Daily Archives: November 1, 2010

Three Meals A Day May Beat ‘Mini-meals’ For Weight Loss

Sitting down to eat a real meal three times a day may be a better strategy for weight loss than grazing on several smaller “mini-meals,” new research shows. Here are the details in a report from Reuters Health:

Overweight and obese men on low-calorie, high-protein diets felt more satisfied and less hungry when they ate three times a day compared to when they ate six times a day, Dr. Heather J. Leidy and colleagues from Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, found.

“There’s a lot of lay press about eating frequency,” Leidy, who is now at The University of Missouri in Columbia, told Reuters Health.

While there’s a widespread perception that it’s better to eat little meals more often, she added, “these mini-meals everyone is talking about don’t seem to be as beneficial as far as appetite control.”

Studies on whether eating frequency affects appetite control have had “conflicting” results, she and her colleagues note in the journal Obesity. To investigate further, they randomly assigned 27 men who were overweight or obese to eat either a high-protein diet or a normal-protein diet for 12 weeks.

Diets contained 750 fewer calories than each man needed to maintain his current weight. Starting at week seven of the study, the men either ate their assigned diet in three meals spaced five hours apart, or in six meals eaten every two hours, for three days in a row. The study participants then switched to the other eating pattern for an additional three consecutive days.

Men eating the higher protein diet (25 percent of total calories from protein) felt fuller throughout the day, didn’t want to eat as much late at night, and were less preoccupied with thoughts of food than the men who were consuming 14 percent of their energy as protein. While eating frequency didn’t influence appetite in the men on the normal-protein diet, the researchers did find that men in the high protein group felt fuller in the evening and late at night after eating just three meals a day.

It’s already been established, Leidy said, that high protein diets are better for appetite control. The diet men followed in her study “is not Atkins by any means,” she added. “We very clearly want people to know that this is not an Atkins-style diet. You’re still getting an adequate amount of fiber and fruits and vegetables with these diets.”

Does The Morning-After-Pill, ‘Ella,’ Cause Abortions? It Depends Upon Your Definition of Abortion!

Long-time readers of this blog know of the difficulties surrounding the labeling of a hormonal birth control medicine as an abortifacient. The crux of the issue is that if you define pregnancy as beginning when the unborn human implants in the uterus after his or her several day journey down the fallopian tube after conception/fertilization, then anything that kills the unborn human in the tube or prevents implantation is, by definition, NOT abortifacient.

If, however, you define pregnancy as beginning at conception/fertilzation (and there are debates about which term pro-life folks should use — see my blog on the topic here) then any chemical that kills the unborn human in the tube or prevents implantation is, by definition, IS abortifacient.

That’s why I use the term “post-fertilization effect.” To those of us who are pro-life, it is the same as “abortifacient.”

With that explanation, let me tell you about the efforts of pro-life advocates as we launch a campaign to warn pharmacists about the newly-approved drug Ella. The marketer of the so-called “emergency contraceptive” pill says it does not cause abortions (because they define pregnancy as beginning at implantation and the drug, apparently, does not affect the unborn human AFTER implantation). Here are the details from LifeNews.com:

The new drug is billed as a more effective morning after pill but its chemical makeup is similar to the dangerous RU 486 abortion drug.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) quietly announced approval of ella in August allowing Watson Pharmaceuticals to market the drug as an emergency contraception.

The FDA and Watson are able to call the drug non-abortifacient because they have redefined the beginning of pregnancy — changing it from conception to implantation. That makes it appear an unborn child after conception does not lose her life to the drug when testing in animals and humans make it clear the drug causes abortions.

But, since the drug is “effective” up to five days following intercourse, there is clearly sufficient time for conception to occur and for a unique human being’s life to be destroyed via use of the ella drug.

The FDA approval requires the ella drug to be sold with a prescription requirement tin the same manner as the RU 486 abortion drug, known as mifepristone and that has killed anywhere from 13-50 women worldwide. That means pharmacists will be involved in dispensing the drug to women who present valid prescriptions for it.

The Family Research Council has launched a campaign designed to get pro-life advocates to inform their pharmacists that ella causes abortions and to urge them to refrain from dispensing it.

“Due to the FDA’s approval of ‘ella’ as an EC, pharmacists may believe they must cover ella as a prescription drug,” FRC president Tony Perkins said in a recent email to the group’s members. “However, many pharmacists do not know about the dangers of this drug or that it functions like an abortifacient. Many pharmacies may not know ella can cause an abortion, and need to be aware of these concerns before they begin stocking this abortion drug.”

“To educate pharmacists around the country about this new abortion drug and shed light on its dangers, we ask you to download this informational flyer, take it to your local pharmacy, and respectfully ask your pharmacist not to offer the ella abortion drug,” he added.

But, Charlie Mayr of Watson Pharmaceuticals emailed the Washington Post today to defend the drug against the charges that it causes abortions.

“Watson recognizes and respects that there are varying opinions concerning contraception and emergency contraception. However, Watson believes that ella® represents an important additional emergency contraceptive option for women who elect to use emergency contraception to prevent unintended pregnancy following a contraceptive accident or incident of unprotected intercourse,” Mayr said.

