Andro…[pause]…

Alright.  This is essentially a continuation from Simonne’s comment section on her continuation of Desert Rain.  We had started discussing the tension existing between Peter and Carol (a middle aged couple sorting through personal and relationship issues) - and the possible role that ageing and body image had on their relationship.  With one of my comments, I went on a mini-tirade about gender empowerment.  I’m sure there are alot of other factors at play here, but personal identity has much to do with chemical imbalance, as well as social imbalance.  I’m not sure if there is necessary a type of “pathology” here because ageing is quite a natural state.  I just don’t believe that society modifiers (such as the media) are acknowledging that the fountain of youth is somewhat of a piriah.  I guess an argument could be made here as to what level the media works at in respect to modifying personal identity (but I don’t think we can disqualify it either).  Regardless, this post is going to involve the other side of the symbol.  There has been much discussion of the “yin” or female aspects of ageing - perhaps we should examine the “yang” or masculine side of the equation.  

The term “Andropause” was apparently coined by Jed Diamond some time in the late 1990’s in his book “Male Menopause.”  The term itself is a bit of a misnomer because (obviously) men don’t endure the monthly torment of menstruation as do their female counterparts [ooohh….now there’s an interesting image….ugh!].  The syndrome is defined as a multifactorial transitional period with physical, hormonal, psychological, interpersonal, social, sexual and even spiritual aspects.  Andropause can affect men as early as the age of 35 or as late as 65, however the typical age range of many males is between that of 40 and 55 (in other words - quite a wide range of men could potentially be touched by this condition).  So, according to some physicians, there is some debate as to whether andropause truly does exist.  This is likely due to the broad range of “symptoms and signs” including (but not limited to):  loss of libido/potency, nervousness, depression, memory loss, inability to concentrate, fatigue, sweating, insomnia and hot flashes (ha!  men can have ”power surges” too!).  In my opinion, any time a mental or psychological component is involved in a disease (recall that hormones have a major influence on health and well-being) - doctors like to dally about and debate things (for good reason - if you know anything about Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, you will agree).  Really though -hormone levels are of major importance (androgens and other important molecules) and these can, in fact, be measured.

So back to the controversy.  Interestingly enough, England, Australia and Europe recognize the condition as a real one (go figure!), whereas many American physicians believe that the condition, in and of itself, does not exist.  I think that part of the reason for this is that the American definition of andropause may be a little different in that they consider it to be quite a different condition in men vs. women (ie.  they think that the hormone levels in men do not plummet as dramatically as they do in women).  Really now.  This is all about semantics.  Some physicians believe that andropause is a viable concern, but consider it part of a problem relating to hypogonadism (ie. less or shrinking testicular tissue) or low testosterone levels.  In addition (and this seems entirely reasonable), it seems as though diet and exercise have a huge role in modulating hormone levels (thus maintaining general, overall health and well-being).  So men - jump on that mountain bike and take it for a spin (it can’t hurt - um, erm, I mean, it could, so be careful down there…. [wink]!).  No really.  If you think you may have andropause, it is important to have a full physical examination performed to rule out a variety of other potential problems that could potentiate or mimic an andropause or andropause-like condition.   

Various treatment options are available for bonafide cases of andropause including:  HRT (hormone replacement therapy - did anyone see that episode of “House” where the dad was taken testosterone and his kids went berzerk?  hmm…interesting), exercise/dietary changes and stress reduction (this is probably a biggie), acupuncture/chinese medicine/herbals (careful with the herbs - you still need an accurate diagnosis if these are to work), counselling (couples counselling, career/spiritual support) and treatment for any possible depression.  In addition, it is often helpful for men (like women) to take some time out for themselves - explore other interests, hobbies, re-invent themselves.  We women are better at this than men (and I think that this helps us alot).  Maybe we should take our men to the spa or go on a bit of a shopping spree with them (might do wonders for their self-esteem too).  So talk to the men in your life.  Support them and they will support you.  It’s all about empowerment!

*Oh yeah…..please read the following message from my “sponsor”:*

Disclaimer - Oh, I hate these things.  But seriously, if you believe that you or someone you love could be affected by andropause - seek professional help from your physician.  As discussed, there are a variety of reasons why you may experience some of the signs and symptoms discussed and it is best to have an accurate diagnosis before starting any treatment.  Enough said.

Love and hugs to all (long live “yang!”),

-PM

Click here to advertise on the Worlds largest Blog Advertising Network

Hugo Me

McDonald’s has re-introduced the supersized soft drink, only now they’re calling it the “Hugo,” according to THIS STORY in the New York Times.

