Eating too much high-fat food during pregnancy not only makes it harder to lose those postpartum pounds, it can influence a baby's future weight. A study in rats shows that exposure to a high-fat diet during pregnancy produces permanent changes in the offspring's brain that leads to overeating and obesity early in life.
The study is among a growing mountain of evidence that nutrition during pregnancy matters a lot. The researchers from Rockefeller University examined the effects of feeding pregnant rats a high-fat diet for two weeks compared with a balanced diet with a moderate amount of fat. The rats born to mothers who ate the high-fat diet ate more, weighed more throughout life and began puberty sooner than those born to mothers who ate a balanced diet -- even though the high-fat diet was removed at birth. The offspring of the high-fat diet rodents had higher triglycerides at birth, as well.
Perhaps most surprisingly, these baby rats also produced more brain peptides that stimulate eating and weight gain. They had a much higher number of neurons that produce these appetite-stimulating orexigenic peptides and they maintained these neurons throughout life. The offspring of rats who ate the balanced diet had far fewer of these neurons.
"We believe the high levels of triglycerides that the fetuses are exposed to during pregnancy cause the growth of the neurons earlier and much more than is normal," said senior author Sarah F. Leibowitz, director of the Laboratory of Behavioral Neurobiology at Rockefeller.
She says the same mechanism likely occurs in humans. "We're programming our children to be fat."
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and is published in this week's issue of Journal of Neuroscience.
If your waistband fits more snugly than in years past -- or if you've resorted to elastic -- be forewarned: That extra belly fat appears to boost your chances of dying within the next few years.
In a study published in the Nov. 13 New England Journal of Medicine, researchers at the German Institute of Human Nutrition assessed the level of excess weight (as gauged by body mass index), as well as where that weight was deposited, in 359,387 people. After about 10 years, they pulled together the data on those who had died (a total of 14,723 people).
Adults with BMIs in the highest and lowest ranges had the highest risk of death during the study period. (Thinner is not always better.) Men with a BMI of 25.3 and women with a BMI of 24.3 had the lowest risk of death.
In further analysis, the researchers compared people with the same BMI and found that those with a higher waist circumference and a higher waist-to-hip ratio also faced a greater risk. In fact, for every 5-centimeter increase in waist circumference, the likelihood of death rose 17% for men and 13% for women.
Of note, people with the lowest BMI and the highest waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio (the true apple look) had the highest risk of death.
Body-mass index as a way of assessing fitness obviously isn't perfect, but it's an important start. Here's a calculator. Normal weight is considered 18.5 to 24.9.
The researchers conclude: "The findings of our study suggest that general and abdominal adiposity are both associated with the risk of death. The results support the use of waist circumference or waist-to-hip ratio in addition to BMI in the assessment of the risk of death, particularly among persons with a low BMI."
In other words, to increase your chances of living longer, shed the belly fat.
For a look at what abdominal fat does in the body, check out Belly fat blues, by staff writer Shari Roan. There's also Find out how you measure up, an explanation of how to measure that fat.
And for two special sections on weight loss (with the latest research and advice), check out The Times' archives from last summer. Look under Health.
President Bush signed a bill this week that creates the first nationwide registry for people stricken with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which is known as Lou Gehrig's disease in remembrance of the New York Yankees player who quit baseball in 1939 after his diagnosis and died two years later. The registry is an attempt to collect information on people diagnosed with ALS to provide researchers with potential clues about its cause and possible treatments. The registry will also try to address why American military veterans have a higher risk of the disease.
Passage of the ALS Registry Act represented several years of hard work on the part of patients, families and patient advocates to draw attention to the disease. It's amazing that more than 65 years after Lou Gehrig died, very little has changed regarding knowledge of the neurological disease. The average person diagnosed with ALS deteriorates quickly and dies within two to five years. The registry may help unify researchers and doctors and provide patients with a stronger voice to lobby for more assistance.
With the closing of the old Yankee Stadium last month, and the Major League Baseball playoffs underway, it's easy to recall the example Lou Gehrig set for others when he learned that his magnificent baseball career was ending and his life would soon be over. His "luckiest man" speech, available here on YouTube, was among the most cherished heard by baseball fans and represents optimism and gratitude in the face of a terrible disease.
