F1: How crashing out helps win races

(CNN)Formula One drivers are famed for their jet-set lifestyles, but all that traveling around can catch up with them if they’re not careful.

The F1 paddock cover around 100,000 miles over the course of the season and how a driver prepares for all that time on the road can play an crucial role in the outcome of races on the track.
This weekend’s Singapore Grand Prix signals the start of a particularly grueling period for the teams with five grands prix in six weeks — three in Asia followed by two races in North America with the US Grand Prix taking place on October 22 before the F1 circus travels to Mexico a week later.
    In a bid to help their drivers crash out in bed rather than in a race teams turn to sleep scientists like Steven Lockley who ensure their stars are at their mental peak of their powers when the lights go out.
    “If you are healthy you can’t really get too much sleep and the more you get the better you perform — it’s been pretty well proven,” Lockley, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, told CNN’s The Circuit.
    “F1 drivers are looking for every edge, every advantage and sleep is one of the tools they can use to make sure they are at optimal performance.”

    Circadian clock

    In Singapore, keeping jet lag at bay isn’t too problematic — the evening race allows drivers to stick to European time.
    “They end up going to bed at 3-4 a.m. Singapore time and get up about noon there,” Lockley says.
    But for the races that follow in Malaysia and Japan, longer, more complex plans are required.
    “We start shifting them to the new time zone before they leave, so they get a head start and then managing their light/dark cycles which is a key synchronizer of circadian clocks.
    “So when to see light but also when to avoid light — wearing sunglasses becomes an important component,” Lockley added.
    “We also use melatonin which is good at helping you shift your clock and we manage caffeine use so it’s being used optimally to help alertness, but minimizing the negative impacts on sleep.”
    Lockley provides his expertise to F1 through Hintsa Performance, a consultancy that work with several drivers on the grid, tending to all aspects of their health, from mental and physical well being to nutrition and recovery.
    Their team of coaches apply the philosophy of its late founder, and former McLaren team doctor, Aki Hintsa, who was a highly respected and much-loved figure in the F1 paddock.
    Lewis Hamilton, who worked with Hintsa at McLaren, has spoken glowingly about the Finn’s positive influence. Reigning world champion Nico Rosberg also credits Lockley’s guidance with helping him clinch the 2016 title.
    “I always struggled so much in all the years with sleeping when I got to different time zones … it took so much energy from me,” Rosberg explained earlier this year.
    But by following Lockley’s advice of making small adjustments ahead of races, the German’s fortunes were transformed.
    “I just had that little bit extra capacity and brain power, you know, and energy left for the crucial moments. Anything extra you can bring to the table is going to help you in that moment and that’s part of why I won the world championship.”

    Speedsters and spacemen

    Lockley has spent almost 25 years studying sleep and along with F1’s elite counts astronauts among his clients.
    “Through our work, NASA are putting new multi LED lights on the International Space Station so they can change the intensity and the color of the light to help with alertness when we want them to be performing well or to calm the brain before sleep.”
    Other more down-to-earth professions are also beginning to benefit from his expertise — notably police, firefighters, doctors and nurses whose body clocks are routinely under siege from night shifts and long working hours.
    Scientists already know a lot about these “all-nighters,” as Lockley calls them, but the effects of chronic sleep loss are only just starting to be better understood.
    “We didn’t realize until recently that this chronic sleep loss builds up pretty quickly and that’s a problem for most of us — that, and the impacts on long-term health, increasing the risk of heart disease, diabetes and cancer, is key,” Lockley said.
    “You can build up quite quickly what’s termed as a chronic sleep debt. Even within a couple of weeks if you’re only sleeping six hours a night you can be as bad as someone who has been awake for 24 hours straight.
    “We know that even eight hours a night isn’t enough to maintain performance day-to-day … there is no one walking around that does well after five or six hours of sleep, even though they might claim to. When you measure them objectively you find that they are still performing poorly.”

