About
If you've got a story, picture, or link that's beyond belief, send it to tipline@haveigotoneforyou.com with your name and where you heard about it and we'll add it!
Accounts
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
March 31 2011
Weight-Loss Supplement Has Teensy Potential Side Effect: You Might *Get Mad Cow Disease*!
Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hGC), a hormone produced during pregnancy, is isolated from the urine of pregnant women and used to treat infertility. Since the 1950s, however, it’s also been used as a weight-loss aid—and still is, even though there’s no solid evidence showing it works.
But taking hCG could be worse than just ineffective: A new study shows that doses of the hormone can transmit prions, the misfolded proteins that cause mad cow disease and its human equivalent, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, an invariably fatal form of dementia that riddles the brain with holes (photo).
That’s right: There’s a potential risk of contracting deadly, brain-destroying illness by injecting yourself with proteins taken from other people’s urine—and you won’t even lose weight.
The New York Times lamely wrote earlier this month that hCG as a weight-loss regimen “has fans and skeptics”—but Travis Saunders at Obesity Panacea says that spreading mad cow is just one more reason to avoid “the most thoroughly debunked weight loss gimmick in medical history.”
No prion diseases have been transmitted through urine yet, the authors of the study say, but it is theoretically possible. And even ...
March 09 2011
New “Gastric Pacemaker” Aims to Zap People Into Weight Loss
Not many people would be excited about getting shocks to their vagus nerve, but a new electronic device implanted into the abdomen does just that in an effort to keep appetites in check.
The tiny device, called abiliti and made by Intrapace, attaches to the vagus nerve, which sends status updates about the body’s organs to the brain. The pacemaker then hacks the nervous system’s normal communication, according to the company’s website:
The abiliti system is designed to support these good habits by making the patient feel full sooner when eating. The abiliti system may also help in keeping them satisfied longer and helping them to eat less frequently.
Intrapace reports that the 65 study participants in the initial trials have lost on average 22 percent of their body weight; the biggest loser dropped 38 percent. (These results haven’t been published or peer-reviewed.)
The device is billed as an alternative to more invasive weight-loss procedures, like stomach bypasses or gastric bands, and may have fewer side effects. It is implanted into the abdomen, where it floats around near the stomach, connected to nerves by electrodes through which it senses how extended ...
December 17 2010
Each Cell-Phone Tower Creates 18 Babies?! The Difference Between Causation & Correlation
Those people living in areas with higher numbers of mobile phone towers have more children, new research is showing (spreadsheet). Matt Parker at The Guardian’s Notes & Theories blog did the analysis of publicly available data and found the correlation:
Could it be possible that mobile phone radiation somehow aids fertilisation, or maybe there’s just something romantic about a mobile phone transmitter mast [aka tower] protruding from the landscape?
The data show that there is a very strong correlation between the number of cell phone towers and the birth rate in communities. For every additional phone tower, there are 17.6 more babies than the national average, Parker writes in his blog post:
When a regression line is calculated it has a “correlation coefficient” (a measure of how good the match is) of 98.1 out of 100. To be “statistically significant” a pattern in a dataset needs to be less than 5% likely to be found in random data (known as a “p-value”), and the masts-births correlation only has a 0.00003% probability of occurring by chance.
Many studies depend on this type of correlation. When we report on them, we try to remind readers that there is a big difference between correlation and causation. This is one of those times. The link between the birth rate and the towers isn’t causative, as Parker explains:
Both the number of mobile phone transmitters and the number of live births are linked to a third, independent factor: the local population size. As the population of an area goes up, so do both the number of mobile phone users and the number people giving birth.
The correlation between cell phone towers and birth rate is perfect fodder for neo-Luddites, many of whom, like the group of parents in Ontario fearing the school’s WiFi rays and pregnant women investing in “Belly Armor” to protect their unborn children, claim that wireless technology is harming our bodies. There is no good evidence that non-ionizing radiation causes anything of the sort.
Just because two events are positively correlated doesn’t mean they are necessarily linked via causation. In these types of studies, there is always a question of where the truth lies, like reports that Adenovirus 36 causes obesity in humans. The studies draw correlations between presence of antibodies to the virus and obesity, but if it is indeed causative, this link could go either way (obesity can cause immune dysfunction, making people more likely to have been infected with AD36), or the two could be completely causally unrelated, like many correlations, Parker explains:
While this does not cause a problem when using pattern-spotting as an evolved survival tool, it does cause severe problems when assessing possible health scares based on a recently uncovered correlation. For the majority of cases, correlation does not indicate the presence of causality.
