Most potential new drugs fail when they're tested in people. These failures are not only a major disappointment, they sharply drive up the cost of developing new drugs.

A major reason for these failures is that most new drugs are first tested out in mice, rats or other animals. Often those animal studies show great promise.

But mice aren't simply furry little people, so these studies often lead science astray. Some scientists are now rethinking animal studies to make them more effective for human health.

When scientists first started using animals in research over a century ago, the animals were not regarded as human stand-ins. Scientists studying rats were initially trying to understand rats, says Todd Preuss, an anthropologist at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University.

"As this process went on, people stopped seeing them as specialized animals and started seeing them more and more as prototypical mammals," Preuss says.

But is a rat really a generic mammal? Preuss says emphatically no. But that's how rodents were pitched when they became products sold to scientists.

"It wasn't strictly a financial interest," he says. The sellers "really believed that you could do almost anything" with these animals. "You could learn about almost any feature of human organization, you could cure almost any disease by studying these animals."

That was a dangerous assumption. Rats and humans have been on their own evolutionary paths for tens of millions of years. We've developed our own unique features, and so have the rodents.

So it should come as no surprise that a drug that works in a mouse often doesn't work in a person. Even so, Preuss says there's tremendous momentum to keep using animals as human substitutes. Entire scientific communities are built up around rats, mice and other lab animals.

"Once these communities exist, then you have an infrastructure of knowledge: how to raise the animals, how to keep them healthy," Preuss says. "You have companies that spring up to provide you with specialized equipment to study these animals."

The rat holding facility at Hazelton Laboratories in Washington, D.C., in 1967. Fox Photos/Getty Images hide caption

The rat holding facility at Hazelton Laboratories in Washington, D.C., in 1967.

Chances are, people studying the same disease study the same tailor-made strain of animal. Journals and funding agencies actually expect it.

"So there's a whole institution that develops," Preuss says.

And it's hard to interrupt that culture. (Preuss spoke about this subject in a 2016 talk at the National Institutes of Health.)

You can get a glimpse of the scale of this enterprise by passing through one of hundreds of facilities nationwide devoted to the care and feeding of mice. On the Stanford University campus, attendants roll supply carts through fluorescent-lit hallways and past row after row of doors at an expansive mouse facility.

I'm guided through the labyrinth by Joseph Garner, a behavioral scientist at the Stanford University Medical Center. We go into a windowless room stacked floor to ceiling with seemingly identical plastic cages full of mice.

The philosophy behind mouse research has been to make everything as uniform as possible, so results from one facility would be the same as the identical experiment elsewhere.

But despite extensive efforts to be consistent, this setup hides a huge amount of variation. Bedding may differ from one facility to the next. So might the diet. Mice respond strongly to individual human handlers. Mice also react differently depending on whether their cage is up near the fluorescent lights or hidden down in the shadows.

Garner and colleagues tried to run identical experiments in six different mouse facilities, scattered throughout research centers in Europe. Even using genetically identical mice of the same age, the results varied all over the map.

Garner says scientists shouldn't even be trying to do experiments this way.

"Imagine you were doing a human drug trial and you said to the FDA, 'OK, I'm going to do this trial in 43-year-old white males in one small town in California,'" Garner says a town where everyone lives in identical ranch homes, with the same monotonous diets and the same thermostat set to the same temperature.

"Which is too cold, and they can't change it," he goes on. "And oh, they all have the same grandfather!"

The FDA would laugh that off as an insane setup, Garner says.

"But that's exactly what we do in animals. We try to control everything we can possibly think of, and as a result we learn absolutely nothing."

Garner argues that research based on mice would be more reliable if it were set up more like experiments in humans recognizing that variation is inevitable, and designing to embrace it rather than ignore it. He and his colleagues have recently published a manifesto, urging colleagues in the field to look at animals in this new light.

"Maybe we need to stop thinking of animals as these little furry test tubes that can be or even should be controlled," he says. "And maybe instead we should think of them as patients."

That could solve some of the problems with animal research, but by no means all.

Scientists make far too many assumptions about the underlying biology of disease when creating animal models of those illnesses, says Gregory Petsko, who studies Alzheimer's disease and other neurological disorders at the Weill Cornell Medical School.

"It's probably only when you get to try your treatments in people that you're really going to have any idea how right those assumptions were," Petsko says.

