Magnetic tongue stud warning

Young people are being warned about the dangers of magnetic tongue studs, after reports of serious medical emergencies.

The head teacher of a school in Manchester has sent out an alert to parents and spoken to pupils.

The studs give the wearer the look of a tongue piercing but without a hole.

If accidentally swallowed, the magnets - designed to be worn either side of the tongue - can stick together, trapping parts of the intestine and leading to perforation of the bowel.

While magnetic facial studs can be bought online, schoolchildren are thought to be fashioning their own tongue versions using magnetic earrings and ball bearings from toy puzzles.

In his letter to parents, head teacher Kevin Hogan from St Matthew's Roman Catholic High School said: "We have spoken to all pupils about this matter and warned them of the potentially harmful consequences of swallowing these magnets.

"If your child has accidentally swallowed one or more of these balls you should seek medical advice immediately."

Dr Anil Thomas George and Dr Sandeep Motiwale, of Queen's Medical Centre in Nottingham, wrote a letter to medical journal the Lancet, asking doctors to advise parents of the dangers.

They said two young children in the East Midlands had been admitted to hospital for surgery to remove magnets that had been swallowed.

They wrote: "Parents need to be alerted to the potential risk of silent bowel perforation and fistulation from accidental ingestion of magnets in children.

"Accidental ingestion of magnetic foreign bodies, which was once rare, has become more common owing to the increasing availability of toys with magnetic elements.

"A solitary ingested magnet can pass through the gut spontaneously. However, ingestion of multiple magnets or a single magnet along with another metallic part can cause them to stick to each other with forces of up to 1,300G [gauss], compressing the intervening bowel and leading to subsequent fistulation and perforation."

READMORE:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20679904

Olympian lifespan 'possible for all

The longevity Olympians enjoy is within the reach of everyone, experts say.

Research published on the British Medical Journal (BMJ) website suggests athletes live 2.8 years longer on average than the average lifespan.

The research indicated those who took part in non-contact sports such as cycling, rowing and tennis enjoyed the longest life of all.

But the general population could have a similar "survival advantage" by doing a little more exercise, experts said.

The conclusion by two public health professors came after they reviewed two studies of Olympic athletes published by the BMJ website.

The studies looked at the lifespan and health of 25,000 athletes who competed in Games dating back to 1896.

Those taking part in contact sports such as boxing had the least advantage, while cyclists and rowers enjoyed the best health.

But the researchers also found those who played lower intensity sports such as golf enjoyed a boost.

'Public health failure'

Possible explanations put forward for the finding included genetic and lifestyle factors and the wealth and status that comes with sporting success.

However, the findings prompted public health experts Prof Adrian Bauman, from Australia's Sydney University, and Prof Steven Blair, from South Carolina University in the US, to suggest others could live as long as Olympic athletes.

The recommended level of physical activity for adults is 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise each week.

Studies suggest people who manage that amount or more live for up to several years longer than those that do not.

Writing for the BMJ website, the professors said: "Although the evidence points to a small survival effect of being an Olympian, careful reflection suggests that similar health benefits and longevity could be achieved by all of us through regular physical activity.

"We could and should all award ourselves that personal gold medal."

But they said governments were still not doing enough to promote the benefits of physical activity, calling it a "public health failure".

READMORE:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20710388

Organic 'has no health benefits'

Organic food is no healthier than ordinary food, a large independent review has concluded.

There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found.

The Food Standards Agency, which commissioned the report, said the findings would help people make an "informed choice".

But the Soil Association criticised the study and called for better research.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine looked at all the evidence on nutrition and health benefits from the past 50 years.

Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour.

Overall the report, which is published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found no differences in most nutrients in organically or conventionally grown crops, including in vitamin C, calcium, and iron.

The same was true for studies looking at meat, dairy and eggs.

Differences that were detected, for example in levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, were most likely to be due to differences in fertilizer use and ripeness at harvest and are unlikely to provide any health benefit, the report concluded.

READMORE:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8174482.st

m

Organic food

Eating organic food will not make you healthier, according to researchers at Stanford University, although it could cut your exposure to pesticides.

They looked at more than 200 studies of the content and associated health gains of organic and non-organic foods.

Overall, there was no discernible difference between the nutritional content, although the organic food was 30% less likely to contain pesticides.

Critics say the work is inconclusive and call for more studies.

The research, published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, looked at 17 studies comparing people who ate organic with those who did not and 223 studies that compared the levels of nutrients, bacteria, fungus or pesticides in various foods - including fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, milk and eggs.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Q

None of the human studies ran for longer than two years, making conclusions about long-term outcomes impossible. And all of the available evidence was relatively weak and highly variable - which the authors say is unsurprising because of all the different variables, like weather and soil type, involved.

Fruit and vegetables contained similar amounts of vitamins, and milk the same amount of protein and fat - although a few studies suggested organic milk contained more omega-3.

Organic foods did contain more nitrogen, but the researchers say this is probably due to differences in fertiliser use and ripeness at harvest and is unlikely to provide any health benefit.

Their findings support those of the UK's Food Standards Agency, which commissioned a review a few years ago into organic food claims.

Continue reading the main story

Prof Alan Dangour, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who carried out that work, said: "Consumers select organic foods for a variety of reasons, however this latest review identifies that at present there are no convincing differences between organic and conventional foods in nutrient content or health benefits.

"Hopefully this evidence will be useful to consumers."

Dr Crystal Smith-Spangler, the lead author of the latest review, said there were many reasons why people chose to eat organic, including animal welfare or environmental concerns.

"Some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious. We were a little surprised that we didn't find that.

"There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health."

But the Soil Association said the study was flawed.

"Studies that treat crop trials as if they were clinical trials of medicines, like this one, exaggerate the variation between studies, and drown out the real differences.

"A UK review paper, using the correct statistical analysis, has found that most of the differences in nutrient levels between organic and non-organic fruit and vegetables seen in this US study are actually highly significant."

A Department of Health spokeswoman said: "Evidence has not yet emerged that there are nutritional benefits from eating organically produced foods compared to conventionally produced foods. We will continue to review research on this subject."
READMORE:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19465692