Scienta Health Blog

What does the word “allergy” mean to you? Does it conjure up images of nasal congestion, watery eyes, and sneezing in response to pollen or a pet animal? Perhaps you’re visualizing an emergency room scene brought on by eating seafood or peanuts?

Indeed, the reactions above exemplify one common type of allergic response in the body. The immune system recognizes the pollen or peanuts as a “foreign agent” and produces antibodies – called IgE – to neutralize their effects.

IgE reactions occur soon after exposure to the allergen, usually within hours. The chemicals released in the body trigger redness, swelling, breathing difficulties or skin rashes and itching.

However, another set of reactions can also occur. These develop slowly, appearing up to three days after exposure to the allergen. The antibody responsible, called IgG, binds with the allergen and begins to get deposited in various body tissues.

Continue Reading »

Would you take a pill that promised improved endurance and no weight gain without an ounce of exercise?

Just in time for the Olympics, the Salk Institute in San Diego released the early results of a study that has been praised (presumably by couch potatoes worldwide) and denounced (by exercise fans and fanatics) in the same breath.

Researchers fed mice a daily dose of an experimental drug and after only 4 weeks the mice ran 44% longer than untreated controls.

The drug works by turning on a genetic switch that mimics the effects of exercise as far as muscular endurance is concerned. It tricks the cell into thinking that its energy stores are running low. This stimulates fat metabolism and remodels muscle fibers to produce more “Type 1” fibers. These carry a greater concentration of mitochondria (cellular powerhouses) compared to other types, accounting for improved endurance.

So what’s the fine print here?

Continue Reading »

Feeling overwhelmed with the constant bombardment of diet and supplementation information in the media? Confused with conflicting research study findings? Do you wish someone would just tell you what your body specifically needs to be at optimal health?

Each of the over 60 trillion cells in your body functions as an eco-system within the whole, taking in nutrients, converting them to energy, performing specialized functions, and reproducing as necessary. They are able to do this with the help of innumerable messengers (such as hormones, enzymes, and neurotransmitters) that facilitate hundreds of interconnected chemical pathways.

What drives this complex, miraculous metabolic engine? Quite simply: your diet. What you eat affects every single organ function in your body. On a daily basis, this translates into your energy levels, and predisposition to disease.

It stands to reason that a deficiency or excess in the minutest nutrient can have far reaching consequences, both immediate and cumulative. In addition, your unique genetic constitution and lifestyle means that your absorption and utilization of the same food differs from that of someone else.

No wonder, then, that adhering to general dietary guidelines or following one of the numerous diets and/or supplementation regimens touted in the media still leaves you in less than optimal health!

Rather than consuming a vague cornucopia of cookie-cutter vitamins, minerals, and other supplements, wouldn’t it make better sense to adjust your intake to reflect what your own body truly needs?

Continue Reading »

So many believe diet soda is a better choice over regular sodas – no sugar, no weight gain. Right?

Not so fast.

Next time you reach for that diet Coke or Iced Tea consider it lethal to your metabolism!

Continue Reading »

“I spend $40,000 a year maintaining my airplane … what good is that to me if I can no longer fly it? I owe myself the best healthcare I can find, whether it costs $10,000 or $20,000 or more!”

Granted, we don’t all own intricate machines that cost forty thousand annually to maintain, but this man makes a telling point. A similar comment I heard recently from a client went something like this: “Our business owns a very large fleet of trucks. We don’t let any of them go a day over schedule for maintenance. But when I look at my management team, they sure don’t treat their health that way. Some haven’t had a check-up in four years! That’s going to change!”

Why is it that we take our health for granted? That is, until we have a health scare, a crisis, or somebody close to us does.

The Healthcare “system” does not deliver! It is geared to process, not to serving patients, or “clients”. Our “wellness” is not assessed, only our “illness” is of concern. We are not informed, enlightened or empowered in the process so that we might take greater, more intelligent control. It’s all about the procedure. And we face financial disincentives to do anything other than wait until we’re really sick!

Continue Reading »

If you have a Body Mass Index¹ of 30 or more, skip this post. You already know that obesity is the expressway to debilitating disease and early death. This piece is directed to those of you basking in the assurance of a much publicized study that being overweight (BMI between 25 and 30) might actually be beneficial to health.

Fact or misinterpretation?

We start by acknowledging that you are not alone, falling instead in the growing ranks of the Great North American Bulge. Oversized waistlines are as much a hallmark of the 21^st century as the sedentary, wired, prepackaged, convenience-driven relentless lifestyles that cause them.

But that’s where our sympathy ends.

Continue Reading »

“Tim Russert’s death from a heart attack at age 58 is a stark reminder of our vulnerability to the ravages of cardiovascular disease even in the face of major advances in understanding its causes and how to prevent its consequences. Some 300,000 Americans die of sudden cardiac arrest outside the hospital each year. Russert was one of those who at least was aware that he was at risk.

Russert’s doctor Michael Newman said the tough-questioning but congenial host of NBC’s “Meet the Press” had been under treatment for asymptomatic coronary disease. He was carrying excess weight, Newman observed, but he got regular exercise and he performed well on an exercise stress test in April.

None of that prevented a cholesterol-laden plaque from rupturing on Friday morning. The resulting clot, an autopsy indicated, apparently caused his heart to go into ventricular fibrillation which led to cardiac arrest. The autopsy also showed he had an enlarged heart–a manifestation of coronary disease.”

Wall Street Journal Health Blog

June 13, 2008

Coronary artery disease can take one or both of two forms:

1) Hard plaque - years of calcium plaque build-up in blood vessels cause artery blockage, preventing flow of blood. It is gradual and can be measured with a CT Calcium Score.

2) Soft plaque – non-calcified, the plaque erodes the walls of blood vessels and causes rupturing, suddenly preventing flow of blood. A stress test is completely unhelpful in detecting the risk. A CT Angiogram will detect soft plaque and allow the physician to visualize overall plaque load and its locations.

Tim Russert most likely died as a result of a ruptured aneurysm in an artery containing soft plaque build-up.

Mr. Russert’s personal physician spoke on CNN of his having completed a stress test and being on cholesterol-reducing drugs. Neither (of these traditional measures) was adequate to detect and reduce his risk.

Indeed, to quote two eminent cardiologists:

Sidney Smith … at University of North Carolina Charlotte and past president of the American Heart Association: “Russert’s death underscores a major shortcoming in cardiac prevention: protecting people at immediate risk of a heart attack.”

Prediman K. Shah, director of cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles: “It was a classic episode, the way 80% of cases of sudden cardiac arrest occur.” He wasn’t impressed with the report of Russert’s recent successful treadmill test. Even if a test is normal, “You can still have plaque and be at risk,” he tells us. It wasn’t clear whether Russert had been taking a cholesterol-lowering statin, but even if his LDL, or bad cholesterol, was under control, that wouldn’t assure protection against a heart attack. “Statins do stabilize plaque (and thus reduce chances of rupture), but they haven’t eliminated every heart attack or sudden death,” Shah says. “We have to look for other means.”

Unfortunately, what happened here is common in the medical community. The approach ostensibly is to seek “cost effective” methods in managing patients and to stay within the “standard (‘traditional’) protocol”. Unfortunately, these are inadequate.

Continue Reading »