In his field, the assumptions are often poor, or downright misleading. And Petsko says this mindset has been counterproductive. Scientists in his field have "been led astray for many years by relying so heavily on animal models," he says.

For many years that was simply the best that science could do, Petsko says. So he doesn't fault his colleagues for trying.

"What I am saying is at some point you have to cut your losses. You have to say, 'OK, this took us as far as it could take us, quite some time ago.'"

For neurological diseases, Petsko says, scientists might learn more from studying human cells than whole animals. Animals are still useful for studying the safety of potential new treatments, but beyond that, he says, don't count on them.

Preuss at Emory agrees that using animals as models of disease is a big reason that many results in biomedical research aren't readily reproducible. "I think that we have means to resolve that, though."

How? "You have to think outside of the model box," he says. Mice and rats aren't simplified humans. Scientists should stop thinking they are.

But Preuss says scientists can still learn a lot about biology and disease by studying animals for example, by comparing how humans and other animals differ, or where they share common traits. Those can reveal a lot about biology without assuming that what's true in a rat is likely true in a human.

"Scientists need to break out of a culture that is hampering progress," Preuss says. That's tough to do right now, in a world where science funding is on the chopping block. Many scientists are reluctant to take a risk that could backfire. But the upside could benefit us all, in the form of a better understanding of disease, and effective new drugs.

Richard Harris did some of the reporting for this story while researching his book Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions.

View original post here:
Drugs That Work In Mice Often Fail When Tried In People - NPR

(Ferre' Dollar/CNN)

Fruit juice is not as nutritious as fresh fruit, but it can be a healthy part of your diet, if its consumed in small portions.

A glass of fresh orange or grapefruit juice with breakfast isnt just refreshing. It also delivers a healthy dose of vitamin C and potassium, which can be especially helpful if you tend to forgo fruit. Some store-bought juices are fortified with bone-building calcium, too.

But even when it contains only naturally occurring fructose from whole fruit and no added sugars to boost sweetness, fruit juice is still a concentrated source of sugar and calories, which can be problematic for those watching their weight or blood sugar.

For example, one 8-ounce cup of fresh orange juice has 21 grams of sugar and 112 calories. By comparison, one medium orange has 12 grams of sugar and only 62 calories.

Similarly, a cup of cranberry juice has 28 grams of sugar and 110 calories, but a cup of whole cranberries has only 4 grams of sugar and 46 calories. The counts for grape juice are even higher, with 36 grams of sugar and 140 calories per 8-ounce cup.

Fruit juice also lacks the fiber found in whole fruit, which means we not only miss getting the health benefits of fiber which include its ability to lower cholesterol and help us feel full we experience a more rapid rise in blood sugar after consuming juice, since fiber slows the entry of sugar into the bloodstream.

When purchasing juice, look for brands containing 100% fruit juice with no sugar added. According to US dietary guidelines, juices may be partially fruit juice, but only the proportion that is 100% fruit juice counts toward your daily fruit intake. (For example, 1 cup of juice that is 50% juice counts as cup of fruit juice.)

Technically, only 100% juice can be called juice. Juice drinks may be a lower-calorie version of juice and contain artificial sweeteners. For example, Motts light apple juice drink contains only 42% juice, but it also has less than half the calories and sugar as the brands 100% apple juice. You can opt for the pure juice version and consume a 4-ounce serving for almost the same nutritional value.

According to the guidelines, sweetened juice products that are primarily composed of water with added sugars fall under the category of sugar-sweetened beverages.

One important note: If you consume grapefruit juice, keep in mind that it can negatively interact with some medications, such as statin drugs. If you have any concerns, check with your doctor to see whether you can safely consume the juice.

Bottom line? If you enjoy juice, go for the real thing, and limit yourself to one 8-ounce glass per day or 4 ounces if youre limiting calories or sugars.

Lisa Drayer is a nutritionist, author and health journalist.

See the rest here:
Is fruit juice healthy? - Q13 FOX

If you count carbs, fat, sodium content or total calories, then you've read the label on everything you bring home from the grocery store.

Are you equally as diligent when it comes to labels on lawn and landscape products? They line shelves at the hardware store, garden center and some are even in the grocery store. The labels on these products are just as important to read a as the ones on the soup can. Here's why.

Whether you're zapping dandelions or controlling a serious pest, the product you use needs to be the right one for the job as well as applied correctly and safely. Some products have caution statements to protect the safety of the person who applies them as well as pollinators, edibles and other plants nearby. If you spray some products on dandelions in the lawn, they will kill only the dandelion and leave the grass in tact. Other products, however, will not only zap the dandelion, but also the lawn. Labels and knowledgeable pros can help you sort this out.