    Fast asleep

    With Lockley’s sleep plans to hand, few drivers will have any problem getting their eight hours in this weekend. Some spend even longer in bed — Force India’s rising star Esteban Ocon says he sleeps for 12 hours!
    “What I have noticed, even before I was involved, is that sleep is being prioritized — the drivers sleep a long time,” Lockley said.
    “They know that they need to sleep well … the drivers are wanting to sleep eight, nine, 10 hours a night because they know it makes such a big difference. They are, if you like, good advocates for sleep. They realize its importance and prioritize it in their planning.”
    Planning is the key word here, whether you’re an F1 driver, an astronaut or even a holidaymaker heading off on a long-haul flight.
    “The direction of travel — and how well you adapt — depends on your internal clock. Three quarters of us have a clock longer than 24 hours which means we find it easier traveling west, whereas a quarter of people actually find it easier to travel east,” says Lockley, whose jet lag advice will shortly be available on an app called Timeshifter.
    “Knowing whether you are a morning type of an evening type is a good start. Think about your direction of travel and plan your trip accordingly. Start to shift before you go. If you’re going west, go to bed a bit later for a couple of days before. If you’re going east go to bed earlier.”
    But what about Lockley? Does he ever suffer from jet lag?
    “The jet-lag guy can’t have jet lag so I plan and follow the program when I travel. My wife and I traveled to Australia for the first time about 10 years ago and that was the first time she really believed I knew what I was talking about!” he says.
    “That was the proof of the pudding.”
    The 2017 Singapore Grand Prix takes place on Sunday September 17

    Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/14/motorsport/f1-singapore-malaysia-japan-jet-lag-sleep-rosberg-hintsa/index.html

    Here’s what would happen to Jimmy Kimmel’s son if Graham-Cassidy passes

    (CNN)It was frightening news that every parent dreads: Hours after the birth of their son, Jimmy Kimmel and his wife were informed by doctors that Billy had a complex heart condition and would need immediate surgery.

    That life-altering moment for the late-night comic has spurred a heated national debate about the ongoing Republican campaign to repeal the Affordable Care Act. On his show Tuesday night, Kimmel blasted one Republican senator in particular — Louisiana’s Bill Cassidy — for having “lied right to my face.”
    Kimmel was referring to Cassidy’s vow earlier this year to only support a health care legislation if it passed a “Jimmy Kimmel test” — that a child born with a congenital heart disease like Billy Kimmel would “be able to get everything she or he would need in that first year of life,” the senator said on CNN in May.
      But the Graham-Cassidy Obamacare repeal bill, Kimmel argued this week, doesn’t even come close to fulfilling that promise of protecting people with pre-existing conditions.
      “Not only did Bill Cassidy fail the Jimmy Kimmel test, he failed the Bill Cassidy test,” Kimmel said in a lengthy monologue Tuesday night. “He failed his own test.”
      Both Cassidy and Sen. Lindsey Graham, the bill’s co-sponsor, have forcefully pushed back. “I am sorry he does not understand,” Cassidy said on CNN Wednesday morning. He insisted that under his bill, “more people will have coverage and we protect those with pre-existing conditions.” 
      Here’s what would be at stake for Billy Kimmel and others with serious health conditions if Graham-Cassidy became law:
      Billy Kimmel’s heart condition 
      Tetralogy of Fallot with pulmonary atresia, the condition that Billy Kimmel has, is a congenital heart defect in which there is a hole in the wall between the heart’s left and right chambers. Without a valve connecting the right ventricle to the lungs, not enough blood reaches the lungs. 
      Those born with the condition are usually diagnosed as infants or young children, according to the American Heart Association, with visible symptoms that include skin that is bluish in color. (Kimmel said a nurse happened to notice that Billy’s skin appeared to have a purple tint).  
      How is it treated and how much does it cost?
      The life-long condition typically requires multiple procedures, including open-heart surgeries to reconstruct the connection between the heart and lungs and catheterization to help enlarge arteries. Even after the children get older, they will need constant monitoring and sometimes follow-up operations as adults.
      Needless to say, it is an expensive condition to treat.  
      According to Dr. Roger Breitbart, the chief of Boston Children’s Hospital’s inpatient cardiology division, open heart surgery and hospitalization can easily cost upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars, while catheterization procedures can be multiple tens of thousand of dollars each. The total lifetime cost could easily surpass $1 million, he said.
      Breitbart has treated many children with the condition and said some of his patients who are now teenagers “wouldn’t be alive if they had not had the series of treatments. They may have had three or four open heart operations and as many as a dozen heart catheterization procedures in the first six to eight years of life.”
      How does someone like Billy Kimmel fare under Obamacare?
      Prior to Obamacare, Billy Kimmel could have found himself branded uninsurable for life. 
      Insurance companies routinely turned people with pre-existing conditions away or charged them sky-high premiums if they applied for coverage on the individual market. More than a quarter of non-elderly adults have health conditions that would have made them ineligible for coverage in this market, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. 
      Plus, they often limited how much they’d be willing to cover annually or over one’s life. Kids like Billy Kimmel would likely blow through the cap pretty quickly. 
      Those with employer policies fared better, but even there, it was possible to get hit. Health care bills were one of the leading causes of bankruptcy. 
      The Affordable Care Act changed all that. Insurers are no longer allowed to turn people away, nor charge them more, because of pre-existing conditions. And they must offer comprehensive policies that cover a wide array of treatments and medication. Plus, insurers cannot impose annual or lifetime limits on coverage of those essential health benefits.

