Servings per container: 557?

cookingspray

One of those people with a good sense of the absurd?  Here is something absurd that’s probably right in your kitchen.  Get out your favorite brand of cooking spray (found in almost all American homes) and check the serving size.  Chances are, it will be somewhere between 0.25 and 0.33 seconds.  That’s between 1/4 and 1/3 of a second.  The servings per container will be between 350 and 600. 

This is a perfect example of why we have such a problem with achieving health in this country.  No, not cooking spray.  Misleading information presented as fact.  Maybe somewhere, in some test kitchen, a trained professional can spray for only .25 seconds but everyone I know really wants to coat that pan with ‘non-fat’ cooking spray.  Problem is, used the way most people really do, it is not non-fat.  In fact, it is oil.  Pure fat. 

For comparison, a can of cooking spray is about 6 ounces. A stick and a half of butter is 6 ounces.  Imagine cutting that stick and a half of butter into 557 pieces.  Now, spread one on your toast.  Congratulations, you have just had ‘fat-free’ butter.

We have been led to believe that non-fat cooking spray is much healthier than oil.  So which is better?  Well, one comes in a spray can with propellants.  At least with the pure oil most people would try to be judicious. 

In fact, if you are using non stick pans, then the cooking spray is redundant.  If you are trying to cook with no fat, it would be preferable to cook  just with broth or water.  Yes, you really can sauté in just plain water.  I prefer broth or wine for flavor but water works just fine.  Plus, it’s free –no spray can needed.

Dr. Michalene Elliott is a chiropractor in Rochester who writes for RochesterChiro’s blog and has tried to spray for less than half a second but, sadly, cannot.

Medpedia News and Analysis

badge_text_tallI like Wikipedia as a shortcut to quick information but I am afraid to use the information there for any serious projects.  After all, the people producing and editing the content there are just average Joes.  Sure, if you put together enough average Joes and solicit their opinions, you are more likely to come to an accurate conclusion…sometimes.  Not exactly a bet I’d want to place.

Wouldn’t it be cool to have a wikifor medical information where only verified medical professionals can directly edit the material?  There is so much medical misinformation on the internet it would be nice to have a source that is more apt to be responsibly written.

Medpedia looks like it might fit that description.  Still in beta phasebut set to fully launch soon, the Medpedia Project is backed by Harvard Medical School, Stanford School of Medicine, Berkeley School of Public Health, University of Michigan Medical School and other leading global health organizations. The goal is to create a new model of how the world will assemble, maintain, critique and access medical knowledge. Over time, they expect to have a collection of up-to-date unbiased medical information, contributed and maintained by health experts around the world, and freely available to anyone who is interested.

This week, I was contacted by a Medpedia staffer. They requested permission to put my blog posts onto the News & Analysis section on their site.  I am pleased and proud to be among the bloggersinvited to participate and welcome the new Medpedia readers and their comments.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Sad State of the Standard American Diet

grocery

I wish I could make stuff like this up.  We are fortunate enough to live within a couple of miles from Wegmans, one of the best grocery stores in the world.  And since I have recently taken over most of the grocery shopping, I am there once or twice per week in between stops at the Farmer’s market. 

Wegmans has several checkout aisle options.  In addition to the 7  or 15 items or less aisles there’s a no-candy lane and, my favorite, the natural products checkout lane.  I just feel better surrounded by natural chocolate and dried fruitrather than the latest UPC encrusted craptacular chemical bombs of nutritionally void Satan food found in the regular checkouts.  Perhaps I am a tab bit biased. 

So this week, as I awaited the obligatorily double nose-ringed cashier to ring out my newly acquired bounty, I glanced at the conveyor belt full of items placed by the woman in line behind me.  Silly of me to think that just being in the natural products lane would attract some sort of healthier customer.  I’m sure it just happened to be the shortest lane.  The irony, however, was stellar.

Garbage product after garbage product from store brand mac and cheese (a dozen boxes)  to chips to Little Debbie snactacular chemical infusions.  Then soda, next hot dogs followed by bleached white bread.  I had to chuckle at the opposition of her items that seemed to outwardly offend the Amy’s and Newman’s and Natural Wonder’s around them.

And then I saw it.  Something that made my retinas burn.   All natural, 100% organic, hand made with no preservatives — dog biscuits.  Dog biscuits!  Yes, of course it’s nice to know this woman is treating her dog well.  Who cares what she eats as long as she isn’t mistreating an animal that cannot make it’s own decisions, right?  Did I mention she had a little girl in the shopping cart?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

ChicagoTribune Blog: A medical doctor’s view of chiropractic care

MVP f/u

A follow up (f/u) to my postabout MVP Healthcare and their lack of commitment to quality and strong commitment to lies:

We looked into switching our own private health insurance policies since we were also members of Preferred Care, which became MVP during the takeover.

As luck would have it,  we can switch this month and will save about $1000 by changing to Excellus BCBS!  Of course we are doing so, and being employers, we are taking our employees insurance contracts with us as well.

