In the past few years, several studies have concluded that elevated mercury levels may be associated not only with neurological problems but with cardiovascular disease among adults as well.

One of the studies, reported by Dr. Eliseo Guallar, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, in 2002 in The New England Journal of Medicine, looked at men in European countries and Israel. The mercury levels among men who had had a heart attack were 15 percent higher than those who had not.

In 2006, a National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine report titled “Seafood Choices: Balancing Benefits and Risks” acknowledged some of these findings, saying that “increased methylmercury exposure might be a risk factor for adult cardiovascular toxicity.”

The report added, “For child neurodevelopment and adult cardiovascular health, emerging evidence suggests that the health benefits of seafood consumption are greater among individuals whose body burden of methylmercury is lower.”

Other studies have concluded that the benefits of consuming fish, because it contains omega-3 fatty acids that may help prevent heart disease, may outweigh the risks of mercury contamination. Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard Medical School, said that “the evidence is inconsistent that high mercury level has any effect” on the risk of cardiovascular death among adults. More research had to be done, Dr. Mozaffarian said.

But some researchers who have examined the links between mercury and cardiovascular disease agree with Dr. Ellen Silbergeld, professor of environmental health sciences and epidemiology at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, who said “the existing evidence is strong and striking,” even though more studies were needed.

“It is very unwise to wait until we have complete scientific truth,” said Dr. Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health and chairman of the department of environmental medicine at the University of Southern Denmark. “The prudent judgment is to protect human health.”

There is also recent epidemiological evidence on the relationship between mercury and neurological problems. One study, published in Environmental Health in 2003, linked low-level methylmercury exposure with impaired dexterity and concentration. The greater the mercury level, the greater the effect, the researchers found. The study also suggested that adults exposed to methylmercury might be at risk for vision loss and numbness of fingers and toes as well as blood pressure and fertility problems.

Increasing numbers of physicians are reporting on signs of mercury poisoning among patients who eat large quantities of fish.

Dr. Jane Hightower, a clinician and diagnostician in San Francisco, evaluated more than 100 patients who had vague, unexplained symptoms. Of them, 89 percent had mercury in their blood that exceeded the level considered acceptable by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The symptoms included memory lapses, hair loss, fatigue, sleeplessness, tremors, headaches, muscle and joint pain, trouble thinking, gastrointestinal disturbances and an inability to do complex tasks.

Dr. Hightower tracked 67 of the patients, directing them to stop eating all fish. After 41 weeks, all but two had blood mercury levels lower than the level considered acceptable. Her clinical observations, published in 2003 in Environmental Health Perspectives, indicate that such neurological problems in otherwise healthy adults recede when blood mercury levels go down.

No one is recommending that people stop eating fish, unless their blood mercury levels are dangerously high. In fact, health professionals and researchers encourage eating seafood selectively, choosing species, like salmon and sardines, that have high omega-3 fatty acids and low levels of mercury.

Fish in the diet “is not an all-or-nothing story,” Dr. Silbergeld said. “The trick is to figure out which ones to eat.”

NYT 

Exercise has long been touted as the panacea for everything that ails you. For better health, simply walk for 20 or 30 minutes a day, boosters say — and you don’t even have to do it all at once. Count a few minutes here and a few there, and just add them up. Or wear a pedometer and keep track of your steps. However you manage it, you will lose weight, get your blood pressure under control and reduce your risk of osteoporosis.

If only it were so simple. While exercise has undeniable benefits, many, if not most, of its powers have been oversold. Sure, it can be fun. It can make you feel energized. And it may lift your mood. But before you turn to a fitness program as the solution to your particular health or weight concern, consider what science has found.

Moderate exercise, such as walking, can reduce the risk of diabetes in obese and sedentary people whose blood sugar is starting to rise. That outcome was shown in a large federal study in which participants were randomly assigned either to an exercise and diet program, to take a diabetes drug or to serve as controls. Despite trying hard, those who dieted and worked out lost very little weight. But they did manage to maintain a regular walking program, and fewer of them went on to develop diabetes.

