which slows down our metabolism drastically. For example, cutting fat too much can lead to a surplus of carbs your body can’t burn, which then get stored in your fat cells.

2.       On and Off Mode. On a diet you need to allow yourself to mess up. Most people when they have a cheat meal think they blew the entire diet and slip back into their old ways. You just need consistency! Try not to let it happen but if it does, get right back to the diet the next day or meal.

3.       Diets forbid the most tempting foods you can’t give up. People need to understand it is okay to treat yourself. The more you tell yourself you will never be able to eat that food again, the quicker you will be to indulge in your goodies.
Balance and consistency is the main part of a diet. You have to reach out and eat a lot things you probably don’t like but don’t be afraid to reward yourself with something you do like.

Brittany Cascone, has spent the past 15-years building her reputation and career not only in-front of the camera but also working as a fitness and dance professional with some of the biggest names in the industry. If her face looks familiar, you may have seen Brittany in numerous national fitness campaigns. Brittany has obtained ISO Expert Certifications in Aerobics, Yoga and Pilates.

Smallpox Virus May Help Treat Deadly Form of Breast Cance

(CHICAGO) -- A new form of breast cancer treatment may be… smallpox?

What was once a feared killer of millions of people may someday be used to treat one of the most dangerous forms of breast cancer. So far it’s worked in mice, and researchers are encouraged.

The researchers, from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, have found that a virus from the smallpox family can be used in the treatment of a certain type of breast cancer, called triple-negative breast cancer or TNBC.

This form of breast cancer is especially difficult to treat because it is not sensitive to the special hormonal and immune therapies that many other forms of breast cancer are.  These tumors can often be treated with some chemotherapy, but they tend to be more aggressive and recur more often.

“One of the reasons I wanted to focus on TNBC is that there aren’t many long-term treatment options,” said Dr. Sepideh Gholami, the lead study author and a surgical resident at Stanford University Medical Center. “Right now the only options are surgery and chemotherapy, but these cancers metastasize early on and are really aggressive. Resistance develops fast to multiple agents of chemotherapy so patients run out of options easily.”

It is estimated that about 10 to 20 percent of all breast cancer cases are triple-negative. It is particularly prevalent in women under the age of 35.

Study findings presented today at the 2012 Annual Clinical Congress of the American College of Surgeons showed that the vaccinia virus, called GLV-1h164, was able to enter cells and cause destruction of the tumor, as well as prevent blood vessel growth in the tumors in mouse animal models, resulting in significant tumor destruction.

Since smallpox vaccines have been given to billions of people to eradicate smallpox, this new vaccine will likely have a similar level of safety.  However, its use as a therapy in patients with triple negative breast cancer would require a clinical trial to evaluate its effectiveness.

Copyright 2012 ABC News Radio

Chest Pain

 (HealthDay News) -- Timely follow-up care with a doctor after going to an emergency department with chest pain significantly reduces the risk of heart attack or death among high-risk patients previously diagnosed with heart disease or diabetes, a new study says. Chest pain is the most common reason patients go to the ER, accounting for more than 5 million visits each year in the United States. 
In this study, researchers analyzed data from nearly 57,000 adults, average age 66, in Canada who were diagnosed with chest pain in an ER and had been previously diagnosed with heart disease or diabetes.

Only 17 percent of the patients were evaluated by a cardiologist within a month after their ER visit, 58 percent saw only a primary care doctor, and 25 percent had no doctor follow-up, according to the study published April 1 in the journal Circulation

Compared to patients who did not seek additional care within a month after their ER visit, those who followed up with a cardiologist were 21 percent less likely to have a heart attack or die within a year and those who saw a primary care doctor had a 7 percent lower risk.

Patients treated by cardiologists received more testing and treatment within 100 days of their ER visit and had the best outcomes. Patients seen by cardiologists were 15 percent less likely to have a heart attack or die within a year than those who were seen by primary care doctors. Patients who did not seek any follow-up care whatsoever within a month had the worst outcomes.

The findings show the need to improve follow-up with high-risk chest pain patients after they leave the ER, said study senior author Dr. Dennis Ko, a cardiologist at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, in Toronto. "Being discharged from the emergency department is reassuring for patients, but it is critical that they follow up with their doctor to reduce their risks of future heart attacks or premature death," Ko said in a journal news release. 

"Patients need to advocate for themselves and physicians need to be more diligent about arranging follow-up care."

More information
The MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia has more about chest pain.
Health News Copyright © 2013 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Child's Cancer Vs. Smog Exposure

Exposure to air pollution during pregnancy and the first year of life might increase the likelihood of developing certain childhood cancers, California researchers say.

Researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Public Health collected data on children diagnosed with cancer before the age of 6 and local traffic exposure. The greater the traffic pollution, the higher the odds for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (white blood cell cancer), germ cell tumors (cancers of the testicles, ovaries and other organs) and eye cancer, they found.

These findings do not mean pollution actually causes these cancers, said lead researcher Julia Heck, an assistant researcher in the department of epidemiology. "This finding is an association, because nothing is proven yet," she said.

But the results do suggest that exposure to traffic pollution might increase risk for childhood cancers, Heck added. "Since this was the first study to report risks for these [uncommon childhood] cancers, these findings need to be confirmed in other studies," she said.

Areas of California are known for their unhealthy air. The state‘s topography and its warm, sunny climate tend to form and trap air pollutants, creating smog, according to the California Air Resources Board. The researchers focused on pregnancy because certain cancers originate in the womb, Heck said.

But women shouldn‘t worry about their baby‘s risk for cancer based on this study, another expert said.

"There has been an association between air pollution and other diseases," said Dr. Rubin Cohen, director of the Adult Cystic Fibrosis and Bronchiectasis Center at the Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New Hyde Park, N.Y. "We know that pollution causes asthma, and that is probably more real than the cancer issue."

Cohen isn‘t sure the association between pollution and childhood cancers is causal, and he said there isn‘t much one can do about it anyway. "Moving is easier said than done," he said.

The study findings were scheduled for presentation Tuesday at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research in Washington, D.C. For the study, Heck‘s team collected data on nearly 3,600 children under 6 years old who were born between 1998 and 2007 and listed in the California Cancer Registry. The researchers compared them with a similar number of healthy children.

The researchers were able to estimate the amount of traffic pollution at each child‘s home during the mother‘s pregnancy and the child‘s first year of life. The estimates included exposure to gas and diesel engines as well as traffic volume, emission rates and weather.

Based on their findings, Heck‘s group concluded the risk  for cancer was increased with higher exposure to vehicular air pollution. "In terms of the risk, greater exposure was associated with a 5 percent increase in [acute lymphoblastic leukemia] cancers, an 11 percent increase in eye cancer and a 15 percent increase in testicle, ovary and other organ tumors," Heck said.

But whether any particular period is critical during pregnancy or the child‘s first year wasn‘t clear. Another expert agreed that more research is needed before conclusions can be drawn about any actual risk for cancer from traffic pollution. The study needs to be replicated to see if the same findings are seen in other cities, said Dr. Guillermo DeAngulo, a pediatric oncologist at Miami Children‘s Hospital, in Florida.

"There has been a concern about environmental factors playing a role in cancers," said DeAngulo, who was not involved in the study. "The question is how much of a role they play."

Genetic components also may be involved that may make cancer more likely for some of these children, he said.
Data and conclusions presented at meetings are typically considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

More information
For more information on air pollution, visit the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
Health News Copyright © 2013 HealthDay. All rights reserved.