Acupuncture for Impotence

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Men may not want to pin their hopes on acupuncture as a treatment for impotence, or erectile dysfunction, a new review of evidence suggests.

Acupuncture is an ancient Chinese method of stimulating specific body points through the insertion of specialized pins that sometimes carry faint electrical charges. Traditionally, acupuncture has been used to maintain and restore body functions.

Several studies had reported "acupuncture increases nitric oxide," which has been tied to the ability to maintain erections, Dr. Myeong Soo Lee, at Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine in Daejeon, told Reuters Health by email.

Yet to date, published studies that evaluated acupuncture as a treatment for erectile dysfunction provide "no convincing evidence" that acupuncture is beneficial for this condition, Lee and colleagues report in the journal BJU International.

After assessing 80 research studies, Lee's team found only 2 that were randomized controlled trials - that is, studies that compared a treatment group with group that did not receive treatment or underwent a sham treatment. This trial design is the gold standard for research studies. (The acupuncture treatment was applied all over the body, not on the penis itself.)

One of those two trials reported benefits, while the other did not, the authors note.

Lee's group also identified 2 trials, in a total of 45 men, that did not include a group of men that did not receive treatment or underwent a sham treatment.

Those trials both suggested some benefit from acupuncture among men with erectile dysfunction, but the investigators caution that the design leaves studies open to bias and often suggest false-positive results.

Taken together, these results fail to show whether acupuncture offers any benefit as a treatment for erectile dysfunction. "More rigorous trials are required," Lee said.

SOURCE: BJU International, August 2009.

By Joene Hendry Joene Hendry – Tue Aug 4, 2:53 pm ET

Who say Organic food is Nutritious ?

Organic food, which was once only available in small stores or farmers’ markets, is now the fastest growing sector of the American food marketplace, despite its higher costs. In 2008, the value of retail sales of organic food was estimated to be more than $28 billion, up from $1 billion in 1990. And, according to the Food Marketing Institute, more than half of Americans now buy organic food at least one a month. So why this surge in popularity? Why pay more for food because it’s organically grown? Do organic foods offer more nutritional value than their traditionally grown counterparts?

Whether or not organically grown foods are more nutritious has become a hotbed of debate, and the answer would likely depend on who one asked. For instance, The Organic Center (TOC), a pro-organic nonprofit research organization in Foster, Rhode Island recently concluded that organic foods, on average, offer a 25 percent higher nutrient level over conventional ones. And researchers at University of California at Davis claim to have found higher levels of nutrients in organic tomatoes, kiwifruit, corn, and strawberries grown side-by-side with conventional versions.

On the opposite side of the fence are major health organizations like the American Dietetic Association and the Mayo Clinic that hold an organic label is no assurance that a food is nutritionally superior, which is the same conclusion recently reached by a group of British researchers after reviewing 50 years of published data on the topic. The review, commissioned by Britain’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) and conducted by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, found that organic food contained no more nutritional value than food grown traditionally.

Overall, the researchers found no differences of most nutrients, including vitamin C, calcium and iron, in organically or traditionally grown crops. The same was true for meat, dairy and eggs. There were differences in nitrogen and phosphorus levels, but the researchers said this was likely due to the differences in fertilizers and the ripeness at harvest, and likely provided no health benefits. “Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority,” said Dr. Alan Dangour, study author and registered public health nutritionist.

“It is good to see that a systematic review of the literature supports what has long been believed—that the nutritional content of traditionally grown foods and organic foods are comparable,” said Connie Diekman, director of university nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis and past president of the American Dietetic Association. “This report provides confirmation for consumers that if they choose conventionally grown foods or organic foods they will be meeting their nutritional needs.”

However, others were disappointed with the findings, criticizing the study for failing to examine the impact of pesticides and herbicides, the use of antibiotics or the environmental issues. They are calling for better research. “You have to also look at what you’re not getting” with organic foods, said Sheah Rarback, director of nutrition at the Mailman Center for Child Development at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. “We know that young children are getting the nutrition, whatever choice they make, but we also have to look at the pesticide issue.”

Dr. Dangour admitted that “there is a possibility that organic food has less pesticide residues, but this was not part of the review.” He said that, as a nutritionist, he was not qualified to look at pesticides, but “this may be an area for further research.”

Gill Fine, the FSA’s director of consumer choice and dietary health, said the study was about ensuring people have accurate information in order to make informed choices about the food they eat. “This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food,” she said. “What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.”

The findings appear in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.


source

Inhouse Tanning beds can cause cancer

Spending so much on the courses of Tanning Treatment, to make yourself look healthier but recent experts from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, now found out that ultraviolet radiation from tanning bed carry a cancer risk that is equivalent to cigarettes. The IARC, a part of the World Health Organization (WHO), has now re-classified UV tanning beds to the highest possible cancer risk category known as "carcinogenic to humans."

Scientists have long suspected that tanning beds and ultraviolet radiation were probable carcinogens, and the results of the recent analysis performed by IARC offer proof that this is true. The analysis reviewed about 20 studies to reach the conclusion that the risk of skin cancer is increased by 75 percent when individuals use tanning beds prior to reaching the age of 30.

Although it was previously believed that only one type of ultraviolet radiation was lethal, the experts also discovered that all types of ultraviolet radiation caused disturbing mutations in mice, offering more proof that the radiation is carcinogenic. The research was published online in the medical journal Lancet Oncology.

The new classification puts tanning beds and other sources of ultraviolet radiation in the same top cancer risk category as tobacco, the hepatitis B virus and chimney sweeping, which are all known to be definite causes of cancer. The IARC says that most lights that are used in tanning beds produce ultraviolet radiation that causes skin and eye cancer.

According to Vincent Cogliano, a member of the research team, “People need to be reminded of the risks of sunbeds.” He then added, “We hope the prevailing culture will change so teens don't think they need to use sunbeds to get a tan.” Cogliano also warned that all ultraviolet radiation is unhealthy, whether it comes from a tanning bed or the sun.

Dan Humiston, president of the Indoor Tanning Association (ITA) expressed doubt about the recent finding. He said, “The fact that the IARC has put tanning bed use in the same category as sunlight is hardly newsworthy.” He went on to explain, “The UV light from a tanning bed is equivalent to UV light from the sun, which has had a group 1 classification since 1992. Some other items in this category are red wine, beer and salted fish. The ITA has always emphasized the importance of moderation when it comes to UV light from either the sun or a tanning bed.”

Kathy Banks, chief executive of The Sunbed Association, a European trade association of tanning bed makers and operators, disputed the new classification. In a statement she said, “The fact that is continuously ignored is that there is no proven link between the responsible use of sunbeds and skin cancer.” She also noted that people who use tanning beds use do so less than 20 times per year.

However, as the use of tanning beds has significantly increased among people under age 30, physicians have observed a rise in the skin cancer. In fact, prior studies have shown that younger people who use tanning beds on a regular basis have an eight time greater likelihood to develop melanoma, the deadliest type of skin cancer, when compared to those who have never used them. One case in point is that melanoma is now the leading type of cancer diagnosed in Britain for Women in their twenties. Until now, the WHO warned only people younger than 18 to avoid using tanning beds.

According to Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer at the American Cancer Society, “This new report confirms and extends the prior recommendation of the American Cancer Society that the use of tanning beds is dangerous to your health, and should be avoided.”

Instead of using a tanning bed, the American Cancer Society advises people to use bronzing or self-tanning creams. The organization has reported that in 2008, approximately 62,000 new cases of melanoma were diagnosed in the United States, with about 8,000 people losing their lives to the deadly cancer.

source