Posts from the “Myths” Category

True or False – Shaving makes hair grow back thicker?

Posted on February 26, 2014

False.

Many years ago when I was in middle school one of my best friends helped himself to one of his father’s razors and a can of shaving cream and started shaving his chest. He told me that he had heard from someone in high school (always a reliable source of valid health information) that shaving causes hair to grow. After a few weeks of shaving one to two times a day and seeing no results, he abandoned his quest to speed up the process of entering into manhood. There are a number of interesting reasons why people might believe that shaving causes hair to grow back thicker. First, the base of hair or the part closest to the skin is the thickest. So following shaving, some might mistakenly think their hair actually appears thicker. Additionally, after you shave, the stubble has a blunt end or tip which can be rough (hence the term stubble) and give the appearance of being thicker. Some have even speculated that another factor that may have contributed to this myth is the fact that when we first start to shave when we are young, our hair is relatively thin, but it gets slightly thicker (this occurs naturally) as we get older, however this is not due to shaving. Finally, hair might actually appear slightly darker following shaving as the dark stubble is contrasted against the skin. Research on shaving and hair growth dates back to the 1920’s and does not support the idea that shaving causes hair to grow back thicker. Lynfield & Macwilliams (1970) conducted a study in which they studied whether shaving impacted the weight, length, and width of hair. These authors concluded that “No significant differences in rate of hair growth, either in length or weight, and no coarsening of individual hairs, could be ascribed to shaving”.

References:

Lynfield Y & Macwilliams P: Shaving and hair growth. The Journal of Investigative Dermatology (1970), Vol 55, pps. 170-172.

Categories: Myths

True or False – A dog’s mouth is cleaner than a humans?

Posted on February 19, 2014

False.

My wife and I have always had dogs, and at times, we have had up to three of them. So, we have plenty of stories of the interesting things dogs eat and do with their mouths. For example, one day I had our cute little Cavachon (Scout) on a walk out in the woods on a sunny winter day. The snow was fairly deep so we followed deer trails as we walked. I’d estimate that by the time we completed our two hour walk, Scout had consumed his body weight in deer droppings. He devoured those little delicacies like I devour chocolate covered coffee beans. On another occasion in the summer, he emerged from under a bush with a bird carcass that was badly decomposed and rancid. Given their eating habits, is it even remotely possible that a dog’s mouth could be cleaner than a human’s? The simple answer is no. This myth may have come about as people frequently see dogs lick their wounds, which wounds rarely get infected. It’s possible that the constant licking helps clear away dead tissue on a wound and that might help promote healing, but a dog’s mouth is by no means “sterile” as some think. One study by Rayan and colleagues (1991) compared human and animal mouth flora (flora is the total amount of bacteria and other microorganisms in or on the body). Following their study, the authors concluded “Human oral flora contained the smallest number of bacteria followed by dog and cat oral flora, respectively”. It seems logical, since most humans brush and floss their teeth once or twice a day, and unlike humans, dogs will eat almost anything they find. However, many bacteria are species specific, so you’re more likely to get sick if you kiss your son or daughter than if you kiss your puppy.

Reference:

Rayan G, Downard D, Cahill S, Flourney D: A comparison of human and animal mouth flora. Journal of the Oklahoma State Medical Association (1991), Vol 84, pps. 510-515.

Categories: Myths

True or False – Cooking in aluminum pots contributes to Alzheimer’s Disease?

Posted on February 4, 2014

False.

Of all the myths I’ve written about, the topic of whether aluminum causes Alzheimer’s could be the one in which I’ve seen the most research. For example, I performed a search in Google Scholar using the keywords “Alzheimer’s” and “Aluminum”. The search identified 21,800 articles on the topic. Much of what I read doesn’t support the idea that there is a direct causal link between aluminum and Alzheimer’s disease. That is, being exposed to aluminum won’t cause you to get Alzheimer’s. However, research has also shown that there are increased levels of aluminum in the brain cells of Alzheimer’s patients. Again, it likely isn’t the aluminum that is causing Alzheimer’s, it might be that for some reason brain cells in people with Alzheimer’s tend to accumulate more aluminum. Perl and Moalem (2006) in an article in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease write “It is highly unlikely that aluminum represents an etiologic agent for Alzheimer’s disease”.
Aluminum is the third most abundant element on earth, we are exposed to trace amounts of aluminum everyday when we breath, eat, and drink. Most of the aluminum that enters our bodies is excreted. If small amounts of aluminum were toxic to humans, we would be in big trouble! The focus of this particular myth is whether cooking in aluminum pots contributes to Alzheimer’s. The aluminum exposure caused by cooking in aluminum pots is very small, and remember most of the aluminum that enters our bodies is excreted. My wife and I are crazy about popcorn; we eat it almost every night. A few years ago we bought an aluminum popcorn maker. If I thought there was even a remote chance that using this popcorn maker could contribute to Alzheimer’s, it would have been thrown out a long time ago!
Reference:
Perl D & Moalem: Aluminum and Alzheimer’s disease, a personal perspective after 25 years. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease (2006), Vol 9, pps. 291-300.

