It happened to me, and I know how it works and usually read the small print. In doing this blog, and having websites related to health and aging, I like to keep up with what else is out there. Prevention magazine is a very popular magazine, so I decided to subscribe to it. I re-subscribed after the first year but then got bored with it, since it is pretty repetitious. So when I got renewal invoices I just ignored them . Yesterday I got a letter from a collection agency telling me I that the client (Prevention magazine) had not received payment for the subscription, and giving me “the opportunity to resolve this matter before it goes any further”.

I had not bothered to read the small print which currently says the following

“Your subscription will be automatically renewed at significant savings off the cover price, unless you tell us to stop. You authorize us to charge your credit card for your renewal subscription before your current subscription expires at the low renewal rate then in effect. If your credit card can’t be charged for any reason, or if you selected the Bill Me Later option, we will bill you directly instead. This service will continue each year until you tell us to stop. If you wish to cancel, call (800) 813-8070 or contact customer service at any time.”

This is known as forced continuation. To stop continually getting the product periodically forever, you have to physically cancel, usually by phone.

The company hopes you don’t notice. Some companies are very sneaky about where they put the small print.

A category of products that are really bad for forced continuation are wrinkle creams. Many of them have a free trial, if you just pay the shipping and handling. However, in the small print you will find that by getting the “free trial” you are agreeing to have the product shipped to you every month and your credit card will be billed every month. Beware of all those fake blogs, that tell you “how I improved my wrinkles” and have amazing before and after pictures.

Caveat emptor. Buyer beware.

small> photo credit: shawncampbell

Technorati Tags: forced continuation, prevention magazine, wrinkle cream, small print

a

A new research paper lays out the arguments for why staying slim will reduce global warming. They point out the following;

Eating less means less food production is required. This means less fertilizer, less farm equipment, less transportation. The reduction in transportation could be significant in areas where the local land could feed the local population, meaning less transportation of food from far away. All of this would decrease green house gas emissions.

If everybody weighed less, this would mean less energy for transportation of humans too. The drop would be due to both less weight to transport (particularly significant for air transportation) and also lighter fitter people tend to drive less.

The researchers estimate that a lean population of 1 billion people would emit 1.0 GT (1,000 million tonnes) less carbon dioxide equivalents per year compared with a fat one.

Unfortunately the trend is the other way. We are all gaining weight. In the majority of countries in the world the average body mass index (BMI) is increasing.

So to save the planet, recycle, reuse and eat less.

photo credit: Earth from Apollo 17

Technorati Tags: staying slim, global warming, transportation, green house gas emissions

a

How much weight (pun intended) do you put in these tests? Have you ever thought about why some sites may want certain personal details? There a quite shocking article about the RealAge site in the NYT last week.

Apparently the RealAge site collects information about you as you do the quiz, and sells the information to drug companies. The drug companies can use that information to target you.

A hypothetical example. Say there is a question that asks you whether you have diabetes. If you answer yes, your email address is added to a database that is sold to a drug company that makes diabetes testing kits. You then start to get emails about diabetes and their product.

I looked at their privacy policy. Though they say they will not give data to third parties, if you keep with the default selection membership and so will be receiving newsletters plus informational emails, then you are allowing them the drug companies via RealAge to send you advertisements. This is an advantage to the drug companies, since if the email looks like it is a RealAge informational email rather than a drug company advertisement, you are more likely to open it.

This then poses the question, are the tests, in part, geared to the health or other conditions that are treated by products that sponsoring companies sell? There a certainly quite a number of questions of dubious merit in the quiz. There is no scientific basis at-all for what some of the questions are used to conclude.

Plus, if you honestly answer all the questions you are giving quite a bit of inform about yourself. This is used to more target the marketing to different segments of the population. A middle-aged overweight male with high blood pressure who lives in the Illinois, may get a different advertisement than a female retiree with high blood pressure that lives in Florida.

This is one way the site makes a lot of money. According to the NYT, RealAge was estimated to be worth $60 to $70 million when it was sold in 2007!