For more information, see the website for the ALS Assn., which is based in Calabasas Hills.
-- Shari Roan
Photo: In this 1939 photo, Lou Gehrig wipes away tears at a ceremony at Yankee Stadium in his honor. Credit: AP photo/Murray Becker, file.
Every now and again we receive word of a finding from science that makes us stop and scratch our heads... not because the news is surprising but rather because it seems so obvious we wonder why anyone took time (and dollars) to study it.
We squirrel these items away in what we like to refer to as our "Duh!" files. (Others prefer to term these candidates for publication in the Journal of Bloody Obvious Research.)
Here's one just published online in the British Medical Journal: According to a release from the journal, the study found "Employees who take long spells of sick leave more than once in three years are at a higher risk of death than their colleagues who take no such absence."
It's easy to poke fun, of course -- there may be good reasons, sometimes, for seemingly obvious reports. Some findings may have to be documented and quantified and waved in the faces of powers that be in order for change to be enacted, even though the whole world might suspect the truth of them. Take the 100-hour weeks with 36-hour shifts that medical residents used to work until residency rules were changed in 2003. It took studies reporting actual harm for those policies to be altered -- but surely one didn't need a medical degree to suspect that judgment might be impaired in a person who'd been on call for 36 hours straight.
There's more, too, to this British Medical Journal study about workers taking sick leave. First off, the authors find that medically certified leave for some sicknesses are especially suggestive of an increased risk of death -- notably cardiovascular problems, surgery and psychiatric disorders. (Leave for musculoskeletal disorders didn't lead to increased risk of death.) The authors and some scientists who wrote an accompanying editorial suggest such leaves could be a useful sign for physicians: The doctors could target medical interventions to such people -- though of course, I can't help feeling it would be nice if my doctor already suspected I might need help should I be taking big chunks of time off work for heart trouble.
The study is also just one part of a large, very interesting effort by researchers at University College London to figure out how social status, stress, lifestyle and the mind affect the physical health and longevity of people. To this end, the UCL researchers have been tracking civil servants in London for decades.
Go here to find out more about the Whitehall II study, as it's called. Among the study's findings:
• "The more senior someone is in the employment hierarchy, the longer he or she might be expected to live compared to people in lower employment grades."
(In other words, exactly the opposite of the boss-dropping-dead-from-a-heart-attack myth.)
Also:
• "The combination of high demands and low control at work predicts poor health."
(So it's not so bad for your physical health if you're working round the clock but you're in control -- much worse if you're working around the clock but someone else is calling all the shots.)
And more.
You can download a booklet here that sums up all the findings and makes practical suggestions. Print it out -- and give your boss a copy while you're at it.
The search for anti-obesity drugs got a setback with Merck's announcement Thursday that the company has ended obesity research on its experimental drug taranabant. According to a statement from the company, though phase three results showed it did help people lose weight, it also had too many side effects. Here's the company's Oct. 2 statement.
Taranabant is a chemical that blocks a receptor in the brain that is activated by THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. (Readers may be aware that partaking of marijuana stimulates the appetite; conversely, blocking the brain receptor through which this effect occurs might be expected to have an anti-munchie effect.) But the receptor blocked by taranabant is widely distributed in the brain and presumably involved in a variety of brain processes. Plus it's also found in certain other tissues of the body, including fat cells and the adrenal, thyroid and pituitary glands. So it's not surprising the drug would have other effects unrelated to appetite.
According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, "The company said Thursday that both effectiveness and side effects are dependent on dose levels, with higher doses producing greater effectiveness but more adverse events. Essentially, Merck wasn't able to find a dose level that adequately minimizes risk while helping people lose weight to a significant degree."
This isn't the first anti-obesity drug developed that acts on cannabinoid receptors. Another, Sanofi-Aventis' rimonabant (Accomplia), is available in some countries in Europe but hasn't received FDA approval in the U.S.; in 2007 an FDA advisory committee recommended against approval because of side effect concerns.
Many of the most promising new medical treatments are just beyond the grasp of consumers simply because they don't know about them. But that's about to change. Beginning tomorrow, the nation's database for clinical trials, www.ClinicalTrials.gov, will begin adding the results of trials of drugs, medical devices and biologic products (such as vaccines) conducted in the United States.
