Wednesday 28 November 2012

4 DEADLY HABITS THAT PACK ON THE POUNDS


Here's the basic, bare-bones physiology of body weight: Consume more calories than you expend and you'll gain weight. Take in fewer calories than you expend and you'll lose weight. Now I know you've all heard about studies that indicate that "a calorie is truly not just a calorie -- it depends on what you're eating, not just how much you're eating." What about all the evidence that weight loss is a complex phenomenon that we still have not figured out? And so begins the conversation. Should I count calories? Carbs? Should I avoid eating after 7 p.m.? And the best question -- who should I listen to for my weight-loss advice?

With so many options out there for weight loss, and so many experts to dish it out, it's easy to see why the "right or wrong way" can get lost in the weight-loss storm. What if I told you that avoiding a few simple habits could be the first step to help you shed pounds? What if I told you that you could put down the weight-loss book and just start standing more? Could it be that easy? If you look around at cultures and areas of the world that are more likely to keep excess weight off -- the answer is yes.

You Love Your Chair
While most of us know that heart disease and cancer are major killers, many of us don't know that there is something we do every day that is just as harmful to our health -- sitting. According to several studies, it's putting us in the grave earlier. Prolonged sitting (I'm talking to you, guy who spends most of your day behind the desk) puts us at risk for heart disease, cancer and diabetes. If you think that hitting the gym will offset this risk, think again. A 2012 study in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity found that even women who had a regular exercise routine suffered the same risks from sitting all day, despite their daily exercise. I sit at a desk more than I like, and once I hit 35, I realized that my sitting was affecting my health. I spent $99 and got a podium that I now use several times a day in my office. I simply put my computer on the podium and get off the chair. Other, more expensive options are out there, such as treadmill desks. For now, get a podium or schedule 10 minute walking breaks the way you would schedule other meetings throughout the day. Bottom line -- be vertical as much as possible and you'll keep weight and disease risk down.

You're Not Eating Enough
I find that I get a lot of weird looks when I talk about food, usually from people that don't want to hear that an apple is better than apple pie. The strangest looks I get are those that come after I've told someone that is struggling to lose weight that he or she needs to eat more, not less. Let's go back and imagine we are all cavemen running around in the forest to illustrate what I'm talking about. You're a caveman; you share the same genetic code as those that came before you and after you (us). You haven't found an animal to kill in a while and the berries you're finding in the forest are poisonous -- so you've cut the total amount of food you're taking in considerably. Your body, in an effort to keep you alive, does two things -- lowers your metabolism so that you need less to survive, while holding onto every last calorie you put into it. Now let's fast-forward a bit to present day. Food is available 24 hours a day -- and a lot of it is cheap. You know that, but your brain does not. You might as well be running in the cold forest looking for a deer to kill and a few leaves to nibble on. Starving doesn't work; you'll only end up piling on all the pounds you lost when you finally start eating normally again. So, to increase the chances for success, start with a healthy breakfast that's jam-packed with fiber and protein and continue through the day with small yet frequent meals to give your body the fuel it needs to keep the metabolism fire lit! This will avoid that endless cycle of starving, losing 10 pounds, going back to a "normal" diet and gaining 20. Stop starving -- and eat.

Most of Your Meals Come From Some Type of Menu
If your goal is to lose weight and maintain that weight loss, then you really need to cut down on your meals away from home. A 2012 study in The Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics found that, in addition to keeping a food journal and not skipping meals, forgoing eating out for lunch was a key factor in terms of successful weight loss. In fact, the study found that women who went out at lunch at least once a week lost about five pounds less than women who ate lunch out less frequently. In addition to watching your weight, let's not forget watching our heart health as well. If you think that an "innocent" fast-food meal here and there won't matter -- I'm here to tell you, it will! A recent study in the journal Circulation found that consuming just one fast-food meal a week was associated with a 20 percent increase in the chance of dying from heart disease when compared to those who did not consume fast food. Just one meal a week. Another study found that just one junk-food meal damaged arteries. Bottom line: If you're trying to drop a jeans size (and live longer, too), make sure 90 percent of your meals are coming from your home.