Is that “Hugo” for “Huge-O” or is it just named after the guy in Lost?

Of course, Mickey D’s isn’t forcing anyone to buy the Hugo–or telling them they have to fill it with regular soda. So exercise your freedom of choice.

Create Instant Buzz

TNT News

OK, so I lied earlier this week about posting more frequently. But mainly because I’ve been involved in setting up a project involving The TNT Diet, which I co-wrote along with Jeff Volek.

Essentially, we’re providing the basics of the plan on the Men’s Health website for free. If you’ve managed to miss this so far, here’s the LINK. Yes, I know the video’s cheesy, but that’s why I make my living as a writer–not as an on-air talent. And besides, YOU try doing it! Not my forte for sure, and I have to say, I now have a much deeper appreciation for Rachael Ray.

Anyway, the cool part is that we’ve created a community where you can post before, during, after photos.  Check it out when you get a chance, and even better, join up. Oh, yeah, I even got my wife, Jessica (pictured), involved–so it’s truly a family affair.

Blog advertising

peloop - male enhancement device

peloop is a new male enhancement device that uses the power of magnetic fields plus other field to enhance blood flow to the penis. Visit www.peloop.com to see how it works.

Blog advertising

If You Like Dunks…

Did you see the highlight of last weekend’s NBA playoffs? Check out this awesome dunk by Utah’s Deron Willams, who’s just 6′3″. Williams is the MAN, and not just because of this rim-rocker. His 4th quarter performance on Sunday was unbelievable–he drained a couple of 3s, hit a fantastic fade-away just outside the lane, and almost single-handedly brought Utah back from an 18-point deficit. All that and the kid’s just 22.

Williams’ jam conjures images of 6′5″ John Starks tossing down a left-handed dunk over the Bulls’ Horace Grant in 1993, and 6′1″ Kevin Johnson posterizing phi slamma jamma headman Hakeem Olajuwan in 1994. (Check it out HERE, along with another unbelievable dunk in this year’s playoffs by 6′3″ Baron Davis.)

If all this has you ramped up about improving your vertical, I highly recommend Kelly Baggett’s e-book, The Vertical Jump Development Bible. And no, this isn’t an ad–it’s just a useful product I like. (By the way, I’ve corresponded with Kelly a few times, but I keep forgetting to ask him if this pic is him (below), and if it’s legit–I’m assuming the answer is “yes” on both, but I’ll find out.

The Diabetes Chronicles: Avandia

You can’t miss this week’s news on the diabetes drug Avandia, but I feel obligated to file a quick report anyway.

According to the NY Times article linked above, a review of 44 studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that in people with type 2 diabetes, Avandia raises the risk of a heart attack by 43 percent.

The story also cites the Dream trial, a study sponsored by Glaxo-SmithKline, the maker of the medication. In this trial, “patients taking Avandia had 66 percent more heart attacks, 39 percent more strokes and 20 percent more deaths from cardiovascular-related problems [than those who didn’t take the drug].”

All of which supports the philosophy behind my story, “The Cure for Diabetes,” that primary treatment for diabetes should be diet (and, of course, exercise), and medication should be secondary treatment. (In case you missed it, the ADA’s response to the story can be found HERE.)

What bothers me most about this breaking news is that, apparently, it isn’t breaking news at all.

Steve Sternberg at USA Today reports:

Nine months ago, the drug company Glaxo-SmithKline posted a study along with dozens of others on an obscure company website.

The study indicated that the company’s blockbuster diabetes drug, Avandia, raised patients’ heart disease risk by 30%. At about the same time, company officials say, they told the Food and Drug Administration what they had found.

That apparently wasn’t the first time Glaxo warned the agency about its drug. FDA’s Susan Cruzan confirmed Monday that the company had warned the agency of a potential safety problem at least as early as 2005.

If all this is true–and that’s a big if, since there may be plenty of info we don’t have (see THIS STORY)–it’s a complete debacle. I know drug companies are businesses, but they should be sufficiently warning their clients (patients!) of all risks involved. And as for the FDA, who exactly are they protecting???

Whole Grain Rehash

Yesterday, my colleague Matt Goulding sent me this story from the New York Times. It’s an article that reports on a meta-analysis of whole grain studies. From the writeup:

Writing in the online edition of the journal Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases, researchers say they have confirmed a clear connection between whole-grain intake and the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Blah, blah, blah. Yes, we’ve heard this before: The people who eat the most whole grains have lower risk of heart disease than those who eat the least. Keep in mind that the people who eat the least whole grains aren’t likely eating a lower carb diet, they’re eating lots of refined grains. So again, saying those who eat the most whole grains have the lowest risk of heart disease isn’t necessarily true. It could be, of course, but I’d also bet that people eating the least amount of grains overall have a lower risk of heart disease compared to those eating the most refined grains. And the type of risk factor measurements you use to determine cardiovascular risk also matters. If you’ve read this blog much, you know I’m quite skeptical of the classic lipid hypothesis (i.e. LDL cholesterol is the best marker of heart disease risk.)