ClinicalTrials.gov was launched in 2000 to provide people with easy access to information about clinical trials. But until now, consumers who went to the website could find only details about the trial's launch, such as the study's design and who is eligible to enroll. Under the new rule, researchers sponsoring the trial must go back and post their results (except for very early-stage experiments, which are called Phase 1 trials) online within one year of the study's conclusion or within 30 days of approval of a product by the Food and Drug Administration. The database will carry results of trials that were underway as of Sept. 27, 2007. However, researchers of previously completed trials have been encouraged to post their results, too.
The rule is a result of a law passed last year to demand more transparency in clinical trials. Consumer health advocates hope the requirement will make it harder for study sponsors to hide unexpected or harmful reactions to drugs or devices. In the past, consumers could only turn to medical and scientific journals to find out a study's results. If the study wasn't published, which sometimes happens especially if the trial failed, no one knew. Some pharmaceutical companies have been accused of hiding the results of studies, such as the side effects that were discovered with the arthritis medication Vioxx that was removed from the market in 2004.
"Providing scientists, physicians and the public with results information could go a long way toward improving safety," said Dr. Elias Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health, which operates the 62,000-study database.
Questions remain about how useful the database will be to the average person, however. Study results that are published in journals have been vetted by independent researchers and receive the attention of experts and the media, which foster discussion on the merits of the study and its findings. But simply posting the results of the study, without interpretation, may be of little help. Researchers will not be able to post their opinions or comments about the study.
-- Shari Roan
Photo credit: David Silverman/Getty Images
* An earlier version of this story incorrectly listed the Web address as ClinicalTrials.com.
Healthy adults who were near the World Trade Center during the 9/11 attacks may actually have less grey matter in one part of the brain as a result of what they experienced that day, according to a new study by researchers at Cornell University.
Using MRI imaging, the researchers scanned the brains of 18 people who were no farther than one and a half miles from the blast when it occurred, and compared those images to an equal number of people who were at least 200 miles from the blast.
Then, using functional MRI imaging, they tested how the subjects reacted to images of fearful and calm faces. The data revealed that subjects closer to the blast had smaller, more reactive amygdalas, an area of the brain that processes threatening information.
"What this means is that really bad experiences may have lasting effects on the brain, even in healthy people," says lead researcher Barbara Ganzel, a postdoctoral fellow at Cornell’s College of Human Ecology, in a news release.
The study was published in the journal NeuroImage in April.
Tami Dennis, who takes the word "skeptic" to previously uncharted territory, is editor of The Times' Health section. She's adamant that pitches promoting awareness days, weeks or months are, by their nature, non-stories. And, because she's an adult, she refuses to use words like "veggies," "tummy" and "yummy."
Rosie Mestel, Health section deputy editor, studied genetics before abandoning flies, fungi and DNA for health/medical writing. Her hero is the biologist Ernst Haeckel, whose jellyfish paintings inspired snazzy chandeliers. Her favorite toast-spread is Marmite, a British delicacy made of yeast extract. Her least-favorite word is "millenniums."
Melissa Healy is a staff writer for the Health section reporting from Washington D.C. Healy's a veteran of The Times' National staff, having covered the Pentagon, Congress, poverty and social welfare, the environment, and the White House before shifting to Health in 2003. She writes frequently about mental health and human behavior, about federal health policy, prescription medication and ethics in medicine. More wonk than wellness freak, Healy chooses to believe in the health benefits of coffee and wine, and considers water a better work-out medium than beverage.
After a brief stint as a sports writer, Shari Roan turned to health journalism and has covered the topic for The Times for 18 years. She is the author of three books and the mother of two daughters, both teenagers who refer to her as a "health freak." She likes to jog, watch baseball and is very happy that dark chocolate contains some health benefit.
Jeannine Stein writes about fitness, sports medicine and obesity for the Health section. She’s a gym rat from way back and never met an elliptical trainer she didn’t like. Well, maybe one or two. She tempers exercise with a steady diet of reality television because she believes it’s all about balance.
Eating too much high-fat food during pregnancy not only makes it harder to lose those postpartum pounds, it can influence a baby's future weight. A study in rats shows that exposure to a high-fat diet during pregnancy produces permanent changes in the offspring's brain that leads to overeating and obesity early in life.