Your Emotions Dictate Your Diet
Why do we choose certain foods when we are sad, depressed, or anxious? It's because they provide temporary comfort and lead us to eating to nourish our emotions, but not necessarily our bodies. Food becomes the drug and we use it to calm down, feel happier or even bring on sleep. This comfort may come from a memory from childhood but there is evidence that a chemical component occurs, which causes us to crave and reach for certain foods over others. It has a lot to do with neurotransmitters (endogenous chemicals that relay, amplify, and modulate signals between a neuron and another cell) and how food affects them.

Let's face it -- no one is white-knuckling the steering wheel after a stressful day at work thinking, "I can't wait to get my hands on some spinach." Oh no, it goes more like this: stressful day of work + fight with spouse + screaming kids = four pieces of pizza followed by a bowl of chocolate ice cream. So the question is, why the pizza and not the spinach? According to the National Institutes of Mental Health, neutrotransmitters are chemicals in our brain that affect our moods and emotional responses; and according to research, these neurotransmitters (serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine) can be affected by food.
 
A study in the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology found that individuals with high amounts of cortisol (a hormone released in response to stress) were more likely to consume junk food than individuals with lower cortisol levels. Another study published in the journal Appetite found that negative mood was associated with increased subjective appetite -- meaning, we are not only eating the wrong foods, we are eating too much of them. In time, we end up consuming too many calories, salt, fat and sugar and find that we've gained weight. Next time you're searching for a food that will make you feel good, stop before you put anything in your mouth, ask yourself what you're really feeding and then choose wisely. Spinach and lentils, omega-3-rich foods, whole grains, lean protein including whey protein, and black tea consumption have all been associated with increasing our "feel-good" neurotransmitters. In moderation, these foods may help us get the fix, without the extra weight and guilt. Losing weight in today's world is hard enough. Increase your chances by decreasing these unhealthy behaviors!

For more information on how to lose weight responsibly, contact us through: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Perzonal-Trainer/492595214099791?ref=hl

Wednesday 21 November 2012

NO TIME TO EXCERCISE? TRY 10-MINUTE WORKOUTS


The procrastinators, the super-busy, and the easily bored in pursuit of a manageable fitness routine may find what they seek in the 10-minute workout.

Experts say what these short bursts of activity, sometimes called exercise snacking, lack in duration they can make up for in intensity. "You can get a good enough workout that can make real metabolic changes to your body," said Liz Neporent, co-author of "The Thin in 10 Weight-Loss Plan" along with fitness instructor Jessica Smith. "It can help you lose weight, reduce stress and basically give you all the benefits that we know come from exercise."

The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) recommends that most adults engage in at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise each week. But multiple shorter sessions of at least 10 minutes are acceptable and even people unable to meet the minimums still benefit from some activity, according to ACSM.

Neporent, who writes on health and fitness, said mainstream science is finding that if you increase intensity you can decrease time. That approach can work for a lot of people, she said, because poll after poll has shown that the number one objection to not getting a workout in is time. "The typical recommendation is to do 30 minutes, so if we told you that you could do 10 minutes at a time, you might actually have a better shot at getting it done," she said.

To make the most of 10 minutes, Neporent and Smith favor a hybrid of cardio and strength exercises.
"You want to get in something that's heart-healthy, and something that's good for your muscles and bones," Neporent said. "A lot of our workouts (in the book) tend to be circuit-weighted to maximize time." They also promote the 10-minute walk; the meal plan section extends the theme with recipes that take 10 minutes or less to prepare.

Amy Dixon, creator of the "Give Me 10" DVD series of 10-minute workouts, said studies show shorter, but more consistent, workouts can yield dramatic results. "If I had 10 minutes I would do fairly intense strength training, total body workouts with dumbbells or kettle bells interspersed with cardio intervals like jumping jacks," said Dixon, who is Group Fitness Manager at an Equinox fitness center in Santa Monica, Calif. She's seen too many people spend 60 minutes just going through the motions of a cardiovascular workout. "If you're reading a magazine," she said, "you're not working out."

Dr. Carl Foster, a professor in the exercise and sports science department at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, said there are unique advantages to high-intensity training for the young and the fit. "There are things you gain that you can't get from low-intensity workouts because you're using muscle fibers that are sedentary in a walk," he said. For the middle-aged or older, high-intensity exercise has its perils. "Somewhere around age 45 for men and 55 for women, you worry about the dark side of exercise," he said. "Studies are clear that when people have catastrophes, such as heart attacks, they are almost always related to inappropriately high-intensity exercise." Sometimes high-intensity routines are just too uncomfortable to be habit-forming, he said. "Yes it can be done. You can do the work in 10 minutes but then it takes you 40 minutes to recover." Foster predicts the focus on high-intensity interval training will wane. "It will be like seasoning in food: you want to feel like an athlete, so let's do some of it in the middle of the workout," he said. Before you leap into high-intensity training, he urges, be sure to have at least six months of normal training behind you. Then gradually add five or 10 seconds that are a little harder.