        Cassidy: Health bill should pass Kimmel test

       
      What about the Graham-Cassidy bill?
      It would depend on where Billy Kimmel lives. The bill would allow states to set up their own rules for coverage, an idea that Republicans generally favor because they say it lets each address its unique needs. For example, one state might keep many of Obamacare’s protections, while another could loosen the rules considerably.
      Graham-Cassidy would not let insurers turn away those with pre-existing conditions anywhere. But states could opt to once again allow carriers to raise premiums because of people’s medical histories and to sell skimpier policies that don’t cover Obamacare’s 10 essential health benefits. 
      Also, insurers would be able to cap the amount they would pay for treatment outside what their states deems an essential health benefit. 
      “Families with young children with conditions such as this are likely worried most immediately about the pre-existing condition issue,” Breitbart said about the Republican proposal. As for the lifetime cap, “one has to wonder what are such families going to do after we have saved their lives quite literally as children and then can’t provide ongoing care.”
      All these changes are particularly troubling for those in the individual market since employers generally offer better coverage. And they are among the reasons why multiple patient advocacy groups, including the American Heart Foundation, have come out against the bill.
       
      Kimmel: Not everyone is as fortunate as he is
      The ABC late night host has made one thing clear as he has spoken about his son’s diagnosis: His family is incredibly fortunate.
      He has health insurance and the means to pay for his son’s care. As much as he has used his son’s diagnosis to draw public attention to the impact of various GOP proposals to gut Obamacare, Kimmel can at least rest easy knowing that his family can afford to pay for Billy’s treatments. 
      It’s a luxury that many other families don’t have. 
      “If your baby is going to die and it doesn’t have to, it shouldn’t matter how much money you make,” Kimmel said in May. “No parent should ever have to decide if they can afford to save their child’s life. It just shouldn’t happen. Not here.”

      Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/20/politics/jimmy-kimmel-son-graham-cassidy/index.html

      Why Hustling May Be Bad For Your Health, According To A Wellness Guru

      American millennial working culture is often inundated with the idea that you should always be “hustling.” We pat each other on the back and tell one another we’re “killin’ it” — a phrase that brings with it the notion of being in constant, maximum capacity work mode, focusing on productivity and achievements above all else. This culture seems to suggest you have to hustle hard if you really want to be successful in your chosen career path, and that you and your skills will be obsolete if you don’t measure up. But the reality of the constant hustle can feel pretty exhausting, stressful, and (dare I say) soul-crushing — which has left me wondering, is hustling a good thing?

      Elite Daily had a chance to speak with wellness guru and soulful doula Latham Thomas (also known as Mama Glow, whose book  comes out Sept. 26) to talk about how hustling really all that great sometimes, and how it can negatively impact the well-being of your body, mind, and spirit.

      According to Thomas, it’s easy to forget the importance of learning how to and focus more on life’s process, rather than life’s productivity — and the research pretty much says she’s right.

      A report from The American Institute of Stress said 80 percent of workers feel stress on the job, and nearly half that population says they need help learning how to manage it. Plus, a 2015 study from  showed that people who are overworked actually die younger and are at a greater risk of heart attack and stroke.

      With all of that in mind, Thomas says the “anti-hustle” is where it’s at if you’re looking to feel healthier and more fulfilled in the long run.

      And what exactly is anti-hustling? Thomas defines the term:

      It’s about honoring your need for self-care even in the face of things not getting done.

      Shutting off your electronic devices, logging off from virtual life, and stepping into actual life. Grounding your physical and emotional body, and charging your soul.

      If you’re deep in the habit of overworking, Thomas explains, keep in mind that no one is going to stop you. In fact, a workplace will often exploit your ability and willingness to transgress your own boundaries of self-care. “The obsession with productivity,” Thomas says, “has everyone, even over-scheduled children, fraught with anxiety.”

      And all of this takes a major toll on your mental and physical health. Long-term effects of stress have been linked to several different types of health issues, including heart disease, diabetes, depression, and high blood pressure, according to Mayo Clinic.

      Thomas says focusing on the outcome of your hard work, rather than the process, inevitably orients you toward feeling unfulfilled.