Apply the carpenter's rule to measure twice and cut once to the array of lawn and garden products. Read the label carefully at least twice and apply once. If you need to treat again, follow the label guidelines. More is not necessarily better and precautions are there for a reason.

Follow safety measures when using products labeled "natural" that we tend to think of as non-toxic. That's not necessarily so. Just as many plants are as poisonous as they are pretty, "natural" products can be as harmful as they are ecological. Even natural products have the potential to cause harm if they are not handled properly.

While many plants have developed toxins to protect themselves from pests, a product made from plant derived toxins can be toxic to humans. The toxins are sold in concentrations much higher than found naturally in plants. All chemicals, including natural ones, have the potential to cause harm if they are mis-handled.

DIY or hire a pro?

If you suspect an insect or disease problem in your yard, it's often smarter in the long run to consult a pro. Industry professionals are trained to follow Integrated Pest Management strategies that will determine IF and WHEN a treatment is needed.

The best solution may be something as simple as pruning or a change in watering practices. Sometimes introducing a predator insect can solve a problem. Other health issues may need a treatment akin to a prescription drug for humans. That's when a pesticide may be necessary because the condition warrants it to save the plants and protect your landscape investment.

When you consult with a professional, you tap into their science-based training and horticultural knowledge. If they need to apply a pesticide, they are the pros who are licensed by the State of Colorado to do the work. They know the importance of following label instructions and observing safety precautions because they, themselves, are the front-line applicators.

If you read food labels because you need to follow a special diet, apply the same strategy to lawn and garden products. Health is health whether it's about people or plants. We are, after all, participants in the same ecosystem.

Becky Garber is a member of the Associated Landscape Contractors of Colorado, of which Neils Lunceford, a landscaping company, is a member. You may contact them at 970-468-0340.

Continued here:
Vail Landscape Logic column: Do you read procut labels? - Vail Daily News

Fish is a high-protein, low-fat food that provides a range of health benefits. White-fleshed fish, in particular, is lower in fat than any other source of animal protein, and oily fish are high in omega-3 fatty acids, or the good fats. Since the human body cant make significant amounts of these essential nutrients, fish are an important part of the diet. Also, fish are low in the bad fats commonly found in red meat, called omega-6 fatty acids.

A growing body of evidence indicates that omega-3 fatty acids provide a number of health benefits. They help maintain cardiovascular health by playing a role in the regulation of blood clotting and vessel constriction; important for prenatal and postnatal neurological development; may reduce tissue inflammation and alleviate the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis; may play a beneficial role in cardiac arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat), reducing depression and halting mental decline in older people.

Alternative sources of omega-3s come from terrestrial sources like flaxseed, walnuts and wheat germ. While still beneficial, these do not appear to provide as a great a health benefit as the omega-3s found in fish, shellfish and marine algae.

Fish is generally a healthy food source and can be safely eaten in most cases. But depending on your age and health circumstances, some people should limit the amounts of fish they eat.

Foryoung children and women of childbearing age, excessive consumption of mercury-contaminated fish can severely impact a childs development.

Older women and menmay find it an acceptable trade off to exceed recommended seafood meal limits to increase their omega-3 intake.

People at high risk of cardiovascular diseasemust weigh the cancer risk of eating fish high in Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) with the benefits of eating fish high in omega-3s, in which case the benefits of omega-3s may outweigh the cancer risk. However, these chemicals are known to cause serious health problems besides cancer, so the tradeoffs are not simple.

Thegood newsis that there are several low-contaminants, high-omega-3 seafood options available, so theres no need to risk eating contaminated fish. Salmon,tuna, sardines, etc., deliver those heart-and brain-healthy omega-3 fats you have probably also heard you should be getting in your diet.

See the article here:
Eating fish for healthy living - citytoday

Evolving trends dietary guidelines, moving to new plate visual by Rupa Nallamothu | Apr 10 2017 | 10 hours ago

The food pyramid, a product of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, represents the optimal number of servings per day from each of the major food groups. The government uses the food pyramid to communicate healthy eating guidelines to families, children and adults. The U.S. Departments of Health and Agriculture collaborate to produce the guidelines, which have changed over the past few years.