Mayr added that “ella (ulipristal acetate) 30 mg tablet is not an abortifacient and the product is not RU-486.”

Perkins, in his email about the new campaign, disagrees.

“Ella is similar in its chemical make-up to RU-486 and therefore can destroy an implanted embryo, in addition to other such effects as preventing fertilization or preventing implantation,” he said. “Until now, the FDA has drawn the line between EC and abortion based on whether a drug prevents or ends an established pregnancy. Therefore, approving ella as an EC even under its own definition of an abortifacient is doubly misleading.”

Ella is the first selective progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM) available in the United States for the indication of “emergency contraception (EC).” According to the European Medicines Agency, SPRMs block progesterone which is necessary to maintain a pregnancy. This effectively deprives the unborn child in the womb of the nutrients he or she needs to live.

During the FDA advisory committee meeting, Americans United for Life and the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists told the FDA a study in England confirms the pro-life perspective that ulipristal acts as an abortion drug.

Anna Glasier, of NHS Lothian in Edinburgh, led a study of more than 5,500 women in the UK published online in The Lancet medical journal. It found fewer pregnancies among those women given the ellaOne drug within five days of intercourse.

And for women who took the drug between 3-5 days after having sex, only women taking the traditional morning after pill became pregnant. That’s because all of the women using ulipristal during that time period had abortions.

Related web sites:

FRC – http://www.frc.org

Microbiologist: Hundreds of Studies Reported to Confirm Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

A microbiologist says there are so many published studies confirming the link between induced abortion and breast cancer that he plans to publish one every day on his blog until he’s mentioned them all. It will take Dr. Gerard Nadal so many weeks to cover them all, the blogging will continue until early next year. Here are the details from a report from LifeNews.com:

Dr. Gerard Nadal, who has a has a PhD in Molecular Microbiology from St John’s University in New York, has spent 16 years teaching science, most recently at Manhattan College.

He will report on one abortion-breast cancer study daily until he has exhausted all of the abortion-breast cancer studies and he anticipates he may be reporting on these studies as late as January or February of 2011.

“Today begins the inexorable presentation of the scientific literature on the abortion/breast cancer link,” Nadal writes. “Women’s lives depend on us getting the truth out to them. In short order we’ll generate plenty of pros armed with the simple truth of science!”

His first article reviewed a 1997 epidemiological study by Julie Palmer, Lynn Rosenberg and their colleagues, “Induced and spontaneous abortion in relation to breast cancer,” published in the journal, Cancer Causes and Control.

Palmer and Rosenberg are not unbiased researchers, which makes their findings even more relevant for women. Instead, they are abortion advocates who have testified as expert witnesses on behalf of abortion businesses in lawsuits challenging the states of Alaska and Florida because of their parental notice or consent laws.

Their study, supported by U.S. National Cancer Institute grants, examined 1,835 women ages 25-64 years with pathologically confirmed, invasive breast cancer and 4,289 women aged 25-64 admitted for nonmalignant or malignant conditions.

Nadal says the study found women who had never had children and who had one case of an induced abortion raised their abortion breast cancer risk by 40 percent.

“So in plain English, women who had one induced abortion, regardless of ever having had a child, had a 40% increased risk of developing breast cancer over women the same age, with the same parity status who never had abortions, and the authors are 95% certain that there is no other explanation,” he said.

Nadal says the study further showed that for women who had a child previously, “there is a 30% increased risk of cancer” and it “may well be explained by additional stimulation of the lobules by estrogen in the aborted pregnancy, without the benefit of lactogen at the end.”

Nadal says observers of the debate about the abortion and breast cancer link should pay attention to another part of the study where the authors attempt to undermine their own results in an effort to downplay the abortion-breast cancer link.

The authors claim their own study suffers from a form of recall bias – despite their assertion that they were 95% certain that the results could not be due to chance. The authors believe women with breast cancer are less likely to hide their abortion from the health questioners compiling the data than women without breast cancer.

“They offer no proof of this phenomenon other than the same assertions made by other breast cancer researchers with similar data. In other words, the phenomenon is a baseless assertion reverberating in the pro-abortion echo chamber,” Nadal writes.

“Are we really to believe that breast cancer brings women closer to telling the truth of their previous abortions? Why the acuity of memory in a breast cancer patient vs. the control patients? The abortion question was just one in a long, detailed history taken during the study,” Nadal continues. “There is no rational basis for believing that women with breast cancer are more apt to recall and report an abortion than any other women.”

Despite that, the authors conclude in their study: “The small elevations in risk observed in the present study and in previous studies are compatible with what would be expected if there were differential underreporting by cases and controls.”

Nadal says that doesn’t pass the scientific straight face test.

“If I had pulled that crap during my dissertation defense, my committee would have laughed me out of the room,” he said.

However, as Nadal blogs about the abortion-breast cancer studies, he says this is a recurring theme.

“But, as we shall see over and over on a daily basis for months to come, this is what happens when ideology (and not physiology) becomes the prism through which data are filtered,” he says.