Strenua's World» benefit

Why We Should Embrace The World Cup – Vuvuzelas and All

Strenua — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:25:11 +0000

The waiting is over and finally the 2010 World Cup has begun in South Africa. There will be people complaining about how their soap scheduling is being ruined by the dominance of football coverage on the TV and how much the economy is losing through hangovers and policing the streets on nights England play. But overall I think everyone has to acknowledge the benefit the world cup brings to our country.

To the people who don’t understand what all the fuss is about, football is the English national game and although we like to talk the players down we do have a good chance to progress to the final stages and it is a chance to be proud of our country.

Unlike America we seldom get to show our support for our own country. We don’t have a national holiday; we would rather celebrate St Patrick’s Day rather than St George’s. We rarely get to fly the cross of St George, as councils and other official organisations think that flying our national flags will upset other nationalities living in England.

I love walking around my local housing estates and seeing houses draped in England flags and bunting spanning the road to neighbours houses, it shows a community spirit that we hardly ever get to experience. I thought there was a great atmosphere around on Saturday from early in the morning; shop workers wore England T-shirts instead of their regular uniforms and kids were waving flags and blowing hooters or practising their own football skills in the street.

Whether it’s Wimbledon, the Olympics or the World Cup, sporting events traditionally encourage people to get out and participate themselves and Saturday was no exception as it was also England Football Day. Young players from all over the country experienced the ultimate football adventure by playing on the pitch at Wembley Stadium, whilst nationwide, over 300 England Football Day events were organised by teams of all ages and abilities.

With the depressing state of our country’s economy at the moment I think it’s great that something has captured the country’s imagination and is raising at least some of the English population’s spirits.

If you doubt the value the World Cup can bring to a participating country then just ask the Irish. Following the incident in November involving Thierry Henry’s hand that knocked Ireland out of the Finals one expert estimated the cost to the Irish economy would be £100 million.

And according to a British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA) poll it was suggested that nearly 23 million in total would watch some part of the opening game. 55% of English adults will be watching the first England game, compared with 43% of Welsh and the 23% of Scots that plan to tune in. Actually at its peak 20.1million people were watching the match – the highest TV viewing figures for four years. The BBPA also estimates that over 21 million extra pints of beer will be enjoyed in pubs during the first three England qualifying matches of the tournament, with around 35,000 pubs showing the matches. With many pubs fighting back through hard times, the World Cup provides a vital boost to the trade, and is the perfect opportunity for fans to support their local pub while supporting the national team.

So if you feel you are a suffering football widow console yourself with the fact that it will be another 4 years till it comes round again, and maybe you could embrace the first World Cup final to be held in Africa and all the benefits it brings to their country and ours.

And finally I know you must be asking yourself where can I buy my own Vuvuzela in the UK? The answer being that you too can imitate a swarm of bees by buying your own South African horn from here. However if the trend for playing Vuvuzelas makes it way over to the UK then surely the most unexpected boost to our economy from this World Cup will be through the increased sales of muffling earplugs.

Progressive Exercise Benefits Bone Density

Strenua — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:55:55 +0000

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that weight bearing exercise can have a positive effect on bone density and strength. But when and how much exercise is necessary and what type is the most appropriate?

Whilst exercise while young positively affects peak bone mass, exercise during adulthood can maintain bone mass and can potentially prevent women from osteoporosis.

In particular, impact exercise that induces high strains at high rates in the bone has been found to promote bone strength.

Research published in November’s BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, studied how bone changes over time during a 12 month course of exercise.

The aim was to evaluate the association between exercise intensity at 3, 6 and 12 month intervals and changes in the Bone Mineral Density (BMD) of the femur (thigh bone), during high-impact exercise in premenopausal women.

The subjects were 35 healthy women (age 35-40 years, average BMI of 25.5). Before the study began they were not participating in impact-type exercises or long-distance running more than three times a week.
Accelerometers, (portable, cheap, light-weight machines, worn on the waist) were used to continuously measure daily physical activity.
The subjects were supervised during a 60-minute training workout, consisting of a warm-up period, high-impact training and a cool-down period. The progressive high-impact period included versatile movements, such as step aerobic patterns, stamping, jumping, and running, three times a week for 12 months.
The programs were modified bimonthly to become progressively more demanding by including higher jumps and drops.
The participants were also given a home program (10 min daily), which consisted of patterns of exercise similar to those in the supervised sessions.
The BMD of the femur, and the trochanters (the projections from the femur where the hip and thigh muscles attach), were measured using x-ray absorptiometry and activity data was correlated with changes in bone density.