The biggest risk is that people who've been sedentary will suddenly decide to get in shape with high-intensity training. "For middle-aged and older people, high-intensity training can be a trap that leads to health problems," Foster said. "The people who are moderately active on a routine basis are the people who don't get heart attacks."

For personal guidance, contact us through: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Perzonal-Trainer/492595214099791?ref=hl

Tuesday 20 November 2012

HOW MUCH EXCERCISE IS NECESSARY?


You need to have a good working understanding of exercise and how it affects your body in order to get the most out of it. If you exercise too little or too much, you may not be getting the intended benefits from the effort, which would make it a pointless effort all together, or may end up getting you hurt or overworked in the process. Here is a basic look at what kind of exercise you should be doing and why it will benefit you to do it this way.

The first thing to understand is that 30 minutes of exercise a day is usually more than sufficient. If you exercise for 30 minutes at least three times a week, you will improve your health by getting your heart going and burning additional calories. What most people are unaware of is that following a good workout, you will continue to burn calories based on your muscle mass and how hard your heart is working. So not only are you burning 30 minutes of exercise worth of calories, but your body will continue to burn calories for a good long while afterward, improving your health significantly. Here are some other things to keep in mind:
- You need to walk every day. You should aim for 10,000 steps in a day accumulated throughout the day. This includes steps from the bed to the bathroom, down the stairs into the kitchen, and however much walking is required to get you to work. You should also aim to do about 30 minutes of continuous walking a day if you can, as this will benefit your entire body, especially your heart.
- If you want to build muscular strength which, as we touched on, will benefit your weight loss, you should aim to do thirty total minutes of resistance exercise per week. Break this into 3 10-minute weight lifting sessions during the week and you should be just fine.
- Getting the right amount of cardiovascular exercise has to do with your maximum heart rate and exercise at 80 percent of this. Take 220 and subtract your age. This is your maximum heart rate. Try to achieve this maximum heart rate for 20 to 30 minutes, three times a week. If you are 50 years old, your maximum heart rate is 136 beats per minute, which is 220 minus 50, for 170, times 0.8.
- For optimal flexibility, which is an important part of getting physically fit and healthy, you should be stretching for approximately five minutes per day. Keep in mind that you should always warm up before you stretch rather than treating stretching as the warm up itself. If you have not warmed up, your muscles will be stiff and cold and much more apt to suffering injuries. Walk around for a few minutes to get your body going, then stretch when everything is feeling warm and limber.


Monday 19 November 2012

EXCERCISE BENEFITS FOUND FOR PREGNANCIES WITH HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE



Contrary to popular thought, regular exercise before and during pregnancy could have beneficial effects for women that develop high blood pressure during gestation, human physiology professor Jeff Gilbert said, summarizing a new study by his research team that appears in the December issue of Hypertension, a journal of the American Heart Association.



Gilbert's team at the University of Oregon observed that placental ischemia-induced hypertension in rats was alleviated by exercise and was accompanied by a restoration of several circulating factors that have recently been shown to be important in causing the high blood pressure associated with preeclampsia. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, such as preeclampsia, are the most common dangerous pregnancy complications, occurring in 5 percent to 8 percent of pregnancies. Globally, preeclampsia and other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy cause 76,000 maternal and 500,000 infant deaths each year, conservatively, according to the Preeclampsia Foundation. "The data from our study raise the possibility that exercise regimens if started before pregnancy and maintained through most of gestation may be an important way for women to mitigate the risk of preeclampsia," Gilbert said. "There are certainly questions that remain, such as when and how much exercise is required and whether exercise training must begin before pregnancy for these beneficial effects to occur. Moreover, further studies are needed to determine if it can safely be used as a thera­peutic modality for hypertension caused by insufficient blood flow in the placenta. "But these results are certainly encouraging," he added.