Test-taker beware.

photo credit: dno1967

Technorati Tags: health quiz, aging quiz, test, privacy, sponsor, drug company, advertisement

a

In the news, at least once a month, there are stories about topics such as crashes of different populations of fish, dead zones, and reductions in fishing quotas. The numbers of fish were declining rapidly even before this recent push for eating fish or fish products. As more and more people increase the amount of fish or fish oil that they consume, the decline in fish stocks worldwide will be even more rapid.

At what point are there so few of some types of fish that they become extinct? What does this selective removal of parts of food chains do to the oceans and lakes? Algal blooms? Jellyfish swarms? Upsurge in inedible species? Changes in the climate? We can guess, but nobody really knows.

From a health point of view, do we really need to eat fish? I might say no, since I hated fish as a kid. We lived inland and the only fish we could buy was a bit old. I refused to eat it, and did not like to be around anybody eating it. I had to be in my thirties the first time I ate fish, and now probably eat it about 4 times per year. I seem to be healthy enough.

The health evidence for eating fish or fish oil is probably slightly on the positive. There are many reports of lowered triglycerides (a type of blood fat, that is increased in poorly-controlled diabetes, obesity, liver disease etc.), lowered risk of cardiovascular events such as heart attack. However, there are also quite a few reports where consumption of fish or fish products made no difference.

The main component in fish that are thought to have benefits are the omega-3 fatty acids. It is now thought that it not the amount of omega-3 fatty acids that are consumed, but the ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids. The modern diet has increased amounts of omega-6 fatty acids particularly from oils such as corn and soybean, and decreased the amount omega-3 fatty acids from nuts and a range of plants, that we eat.

Walnuts are a good source of omega-3 fatty acids, and flax meal is now widely available, and a number of fruits, such as kiwifruit, and plants, such as broccoli, have reasonable levels of the omega-3 fatty acids. Apparently, omega-3 fatty acids from a brown alga (kelp) are used in infant formula, and yeast are being engineered to make high levels of omega-3 fatty acids. Perhaps non-fish omega-3 fatty acid supplements and capsules will soon be widely available.

Should we start to again eat more plant and less fish omega-3 fatty acids, as well as less omega-6 fatty acids?

photo credit: Donna S Rutherford

Technorati Tags: fish, fish oil, omega-3 fatty acids, omega-6 fatty acids

a

The video I saw on changes the faces and bodies of models in fashion magazines was surprising even to a cynic like me.

One retouch “artist” said that there was usually something like 30 rounds of retouching of photographs! Meaning the artist made some changes, the magazine then asked for more changes, and so on, for 30 rounds. By 30 rounds of changes, how much of the original photograph remains?

Everything is changed, usually the models are made thinner, wrinkles removed, eyes changed, hair filled out and probably just about everything else. The people who do the changes are truly artists since you cannot tell the fake from the real. The new bodies have a more idealized androgynous shape, and the hair, face shape and skin are perfection.

The scary thing about this is that original photographs are of models. So if a model needs to be significantly changed, those of us with regular bodies, faces and hair ……

There are many studies about how we evaluate ourselves against the bodies and faces in fashion magazines. We are comparing ourselves to an impossible to achieve perfection. We might as well try to be Barbie.

photo credit: Chesi – Fotos CC

Technorati Tags: body image, fashion magazine, retouching

a

It is probably no big surprise to anyone, that generally, men get more comprehensive treatment than females. This seems to be particularly true for diseases that have to do with the cardiovascular system.

In this new study, treatment of patients with heart failure was evaluated. There are guidelines in place in both the US and Europe that list specific medication categories for patients with certain sets of symptoms (i.e. different classifications). The study showed that males were much more likely to be given the medication, or medications, recommended in the guidelines. Women often got less medication than recommended in the guidelines.

The data shows that many women are undertreated, and their heart failure is not as well controlled as it is for men. It is estimated in that perhaps 1 in 10 of those over 65 years has heart failure. Statistics suggest that heart failure is one of the most common reasons for sudden hospitalization, and this costs the US 35 billion dollars a year. The medications used for treatment are not expensive, so besides moral considerations of undertreatment, a lot of money could be saved.