      “We are no longer tapped into the intention of what we actually want or need when we move in this way,” she tells Elite Daily.

      Everyone has a threshold for stress, Thomas adds, which is the amount you can handle it gets to a point of being too overwhelming, and potentially damaging to your health. For the sake of your well-being, it’s crucial to be able to identify your personal threshold of stress, so you can give yourself what you actually need, and know when your body is signaling for you to slow down.

      This can be pretty difficult to figure out, but Thomas offers some helpful questions to ask yourself to start the process:

      What does my body need from me now? What does my mind need to thrive? What provides me with spiritual fulfillment? What does the topography of my emotional landscape look like?

      How can I design my life around freeing myself from the tyranny of my to-do list? How can I embrace the energy of ease?

      Thomas says the thought of moving from a hustle-centered life to what she calls “a pace of grace” can actually feel alarming for many of us — but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Engaging in self-care is a great way to help you find your “pace of grace.”

      And the way Thomas describes self-care makes it seem pretty damn amazing. She tells Elite Daily,

      Don’t you feel like soaking in the bathtub until your fingers wrinkle, and reading a memoir with the dimmer on?

      What about cupping your hands around a warm cup of tea and watching the steam dance through the air?

      Slowing down can start with something as simple as taking a moment to put your phone down.

      “Stop checking your status,” Thomas says, adding with humor, “and check your pulse [instead].” Find a way to ground yourself, be in the moment, and connect with your body in the here and now.

      Another way Thomas encourages the anti-hustle? Take the time to do something each day that feels profound or sacred to you — things that step away from whatever it is you feel like you to do in order to keep “killin’ it” at work.

      The wellness guru explains,

      Mundane routines, like making your bed each morning, can be made into a ritual when we perform them with intention and mindfulness.

      How we start and end each day matters, and can determine our overall mood. 

      She also stresses the importance of taking time for yourself — and yourself — at the beginning and end of each day. Slowing down at these specific times can give you some much-needed space for reflection. Yes, that means no tweeting your clients and no late night emails to your boss.

      And last but not least, Thomas encourages people everywhere to simply be grateful for themselves as human beings:

      Consider your body and all that it does to hold you up and keep you moving in the world.

      Slow down, listen, reflect, rest, and be thankful.

      So, can we make the anti-hustle the new hustle, or nah?

      Read more: http://elitedaily.com/wellness/hustling-may-bad-health-according-wellness-guru/2076933/

      Killer who duped William F. Buckley dies in prison at 83

      Edgar Smith, a murder convict who got off New Jersey’s death row with the help of columnist William F. Buckley only to later confess to the crime, died in a California prison hospital. He was 83.

      Smith died March 20, a spokesman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation told The Associated Press on Monday. The death was first reported by The Washington Post on Sunday. Prison officials told the newspaper that Smith had been suffering from diabetes and heart disease.

      Smith, originally of Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, spent 14 years on death row for the 1957 murder of 15-year-old Victoria Zielinski. He gained national attention while on death row for his writings, most notably the best-selling “Brief Against Death.”

      Buckley, the conservative columnist and editor of National Review, became convinced Smith didn’t receive a fair trial and profiled him for a piece in Esquire magazine. He also helped him establish a defense fund to retain the lawyers who engineered a 1971 plea bargain that led to Smith’s release on parole for time served.

      Over the next few years, Smith maintained his innocence. Buckley invited him to appear on his television program after his release, and Smith made speeches around the country about what he billed as his unjust treatment.

      Then, in 1976, Smith abducted and stabbed a San Diego woman. He was arrested after he called Buckley, who told the FBI where he was hiding out in a Las Vegas hotel, The Associated Press reported at the time.

      The following year, Smith was on trial in San Diego for attempted rape and attempted murder when he shocked the courtroom by confessing to killing Zielinski.

      “For the first time in my life, I recognized that the devil I had been looking at the last 43 years was me. I recognized what I am, and I admitted it,” he told the judge.

      He went on to describe the crime in detail.

      Buckley later expressed regret for supporting Smith.

      He wrote in his nationally syndicated column that he first became involved with Smith when he “became convinced that he had not been fairly tried and that he could not have committed the murder. … I believe now that he was guilty of the first crime.”

      ___

      This story has been corrected to show Smith was on trial for attempted murder and attempted rape in San Diego, not murder and rape.

      Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/25/killer-who-duped-william-f-buckley-dies-in-prison-at-83.html

      Drinking Too Much Soda May Be Linked to Alzheimers

      When it comes to the dangers of regularly drinking soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages, the science is clear. It rots your teeth, makes you fat, and puts you at a higher risk of diabetes, heart attack, and stroke. The list goes on and on—just ask your doctor.

      When it comes to diet soda, the science has been less solid. It will lower your overall sugar consumption to switch from Coke to Diet Coke, but it might cause other problems. Artificial sweeteners have been associated with—but not shown to necessarily cause—weight gain, diabetes, and heart disease

      On Thursday, two studies by the same group of researchers gave soda drinkers—both diet and regular—a whole new reason to drop the habit entirely.

      The first, published in the medical journal  found that consumption of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with a higher risk of stroke and dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease. The second, published in , found that higher consumption of sugary beverages was associated with markers for pre-clinical Alzheimer’s disease. 

      Led by researchers at Boston University School of Medicine, the authors of the  study conducted a review of data collected through the Framingham Heart Study, a multi-decade observational review that began with more than 5,000 volunteer participants in 1948 and has included their offspring since 1971 and their grandchildren since 2002. The FHS entailed nine examination cycles held approximately every four years; participants logged beverage intake through questionnaires that surveyed their diets over the previous 12 months. In these studies, the researchers looked at the seventh cycle for the offspring, from 1998 to 2001, and the second cycle for the grandchildren, from 2008 to 2011. 

      In the study cited in , the researchers found that higher consumption of sugary beverages was associated with a pattern consistent with preclinical Alzheimer’s, including smaller total brain volume and poorer episodic memory. The authors called the findings “striking” because they were found in a middle-aged sample and withstood statistical adjustment for such factors as physical activity and total caloric intake. The results align with earlier research done with smaller samples, including one with 737 middle-aged participants in the Boston Puerto Rican Health Study, which found that higher sugar intake was cross-sectionally associated with Alzheimer’s-like behavioral patterns.

      The study notes its limitations, including that it doesn’t establish causality, the homogenous population sample didn’t include minorities, and questionnaire-based consumption data are inherently unreliable. 

      Responded William Dermody Jr., vice president of policy at the American Beverage Association, the chief lobby for soda makers: “The Alzheimer’s Association points out that the greatest risk factors for Alzheimer’s are increasing age, family history of Alzheimer’s, and genetics—not sugar intake, from any source.”

      The  study, meanwhile, found an association with artificially sweetened beverages and stroke and dementia, while not finding a similar association for consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, an observation the authors characterized as “intriguing.” An editorial accompanying the study noted this finding—and that it contradicted other studies that found the opposite. This study, the authors noted, has the same limitations as the  analysis, as well as another important one: The association could be a case of reverse causality, “whereby sicker individuals consume diet beverages as a means of negating a further deterioration of health.”

      That concern is based on the way diabetes status partially mediated the association between artificially sweetened beverage consumption and dementia. In other words, having diabetes may be more of a risk factor for dementia than consuming artificially sweetened beverages is. The relationships among beverage consumption, diabetes, and dementia remain unclear.

      All this, said Dean M. Hartley, director of Science Initiatives at the Alzheimer’s Association, points to an important reminder: Correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation. Dermody of the American Beverage Association emphasized this point: “The authors of this study acknowledge that their conclusions do not—and cannot—prove cause and effect.” 

      Still, Hartley said, this study provides an important starting point for further studies. “Many of our first understandings of a disease come from associations,” he said. “It’s why it’s critical to get more funding at a national level.” The Alzheimer’s Association has been advocating increased research funding, including a $400 million boost for 2017 through the National Institutes of Health, currently pending before Congress, and at least another $414 million for 2018. (The Trump administration budget proposal calls for a $5.8 billion cut (PDF) to the NIH for 2018, which is about 20 percent.)

      Hartley also recommends the association’s 10 Ways to Love Your Brain for proactive steps towards brain health, including exercise, a healthy diet, and keeping up education, and he advises everyone to speak with physicians about their specific health conditions. Still, when it comes to soda—diet or regular—the safest course is to skip it. “I think they’re both bad,” he said. “Pure water is always a very good thing.”

      Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-20/drinking-too-much-soda-may-be-linked-to-alzheimer-s

      Beating Human Hearts Grown In Laboratory Using Stem Cells

      Right now, there are 4,186 people waiting for a heart transplant in the U.S., but with a huge donor shortage not all of these patients are likely to survive. Growing transplantable hearts in a laboratory has been a long-standing dream within the medical community, and a study in the journal Circulation Research has moved it one step closerto reality: A team of researchers have successfully grown a beating human heart in the laboratory using stem cells.

