The World Health Organization recently released the findings of a study showing that indoor tanning machines can cause skin cancer just as much as the sun’s ultraviolet rays. Naturally, this piece of news has caused quite a stir in various sectors. Federal health officials are now running around like headless chickens calling for hearings and investigations. Of course, if WHO turns out to be correct, the FDA is going to be in hot water. After all, they gave the thumbs up on these machines!

While I love to have a good tan and can’t get enough of the sun, I do not understand why we keep on insisting that tanning beds are as safe as can be. If we need to lather on sunblock to protect our skin when out in the (natural) sun, why can’t we think of tanning beds in the same way? Ask your dermatologist, he or she will probably tell you the same thing. No matter how you look at it, exposing your skin to things that will darken it is going to do some harm.

If I were you, I’d stay away from those tanning beds.

Recently, an article about how Santa Claus is a negative model for children around the world spread like wildfire. Titled “Santa Claus: A Public Health Pariah?,” the article was published in the leading health journal of the UK. It was written by Nathan Grills, an Australian epidemiologist. Here are some points raised in the article, courtesy of Newsweek:

“Epidemiologically there is a correlation between countries that venerate Santa Claus and those that have high levels of childhood obesity.” The researcher warns that the British tradition of leaving brandy along with the cookies means that Santa would be drunk-driving his sleigh. Santa’s behind-the-reindeer malfeasance also includes “speeding, disregard for road rules, and extreme sports such as roof surfing and chimney jumping. Despite the risks of high speed air travel Santa is never depicted wearing a seatbelt or a helmet.”

It doesn’t take a genius to predict how people would react to this sort of article. From the four corners of the world, Grills has been grilled (no pun intended). People have made him the butt of all sorts of jokes.

The question that concerns me is this: based on Grills’ article, is Santa really a bad model (at least health-wise)? I’ll leave you with this: the article was a JOKE, alright? So get off your high horses, folks, and laugh it off. In the meantime, make sure you don’t get his girth over the Christmas holidays!

But what about the economic crisis that we have been experiencing all over the world? Could it bring about something good as well? According to researchers, life expectancy increased during the time of the Great Depression – by 1.9 years to be exact. On the other hand, a 5 percent rise in the GDP lowered life expectancy by one or two months. Other studies have yielded similar results, not only in the United States but also in other countries.

So why is this the case? One possible reason is that people tend to drink and smoke less during a recession. More so, people also tend to eat out less and cook at home more. Another possible reason is that people tend to bond together and help out each other more in times of need. This level of social cohesion and support may actually help promote better overall health, hence the increase in life expectancy.

It does make sense, and you probably have had similar experiences in the past several years. Bottom line? Take control of what you can – your lifestyle and health habits – and make the best of the situation!

The exact cause of PCOS remains a mystery to doctors and researchers. However, the symptoms are clear and some researchers believe that it is closely linked to an over active sympathetic nervous system. This system is what controls involuntary bodily functions such as the dilation of pupils.

A group of Swedish researchers conducted a study recently, wherein women with PCOS were divided into three groups. The first group underwent electro-acupuncture (a weak electric current is passed through the needles). The second group underwent a guided exercise routine (at least three times a week). The third group had no additional treatment or instructions. The findings? The activity of the sympathetic nervous system of the first two groups was considerably lower and the women who had acupuncture had a plus: more regulated menstruation. More than this, they also had lower levels of testosterone.

If you have PCOS or know anyone with PCOS, you might want to consider acupuncture.

According to the Food Standards Agency of Britain, eating organic food does NOT provide additional health benefits. As shocking as it may seem, the FSA strongly stands by its statement. Early this month, the agency made the announcement that the nutritional differences between organic and conventional food are insignificant – practically amounting to zero. The study was conducted by Dr. Alan Dangour and his team at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM).

Naturally, this announcement sparked a debate all across the country. Organic food advocates got all riled up and the researchers have even received hate mail because of their work. In spite of all this, the British government says that the study is valid and scientific.

What does this mean for us? I suppose it simply is a matter of taking in the information and making our decisions based on it. Personally, I like the idea of organic food. Being practical, however, I realize that I do not have to spend tons of extra money on organic produce if I can get the same nutrients from conventionally produced food for a much lower price. After all, we should also look after our financial health as much as we take care of our physical well being.

But did you know that some drinks contain way too many calories for your own good? Some drinks in the market actually contain enough calories to serve as a full meal! Yahoo Health recently featured some of the worst drinks there are. Let’s take a look at them, shall we?

Baskin-Robbins: Large Ice Cream Soda with Vanilla Ice Cream Float. This drink won the “Worst Float Award.” With 960 calories, 40 g of fat, and 136 g of sugar, a 32-ounce float can replace your lunch. I think that they’ve taken this out of their menu, though.