Categories: Myths

True or False – Consistently attending religious services increases life expectancy?

Posted on January 22, 2014

True.

On most Sunday mornings our household is as busy as a bee’s nest. Getting kids up, fed, teeth and hair brushed, clothes without stains or holes- it’s no small task! I’m sure many of you with children can relate. Our family goes through this routine almost every Sunday morning, not because we think it will prolong our lives, but because it is something we want to do and we enjoy it. However, a large body of research evidence is now suggesting that attending religious services positively impacts longevity. McCullough and colleagues (2000) published a study in the Journal Health Psychology in which they examined data from 42 samples or studies that looked at religious involvement and death rates. They found that people who rated themselves as being highly religious were about 30% more likely to be alive, than those who were less religious, at various follow-up points.
The authors concluded that “Although the correlational nature of the data prohibit causal inferences, religious involvement has a nontrivial, favorable association with all-cause mortality”. In other words, attending religious services doesn’t necessarily cause you to live longer, but there appears to be a relationship or association between the two variables. It is well known that people with stronger social ties live longer and are generally healthier people. This certainly could contribute to why people who attend religious services live longer. Other contributing factors might include people who attend religious services tend to engage in less risky behaviors such as smoking, drinking, and doing drugs, watch out for each other, have less stress, and are better able to cope with stress and traumatic events in their lives. Another possible reason might be that established routines and rituals in people’s lives give them something to look forward to and a sense of meaning and purpose.
Reference:
McCullough M, Larson D, Hoyt W, Koenig H: Religious involvement and mortality: a meta-analytic review. Health Psychology (2000), Vol 19, pps. 211-222.

Categories: Myths

True or False – Antibacterial soap is superior to regular soap in preventing illnesses?

Posted on January 14, 2014

False.

Antibacterial soaps have become incredibly popular over the past five to ten years. It can actually be slightly overwhelming to walk down the soap isle at your shopping market and see all of the antibacterial soap choices available. Roughly between 70 and 75% of soaps available for purchase have “antibacterial” someplace on the label. This, as well as wording like “kills up to 99.9% of bacteria” may help explain why these soaps have grown in popularity. But the question still remains – are antibacterial soaps any better at killing germs than good old fashioned soap and water? Most of the research on the topic is suggesting no. Allison Aiello and colleagues (2007) published a review article in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases in which they examined the results of 27 studies on this topic. The authors concluded “Collectively, the microbiological efficacy studies strongly suggest that concentrations of triclosan used in consumer liquid hand soaps do not provide a benefit over plain soap for reducing bacterial levels found on the hands.”
Triclosan is the major antibacterial agent in antibacterial soaps. There are even some studies that suggest triclosan may contribute to resistant strains of bacteria and kill healthy bacteria on the skin. Additionally, in 2005, an FDA advisory group studied this topic and came to the conclusion that there is no evidence that antibacterial soap is superior to regular soap. It certainly is important to wash our hands, especially when we are sick, if we are cooking and handle raw meat, and after we go to the bathroom. However, most of us do a pretty horrible job when it comes to washing our hands. Proper hand washing technique calls for first wetting the hands, lathering the hands with soap for a minimum of 20 seconds, and then rinsing your hands for another 10 seconds. Next time you wash your hands; see how long it really takes you!
Reference:
Aiello A, Larson E, Levy S: Consumer antibacterial soaps: effective or just risky? Clinical Infectious Diseases (2007), Vol 45, pps. S137-S147.

Categories: Myths

True or False – The flu shot can cause the flu?

Posted on January 7, 2014

False.