Previous clinical and epidemiological studies have long suggested that regular exercise before and during pregnancy reduced risk of preeclampsia but definitive mechanistic studies on the topic had been lacking until recently. Even though these findings are exciting, there are still safety concerns that need to be evaluated clinically and exercise continues to be discouraged in pregnancies complicated by high blood pressure.


Working in accordance with National Institutes of Health guidelines for animal use, Gilbert's team induced hypertension in pregnant rats by restricting blood flow to the rat placentas and monitored gestation after six weeks of exercise on activity wheels. Animals in test and control groups ran approximately 30 kilometers per week before pregnancy and approximately 4.5 kilometers per week during pregnancy. Wheel running before and during pregnancy reduced high blood pressure. It also improved circulating concentrations of vascular endothelial growth factor and restored the balance between that factor and soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1, which restricts blood vessel growth and function. The study suggests that exercise lowers high blood pressure by maintaining the balance of these two factors that promote proper blood vessel growth and function.

Exercise also improved endothelial cell function and reduced oxidative stress in the hypertensive rat. Fetal weight was not compromised by exercise and there were no obvious signs of fetal stress in rats with hypertension that exercised, Gilbert said.

Sunday 18 November 2012

MODERATE DRINKING IN PREGNANCY 'HARMS IQ'


Drinking one or two glasses of wine a week during pregnancy can have an impact on a child's IQ, a study says.

Researchers from Oxford and Bristol universities looked at the IQ scores of 4,000 children as well as recording the alcohol intake of their mothers. They found "moderate" alcohol intake of one to six units a week during pregnancy affected IQ. Experts said the effect was small, but reinforced the need to avoid alcohol in pregnancy.

Previous studies have produced inconsistent and confusing evidence on whether low to moderate levels of alcohol are harmful in pregnancy, largely because it is difficult to separate out other factors that may have an effect such as the mother's age and education. But this research, published in the PLOS One journal, ruled that out by looking at changes in the genes that are not connected to social or lifestyle effects.

'Why take the risk?'
The study found that four genetic variants in alcohol-metabolising genes in children and their mothers were strongly related to lower IQ at age eight. On average, the child's IQ was almost two points lower per genetic modification they possessed.

The effects of alcohol in pregnancy

  • When a pregnant woman drinks alcohol, the levels of alcohol in her baby's blood rise as high as her own
  • Because the baby's liver is immature, it can't break down the alcohol as fast as an adult can
  • This means the baby is exposed to greater amounts of alcohol for longer than the mother
  • When an unborn baby is constantly exposed to alcohol, a particular group of problems can develop, known as foetal alcohol syndrome
  • The government advises pregnant women to avoid alcohol completely
 
But this effect was only seen among the children of women who drank between one and six drinks a week during pregnancy and not among women who abstained when they were pregnant.

The researchers said although a causal effect could not be proven, the way they had done the study strongly suggested that it was exposure to alcohol in the womb that was responsible for the differences in child IQ.

Dr Ron Gray, from Oxford University, who led the research added that although the differences appeared small, they may well be significant and that lower IQ had been shown to be associated with being socially disadvantaged, having poorer health and even dying younger. "It is for individual women to decide whether or not to drink during pregnancy, we just want to provide the evidence. But I would recommend avoiding alcohol. Why take the risk?"

A Department of Health spokesman said that since 2007 their advice had been that women who are trying to conceive or are pregnant should avoid alcohol. But Dr Clare Tower, consultant in obstetrics and fetal maternal medicine, at St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, stressed that women who have had the occasional alcoholic drink in pregnancy should not be overly alarmed by the findings. "Current UK advice is that the safest course of action is abstinence during pregnancy. The finding of this study would concur that this is undoubtedly the safest advice." But she pointed out that another recent study had found no effect on IQ at five years. "It is likely therefore, that any impact is likely small and not seen in all women."

For more guidance about your personal health, contact: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Perzonal-Trainer/492595214099791?ref=hl


Saturday 17 November 2012

SUGARY DRINKS LINKED TO HIGHER STROKE RISK


Women who imbibe sugary soft drinks almost every day are 83 percent more likely to have a certain type of stroke than women who rarely drink sodas and other sweetened beverages, according to a new study from Japan.

Although the findings don't prove that sweet drinks are to blame for the higher stroke risk, other studies have shown links between high sugar intake and clogged arteries, said Dr. Adam Bernstein, a researcher at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in the study. And "as the authors here saw, most of the (increased) risk was with ischemic stroke, the kind of stroke with plaque buildup" in the arteries, Bernstein said.