The surprising finding was that female physicians were much more likely than male physicians to give patients the medications suggested by the guidelines. Male physicians tended to have more patients who were under medicated. If I want to be snarky, this could be due to the arrogance that seems to be associated with male cardiologists. As a group they tend to have big egos and know everything. Perhaps the (few) women in the profession are more thoughtful and not so ego driven.

This study suggests two things. The first is that if you, or somebody you know, has heart failure make sure you get the correct medication(s). Ask your physician for your classification (often New York Association Functional Classification) and ask to be treated according to the guidelines for that classification.

Second, maybe when you need a cardiologist, you should think about going to a female cardiologist?

photo credit: ernstl

Technorati Tags: female cardiologist, gender, man, woman, male, female, heart failure, undertreatment, physician

a

There was an interesting article in the NYT that discusses exercise and whether, when and how it is helpful.

One of the problems of studying exercise is that those who tend to regularly exercise often have different habits from those who do not exercise. Additionally, when a person who has been doing no exercise decides to take up exercise they are likely to alter other things like smoking less, or eating more fruit and vegetable. This makes it very hard to study just the effects of exercise alone.

There is no doubt for overweight people, that when compared to those that do not exercise, those that do exercise have a lower risk of diabetes. Exercise has been shown to help control blood sugar in those whose blood sugar is starting to rise (prediabetic). It has also been shown to have positive effects on blood pressure, for those with high blood pressure.

One benefit that seems to be universally agreed upon is the benefit of exercise for the elderly. This is a case of keeping strength and mobility. This reduces the likelihood of falling and keeping active helps with general well being including less depression.

The benefit of exercising on losing weight, has been known for a while, to be quite small. Those that exercise only lose weight slightly faster than those who do not exercise. The benefit of exercising (or is it lifestyle changes?) is seen more for weight maintenance. Those who exercise are more likely to keep the weight off.

Why is exercise not of greater value to weight loss? The answer is that most people do not do enough exercise to burn that many calories. Most people burn less than 100 calories per mile.

The benefits on other diseases is much less clear. Even the effects of exercise on heart disease are open to argument. The effects on various cancers that have been studied is even more controversial.

This has led to some thinking that moderate exercise is good for you, but is not going to fix as much as is often indicated. It is just part of a healthy lifestyle.

For why exercise is important for slowing aging see How helpful is exercise? Part 2.

photo credit: akunamatata

Technorati Tags: exercise, health, helpful, benefit

a

Lipitor is one of a class of drugs called statins. These drugs are cholesterol lowering drugs. The inhibition of a rate limiting enzyme (HMG CoA reductase) in the synthesis of cholesterol is the main target of all the statins. There are a number of statins, each with slight differences from each other. Lipitor has been aggressively marketed and is sold as being one of the most effective of the statins.

In addition to lowering cholesterol, the statins have been shown to lower the risk of heart attack and stroke.

A new study indicates that the data presented by the manufacturer and in trials does not show a reduced risk of heart attack for women who take Lipitor.

Analysis of the data on Lipitor trials suggest that the decreased risk of heart attack applies to men but not to women.

Apparently, Pfizers advertising does not include the part of the FDA approved labeling that states there is no evidence of a decreased risk for women.

The abstract for the article ends with:

Billions of health-care dollars may be being wasted on statin use by women but the current regulatory regime does not create incentives to prevent such behavior.

Strong words!

Whether this applies to any of the other statins (lovastatin (Mevacor), simvastatin (Zocor), fluvastatin (Lescol), pravastatin (Pravachol), rosuvastatin (Crestor)), is not clear.

This difference between men and women in their response to Lipitor, is consistent with other differences that occur between men and women with regards to their hearts. For instance the symptoms of heart attack are often different between men and women. See a description of women and heart attack.

Women lose out yet again?

photo credit: Gunnar Wrobel

Technorati Tags: Lipitor, women, cholesterol, heart attack

a

Do you always use a credit card? I certainly do. I can go for weeks with just a few dollars in my wallet. Even worse than that, I have never actually used a debit card for purchases, only at the bank ATM for cash.

A number of studies suggest that we feel more pain using cash and that makes us much more careful. Since it is harder to give up our cash than to almost mindlessly charge something, then there is much more thought given to the how we value a purchase. Much less impulse buying.

