SciBlogs

Posts Tagged health

Go forth! Make friends! Aimee Whitcroft Jul 28

9 Comments

Or, why having a social network is very good for you.  Really.

friends

Yes, fine, I’m biased.  I admit it.  I see no harm in the burgeoning everywhereness of social media and stuff.  And I think having friends is awesomely important. As far as I’m concerned, the more friends we have, and the more people to whom we’re connected, the less isolated we feel.  Which is good.  It’s more difficult to condone a war against people you know.  It’s more difficult to do terrible things to yourself or those around you if you’re feeling connected. It’s far easier to feel happy, and to spread it, if you know you’re far from alone.

And yes, I realise that there are some very interesting theories out there about the effect that social media is having on making our relationships more numerous, and more shallow.  It’s not a debate into which I’m going to enter right now, to be honest.  That’s a discussion for another time.

No, the purpose of this post is to talk about social connections (family, friends, partners etc) more generally, and the immense benefits they have for all of us.

In a paper (a meta-analysis, to be precise, of existing literature) published just this morning, researchers have found a very, very strong correlation between having a social network, and an increased odds of survival.  You know, generally.  Or, to put it another way, having low/inadequate/insufficient social interaction/integration ups your chance of dying.  Quite a lot.

So, to the details, then!

To dispense with some obvious assumptions: it doesn’t matter how old you are, whether you’re a boy or a girl, how healthy you are to begin with, or what killed you.  Bear that in mind.*

Depending on how one cuts the data, the review found that social interaction improved a person’s odds of surviving, in general, by 50% at least!  Again, to cut it the other way, it would appear that not being socially integrated is more dangerous than smoking 15 cigarettes a day, being obese, being an alcoholic, or never exercising.  Hmmmmm.

While at least some of this effect could be linked to people who’re connected living healthier lives (physically and emotionally), it’s clear that that’s not all there is to it – there appears to be a suite of biological processes, as yet not understood by us, which come into play too.

So, how do we make use of this information?  Well, preliminary investigations have shown that formal social interventions have some effect.  But the review also points to the fact that it’s integration, not received support, that’s more predictive of mortality.  Which means that, ideally, one wants to facilitate people’s existing connections and help them to improve and deepen them that would be of most use, rather than simply hiring strangers for the job.

It all comes back down to community, whether it’s geographical or not.  Those who have people with whom they feel some connection are likely to be happier, healthier, and also, frankly, better supported and looked after should they fall ill.  So go out.  Make friends and connections.  Enjoy the life you have.

And never, never let anyone feel alone.

———————————-

*OK, there are a couple of limitations.  To my mind, the most interesting of these were that all social relationships were taken to be positive.  This is, of course, somewhat unrealistic.  Indeed, research suggests that negative social relationships can be linked to a higher risk of mortality (duh).  Marital status was used as the example here – while it’s often used a measure of social integration, it’s becoming increasingly clear that that’s very dependent on the quality of the marriage.  And, of course, since it’s a review of over 140 studies, it’s difficult to get exact parity of metrics over everything. Aaaand, of course, most of the data comes from the West.

References:

Julianne Holt-Lunstad, Timothy B. Smith, J. Bradley Layton (2010). Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review PLoS Medicine : doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316 (link to abstract)
ResearchBlogging.org

Incredible infographic: the evidence for health supplements Aimee Whitcroft Feb 26

11 Comments

To paraphrase: not much, and what there is is often conflicting.

information is beautiful - snake oil

So says a fantastic new infographic from my favourite data visualisation prOn website, Information Is Beautiful.  Even better, the graphic is actually interactive,  which means you can have a look at individual conditions, from sex to cancer and plenty in between, and split it down by type of supplement as well.

And, for those who’re interested, it would appear that there’s nothing you can take for sex, supplement-wise, whereas cancer has a mix of intriguing things that might actually work and those that won’t.

Have fun playing!  I certainly have been…

In other hilarity, and for those who’d like a TGIF giggle, I have another gift.  Having been chatting about failblogs last night, I woke up this morning to find a new one doing the rounds today: a science failblog!

HT: friend (and soon to be podcast co-host) Geoff Palmer, who blogs over at PCWorld.

Drink up! Beer benefits bones… Aimee Whitcroft Feb 08

4 Comments

I can hear the whoops of joy emanating around the world.  Joined, of course, by mine.

beer

For years, we’ve known that a glass or two of the vino has its benefits.  However, I’ve never heard of anything particularly beneficial coming as a result of drinking beer (apart from general joi de vivre, of course).

But now, praise be, this time has come to an end.  Researchers have discovered* that beer is good for bone mineral density, meaning moderate consumption of it could help fight osteoporosis.  Overconsumption, of course, could lead to exactly the kind of falls which break bones…

To explain further.

Beer, the oldest and most widely consumed alcoholic beverage on earth (according to wiki) occurs, for the most part,  when malted barley is fermented.  Sometimes hops (that distinctive bitter taste) or fruit is added.  Sometimes the barley is replaced by wheat (my favourite), maize and rice.  All of these things to be expected from a concoction to which ancient odes have been written, and with which we’ve apparently been playing since something like 9,000BC.

It’s the barley, it turns out, that is particularly beneficial.  Its husk contains large amounts of silicon,of all things.

This silicon is present in the resulting beer orthosilicic acid (OSA).  In fact, it constitutes a large proportion of the dietary silicon intake of us Western folk.  And the American NIH is of the opinion that this OSA stuff may be important for the growth and development of bone and connective tissue.

Happily for us, it appears that the malting process itself has little effect on the amount of OSA in the beer, as malting doesn’t really affect barley husks.  Interestingly, and no one knows why, the malts which have the highest silicon are the pale ones (which have had less roasting).  On the other hand, the darker malts, which have undergone more heat stress and roasting, have less silicon.

And for those of you liking your beer hoppy – even better news!  Hops has oodles of silicon in it – apparently, up to 4 times as much as barley, although of course hops is used in far lower quantities than barley.

To paraphrase, then: for the best bone densities around, drink moderately of beers  made with much of malted barley and hops.  Possibly preferably pale.  Sadly, for those (including me) who love their wheat beers , ales and so forth – while there’s definitely anecdotal evidence about their medicinal** qualities, they’re not quite as good silicon-wise.

Reference:

Casey, T., & Bamforth, C. (2010). Silicon in beer and brewing Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.3884

**Truly.  Especially the Paulaner Brauhaus’ weissbier.  My father and I are both willing to attest to this.

Local coverage:

First seen on the NZ Herald website, here.

ResearchBlogging.org