But I digress. The article says:

The new study found that on average, people who ate two and a half servings of whole grains a day had a 21 percent lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease than those who ate a fifth of a serving.

It’s relevant to emphasize that we’re only talking 2.5 servings a day. That’s not a lot. Yet the message from the paper is to eat lots and lots of whole grains.

In summary, dietary whole grains have been inversely associated with cardiovascular risk factors, atherosclerosis, and incident cardiovascular disease. In light of this consistent evidence, policy-makers, scientists, and clinicians should redouble efforts to incorporate clear messages on the beneficial effects of whole grains into public health and clinical practice endeavors.

Personally, I can’t figure out why they’d bother to do such a meta-analysis, unless they have too much time on their hands. Did they learn anything new? No. Did they expect to? No.

A few months ago, I ranted a little bit on this whole grain topic HERE. Granted, I probably shouldn’t post this link because it may open a whole new can of worms in the comments section, but what the hell. An excerpt:

Now I’m not suggesting that you need to give up whole grains completely. As I said, they’re better than refined grains and even appear to have some health benefits. However, the amount needed to reap those benefits is pretty small–for instance, three servings a day reduces heart disease risk by up to 28 percent. And as little as one serving a day cuts your risk by almost 20 percent. Of course, nutritionists might argue that if a little is good, a lot must be great. But there’s no evidence that this is true, and plenty of research that shows most people benefit from eating fewer of these high-carbohydrate foods than they already do.

And while I’m on the topic: Ever wonder how exactly 100 percent whole wheat bread is different from white bread? We did, so we had our new editor Heather Loeb (pictured) call Kendall McFall, a flour-milling instructor at Kansas State University. Here’s how the a grain goes from field to flour:

Step 1. A combine harvests the wheat and removes the whole-grain kernels from the stalks. The kernels are then transported to the mill.

Step 2. At the mill, corrugated rollers break open the kernel and scrape the carb-loaded endosperm away from the bran–the high-fiber outer husk–and the vitamin-rich germ.

Step 3. After the rollers pulverize all parts of the grain kernel, they’re fed through sifters, which separate the larger bran and germ particles from the endosperm.

Step 4. The bran and germ are routed into different machines for further processing while rollers smooth the remaining endosperm fragments into a fine powder, or flour.

For Refined Flour

Step 5A. The endosperm flour is enriched–as mandated by federal law–with thiamine, niacin, riboflavin, folic acid, and iron. The flour may also be bleached at this point.

For Whole-Wheat Flour

Step 5B. The powdered endosperm, bran, and germ particles are combined in the same proportion as was present in the whole kernel to create whole-wheat flour. It is not enriched.

Step 6. The flour is packaged and ready to be made into bread.

Now ask yourself this: Is there really such a thing as a “whole” grain–at least when it comes to commercial bread?

P.S. For those of you who regularly eat whole grains, check out this article by Matt Goulding on the virtues of quinoa. I imagine it’s a superior choice to most commercial whole grain products (though it’s actually considered a seed, I think).

And a tip of the hat to a reader named Higgs, who caught an earlier mistake (now corrected) that made me look really stupid. (Not that hard to do, by the way.)

Now I’m a Milk Pusher

Sometimes after I make a post, the comments spawned from it are just baffling to me. Take my milk post from yesterday. Zac writes:

Milk may be an aid in weight loss in certain cases, but i can’t see it as a health food.  If milk is so great, why is it that America has such a high rate of osteoperosis?  Shouldn’t milk be saving it?  It seems as though high intake of calcium isn’t the answer.  What’s more, milk has been linked to things such as ovarian cancer.   It also has a very high gylcemic response (on par with white bread; also why it is considered such a good recovery aid).  Even more, take a look at us compared to other species.  We are the only species that drinks milk past babyhood; milk that is not even from our own mothers.  Milk (or cow babyfood) has a different composition compared to human milk.  Different nutirents for different species.  I just can’t see how mens health can make such a big push for milk.  I mean, we’ve only been milking animals circa agriculture revolution; do you really think we’ve evolved to drink this stuff?  Anyone have any thoughts on what I take to be suffering health for being fit.