Additionally if you keep having to go and get more cash, whether from the ATM or your sock draw, then you have to be much more aware of how much you are spending overall, as well as at any one time.

Research suggests that using a gift card invokes similar spending patterns to credit cards. I would have thought that we would feel even less pain than with a credit card. The something for nothing mentality.

Probably one of the most painless (at the time) ways to spend is on the internet. Find something that it looks cool, would be useful or whatever, and before you know what has hit you, you have more stuff on the way. Stuff to add to the house full of stuff that you already have.

It does make you temporarily think about your spending habits, and how mindless using a credit card can be. Perhaps we should all use more cash. However, most places are geared to using plastic. Cash can sometimes be hard to get hold of and many stores do not like to have large amounts of cash on the premises.

Plus paying cash is stressful in the supermarket, drugstore or other places where you make multiple purchases, since often you have to figure out if you have enough money. If we return to cash for all our needs, our mental arithmetic would certainly improve in a hurry.

photo credit: Paul Jerry

Technorati Tags: credit card, cash, gift card, spending

a

Do you actually know what irradiation of food is?

Everything is naturally exposed to radiation, it comes from space and from the earth. Think of a radioactive substance as something (a source) that sends out (emits) high energy. Different sources send out different amounts of energy. Importantly, this energy can be felt (detected) without touching the radioactive source.

When food is is irradiated it does NOT come in contact with the radioactive source. It placed close too, but not against a source. It gets a dose of short really high energy that may be bad or good (see below) but it does NOT make the food radioactive.

The food being radioactive is used as a scare tactic, the real pros and cons are elsewhere. As always the answer is not totally black and white.

The blast of high levels of ionizing radiation from a radioactive source can slow the ripening of fruits and damage the DNA of microbes so that are unable to divide and grow in foods. UV light also affects DNA and can be used to sterilize things. Radiation is more effective since it can penetrate into things.

Probably the most widespread use of irradiation is for sterilization of health items, particularly for use in hospitals.

Low doses of radiation are used to delay ripening of some fruits and slow the sprouting of some tubers such as potato and bulbs. Higher doses are used to decrease the level of viable microbes so that shelf life is extended. Even higher doses are used to effectively sterilize products so that they can be stored at room temperature for extended periods of time.

Exposing anything to high doses of ionizing energy sources will cause changes in cells including damaging DNA. The main aim for irradiation when being used to stop the growth of microbes, is to cause sufficient damage to the DNA of the microbes that they can no longer grow and divide. (Of course there will some effect on the DNA of the cells of fruit or Vegetable. However, the fruit or vegetable has been harvested, is now dying and so few if any cells will be dividing.) This damage to the DNA of the microbes either slows the rate of, or stops, food spoiling.

It has been legal to irradiate many products for years. Irradiation of spices and herbs controls both any insects and bacteria present. Irradiation of fruit will both control any pests on the fruit and slow the ripening. For instance strawberries will be easier to transport, can be transported further and will not rot in your fridge so quickly. Hamburger patties can be irradiated to reduce the risk of food poisoning from virulent E. coli. The recent addition of spinach and lettuce, makes sense, they are hard to wash effectively and can be accidentally contaminated, while being grown, with run off containing animal waste.

However though there are a wide range of foods that can be irradiated, due to consumer concerns, only a small proportion of the eligible food is irradiated.

So the pros are fruit that will ripen slower, an extended shelf life for foods and a reduction in the likelihood of getting food poisoning.

The cons are a bit less well defined.

What exactly is the effect of the blast of ionizing radiation on food? The radiation and any heat generated will affect the proteins, fats, DNA etc of the cells. Are any of these effects negative? Is the nutritional quality of the food affected? Some people suggest that there may be toxic byproducts. Though there does not seem to any firm idea of what these toxic byproducts might be. Of course it is possible that in some cases the nutritional quality could be improved (like exposing tomatoes to heat makes more lycopene available).

The effect on food is complicated by the fact that there is a wide range of strength of irradiation of food. So there is going to be a range of effects. In a photo credit: Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com

Technorati Tags: irradiation food, DNA, ripening, vitamin K

a