The researchers from Finland found that the average daily number of high impacts during six months of training was significantly associated with 12-month positive BMD changes at the femoral neck and trochanter area.

These results agreed with many previous studies, in which only five to six months of high-impact exercise were needed to increase BMD in the femoral neck and trochanter and the greatest changes were seen on this time period, than during 12 or 18month interventions.

Lead author Riikka Ahola, suggests these results provide new information for designing optimal and feasible training programs that can prevent bone loss in premenopausal women

Because bone cells adapt to regular loading, one important feature that the researchers recommend is for an exercise program to be progressive. ‘A progressive exercise program sustains overload and the bone adaptation process. ‘

‘Loads should be increased with time to produce a sufficient stimulus. An exercise program that maintains the same loading for many years would stimulate bone formation only during the first months of training.’

Scientific claims about probiotic yoghurt misleading

Strenua — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:43:30 +0000

ASA claim this advert was misleading

Today’s upholding of a complaint by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) supports my view that you should investigate claims of health benefits of products you supplement your diet with, to ensure you don’t waste your time, money or even damage your health.

The TV advert in question is for Actimel, a pro-biotic drinking yoghurt intended to be consumed by every one of all ages. One viewer had challenged whether the claim by the ad voice-over that “Actimel was scientifically proven to help support your kids’ defences” could be substantiated.

In their defence to the ASA, Danone claimed that the health benefits of Actimel had been demonstrated in 23 human studies conducted on over 6000 people across different age ranges, with eight studies carried out on children up to 16 years of age.

Danone claimed that the health benefit of Actimel is through the support of the human body’s natural defence system, helping to protect against pathogens and harmful environmental factors, as some of the most important defence systems are located within the gastrointestinal tract. Danone said they had referred to Actimel as being “scientifically proven” in their ads based on a significant body of published scientific evidence that showed that Actimel supported the natural defences of different age groups, including children.

The ASA thought that the ad suggested through the image of an Actimel bottle jumping over a skipping rope and the sound of children laughing and playing implies that the product is intended for normal, healthy children of school age (five to sixteen years old). The ASA also considered that most consumers would understand the claim that Actimel “was scientifically proven to support your kids’ defences” to mean that the product would help defend those children against common, every-day childhood infections. Whilst Danone submitted scientific studies in support of the claims, they were not involving subjects who could be considered ‘normal, healthy children of school age’.

One study examined the effect of Actimel on hospitalised children in India suffering from acute diarrhoea another involved those receiving medication for chronic Helicobacter pylori. Both trials were considered to be unsuitable for use in support of a claim that was likely to be seen as referring to normal, healthy children.
Children in another study assessed the effect of Actimel on the occurrence and duration of a range of symptoms, including asthma, rhinitis, diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, abdominal pains and fever, in children aged two to five years who suffered from allergic conditions. Again meaning the results of the study could not necessarily be applied to normal, healthy children.
Three other trials were on children between the ages of 6 and 33 months, much lower than the target group of school-age children suggested by the ad. The ASA understood that the developing immune systems of children under two differed from those of older children, and so did not think that it could be safely assumed that the results reported for the young children in these studies would be the same for school-aged children.
A further area of concern was the portion sizes used in the studies. The children in some studies were supplemented with portion sizes that were larger than the recommended serving size of one 100 g pot of Actimel per day. The observed benefit for Actimel in the clinical trials might not therefore, be representative of the effect of the product when consumed on an ‘everyday’ basis.

The ASA considered that the ad was making an absolute claim that Actimel would support the defences of children, and that the reference to “your kids” was implying to consumers that Actimel would benefit their child.

The ASA understood that some children would not see a benefit from consuming Actimel, and because were concerned that any observed effects for Actimel in the trials might not be representative of the efficacy of the product when consumed in line with the recommended daily serving. It was concluded that a serving of Actimel was not scientifically proven to support the defences of normal, healthy school-aged children against common, every-day childhood infections and that the ad was misleading.

The ASA have ruled that the ad must not be broadcast again in its current form. Whilst there is no suggestion that this product could damage anyone’s health, the findings of the ASA support my previous articles on supplement efficacy and safety: Even with claims of supporting scientific evidence, many products may only benefit specific groups of people. Before you waste your money on ‘healthy’ products, consider if you are actually deficient in the nutrients they are supplying? If they can cure illnesses, is it something you are suffering from? Do you fit the target group scientific studies have shown benefit in? If in any doubt consult a healthcare professional.

How much do you know about your health supplements?