Parker is releasing his data as a press release, so keep an eye on your favorite (or least favorite) news organizations to see who bites on the sham cell tower-fertility connection.
Related Content:
80beats: Bee Collapse May Be Caused by a Virus-Fungus One-Two Punch
Not Exactly Rocket Science: Does national IQ depend on parasite infections? Er…
Bad Astronomy: Jenny McCarthy still thinks vaccines cause autism
Gene Expression: Vitamin D deficiency & respiratory infections
Gene Expression: Fat men are dumber!
Gene Expression: Liberals & atheists are smarter than conservatives & very religious, but why?
The Intersection: Specter’s First Reply: Denialism Kills People
Image: Flickr/barryskeates
November 24 2010
Chubby Kitties, Tubby Turtles, Mega Marmosets: Animals Are Fattening Up
A prophetic story from The Onion in 2003 seems to be coming true: our pets and even lab and wild animals are becoming obese alongside humans:
Amid a barrage of commercials for new diet dog and cat foods, many owners say that their pets are being held to impossibly high animal-body standards perpetrated by the media. “I don’t care what anyone says, my Sassy looks good,” said Janice Guswhite.
Back in the non-satirical world, the findings are alarming. A study of over 20,000 animals from 12 different populations, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, found that over the last 20 years the animals in every population they studied have been growing significantly tubbier, paralleling the human obesity epidemic.
Not only pets are fattening up–the group also studied wild animals living near humans and animals living in labs and zoos. All of them have been chubbing-out over the last two decades. This could mean we are thinking about the obesity epidemic all wrong, lead author David Allison told Nature News:
“Now, we don’t know why these increases occurred, but it invites some very interesting speculation,” Allison says. The surge in human obesity is generally attributed to an increasing consumption of calories and a decrease in physical activity. “But maybe there are other things that are important–because those things can’t be acting on the marmosets, or the rats and mice in the National Toxicology Program,” he says.
Some of the increases can certainly be explained by increases in caloric intake; for example your typical city rat, which ballooned up 40 percent, could be getting a more energy-rich diet of human scraps than 20 years ago. On the other hand, populations like lab monkeys shouldn’t be affected by changes to human habits, since they are raised on well-defined diets.
Obesity researcher Jaap Seidell, who wasn’t involved in the project, admits that environmental factors like Adenovirus 36 (which might be linked to human obesity) or endocrine disruptors and other drugs (which can get into the water system) may play a role in the obesity epidemic. But he told Nature News that each case of lab animals or wild animals ballooning up should be investigated individually before jumping to conclusions.
Other factors may also have changed. For example, over the past 30 years the number of rodents housed in each cage may have altered–which could very well affect the amount of exercise they get. “I think they are trying to deflect the attention from restriction of physical activity and high-energy foods,” Seidell says.
Related Content:
Discoblog: Mother’s Fatty Diet Makes Baby Monkeys Afraid of Mr. Potato Head
Discoblog: New Villain in the Obesity Epidemic: Mean Gym Teachers
Discoblog: New Theory: Plastic Can Make You Fat?
Discoblog: Super-Size Me, Jesus: Last Suppers in Paintings Have Gotten Bigger
Discoblog: Animal Prosthetics: False Limbs for Elephants, and Silicone Where You’d Least Expect It
DISCOVER: 20 Things You Didn’t Know About… Fat
Image: flickr / Yukari
November 04 2010
Happy Meal Set to Become a Sad Meal in San Francisco
A decision made Tuesday by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors may make little kids (and probably some adults) cry. With an un-vetoable vote of 8 to 3, the board banned restaurant chains like McDonald’s and Burger King from giving out toys with “unhealthy” happy meals within San Francisco’s city limits.
The decision is preliminary and will be followed up by a second debate and vote on Tuesday, November 9.
Under the proposed rule, meals deemed healthy can still be packed with action figures. To meet the city’s “healthy” standard a kid’s meal must contain fewer than 640 milligrams of sodium and 600 calories, and under 35 percent of those calories can come from fat. It also has to include a serving of fruit or vegetable with each meal and meet a number of other requirements (pdf).
The majority of McDonald’s Happy Meal options don’t meet these standards, including ALL of the cheeseburger options and any meal with fries. McDonald’s spokesperson told The New York Times they don’t agree with the Supervisors’ stance:
McDonald’s called the bill misguided. “It’s not what our customers want,” said Danya Proud, a spokeswoman for the company, in a statement. “Nor is it something they asked for.”