The results agree with a host of other studies tying sugary drinks to all sorts of untoward health effects, including heart attacks, obesity and diabetes. Some governments have responded by trying to discourage people from choosing sweetened drinks, such as with tax proposals and New York's ban on super-sized sodas. Schools also have cut back on making sugary drinks available to students.
Given the increased availability of soft drinks in Japan over the past several decades, researchers, led by Dr. Hiroyasu Iso at Osaka University, wanted to see if soda drinkers there had also higher risks of heart disease and stroke. Nearly 40,000 people answered a dietary, health and lifestyle questionnaire, first in 1990 and again in 1995 and 2000. They split the people into four groups: those who rarely drank soft drinks, those who had one to two cups a week, those who had three to four cups a week, and those who had a soft drink nearly every day.

Soft drinks were considered sugar-sweetened sodas and juices, and not diet sodas or 100 percent fruit juices. Frequently drinking diet soda has also been linked to a greater likelihood of suffering from a stroke, but the study did not take sugar-free sodas into account (see Reuters Health report of February 17, 2012). The American Beverage Association, which represents soda and other soft drink makers, said the new research did not add much new information. "This study does nothing to educate people about the real causes of heart disease or heart health issues," the association said in a statement. "It only shows what we already know to be among the risk factors for heart disease: ethnicity and age. There is nothing unique about soft drinks when it comes to heart disease, stroke or any other adverse health outcomes."

NO LINK FOR MEN
The research group tracked how many people developed heart disease or had a stroke between the beginning of the study period until 2008. Women were more likely to suffer from a stroke if they had a soft drink just about every day compared to women who never drank them. For instance, out of 11,800 women who rarely had a soft drink, 205 - or 1.7 percent - went on to have an ischemic stroke.
Of the 921 women in the drink-a-day category, 28 - or three percent - had such a stroke. The research team saw no link in men between soft drink consumption and stroke risk. It's not clear why, but it's possible that men with early signs of cardiovascular disease might have cut down on their soda drinking. "So when they're diagnosed with stroke down the road, those with early disease were drinking less," Bernstein suggested. The authors write in their report in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that the increased risk among frequent female soda drinkers might be explained by soft drinks' effects on metabolism.

High soft drink intake is tied to an increase in weight gain, blood sugar and fats, and hypertension, which in turn is linked to an increased risk of ischemic stroke, they explain. "It makes sense, if (sugar sweetened beverages) increase the risk for obesity, diabetes, insulin resistance, inflammation, then it should, in fact, raise the risk for cardiovascular disease, and that's what we're seeing," said Bernstein.
The study did not find that soft drinkers had an increased risk of heart disease caused by clogged arteries, perhaps because the underlying metabolic problems tied to soft drinks are more of a risk factor for stroke than for heart disease in this group of people, the authors write. Bernstein said there's enough evidence against sugary drinks to justify efforts to curb their popularity and point people to healthier choices, such as coffee, tea and water. "No single strategy is going to solve the problem, and I think a multipronged approach is going to work," he said.

For more info, visit: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Perzonal-Trainer/492595214099791?ref=hl


Friday 16 November 2012

WITH LUNG CANCER, QUITERS DO BETTER THAN SMOKERS


Younger people with advanced lung cancer who quit smoking more than a year before their diagnosis survive longer than those who continue smoking, according to a new study.

It's known that people who never smoked are more likely to survive the disease than those who light up. But whether former smokers do any better than current ones has been less clear. "The findings do suggest there is some benefit to quitting smoking," said Amy Ferketich of Ohio State University College of Public Health in Columbus, who worked on the study.

However, quitters who were older or who had earlier stages of lung cancer did not have an advantage over smokers, she and her colleagues report in the journal Cancer. Ferketich's group used medical records from 4,200 lung cancer patients treated at eight cancer centers around the country. Patients who never smoked were more likely to survive the less advanced cancers - stage 1, 2 or 3 - than were former or current smokers, the researchers found. Among smokers with stage 1 or 2 lung cancer, for instance, 72 percent survived at least two years, compared to 93 percent of the never-smokers and 76 percent of people who'd kicked the habit a year or more before diagnosis. Only 15 percent of smokers with stage 4 disease survived two years, while 40 percent of never-smokers and 20 percent of former smokers did. After adjusting the numbers for factors such as age, race and radiation treatment, the researchers determined that quitters were just as likely to die from the early-stage cancers as were current smokers. But for advanced cancers, people under 85 who had stopped smoking more than a year before their diagnosis survived longer than smokers. Forty-five-year-old former smokers, for instance, were 30 percent less likely to die from stage 4 lung cancer within two years than were current smokers.