Strenua — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:30:22 +0000

I attended a presentation last week by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Whilst we would all expect that the pharmaceutical drugs we take are regulated, the MHRA also monitor traditional herbal medicines. I was surprised that people still believe that if something is natural then it must be safe, even though people must be aware of examples of berries and fruits found even in the UK which are poisonous to humans. It is also interesting that people who care about their health so much that they choose to take herbal supplements, also believe that if a product is herbal or natural it must be good for you. Not paying attention to the concentration or how they may react to existing prescribed drugs.

Athletes are such a group of people who you would think would pay more attention to their body. In 1996 spending on supplements in US was $6.5 billion and in 2002 was $18 billion with sports nutritional products making up one third of sales, so sports supplements are a huge market.

It was interesting to read a recent study in the Singapore Medical Journal, which examined the use of nutritional supplements by university athletes in Singapore. As most studies have focused on Caucasian populations, this study looked at university students in Asia, who would be highly educated with access to scientific literature, yet also exposed to traditional herbal products since birth. Over 75% of the 82 athletes questioned used supplements, consuming on average up to 3 products a day. The most popular products included sports drinks (90%), vitamin C (49%) multivitamins (30%) and glucosamine (20%). Over 90% of the athletes were Chinese which could explain why other popular products were traditional/herbal preparations such as essence of chicken (11%), edible birds nest (11%), and ginseng. Interestingly only one athlete took creatine. Similar to studies of their peers in the West, the most popular products were sports drinks and vitamin/mineral supplements. However, whilst the majority of Western university females reportedly consume supplements for general health benefits and male athletes aim to enhance sporting performance, all but one of the Singapore students consumed supplements for health benefits. This could be because elite sports aren’t as prestigious as in the West. You could speculate that some of those taking supplements for sports may be ignorant or blasé to the risks if they are intent on enhancing sporting performance. But surprisingly in this study, it is the university educated people taking supplements to improve their health, who don’t investigate the health risks of what they are consuming.

The study found that:

93% didn’t know where to obtain reliable information
86.4% unaware supplementation can have adverse health effects.
More than 1/3 had no or minimal knowledge about the product they consumed
Males were more likely than females (81% vs 52%) to research a product and those with more knowledge were more likely to use supplements.
Before using 65.9% sought info from the media, internet, coaches and fellow athletes.
The most frequent explaination (38.5%) for not seeking further information was that ‘the product must be safe since it is commonly available’

Whilst this study may have limitations, it is concerning that people are unaware of the health effects of their supplements, nor do they know where to get reliable information from. I agree with the conclusions of the authors, which should be taken on board by those taking supplements for either health benefits or sporting performance.

Supplements with scientific evidence may only benefit specific athletes.
Athletes must be aware of the additive or synergistic effects of the supplements.
Endorsements by well known personalities fail to mention the long hours of training and sound nutrition which were responsible for their success.
Whilst some products have sound scientific backing, many traditional/herbal preparations have not been validated by rigorous scientific investigation.
Use supplements with caution and examine the product for safety, efficacy, potency and legality with a healthcare professional prior to use.

Should endurance athletes take creatine supplements?

Strenua — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:11:13 +0000

Creatine has become a popular nutritional supplement among athletes and is often taken as supplement by people who want to gain muscle mass, such as for body building, but there is increasingly evidence that it may also help in recovering from exercise induced muscle damage.

Creatine is a natural occurring substance that helps supply energy to muscles. Half of stored creatine comes from food, mainly fresh meat, so as a vegetarian I am likely to have lower levels of muscle creatine. The enzyme creatine kinase (CK) is responsible for the reversible reaction whereby creatine is converted along with ATP to create phosphocreatine and ADP to generate energy.

Whilst creatine has been shown to be beneficial for short high intensity exercises such as weight lifting, it has not shown to have any benefit to endurance activity performance. In fact as creatine is also responsible for weight gain of around 1kg when taking the ‘loading dose’ of 20g a day it may even slow an endurance athlete down without providing any benefit to performance. A study has however, looked at the benefits of creatine on muscle recovery following endurance running

In the study published in Life Sciences journal, subjects were given 4 doses a day of 5g of creatine and 15g of maltodextrine, while the control group received just maltodextrine for 5 days, before a 30km race. The runners were experienced marathon runners with personal best (PB) times of 2.5 -3 hours.

Blood CK levels can be raised from damage of the muscle tissue as a result of intense training and it is often used as a marker of muscle injury. In this study by the University of São Paulo, it was found that athletes from the control group had increased CK levels suggesting a high level of cell injury and inflammation while Creatine supplementation reduced these increases.

In short term studies of less than two weeks there have not been reported side effects of taking creatine supplements. Dr Santos, the papers author reported that ‘the runners finished in times equivalent to their PB, without any side effects such as cramping, dehydration or diarrhoea whilst taking the supplements or during the race.’ However athletes who have taken it long term have reported muscle cramping and kidney damage.

