I wrote last week about becoming an amature scholar of medicine, but most of us already are. We have all kinds of beliefs about health and medicine that we have heard at one time or another that we repeat without question. But, how much of it is true? Does an apple a day keep the doctor away? Does sugar make children hyperactive? Does chicken soup help a common cold?
Last night brought the season’s first snow and cancelled my plans for the day. Armed with a warm cup of tea and the cookies that my friend Rob brought by last night (and some apple slices just in case they do keep the doctor away), I have combed through dozens and dozens of medical journal articles to bring you the truth. So here it is… my first installment of “Medical Fact or Medical Myth?”
Medical Fact or Medical Myth?
Sugar makes kids hyperactive… right?
Especially if said kid is already prone to hyperactivity, their parents should limit their sugar consumption lest they exacerbate their manic frenzy. Well… maybe not. A review from West Virginia University School of Medicine, published in Critical Review of Food Science and Nutrition in 1996, report that none of their studies show that candy or chocolate have negative effects on children’s behavior.
Twelve double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of sugar challenges failed to provide any evidence that sugar ingestion leads to untoward behavior in children with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or in normal children. Likewise, none of the studies testing candy or chocolate found any negative effect of these foods on behavior.
In the Journal of Pediatrics, a 1985 report details a study of 16 boys admitted to a clinical research center for three days. On the first day they were given a sucrose-free diet and on the next two days they were given either a sugary drink or a placebo. On each day, behavioral and cognitive performance was measured. No differences were found, thereby “undermining the hypothesis that sucrose plays a major role in accounting for the inappropriate behavior of hyperactive boys.”
Fetal heart monitors improve the safety of babies during birth
It is standard practice in hospitals to hook a constant fetal heart monitor to the belly of women in labor. In the past (and currently in midwife attended births) fetal heart rate was measured periodically through out labor with a stethoscope. The purpose of the electric fetal heart monitor is to constantly track the heart rate of the baby to watch for any heart decelerations that could indicate the baby is in distress. Sounds like a good idea? It would seem logical and if listening to the heart rate periodically was a good idea, that monitoring constantly would be a better idea. However, it doesn’t seem to do much good and in fact could lead to an increased chance of having a cesarean.
The Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Lund in Sweden found in 1994 that in a study of over four thousand low-risk laboring women the, “Intermittent use of electronic fetal monitoring at regular intervals (with stethoscopic auscultation in between) appears to be as safe as continuous electronic fetal monitoring in low risk labours.”
A more recent study reported in 2006 from the Division of General Obstetrics and Gynecology, University at Buffalo, looked at over 6,000 births before and after the introduction of central fetal heart monitoring at their hospital and found that “no statistically significant difference was demonstrated in the rates of cesarean section, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, or incidence of Apgar scores of less than 7 associated with the use of central fetal monitoring. Therefore, we could not identify any benefit to the use of central fetal heart rate monitoring.” An Apgar score is a way to measure how well a baby is doing one minute and five minutes after birth, a score of zero indicates no breath, no pulse and a perfect score of ten indicates an active baby with good respiration, good pulse, healthy skin color and reflexes.
If you need further proof, a 1997 study published in the Journal of Maternal and Fetal Medicine, from Lehigh Valley Hospital in Pennsylvania reviewed the outcomes of 1,622 births. They provided centralized fetal heart monitoring to all laboring women for 14 weeks and then provided non-centralized fetal heart monitoring to all laboring women for the next 14 weeks. They found that “There was no statistical difference in the 5-minute Apgar, perinatal mortality (death), or the NICU admissions between the two groups.” However, they did find an increase in C-Sections for the group receiving constant centralized fetal heart monitoring (18% versus 24%).
Low-Tech Gender Selection
While we are on the subject of babies, here is one that I have always believed until now… Timing intercourse in relation to ovulation has an effect on the gender of your baby. Here is how the story goes: X chromosome sperm swim slower but live longer and Y chromosome sperm swim faster and die sooner. Therefore, if you have sex before you ovulate and make the sperm wait for the egg you are more likely to have a girl baby and if you have sex at the same time as ovulation, more boy sperm will get to the egg quickly and you will increase your chances of having a boy baby.
However, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence that timing intercourse actually affects the gender of the resulting baby. The journal of Human Reproduction in Oxford reported in 1998 that for women using Natural Family Planning to record signs of ovulation and days of intercourse, “The sex ratio did not vary consistently or significantly with the estimated timing of insemination relative to the day of ovulation.”
The New England Journal of Medicine agrees, saying in their 1995 study by Wilcox, Weinberg and Baird, the menstrual “cycles producing male and female babies had similar patterns of intercourse in relation to ovulation.” Funny enough this was researched on beef cattle and reported in the journal Theriogenology to be the same: you can’t gender select with timed insemination. Too bad.
In fact, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology published a report in 1995 from Johns Hopkins University saying that women who had experienced a previous miscarriage had an increased risk of a second miscarriage if the second pregnancy was conceived as a result of intercourse two or more days before ovulation. This is relevant to people who attempt to time intercourse to produce a female infant by attempting to time intercourse in such a way that the sperm would have to “wait” multiple days for the egg to arrive. In the words of the researchers,
Conceptions on days - 1 or 0 with respect to…day of ovulation were considered to be "optimally timed," and all other conceptions were considered as "non-optimally timed"… Among 171 women who had experienced a spontaneous abortion in a prior pregnancy, the rate of spontaneous abortion in the index pregnancy was significantly higher with non-optimally timed conceptions (22.6%) as compared with optimally timed conceptions (7.3%). This association was not observed among 697 women with no history of pregnancy loss.