The restaurateurs aren’t the only ones disappointed in the decision. San Francisco’s Mayor Gavin Newsom (who just won the lieutenant governor’s seat in this week’s election) said he would veto the bill, even though with eight supervisor votes he can’t override the decision. Others aren’t excited that the city government is trying to control what individuals are eating, said chef Henry Dimbleby in his blog for The Telegraph:
Libertarians, needless to say, are not impressed. “This is great,” reads a typical message board entry. “As a parent, I support this 100%. But I was wondering, why stop at telling me what to feed my kids? It would be great if the government would also tell me what time to put my kids to bed and what to clothe them in and what names to give them and how many I can have. That would make being a parent much, much easier and less time consuming. Thanks.”
A very similar ban came out of Santa Clara County (also in California’s Bay Area) in April. The San Francisco board was spurred to act themselves because of the city’s struggle with childhood obesity: Over 30 percent of fifth graders are overweight. The board hopes the ban will encourage kids to eat healthier foods, supervisor Bevan Dufty told the SF Gate:
“If you have to put a Shrek doll with a package of carrots,” Dufty added, “maybe that’s what you have to do, but there hasn’t been a real incentive for this industry to do that, and I think that this legislation in a small appropriate way is a step to say you need to do things differently.”
Related content:
Discoblog: To Catch Hamburglars, McDonald’s Installs DNA-Spraying Security System
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: I’d like a number 2 value meal, a frosty, and a peer-reviewed publication, please.
Discoblog: Why Do Some People Never Get Fat? Scientists May Have the Answer
80beats: Will the Supreme Court Let California Kids Buy Violent Video Games?
Not Exactly Rocket Science: Fast food logos unconsciously trigger fast behaviour
Image: Flickr/cbgrfx123
September 23 2010
The Public Speaks: Best Insulting New Names for High Fructose Corn Syrup
The New York Times’s health blog is asking scientists and readers what they would rename high fructose corn syrup, if they were given the chance.
The ubiquitous sticky sweetener is considered poison by many foodies and some public health officials, who worry that HFCS-packed processed foods contribute to obesity. But the companies that make the sweetener–the Corn Refiners Group–are hoping that changing the name of the product will change its image, as their president told the New York Times:
“Clearly the name is confusing consumers,” said Audrae Erickson, president of the Washington-based group, in an interview. “Research shows that ‘corn sugar’ better communicates the amount of calories, the level of fructose and the sweetness in this ingredient.”
The Times asked six leading nutritionists what they thought of the new name, and what they would rename it, given the chance. Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, would rename HFCS “enzymatically altered corn glucose” because he says:
The name also connotes a highly-processed, novel food ingredient, which has always been the best reason to avoid it….
See the whole list and vote for your favorite at the New York Times’ Well Blog, or suggest one of your own! Commenters on the site chimed in with their own opinions and suggestions to re-name HFCS. Here are our 10 favorite (and funniest) suggestions found floating around the extensive comments.
#10 Larry B says “How about ‘diabetes enhancer’, ‘Killer Sweets’, ‘Chucky the Sugar’ or ‘Texas Chainsaw Sweetner’”
#9 Kirk says we should “Just rename it ‘Glutton syrup,’ ‘Overeaters delight’ or ‘American way,’ any would be fitting.”
#8 S.L Marshall suggests the name “Liquid death.”
#7 davehalo has a couple names up his sleeve:
“1- corporate welfare sugar
2- millionaire’s elixir
3- tax payer subsidized corporate sugar
4- S.U.G.A.R – corporate ceo saying ’sure u get a refund’ right into my pocket”
#6 Jg suggests “Pre-fat”
#5 Craig Maltby: “Maize Glaze”
#4 Alex says “It should be called ‘Corn Glufru.’”
#3 Bruce suggests: “obesitose”
#2 wilwallace says to “call it F-A-T (Fat American Tonic)”
And #1 comes from Carl, who wisely says, “I think we should call it ‘the sweetener formerly known as high fructose corn syrup.’”
Scan through all the comments at the New York Times’ Well Blog.
Related content:
Gene Expression: Fructose, bad in rats
80beats: Rats Fed on Bacon, Cheesecake, and Ding-Dongs Become Addicted to Junk Food
Not Exactly Rocket Science: Corn is everywhere in American fast food
Cosmic Variance: Cheap, Crappy Calories
Image: iStockphoto
May 03 2010
Army Generals Fret: Are Americans too Fat to Fight?
April 23 2010
Fast Food News: It Boosts Impatience, and What Trumps KFC’s Double Down?
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