Every year the flu season comes around and every year you have to make a decision of whether or not you are going to get vaccinated. If you have children, you also need to decide if you will get them vaccinated or not. Trust me when I say that can be a traumatic experience! I’ve also learned that flu shots can be a very sensitive issue for lots of people. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that roughly 200,000 people are hospitalized and 36,000 people die from the flu annually. The CDC offers a great deal of information about the flu as well as information about the types of flu vaccines offered. There basically are two types of flu vaccines available. The first is the flu shot, sometimes referred to as trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. The flu shot is considered “inactivated” because it contains killed flu viruses.
The second type of vaccine is the flu mist or nasal spray. You will sometimes see this type of vaccine referred to as live attenuated influenza vaccine. The spray or mist is considered “live” because it contains live, but weakened flu viruses. Both vaccines have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and neither of the vaccines will result in you getting the flu. The live attenuated vaccine is newer (only commercially available since about 2003) than the inactivated vaccine, however, some people can be hesitant to get the flu spray or mist because they are worried about the “live but weakened” nature of the vaccine. A very nice article by Tosh et al., (2008) describes how the live attenuated vaccine is both a safe and effective vaccine. So, why do you sometimes feel like you get the flu after you get a flu shot? The body can sometimes experience an immune response to a flu shot which can result in flu like symptoms. These symptoms can include muscle aches, headache, fever, cough, and a sore throat.
Reference
Tosh P, Boyce T, Poland G: Flu myths: dispelling the myths associated with live attenuated influenza vaccine. Mayo Clinic Proceedings (2008), Vol 1, pps. 77-84.

Categories: Myths

True or False – There is a link between eating out of plastic containers that contain BPA and getting cancer?

Posted on December 17, 2013

True.

I don’t believe in spending tremendous amounts of money on fancy Tupperware containers. If you were to look inside my refrigerator, you would likely see leftovers placed in old plastic margarine, cottage cheese, cool whip, and yogurt containers. Many times when I’m in a hurry and want a quick snack, I’ll take out one of these containers with leftovers in it and be tempted to toss it in the microwave for 30 or 45 seconds. I actually did that a couple years ago and in less than a minute the container I was using turned into a twisted, melted mess. Much of the health concern revolving around microwaving in plastic containers is related to Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used when plastics are made. BPA is known as an endocrine disruptor, which means that it interferes with the creation and use of hormones in the body.
Most of us have enough problems; we don’t need another thing messing with our hormones! Over the past few years there has been greater concern about eating and drinking out of containers that contain BPA. Some products are now starting to share information like “BPA free” on their label and recently Canada classified BPA as toxic. Studies have shown that various components of plastic containers can leach out into food when they are heated. However, many of these studies have shown that the amount is small and usually falls within acceptable standards. But, more current research is starting to paint a slightly different picture. In a recent article published in the American Journal of Public Health (2009) Sarah Vogel states “New research on very-low-dose exposure to BPA suggests an association with adverse health effects, including breast and prostate cancer, obesity, neurobehavioral problems, and reproductive abnormalities. These findings challenge the long-standing scientific and legal presumption of BPA’s safety”.
Reference:
Vogel S: The politics of plastics: The making and unmaking of bisphenol A “safety”. American Journal of Public Health (2009), Vol 99, pps. S559-S566.

Categories: Myths

True or False – Eating turkey makes you drowsy?

Posted on November 27, 2013

False.

You slowly push yourself away from the table after having just completed your third heaping plate of Thanksgiving dinner. The meal included mashed potatoes, gravy, stuffing, cranberry sauce, three bean salad, homemade bread, pumpkin pie, ice cream, wine, and of course lots of turkey. You slosh your way over to the sofa where you settle in and get comfortable. Your intention is to watch some Thanksgiving Day football. However, even with nearly a dozen kids running crazy through the house rambunctiously reenacting scenes from Star Wars, you drift off to sleep in a matter of minutes. An hour and fifteen minutes later, after getting struck by a misguided light saber strike, you wake up and realize you missed the entire fourth quarter of the game. Of course the blame for drifting off into the dream state is immediately directed at the turkey, which we all know is laced with that evil substance tryptophan. Tryptophan is an amino acid and is a precursor (helps make) serotonin.