Chicken soup helps you when you are sick
Finally… a wives tale that is true! A researcher at University of Nebraska proved the healing properties of chicken soup and published his findings. There is a whole
website about it if you want to check it out.
Vitamin C can prevent you from catching a cold
What else can you do to prevent a cold or make yourself feel better once you have one? I am sure that you have swallowed many a Vitamin C tablets in an attempt to keep healthy, right? Many doctors are skeptical about this one, and in fact, many say that there is nothing you can do to shorten a cold.
The European Journal of Clinic Nutrition said in 2006 that “500 mg of vitamin c daily reduced the frequency in which people caught cold but did not seem to affect the duration or severity.” I guess that is one point for Vitamin C and one point against. But then researches Douglas, Hemila, Chalker and Treacy said in 2007 that they saw a reduction in cold duration of about 10% with vitamin C supplementation. Another point for Vitamin C!
The Department of Public Health at the University of Helsinki did randomized or double blind and placebo controlled studies of vitamin C trials people under stressful conditions (military personnel, students in crowded lodgings, and marathon runners) and found a “statistically significant 45 to 91% reduction in common cold incidence in the vitamin C group.”
The Herbal Health Centre in the UK published their findings on 168 volunteers who were randomized to receive a placebo or a vitamin C supplement over a 60-day period in winter. They found that “Compared with the placebo group, the active-treatment group had significantly fewer colds (37 vs 50, P<.05), fewer days challenged virally (85 vs 178), and a significantly shorter duration of severe symptoms (1.8 vs 3.1 days, P<.03).” Well, I think that in this battle, Vitamin C comes out a winner.
In any case, if you do end up getting sick, should you “Starve a fever, feed a cold”?
The online journal New Scientist reported in 2002 that this old tale may be right.
“Dutch scientists have found that eating a meal boosts the type of immune response that destroys the viruses responsible for colds, while fasting stimulates the response that tackles the bacterial infections responsible for most fevers.” Here is their very small sample size study: “the team got six people to fast overnight and then come into the lab for tests. On one occasion they were given a liquid meal, on the other just water to distend the stomach… Six hours after the liquid meal, the volunteers' levels of gamma interferon had more than quadrupled. Gamma interferon is a hallmark of the cell-mediated immune response, in which killer T cells destroy any cells that have been invaded by pathogens…But when the volunteers drank only water, levels of gamma interferon fell slightly, while levels of another chemical messenger, interleukin-4, nearly quadrupled. Interleukin-4 is characteristic of the humoral immune response, in which B cells produce antibodies that attack pathogens lurking outside our cells. This response is needed to tackle most bacterial infections.”
This was reported in a more difficult to understand study from the journal Medical Hypotheses in 2005 which said:
We hypothesize that anorexia may represent a prehistoric behavioral adaptation to fight infection by maintaining T helper (Th)2 bias, which is particularly vital in fighting bacterial pathogens… Since fever may be an adaptation to fight bacteria and "colds" are generally viral in origin, the adage "starve a fever and feed a cold" may reflect a sensible behavioral strategy to tilt autonomic and Th balance in directions that are optimal for fighting the particular type of infection.
Don’t be confused by their use of the word “anorexic”. In this case they simply meaning a reduction in food intake, not an eating disorder.
How did you get that cold anyway? Did you go out in the cold without a coat on? Is it true that:
Exposure to cold will make you catch cold
Well, the Common Cold Centre in the UK has done a couple of studies on cold weather and illness and said that “experiments involving inoculation of common cold viruses into the nose, and periods of cold exposure, have failed to demonstrate any effect of cold exposure on susceptibility to infection with common cold viruses.” Yet they also have shown in the journal of Family Practice that when they chilled the feet of 90 participants 13 of them developed a cold compared with 5 on the control subjects.
Medical Science of Sports and Exercise said in their 2002 article titled “Cold exposure: human immune responses and intracellular cytokine expression” that based on their review of the literature, they don’t believe there is support for the idea that cold exposure depresses your immune function. Of course we are not talking hypothermia here, we are talking about venturing outside when the weather is cold.
The faculty of Physical Education and Health in Toronto published an article stating that:
Both physical activity and exposure to environmental stressors such as cold, heat, and high altitudes modify various components of immune function: T cell counts, natural killer (NK) cell counts, and cytolytic activity, cytokine secretion, lymphocyte proliferation and immunoglobulin levels. Light physical activity or a moderate level of environmental stress stimulate the immune response, but exhausting physical activity or more severe environmental stress have a suppressant effect, manifested by a temporary increase in susceptibility to viral infections. Combinations of physical activity and environmental stress generally have at least an additive effect. Thus, an intensity of physical activity or of environmental stress that is beneficial in itself can readily cause immunosuppression if the body is challenged by the two stimuli
simultaneously.
So, this one is a bit of a toss up. I guess as long as you keep your feet warm and don’t exert yourself too much, venturing out on a snowy day like today will not cause you to catch cold!
I hope you have enjoyed my mini-expose on some common medical facts and myths. Feel free to tell me your favorites and they may just end up in my next installment! My husband asked me to include "does eating vegetables really make you healthier?" I think he is hoping the answer will stop me from trying to derail his all-beef dream diet.