« November 2007 | Main | January 2008 »
Here's a good recent article about the connection between diet and acne. The article shows how dairy is a probable culprit in developing acne. The two researchers mentioned have published a new book, The Clear Skin Diet, that shows how to reduce acne with dietary changes.
Recently, I've been doing just one easy run per week as a way to maintain endurance. This has worked surprisingly well. In fact, after my recent 12-day layoff from all exercise (other than walking), I went out and jogged a while with no problem.
I don't think running long one day per week is necessarily optimal for endurance, but I just wanted to try and see if it could be done. I will probably fiddle around more with endurance frequency in 2008.
I will be changing this routine in January, but I wanted to document the routine I have been using for a while now.
I had to move to a smaller size pants due to my recent weight loss. Hence, I had to retire some dress pants or else look like I couldn't dress myself properly.
For me, this shows that my plan is working. It's nice because things don't always work out as planned, especially with something as complex as the human body.
In my last post, I discussed my discovery of Vitamin D as a key nutrient in fighting colds/flu. Right after I found this research last Friday, I immediately went to the store and bought some Vitamin D supplements. I took a good bit, as the research suggests there is a high ceiling for toxicity.
My other idea was to try and get some Vitamin D naturally, via sunlight. It is winter here in Buffalo, so outdoor sunlight isn't available. So I did some more research and found that tanning beds can produce Vitamin D.
I am fair-skinned and don't really tan, so I had never been to a tanning bed before. But in the spirit of self-experimentation, off I went to a local tanning salon. I went in one of the cheaper, regular beds because they have the most UVB light, and that is what's chiefly responsible for the body's internal production of Vitamin D. The high-intensity beds strip the UVB light and depend on UVA light to generate a tan.
The tanning experience was actually pretty neat. It felt a bit like lying on the beach. I only spent a short time in the bed, as burning or tanning isn't necessary for the body to produce Vitamin D, just moderate sun exposure.
Whether it was the supplements or the sun, I felt good that night, good enough to do vigorous exercise for the first time in 12 days. The next morning I felt I was back to fulll health.
This could have all been a coincidence; my cold could have just finally run its course during this time, but I highly doubt it. The tanning bed felt good - I will probably experiment with doing it once a week in the winter. And I will keep taking the Vitamin D supplements as well.
During my trip to Florida a couple weeks ago, I seemed to have picked up a "bug" of sorts, perhaps from the airplane flight. Unlike my recent experiences, I wasn't able shake it off quickly.
The last couple of years in Las Vegas, before moving to Buffalo, I didn't really get sick. A few times I felt a bug coming on, but then I would fast for a day and that would knock it out. I tried that with this most recent cold, but it didn't seem to work. The cold kept lingering on.
This last week I put a ton of energy into researching colds. My first thought was, why did I not get sick in Las Vegas but did get sick in Buffalo? Obviously, there's a big temperature difference, but my research led me to what I think is the most important factor: sunlight.
Last year, a major paper was published that linked the lack of Vitamin D to the flu. Vitamin D is naturally produced by the body when it is exposed to sunlight. But in the winter and especially in northern latitudes, the body isn't exposed to sufficient sunlight. However, a person can get Vitamin D though other sources, such as seafood or over-the-counter supplements.
For decades, researchers knew that colds were more prevalent in the winter than the summer, but no one was exactly sure why. One of the authors of the paper, John Cannell, believed that this was simply due to the lack of sunlight. In fact, his theory about sunlight/Vitamin D and influenza would explain the following known observations:
This association between Vitamin D and the flu is still just a theory at this point, though it does fit in nicely with evolutionary theory as well. Humans evolved near the tropics and spent consideable parts fo the day out in the sunlight, suggesting that moderate exposure to sunlight is a part of our evolutionary past.
As to empirical evidence, here's a post about my own (successful) self-experimentation with Vitamin D. And for more great information, go the website for the Vitamin D Council.
Anemia continues to affect millions of people around the world despite increasing availability of iron. This presents a puzzle of sorts, as to why this conditon would continue despite an obvious and relatively cheap solution of iron supplementation.
A new study looks at anemia from an evolutionary perspective and provides some answers. The authors believe that anemia is a successful phenotype of sorts. As Tobias pointed in his comment, bacteria needs iron to proliferate. When humans switched to an agricultural economy, a number of new diseases due to crowding and sanitation came about. These included plagues, malaria, and tuberculosis. It turns out that those individuals who had lower levels of plasma iron most likely had higher survival rates through these diseases. Through the selection pressures of this period, individuals who were anemic were more likely to reproduce and pass their genes on.
So even though anemia is not an ideal state of health, it was optimal for survival against these diseases. The authors conclude that because of this, it will take continuing effort and a long period of time until anemia is lessened in the modern world.
A new study that just came out this month shows how honey is more effective than cough medicine in treating nighttime cough. In the study, three treatments were compared: honey, honey-flavored cough medicine, and a placebo.
Honey came out on top, significantly reducing cough and improving sleep. The cough medicine actually did nothing. I looked at the full-text of this study and found that other studies also show cough medicine is generally ineffective (thought that doesn't stop companies from selling it).
It appears that honey is a safe, natural option for treating coughs associated with the common cold.
I've been looking into how animals behave when they are ill. For example, here's one study that discusses the behavior of sick animals. It mentions that animals generally do the following when they are ill:
The paper goes on to show that this set of behaviors is in fact adaptive, as it helps to isolate an animal so it can recover.
I wonder why these type of behaviors aren't turned into recommendations for when a person is ill. Rest is usually prescribed, but the opposite advice is given on fluids: someone who is sick is supposed to drink more. Also, fasting is hardly ever prescribed. Usually it's "feed a cold, starve a fever", but the truth is it's probably better to fast under either condition.
And the idea that fevers need to be reduced also bothers me. Evolutionary medicine shows that fevers are adaptive responses as well, and they should not be interfered with unless the fever gets extremely high. A fever is the body's way of turning up the core temperature to fight infection.
Another part to this is exercise recommendations. Some people recommend that if the symptoms are "above the neck", that a person should continue exercise, though they should decrease the intensity. I could find no research to show that this is healthy. What's more likely is that any heavy exercise will add to an ill person's level of inflammation and delay healing. For example, this article shows that an event that increases inflammation (pollution) makes colds worse. Therefore, it's likely that any type of intense exercise (which increases inflammation), would also make a cold worse.
I think the advice to keep exercising when ill probably was designed with athletes in mind. If an athlete has an important event scheduled, they may choose to train through their sickness in order to perform better for the event. But for a person whose main goal is health, I don't see any reason to exercise at all (beyond easy walking) when sick.
Following up on my last post, here's a new research study that looks at the appropriate frequency for resistance training. The study is actually a review, and it pools together results from many resistance training studies.
The study looks at muscular hypertrophy in the quadriceps and arm flexors. For quadriceps, either 2 or 3 days per week yields the exact same increase in muscle, 0.11% per day. For arm flexors, either 2 or 3 days per week also yields the exact same increase in muscle, 0.18% per day.
From a research perspective, it appears that lifting 2 or 3 days per week produces the same amount of hypertrophy. All else being equal, it seems that lifting twice per week is the optimal frequency.