In 2007 International Society of Sports Nutrition published its position on the use of creatine supplementation and exercise. Amongst some of their statements they concluded that ‘there is no scientific evidence that the short- or long-term use of creatine monohydrate has any detrimental effects on otherwise healthy individuals. Creatine monohydrate supplementation is not only safe, but possibly beneficial in regard to preventing injury and/or management of select medical conditions when taken within recommended guidelines.’

Recovering from endurance exercise is important for the long distance runner, but is it worth taking creatine supplements in the days leading up to a marathon to prevent damage and aid recovery. Is it worth possible muscle cramps and other side effects during the race after all you don’t know how your individual body will react?

What’s your view? Are you an endurance athlete who has tried creatine supplements, or do you think we shouldn’t use any type of ergogenic aids? Let us know you experiences or opinions.

Also read related post Can creatine supplements enhance muscle recovery?

Chocolate Craving?

Strenua — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:22:43 +0000

Whilst I can resist most junk food, happily turning down crisps, cakes and fried food, like many chocoholics I do have a weakness for chocolate. But why do we crave chocolate so much?

Chocolate is an addictive drug and many of its ingredients can have an effect on the brains chemistry. It is well known that chocolate contains caffeine, which whilst found naturally in many products, is a highly addictive stimulant.

Other stimulants found in chocolate include theobromine and phenylethylamine, which is related to amphetamines and increases neurotransmitter activity increasing your ability to pay attention and stay alert. Phenylethylamine also has an anti depressant effect along with two other substances present called tyramine and tryptophan, which the brain converts into the feel good chemicals dopamine and serotonin.

This could be why people self-prescribe chocolate for depression. If you want to self-medicate with chocolate it is recommended that you should reach for cocoa – or dark chocolate, which can contain two to three times as much of these compounds, per ounce, as milk chocolate.

Chocolate also contains cannabinoids, the same compound that is responsible for the high of marijuana. But don’t worry the concentrations are too low in chocolate bars to cause an effect. Dark chocolate delivers plenty of cannabis related substances and compounds that stimulate the brain to release opiate like substances adding to the addictive nature of the chocolate. This probably explains why when we chocoholics crave chocolate, inexpensive, low-quality candy won’t do, we want very high fat, dark chocolate.

Aside from the feel good factor associated with eating chocolate the health benefits of dark chocolate have been researched considerably over the last few years and with each report new evidence reveals the many benefits of eating higher cocoa dark chocolate in moderation as part of a balanced diet. Some of these claims include:

Dark chocolate, eaten in moderation, can lower blood pressure.
Dark chocolate includes a substantial amount of antioxidants that reduce the formation of free radicals.
Dark chocolate is a rich source of the flavonoids epicatechin and gallic acid, which are thought to possess cardioprotective properties.
Dark chocolate may reduce the possibility of a heart attack when consumed regularly in small amounts.
A compound has also been found in chocolate which in the laboratory stops breast cancer cells from dividing.

Before you start self prescribing chocolate as part of you healthy diet, then make sure you are eating the right type. If we were to eat pure cocoa then we may be able to enjoy the health benefits however the majority of people eat processed chocolate. Cadbury’s Dairy Milk for example contains just 21% cocoa solids. Processed chocolate also contains a high percentage of less desirable ingredients such as extra sugar, corn syrup, milk fats and hydrogenated oils which may offset any health benefits achieved by eating chocolate.

To obtain the greatest health benefits you need the finest, plain dark chocolate, which contain at least 70% cocoa (both solids and butter). Milk chocolate usually contains up to 50% and high-quality white chocolate contain only about 33% cocoa.

Chocolate higher than 75% tends to be more bitter than sweet, and is classed as high cocoa chocolate but is not to all tastes. The higher cocoa content leaves less room for sugar however, high cocoa chocolate is popular for those wanting to reduce their sugar intake and also experience the many health benefits gained from the active properties contained within cocoa.

If you wish to experiment with discovering your own preferred level of cocoa you could try the Le Nauncier collection of 70 milk and dark chocolate tasting discs from Chocolate Trading Co. Each disc has varying cocoa contents from 33% milk all the way up to 99% dark chocolate. Readers of Strenua’s World can receive 8% off all purchases on their website before November 30^th 2009 by using the code AUTUMN8.

To celebrate National Chocolate Week (12-18 October), Thorntons are also encouraging you to indulge with 10% off – simply enter offer code ACW4 and enjoy a chocolate filled National Chocolate Week with Thorntons.co.uk.