I noticed that the MVP corporate logo is an apple.

mvpHey, MVP….you like apples?

Your dumbass policies in the takeover of Preferred Care in Rochester just cost you a lot of money in premiums from healthy, young subscribers.

You like apples?

Your lack of commitment to quality and propensity toward lying to your members, their doctors and the public has cost you damage to your reputation and your bottom line.

You like apples?

We’re changing to Excellus and hopefully a lot of others will do the math and follow.

You like apples, MVP?

How do you like them apples.

Wanna be friends?

facebook

 

RochesterChiro and Natural Health Chiropractic of Rochester now have a Facebook fan page!

Facebook Page

Please visit us on Facebook and become a fan (or show you are a fan if you already are one…or whatever, you know what we mean)

Thanks — see you on Facebook!

More Enhanced Watery Water + Sugar + Lies = Liquid Crap

vitaminwater

Back in September I wrote about enhanced water (It’s More Watery Than Water).  Looks like the Coca-Cola is now going to have a little trouble with their VitaminWater product.  The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has decided that Coca-Cola’s line of VitaminWater drinks is not really vitaminy enough nor is it watery enough. Coke is being sued for deceptive and unsubstantiated claims via a class action lawsuit.

The drinks are positioned as a healthy alternative to soda and make claims including that its drinks variously reduce the risk of chronic disease, reduce the risk of eye disease, promote healthy joints, and support optimal immune function.  Buzzwords like the “power of triple antioxidants to help keep you healthy and fight free radicals” and “it is definitely au naturel” are included.

Statements like that might make a buyer assume that the product is, I don’t know, filled with powerful antioxidents.  And, I don’t know, healthy?

In reality, VitaminWater has a lot of added sugar (about the same as a can of soda) and contains between zero and less than 1 percent juice (depending on the flavor) thus doing more to promote obesity and diabetes than fix health problems.

Saying that a food is “natural” is meaningless when it comes to health. Both Salmonella bacteria and arsenic are natural but you wouldn’t want to drink them.

It gets sillier.  The VitaminWater flavor ”XXX Blueberry Pomegranate Acai,” for example, contains no blueberry, no pomegranate, and no acai juice.  The other flavors lack their claimed namesake’s cranberry, grapefruit, dragon fruit, peach, mango, kiwi, or strawberry juice .

Okay, even if the nutrients listed are in the product that means nothing about the impact it may have on your health.  “Vitamins + Water = all you need.”  O rly?  Recent studies show that the effects a nutrient may have in isolation do not match the effects when the same nutrient is combined synergistically with the other nutrients present in its original, raw, whole food form.

Bottom line it for me Doc, would ya?  Sure, faithful blog reader!  Thirsty and looking to avoid soda in favor of a healthier beverage?  Great.  VitaminWater isn’t it.  How about just plain water?  Want some antioxidants with it?  Have a piece of fruit.

 

Dr. Brett L. Kinsler is a chiropractor in Rochester, NY and is available most days for a drink but not VitaminWater because it’s silly.

500 Words About the Medical Conscience Rule

compassHave you heard about the governmental approval of a new medical “conscience protection” rule?  It allows health care workers to opt out of administering any form of medical care they feel is objectionable on moral or religious grounds. Hmm…sounds good in theory. People shouldn’t be forced to do things they find objectionable, should they?

A press release on the Department of Health and Human Services Web site says the law will “protect health care providers from discrimination.” DHHS secretary Michael Leavitt said that doctors have a duty only “to provide care that they are comfortable providing.”

But religion is a discussion hotbed and healthcare is a hot button on the front burner of that hotbed and I have a few questions and a somewhat queasy feeling about this rule.

The goal of this rule, supposedly, is to make sure doctors who are firmly against abortions aren’t forced to perform them. However, the new rule also permits emergency room workers to withhold information from rape victims about access to emergency contraception. It also allows doctors in federally-funded clinics to refuse to tell a pregnant woman that her fetus has a severe abnormality.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops praised the new rules, saying medical workers “should not be required to take the very human life they are dedicated to protecting.” The rule is scheduled to take effect the day before President Bush leaves office.  Coincidence?  Sure, like cops with white powdered sugar on a dark colored uniform.

But a large number of medical groups oppose the rule.  Wacko fringe groups?  Not quite.   The American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and 27 state medical associations. Democratic House Representatives Diana DeGette (Colorado) and Louise Slaughter (New York ) plan to introduce a Congressional resolution rejecting the Bush administration’s last-minute rules.

Perhaps they have questions like me.  Perhaps they, too, are the teensiest bit afraid of Dr. Government.  Perhaps they are wondering:

Does the law mean a doctor can refuse to treat someone who is gay? Or refuse to prescribe medications for someone who is gay and has HIV because they feel that homosexuality is wrong?

Can care be refused to someone who overdosed using illegal drugs because the doctor doesn’t approve of drug use or of illegal activities?

How about refusal of treatment of an unwed mother because they disapprove of premarital sex or having children out of wedlock?