      Previous research has shown how 3D printers can be used to manufacture 3D heart segments using biological material. Although vacant of any actual heart cells, these structures provided the scaffold on which heart tissue could be grown. Now, a team from both Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Harvard Medical School has taken this scaffolding concept and combined it with stem cells for some truly spectacular results.

      The main problem with heart transplants, other than a lack of donors, is that theres a chance that the receivers body will reject the new organ. Their immune system will often register the foreign tissue as a threat, whereupon it will proceed to attack and destroy it. The only way to stop this from happening are drugs that suppress the immune system, and this is only successful in some cases.

      For this study, 73 human hearts deemed unsuitable for transplantation were carefully immersed in solutions of detergent in order to strip them of any cells that would provoke this self-destructive response. What was left was a matrix (or scaffold) of a heart, complete with its intricate structures and vessels, providing a new foundation for new heart cells to be grown onto.

      This is where pluripotent stem cells come in. These primitive stem cells have the ability to become almost any type of cell in the body, including bone, nerve, and even muscle including those found in the heart.

      For this research, human skin cells were reprogrammed into becoming pluripotent stem cells. They were then induced into becomingtwo types of heart cells, which were shown to readily develop and grow on the lab scaffold when bathed in a nutrient solution.

      Roughly 610,000 people die from heart disease in the U.S. every year. Could this revolutionary technique one day save many of those lost to this killer? DeReGe/Shutterstock

      After just two weeks, the networks of lab-grown heart cells already resembled immature but intricately structured hearts. The team gave them a burst of electricity, and the hearts actually started beating.

      Significantly, any heart cells grown in this way would be recognized by the patients immune system as friendly, as long as the original skin cells were sourced from their own body in the first place. This means that these lab-grown hearts would not be rejectedand, of course, theres no donor to wait for.

      Among the next steps that we are pursuing are improving methods to generate even more cardiac cells, said Jacques Guyette, a biomedical researcher at the MGH Center for Regenerative Medicine and lead author of the study, in a statement.Although this study manufactured a whopping 500 million stem cell-derived heart cells for the procedure, regrowing a whole heart would actually take tens of billions, Guyette added.

      So despite falling short of growing an entire, mature human heart in alaboratory from a patients own cells, this is the closest anyone has come to date to reaching this goal and that in itself is a breathtaking achievement.

      Photo Gallery

      Read more: http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/beating-human-hearts-grown-laboratory-using-stem-cells-made-skin

      World Health Organization: Processed Meats Cause Cancer

      Very sad news for bacon lovers.

      The World Health Organization announced Monday that cured and processed meats like bacon, sausage, hot dogs and ham cause cancer, adding the foods to a top-tier list of carcinogenic substances that includes alcohol, cigarettes, asbestos, and arsenic.

      Processed meats can be bundled with these threatening carcinogens because of their link with bowel cancer, according to a report from WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, though their inclusion doesn’t mean that bacon causes cancer at the same rate as, say, smoking. 

      “For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal (bowel) cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed,” IARC epidemiologist Dr. Kurt Straif said in a statement.

      The agency estimates that a 50-gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increased the risk for bowel cancer by 18 percent. That’s about three slices of cooked bacon. 

      The report also links red meat to cancer. It classifies beef, lamb and pork as “probable” carcinogens in a second-tier list that also includes glyphosate, the active ingredient in many weedkillers.

      The findings, which are based on more than 800 studies, are already receiving pushback from meat industry groups that argue meat is part of a balanced diet and that the cancer risk assessments needs to expand to include risk in the context of lifestyle and environment. 

      “We simply dont think the evidence support any causal link between any red meat and any type of cancer,” said Shalene McNeill, executive director of human nutrition at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

      Such lifestyle and environmental risks have been studied extensively, however, and the IARC noted this broader context was included in the study: 

      In making this evaluation, the Working Group took into consideration all the relevant data, including the substantial epidemiological data showing a positive association between consumption of red meat and colorectal cancer and the strong mechanistic evidence. Consumption of red meat was also positively associated with pancreatic and with prostate cancer.

      Both processed and red meats have been linked with cancer in the past. A 2013 study from researchers at the University of Zurich found that consuming processed meats increased the risk of dying from both heart disease and cancer. In 2012, a review published in British Journal of Cancer linked meats like bacon and sausage to an increased risk of pancreatic cancer, a disease with particularly poor survival rates. It’s no secret that red meat is rife with bad cholesterol and fats that are tied to diabetes and heart disease. 