Smoking is the number one risk factor for developing lung cancer, and studies have shown that people who quit are less likely to get it than current smokers. It's not clear why smokers already diagnosed with lung cancer fare worse than non-smokers, Ferketich said. "In general, never smokers are healthier individuals, so they tend to, in a lot of trials, have better outcomes with disease than people who continue to smoke," she said. "Just the continued exposure to tobacco might make the disease progress more quickly in smokers compared to never-smokers who don't have that exposure."
Ferketich said it's also possible that smoking could influence the biology of the cancer, and perhaps smokers get tumors that never-smokers are less likely to develop. She added that it's never too late to quit.

For more information: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Perzonal-Trainer/492595214099791?ref=hl


Tuesday 13 November 2012

DAILY MULTIVITAMIN SHOWN TO HELP WARD OFF CANCER IN MEN


Swallowing a daily multivitamin can reduce the risk of cancer slightly in middle-aged and older men and appears to have no dangerous side-effects, according to the first large-scale, randomized study on the subject.

The protective effect of the daily pill was described as "modest" by the trial investigators who emphasized that the primary use of vitamins was to prevent nutritional deficiencies. The findings were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and presented on Wednesday at a meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research in Anaheim, California. "This is indeed a landmark study," said Cory Abate-Shen, a professor of urological oncology at Columbia University Medical Center who was not involved in the trial. "It suggests that a balanced multivitamin approach is probably more beneficial than increasing to high levels any one vitamin."

About half of U.S. adults take at least one daily dietary supplement - the most popular being a multivitamin, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The U.S. Physicians Health Study II included more than 14,600 male doctors aged 50 and older and spanned more than 10 years. Participants were randomly assigned to a multivitamin - Pfizer Inc's Centrum Silver - or a placebo. The research was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

Several previous studies, many relying on self-reported use of specific vitamins or supplements, have generated mixed results in terms of cancer outcomes. "There have been some other trials that have tested combinations, often at high doses, of certain vitamins and minerals," said Howard Sesso, one of the study's authors and an associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. "Our trial took a very commonly used multivitamin that has basically low levels of all the different essential vitamins and minerals." The findings suggest that the biggest health benefit may come from a broad combination of dietary supplements, he said.

EFFECT IS GREATER FOR NON-PROSTATE CANCERS
Last year, the questionnaire-based Iowa Women's Health Study found that older women who take multivitamins have slightly increased death rates compared to those who don't. A study examining whether vitamin E and selenium could reduce the risk of prostate cancer was stopped prematurely in 2008 after men taking 400 international units (IU) of the vitamin showed an increased risk of developing the cancer. Over-the-counter multivitamins typically contain 15 to 25 IU of vitamin E.
The newly-released Physicians Health Study showed an 8 percent reduction in total cancer occurrence for participants taking a multivitamin, but no benefit was seen for rates of prostate cancer, the most common cancer seen among the participants in the study. But the absolute risk reduction was small. Out of 1,000 men taking daily vitamins, 17 developed cancer each year, the researchers found, compared to 18.3 in the placebo group. That means some 770 men would need to take the supplements daily to stave off one cancer per year.

Excluding prostate cancer, researchers found about a 12 percent reduction in overall cancer occurrence and said the protective effect seemed to be greater in people who had previously battled cancer. They did not see a statistically reliable reduction in the risk of dying from cancer, however.
Men taking multivitamins were also slightly more likely to get skin rashes and nose bleeds, but less likely to have small amounts of blood in the urine. Researchers said they planned to continue to follow the study group to monitor the effect of vitamin intake over time, and said additional studies would be needed to see if there were similar benefits for women or younger men. "It doesn't seem like there is any particular risk associated with taking a vitamin and there might be a small benefit," said Dr. David Weinberg, chief of the department of medicine at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. He was not involved in the study.

For advise contact us through: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Perzonal-Trainer/492595214099791?ref=hl