Wait a second! What if the doctor is anti-gun? Does the law permit withholding treatment to someone who was injured by a gun?  What if it was the patient’s own gun that went off when he was cleaning it?

Should medical professionals be permitted to refuse to treat a member of any particular group who they deem as immoral?

Of course not. This is a dicey, ill-conceived last minute plan to slip in a policy that makes sense to some people on isolated religious grounds but the risks if its implementation are too great and far reaching.

 

Dr. Brett Kinsler is a chiropractor practicing in Rochester, NY who does not support the conscience rule….and no, wiseguy, this does not count as part of the 500 words.

Adventures in Empathy: “Nope, I Don’t Feel Your Pain”

Patient: This is terrible.  I am overwhelmed.  I don’t know if I have one year to live, two years or what.

Doctor: Okay.  Do you have glaucoma?

I remember working as a tech at St. Whatever Memorial Hospital a bunch of years ago where I often felt the callousness and lack of empathy shown toward patients by jaded staff members was epidemic.  Patients were referred to by their diagnosis and bed numbers, not by their names. Mrs. Johnson became the “lung cancer in room 4″ and Mr. Preston was the “congestive heart failure in room 6.”  Now, there is actually some documentation of this attitude among medical physicians toward cancer patients.

People struggling with lung cancer reach out for some compassion from their doctors – these are called “empathic opportunities.”  What the researchers in one study discovered was that doctors generally ignored these moments. Questions about morbidity (being sick), and mortality (dying) were addressed less than 10% of the time. Listening to transcripts and recordings of 20 conversations between men with lung cancer and their doctors, Researchers at the University of Rochester School of Medicine identified moments when a doctor might respond with a few words to address patient concerns ranging from fear of illness and death, to mistrust about care and the health care system, to confusion about treatment. When doctors did not respond to initial opportunities to be empathetic, patients would try repeatedly, throughout the rest of the visit, to elicit that support in some way.  Physicians missed nearly every opportunity to respond with compassion.

Lack of time, failure to recognize empathic opportunities because they are attending to other tasks such as making a diagnosis, a sense of failure when there is limited potential for a cure, or a physicians own vulnerability to illness and dying were all listed as possibilities for the physician’s actions.

Sadly, the authors state that physicians often start medical school with empathy for their patients, and only later learn to detach.  Sure, being empathic all the time could be exhausting — remember that empath on Star Trek: TNG?  She was always tired and rather annoying from sensing everyone’s feelings.  But studies actually suggest that rather than draining a physician’s emotions, providing empathy is actually a way to prevent burnout and lessen stress. Furthermore, expressing empathy can be taught and these statements can be brief and powerful, not prolong the encounter or necessarily changing a physician’s style.

Some physicians argue that they don’t lack empathy, they just have difficulty expressing it.  Well, patients don’t require extensive counseling or endless dialogue from non-mental healthcare providers.  A few, well-placed phrases of interest and concern go a long way.  Substitute a “That must be really hard for you” for some of the usual statistical references.  Slipping in a “tell me a bit of what you’re going through” in place of a discussion of blood lab values might also help.

Do you sense lack of empathy in your own physician or are you a doctor who finds yourself cutting off emotional conversations with patients? How would you advise others that feel a lack of empathy from their own doctors?

Source: Morse et al. Missed Opportunities for Interval Empathy in Lung Cancer Communication. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2008; 168 (17): 1853 DOI: 10.1001/archinte.168.17.1853

Rochesterchiro – The Skeptical Chiropractor - is written by Dr. Brett Kinsler.

Does Scoping Knees Help Arthritis?

Arthroscopic knee surgery for people suffering from osteoarthritis is a popular treatment but according to a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, knee arthroscopy doesn’t actually reduce joint symptoms or improve function when compared with nonsurgical treatment.

Canadian researchers examined the effectiveness of arthroscopic surgery, the process of making small surgical incisions and inserting a thin, flexible fiber-optic scope and other small instruments into the knee joint to remove pieces of cartilage and smooth the joint surfaces. Arthroscopy is used to repair osteoarthritis as well as other knee problems.

The study treated 178 patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis of the knee and an average age of 60 years old.  All patients recieved physical therapy and medications such as ibuprofen or acetaminophen but 86 of the patients also received arthroscopic surgery. They were then tracked for two years. 

The researchers found that both groups of patients experienced similar improvements in joint pain, stiffness, and function.  At the end of two years, the researchers concluded that compared with nonsurgical treatment, arthroscopic surgery of the knee did not improve joint symptoms or function for people suffering from osteoarthritis of the knee.

It is important to note that the study focused on arthritis-related knee problems — arthroscopic knee surgery is still beneficial in other conditions that affect the knee, such as meniscal and ligament problems.

Patients who have a combination of knee problems, such as osteoarthritis and a meniscal tear might also respond better to arthroscopy. 

Source: Kirkley, A. The New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 11, 2008; vol 359: pp 1097-1107.

« Older entries