      Unfortunately, the average American consumes about 18 pounds of bacon each year. Our nation eats more red meat than most of the world, though consumption has begun to dip in the past couple of years. In 2014, chicken was more popular than beef for the first time in over 100 years, showing that the Food and Drug Administration’s recommendations for feeding on “leaner meats” may be making an impact on the national plate. 

      Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/10/26/world-health-organization-processed-meats-cause-cancer_n_8388732.html

      10+ Unbelievable Before & After Fitness Transformations Show How Long It Took People To Get In Shape

      Back in 2015, at the height of the notorious ‘dad bod’ craze, people started to realize that Drake was ripped. He had been training for over 3 years, but the world only noticed when his Instagram page suddenly started heating up. Like most other things Drake has turned into a trend, his followers flocked to gyms around the world on a quest to get ‘swoll’ like Champagne Papi.

      Now, this is not to say that everyone who takes fitness seriously these days is doing it because of Drake, but it’s clear that ‘making gains’ is back in style, and people are going from skinny to shredded faster than half of us can blink. If it’s done right, building muscle can actually prolong your lifespan and improve cardiovascular and bone health – as well as increase your chances of people sliding in the DM. Faster isn’t always better, though. Each person inherits different strengths and weaknesses from the gene pool, so it’s important to take your time and found out what works for your unique body. To dispel that last little thought in your head, no – steroids are never a good option, unless you want to add the increased risk of heart disease and stroke to your routine.

      Here at Bored Panda, we decided to compile a list of people who bulked up big-time, and barely look like the same people in their ‘before’ photos. We’ve also included the timespan of their progress, but keep in mind that everyone builds at a different pace! Vote for your favourite transformations below, and upload your own at the bottom.

      Read more: http://www.boredpanda.com/before-after-body-building-fitness-transformation/

      Deadly gene mutations removed from human embryos in landmark study

      Groundbreaking project corrects faulty DNA linked to fatal heart condition and raises hopes for parents who risk passing on genetic diseases

      Scientists have modified human embryos to remove genetic mutations that cause heart failure in otherwise healthy young people in a landmark demonstration of the controversial procedure.

      It is the first time that human embryos have had their genomes edited outside China, where researchers have performed a handful of small studies to see whether the approach could prevent inherited diseases from being passed on from one generation to the next.

      Crispr atom

      While none of the research so far has created babies from modified embryos, a move that would be illegal in many countries, the work represents a milestone in scientists efforts to master the technique and brings the prospect of human clinical trials one step closer.

      The work focused on an inherited form of heart disease, but scientists believe the same approach could work for other conditions caused by single gene mutations, such as cystic fibrosis and certain kinds of breast cancer.

      This embryo gene correction method, if proven safe, can potentially be used to prevent transmission of genetic disease to future generations, said Paula Amato, a fertility specialist involved in the US-Korean study at Oregon Health and Science University.

      The scientists used a powerful gene editing tool called Crispr-Cas9 to fix mutations in embryos made with the sperm of a man who inherited a heart condition known as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, or HCM. The disease, which leads to a thickening of the hearts muscular wall, affects one in 500 people and is a common cause of sudden cardiac arrest in young people.

      Humans have two copies of every gene, but some diseases are caused by a mutation in only one of the copies. For the study, the scientists recruited a man who carried a single mutant copy of a gene called MYBPC3 which causes HCM.

      This
      This sequence of images shows the development of embryos after injection of a gene-correcting enzyme and sperm from a donor with a genetic mutation known to cause hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Photograph: (OHSU)/OHSY

      When the scientists made embryos with the mans sperm and healthy eggs from donors, they found that, as expected, about half of the embryos carried the mutant gene. If the affected embryos were implanted into women and carried to term, the resulting children would inherit the heart condition.

      Writing in the journal Nature, the researchers describe how gene editing dramatically reduced the number of embryos that carried the dangerous mutation. When performed early enough, at the same time as fertilisation, 42 out of 58 embryos, or 72%, were found to be free of the disease-causing mutation.

      The work has impressed other scientists in the field because in previous experiments, gene editing has worked only partially, mending harmful mutations in some cells, but not others. Another problem happens when the wrong genes are modified by mistake, but in the latest work the scientists found no evidence of these so-called off target effects

      Theyve got remarkably good results, its a big advance. said Richard Hynes, a geneticist at MIT who this year co-chaired a major report on human genome editing for the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS). This brings it closer to clinic, but theres still a lot of work to do.