Some of this argument might be valid, but I’m not really interested in debating the milk topic in such detail. It just doesn’t seem like that big of a concern to me. I don’t see people drinking huge quantities of milk, and while milk may be a problem for some people, others tolerate it quite well–just like carbs.

For reasons that I’ve never understood, the milk topic brings out a lot of strong feelings in people. Some absolutely hate it. I’d love to understand better why, but I’d like reasons that are more fact-based and far less emotional. “Different nutrients for different species”??? Not sure I understand the rationale of that one.

I get it if you don’t like the hormones or pasteurization, and prefer raw milk. But sorry, I just haven’t seen the evils of milk in general. I’m not being close-minded–I have no personal attachment to dairy. If I was convinced it was bad, I wouldn’t consume it. And to be honest, I rarely drink milk, although I do eat plenty cheese and drink cream, which I assume would be associated with the same problems.      

All that said, here’s what really bothers me about this comment, and what prompted me to post it:

I just can’t see how mens health can make such a big push for milk.

I’m not sure where this came from. I think the strongest statement I made was, “Dairy is good.” Quite a push indeed.

P.S. to Max: I agree with you about the PCRM. I didn’t mean to present them as a group of doctors, I was just quoting from the Washington Post story.

“Milk Bashers Make Hulk Angry”

So my  buddy Bill Stieg over at MH Today asked me if I had a take on this headline, which ran in the Washington Post over the weekend:

U.S. Government Calls for End to Dairy Weight Loss Ads

According to the story:

U.S. dairy producers will have to stop pitching the idea that drinking more milk spurs weight loss, the Federal Trade Commission told a physician’s advocacy group in a letter made public on Friday.

Calling it a “victory for consumers”, the Physicians for Responsible Medicine said two national dairy advertising campaigns overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture will stop claiming that dairy products cause weight loss because “such claims are not supported by existing scientific research.”

I have two thoughts:

1. I think it’s good that these types of products won’t be able to claim they CAUSE weight loss. That’s misleading. Sure, some research shows that the more dairy you consume, the leaner your midsection. But this is based primarily on population studies. It’s much like the research that shows that the people who eat the most whole grains are healthier than those who eat the least. The conclusion isn’t supported by the evidence.

For instance, it’s likely that the people who down the most dairy ARE healthier and leaner than those who consume the least. That’s because those who eat the most of these foods are probably making better nutrition choices across the board. Do you think that the reason we have an obesity epidemic is because people are drinking too much milk? No way. Instead, those who consume the least milk are likely downing the most regular soda. See how it works?

Now there’s some thought that the calcium in milk helps to speed fat loss. No one really knows if that’s true, but the reality is that if an overweight person decided to give up all beverages except milk and water, he’d probably lose weight. After all, how much milk can you drink? It’s filling, and also nourishing, with a nice mix of protein, fat, and carbs. So it may even help you cut down on junk foods. Cheese is similar and with less carbs. It used to be thought that cheese makes you fat because it contains fat, which is just silly. And, in my experience, cheese is not a food that’s easy to overindulge on either–at least not as snack by itself. Bottom line: Dairy is good.

2. The organization pushing for this reform is irritating. A quote from their lawyer:

“Milk and cheese are more likely to pack on pounds than help people slim down,” said Dan Kinburn, PCRM’s general counsel.

I call BS. There’s no real evidence to support that claim either. Turns out, by the way, that Mr. Kinburn is also “leading groundbreaking lawsuits against the Atkins Diet empire for its false and misleading claims that a high-fat, high-meat diet is safe.” Good luck winning that one, Kinburn.

P.S. The quote from the Hulk isn’t real.

Lift Strong!

When I mention the name Alwyn Cosgrove, many of you already know he’s one of the world’s top strength coaches. Some of you also know that he was once a world-class martial artist. (7-time British national champ, 2nd in the world.) Others still may recognize him as the guy who first alerted me to the coregasm.

What most people don’t know is that Alwyn’s a two-time cancer survivor. Not just any cancer, but Stage IV, the deadly kind.  In fact, last summer, he had to receive a stem cell transplant. But just like he used to kick-ass in tae-kwon do, Alwyn kicked cancer’s ass, too.

Why  am I telling you this? Because there’s a benefit to you. To give something back to the research that helped him beat cancer, Alwyn asked a bunch of fitness and nutrition experts to contribute articles to a book called, “Lift Strong,” with all the proceeds going to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. The result: an 800-page book filled with great reading material from more than 50 experts and writers.

And the price? $24.99. Not bad–you contribute to a good cause, while getting an information packed CD in return. (The book was put in CD to keep costs low.)

Click HERE to read more about the book, and go HERE to ORDER IT. My copy is already in the mail.