For the worst ice blended coffee drink, Così Gigante Double OH! Arctic (23 ounces) takes home the prize. A whopping 1,210 calories, 19 g of fat, and 259 g of carbohydrates – that’s what’s packed into this coffee drink. A strong caffeine jolt PLUS tons of sugar will certainly make you high.

And you thought that was bad? Here is the winner of the “Worst Drink in America Award” – Cold Stone Creamery Gotta Have It PB&C Shake. The name itself should give you an idea what it’s all about. Yes, it is so GOOD but it is BAD as well: 2,010 calories, 131 g fat, and 153 g sugar.

Not turned off? Well, you should be; unless you really do not care about your health.

But what about taxing soda in order to help fight fat? Well, if the U.S. health authorities are to be followed, we will soon be paying a lot more for sodas and other similar sugary drinks. According to a report by the AFP, the authorities think that getting these drinks out of the Americans’ menus would solve the problem.

Thomas Frieden, the head of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, says that the average American today consumes about 250 more calories as compared to twenty or thirty years ago. Of the 250 calories, he says that about 120 come from sugared drinks and food.

So why is the government proposing taxation? Shouldn’t people be allowed to decide for themselves? For one, obesity and other health problems related to it are costing the government a whole lot of money in health care. I guess this is enough reason for the authorities to find ways to lessen the obesity figures – about 2/3 of the American population.

Take note – these drinks and food are already being taxed. The argument, however, is that the tax is not high enough to affect consumption. It’s like the taxation argument on tobacco.

So what do you think about the issue? Would you stop (or lessen) your consumption of soda and other sugar rich foods because of higher taxes?

Recently, though, I have been hearing a lot of rumors about Tylenol being dangerous for you. Mass e-mails about the FDA saying that acetaminophen (the active ingredient of Tylenol) can damage your liver beyond repair have been flooding my Inbox(es) – yes, all of my e-mail accounts have been bombarded. Friends and colleagues, who know of my affinity for this pill, have not been slow to inform me either.

Naturally, I had to do research of my own in order to get to the bottom of this issue once and for all. Thank goodness for Paula Kue, MD, who wrote an article about this exact thing in Yahoo. She said the magic words:

Well, STOP! Please, stop your worrying.

Acetaminophen is a truly safe medication for reducing fevers and treating pain. Unless you have a known liver disease like hepatitis, or are on medications that are themselves toxic to the liver or that already contain acetaminophen, the current dosing guidelines for Tylenol are very safe.

YAY! That’s all I can say. I don’t have hepatitis and as far as I know, I am not taking any medication that is toxic to the liver. So there!

According to a story ran by The New York Times, the study was done on over 11,000 Canadian adults. The results showed that people who are a bit overweight, but not obese, are less likely to die than those who are not overweight (READ: NORMAL weight). The category of overweight covers people who have a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 25 to 29.9. In addition to this, people who are underweight – those who have a Body Mass Index of less than 18.5 – are more likely to die than the people who weigh normally.

Obviously, this finding is going to be well-received by many. The common way of thinking, prior to this study, is that being overweight automatically means more health problems, higher chances of dying earlier than normal. I guess this study gives us something new to think about.

Of course, we also have to take into consideration our lifestyles. Just because you have a BMI of anywhere between 25 to 29.9, it doesn’t mean that you can automatically say that you are going to be fine and that you have a lower risk of dying early. Smoking, drinking, no exercise, and other similar factors should be considered as well.

At least, when you get picked on because of a little extra padding, tell them that it just might be your insurance!

But did you know that it can also be used to treat other conditions? I didn’t! I just read a story about how an Australian stroke victim was able to walk again because of Botox. Russell McPhee, 49, has been paralyzed for the past 23 years. He had a stroke that was so severe that his doctors told him that he would never be able to walk again. Or so they thought.

So how did this happen? Botox, or botulinum toxin, actually works by blocking the nerve signals that instruct the muscles to contract. That is why it works well in getting of wrinkles – the facial muscles do not contract as they normally would with age. Apparently, this same mechanism is beneficial to those who are left paralyzed due to brain injuries, multiple sclerosis, spinal injuries, and strokes!

In McPhee’s case, he was paralyzed because his muscles were in a state of perpetual contraction. His muscles were “spasm-ing” all the time, prohibiting him from moving them. With Botox treatment, the spasms stopped, and he was able to stretch his legs.

While this is good news to stroke victims, doctors say that different people respond to the treatment in varying degrees. They say that McPhee’s case is quite remarkable as his muscles have remained strong and intact despite years of not being used.