      Today, people who carry certain genetic diseases can opt for IVF and have their embryos screened for harmful mutations. The procedure can only help if there is a chance that some embryos will be healthy. According to Shoukhrat Mitalipov, who led the latest research, gene editing could bolster the number of healthy embryos available for doctors to implant.

      More work is needed to prove that gene editing would be safe to do in people, but even if it seems safe, scientists face major regulatory hurdles before clinical trials could start. In the US, Congress has barred the Food and Drug Administration from even considering human trials with edited embryos, while in the UK it is illegal to implant genetically modified embryos in women. The procedure is controversial because genetic modifications made to an embryo affect not only the child it becomes but future generations too. Its still a long road ahead, said Mitalipov. Its unclear when wed be allowed to move on.

      In the latest study, the mutation was corrected by a route that scientists have not seen before, with the cell copying healthy DNA from the mothers egg instead of the template. One question scientists need to explore now is whether mutations carried by eggs can be corrected as easily as those carried by sperm.

      If all of this holds up for different genes and is also true when the mutation is inherited from the mother, it will be a major step forward, said Janet Rossant, senior scientist and chief of research emeritus at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.

      Asked about the potential for gene editing to produce designer babies, Rossant, a co-author of the NAS report on gene editing, said it was a distant prospect. We are still a long way from serious consideration of using gene editing to enhance traits in babies, she said. We dont understand the genetic basis of many of the human traits that might be targets for enhancement. Even if we did, a genetic alteration that enhanced one trait could have unexpected negative consequences on other traits, and this would be an inherited feature for the next generation.

      The NAS report came out strongly against any form of gene editing designed to simply enhance human potential, she added.

      Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/aug/02/deadly-gene-mutations-removed-from-human-embryos-in-landmark-study

      New Study Stomps Over Stigma By Showing Just About Anyone Can Develop A Mental Illness

      Whether you’re suffering from depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, or an eating disorder, rest assured, you’re not alone. In fact, new research shows it’s more common to struggle with a mental illnessthan it is to never experience one. In a studypublished in the ,researchers followed a generation of New Zealanders from birth to middle age. After running diagnostics every several years in order to look for signs of mental illness, the results showedover 80 percent of participants had struggled at some point or another with mental health issues throughout the study.

      Meanwhile, a mere 17 percent of people remained mentally well throughout the course of this long-term study.

      Translation: Mental illness is more common than mental health.


      Basically, experiencing some sort of mental illness has become the norm.

      When I first opened up about my eating disorder to a group of friends, I found that starting the conversation led them to admit they, too, had beenstruggling with a mental illness of some kind. The more I discussed what I was going through, the more I realized I wasn’t alone.

      While it’s undoubtedly difficult at times to deal with any form of a mental illness, there is certainly comfort in knowing we’re not alone in ourcircumstances.


      The issue, then, is not that someone has a mental illness, but that stigma continues to persist anyway.

      The stigma around mental illness is not only unfair it’s unyielding.

      In 2014, RAND Corporation issueda California Well-Being Survey that studied how the stigma surrounding mental illness affects those suffering. The results showed that more than two-thirds of those surveyed chose to hide their mental health conditions from family, friends, and co-workers to avoid discrimination.

      Additionally, one in five admitted to delaying treatment out of fear of someone finding out about their condition.


      And this stigma likely won’t go away until we can talk aboutmental health the same way we discuss physical health.

      President of Mental Health America Paul Gionfriddo toldBusiness Insider

      At a time when we have recognized the importance of early intervention for cancer or for diabetes or heart disease, why would we say, OK, for mental illness we aren’t going to screen or do early intervention?

      This should be as common for adults as blood pressure screening. Putting our head in the sand and waiting for a catastrophe is not a health care plan.

      As diagnosable mental illness becomes more common, treatment for those mental illnesses need tofollow suit.


      At the very least, this new research brings us one step closer to breaking the stigma around mental illness.

      Though we clearly have a long way to go, mental illness has now been shown to be a common diagnosis, so it is even more crucial that we continue to normalize the conversation surrounding it.

      The truth is, big or small, we’ve all got something going on in our heads.

      There’s no shame in your suffering, and you should feel comfortable standing by and talking about your mental health.

      Don’t let the stigma stop you speak up, and speak often.

      Clearly, we’re all in this together.

      Read more: http://elitedaily.com/wellness/new-study-stomps-stigma-showing-just-anyone-can-develop-mental-illness/2026490/