Within USDA, the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion is the lead agency that manages the process with support from the Agricultural Research Service, professor of medicine Anna Maria Siega-Riz said.

In 2011, MyPlate replaced the original food pyramid structure with a diagram of a plate separated by food group. MyPlate currently serves as the the basis for federal food and nutrition policy, with the new diagram enabling guidelines to focus on each consumer individually.

The change from the food pyramid to MyPlate marked a shift from a nutritional diet to a personal approach. Instead of referring solely to serving sizes, appropriate proportions of each food group are outlined in relation to that of the other groups.

Food groups represented in MyPlate include grains, fruits, vegetables, protein and dairy. For women 19 to 30 years old, the diagram recommends two cups of fruit, six ounces of grains, two and a half cups of vegetables, five and a half ounces of protein and three cups of dairy products daily. The dietary recommendations for men in this age group are similar, requiring only an additional ounce of protein and grains and an additional half cup of vegetables.

The guidelines specify that the grains group should be further divided into whole grains and refined grains. Based on the diagram, refined grains intake should be limited to half that of whole grains. Furthermore, the consumption of saturated fats should be limited to less than 10 percent of total daily caloric intake

Disagreements between consumers or industries and the government often arise relating to the guidelines endorsement of certain foods. In 2015, when the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee almost did not endorse red meat as part of the healthy diet, the meat industry came into conflict with the DGAC.

There was a strong political backlash from the meat industry [in 2015], led by the North American Meat Institute, which also strongly opposed the DGAC recommendation to take environmental sustainability into consideration when making dietary recommendations. Ultimately these sustainability provisions were not included in the final Guidelines, Politics Prof. Paul Freedman said.

The DGAC puts out healthy eating recommendations with the intent of helping individuals achieve and maintain a healthy weight, decreasing the prevalence of diseases and promoting an increased level of health for everyone two years and older.

The food pyramid was the governments translation of the Dietary Guidelines into actionable consumer messages that [are] crucial to help individuals, families and communities achieve healthy eating patterns, Siega-Riz said.

The primary purpose of food diagrams is to prevent disease. Specifically, the guidelines seek to prevent diet-related chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, certain cancers and obesity.

The guidelines are reevaluated every five years. Since the guidelines are based on nutritional science and surveys of the population, the DGAC publishes reports based on their research findings and justifying the information within MyPlate. Currently, guidelines focus on eating patterns due to recent research suggesting most Americans do not consume a diet reflecting the DGACs recommendations.

Go here to see the original:
Bringing an individualized approach to diet - University of Virginia The Cavalier Daily

There are some common-sense things you can do to fight memory problems. Not surprisingly, they involve diet, exercise and maintaining overall good health.

Studies have shown that exercise helps generate new brain cells in the temporal lobes, the data banks in the brain that store memory, according to Palm Beach Gardens neurologist Dr. Michael Tuchman.

There also are other factors that might affect all forms of dementia. They are high blood pressure, eating foods that are high in cholesterol, and diabetes, which is known to be a risk factor, even for Alzheimers itself, Tuchman said.

We know that if you eat smart less fat and more fish and if you exercise, your likelihood of expressing dementia, even of the Alzheimers type, is somewhat reduced.

You might delay the expression of the disease by a year or a year and a half. And thats a good thing, because thats another year or a year and a half that you have a quality of life.

Daily consumption of berries especially blueberries and strawberries has been linked to preventing dementia, according to Dr. James Loomis, medical director of the Barnard Medical Center in Washington. The center is associated with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an organization that promotes a plant-based diet as a way to avoid many types of illnesses.

Blueberries have been associated with lower risk of dementia across the board, Loomis said. Its an extremely potent antioxidant.

While its difficult to prove cause and effect with diets, population studies comparing one group to another suggest there might be some validity to the connection between diet and dementia.

Women who consumed at least one serving of blueberries and two servings of strawberries a day slowed the rate of cognitive decline by as much as two years, Loomis said.

Staying intellectually engaged is another benefit.

The only way we learn something and retain it, is by making connections between neurons thats how memory works, Tuchman said. The more you put into the bank in the beginning, the more you can afford to take something out and still have something left over.

He said hes often asked if doing mental exercises delays the onset of dementia.

I think as long as you stay intellectually engaged it doesnt matter what you do. Theres no evidence that one is better than something else. When youre not intellectually engaged, that seems to produce a worse outcome.

See original here:
Diet, exercise can fight memory problems - Palm Beach Daily News