Serotonin can be converted or turned into melatonin which has been shown to cause sleepiness and drowsiness in humans. Research has shown that giving humans L-tryptophan (Charney et al, 1982) can increase feelings of drowsiness. However, it is widely believed that tryptophan doesn’t act on the brain unless it is consumed on an empty stomach and there is no protein present in the gut (there is lots of protein in turkey). Additionally, there is not enough tryptophan in turkey to cause you to become sleepy. There is also tryptophan in eggs, beans, cheese, beef, pork, lamb, chicken, milk, barley, brown rice, fish, and peanuts, yet none of these foods are credited, or blamed for inducing sleep. Experts agree that one of the reasons we become sleepy after we eat a big meal is blood is diverted from the brain and other parts of the body to the stomach to aid with digestion.

Reference:
Charney D, Heninger G, Reinhard J, Sternberg D, Hafstead K: The effect of intravenous L-tryptophan on prolactin and growth hormone and mood in healthy subjects. Psychopharmacology (1982), Vol 77, pps. 217-222.

Categories: Myths

True or False – You should usually let fevers run their course without giving medications?

Posted on October 22, 2013

True.

A fever is when our core body temperature is higher than it is supposed to be. Normally, our body temperature hovers around 98.6 degrees F, but it is common for that number to fluctuate a degree or so during the day. Usually, our temperature is at its lowest point sometime in the early morning and at its highest point sometime in the late afternoon. Our temperature will also rise during periods of increased physical activity. Many consider the temperature of 100.5 degrees F to be the point where we officially have a fever. As parents of three children I can tell you that the first time one of our kids had a fever my wife and I experienced panic. What is wrong? What if the fever keeps going up? When should we go to the doctor? What can we do to lower the fever? How long before brain cells start dying? What we experienced is common and is sometimes referred to as fever phobia. Generally speaking, fever phobia is the fear that something bad is happening when someone (e.g., your child) has a fever.

As parents, our first desire with a sick child is usually to treat and take care of our children. When a fever is involved, many think that means doing something to lower the fever. However, experts say that is not what we should usually do. It turns out that a fever is part of our body’s natural immune system defense against invading microorganisms. Glatstein & Scolnik (2008) published an article titled Fever: to treat or not to treat in the World Journal of Pediatrics. The authors state that “In humans, increased temperature is associated with decreased microbial reproduction and increased inflammatory response”. Both help us fight invading viruses and bacteria. The authors also state that “Since fever is not in itself harmful, and might even be protective, there is no particular reason to treat it other than as a comfort measure”.

Reference:
Glatstein M & Scolnik D: Fever: to treat or not to treat. World Journal of Pediatrics (2008), Vol 4, pps. 245-247.

Categories: Myths

True or False – Touching reptiles and amphibians increases your risk of contracting a salmonella infection?

Posted on October 17, 2013

True.

85 touching certain animals risks salmonella

One of our family’s favorite summertime activities is to get in our canoe and float down a river not too far from our house. The float usually covers 4 to 6 miles and we make frequent stops along sandbars to play football, swim, roast hotdogs, build sand castles, and of course, search for animals. Our three boys always view these trips as mini adventures and they are continually on the lookout for critters. They commonly find snakes, frogs, turtles, and toads and are never bashful about playing with them. It hasn’t been until recently that I’ve learned that handling reptiles and amphibians can increase your risk of contracting a salmonella infection. People often associate salmonella infections with eating contaminated foods like chicken or eggs. However, it is true that you can get a salmonella infection from reptiles and amphibians. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also says that birds, cats, horses, and even dogs can pass salmonella in their feces. Mermin and colleagues (2004) performed a study to estimate the burden of reptile- and amphibian-associated salmonella infections and published it in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.

The authors concluded that reptile and amphibian exposure is associated with about 74,000 salmonella infections every year in the United States. The authors also stated that their findings “emphasize the need for improved prevention efforts without which thousands of preventable cases of reptile- and amphibian-associated salmonellosis may continue to occur annually in the United States.” If you are interested in decreasing you or your family’s risk of contracting a salmonella infection, avoid contact with reptiles and amphibians (especially for young children) and thoroughly wash hands after doing so.

Reference:
Mermin J, Hutwagner L, Vugia D, Shallow S, Daily P, Bender J, Koehler J, Marcus R, Angulo F: Reptiles, amphibians, and human Salmonella Infection: A population-bases, case-control study. Clinical Infectious Diseases (2004), Vol 38, pps. S253-261.

Categories: Myths