Exercise also may reduce the risk of heart disease, though the evidence is surprisingly mixed. There seems to be a threshold effect: Most of the heart protection appears to be realized by people who go from being sedentary to being moderately active, usually by walking regularly. More intense exercise has been shown to provide only slightly greater benefits. Yet the data from several large studies have not always been clear, because those who exercise tend to be very different from those who do not.

Active people are much less likely to smoke; they’re thinner and they eat differently than their sedentary peers. They also tend to be more educated, and education is one of the strongest predictors of good health in general and a longer life. As a result, it is impossible to know with confidence whether exercise prevents heart disease or whether people who are less likely to get heart disease are also more likely to be exercising.

Scientists have much the same problem evaluating exercise and cancer. The same sort of studies that were done for heart disease find that people who exercised had lower rates of colon and breast cancer. But whether that result is cause or effect is not well established.

Exercise is often said to stave off osteoporosis. Yet even weight-bearing activities like walking, running or lifting weights has not been shown to have that effect. Still, in rigorous studies in which elderly people were randomly assigned either to exercise or maintain their normal routine, the exercisers were less likely to fall, perhaps because they got stronger or developed better balance. Since falls can lead to fractures in people with osteoporosis, exercise may prevent broken bones — but only indirectly.

And what about weight loss? Lifting weights builds muscles but will not make you burn more calories. The muscle you gain is minuscule compared with the total amount of skeletal muscle in the body. And muscle has a very low metabolic rate when it’s at rest. (You can’t flex your biceps all the time.)

Jack Wilmore, an exercise physiologist at Texas A & M University, calculated that the average amount of muscle that men gained after a serious 12-week weight-lifting program was 2 kilograms, or 4.4 pounds. That added muscle would increase the metabolic rate by only 24 calories a day.

Exercise alone, in the absence of weight loss, has not been shown to reduce blood pressure. Nor does it make much difference in cholesterol levels. Weight loss can lower blood pressure and cholesterol levels, but if you want to lose weight, you have to diet as well as exercise. Exercise alone has not been shown to bring sustained weight loss.Just ask Steven Blair, an exercise researcher at the University of South Carolina. He runs every day and even runs marathons. But, he adds, “I was short, fat and bald when I started running, and I’m still short, fat and bald. Weight control is difficult for me. I fight the losing battle.”

The difficulty, Dr. Blair says, is that it’s much easier to eat 1,000 calories than to burn off 1,000 calories with exercise. As he relates, “An old football coach used to say, ‘I have all my assistants running five miles a day, but they eat 10 miles a day.’”

- NYT

I ate really well yesterday - right up until I got home. Then I made up for it by, well, eating really crappy. Carbohydrates are not my friend, especially popcorn.

I can’t have cheese in the house. I’ll find a way to over eat it. I can’t have crackers or popcorn in the house for the exact same reason. What is especially dangerous is crackers AND cheese in the house at the same time.

I’m considering going back on my antidepressant. Getting off of it didn’t halt the weight gain. In fact I think it speeded it up. Also my sex drive isn’t a whole lot better since I got off of it and I don’t know if an increased sex drive is worth the lows that I’m feeling right now.

I’m sleeping a lot better now than I was on the drug. Actually, I should say that I’m sleeping LONGER than I was on the drug. I’m sleeping 8-10 hours a night, but I’m exhausted as hell when I wake up. On the fluoxetine I was only sleeping 5-7 hours, but I felt rested. It was frustrating to go to bed at 10 and to wake up at 4, but now I’m thinking that was not such a bad thing. At least I’d felt like I’d slept.

I’m so damn tired.

I lost 16 pounds in late 2006. I went from 196 pounds to 183 pounds. I don’t know why. It may have been the antidepressant I was on, though the doctor didn’t think so.

I kept the weight off for a year.

Then in late 2007 it started coming back. Again, I don’t know why. It pisses me off though. It really pisses me off.

So, here I am in January 2008 and I’m up to 197 pounds. I need to do something about it. I NEED to do something about it.

I’m not interested in dieting. I am interested in learning how to cook. I am interested in learning how to bump up the fiber and water content of what I eat so that I feel fuller on less calories ala “Volumetrics,” and to get my appetite under control. I am interested in joining a support group to help me do these things. I think Weight Watchers might fit the ticket.

I’m told that a good initial weight loss goal is 10% of your current weight. For me that would be 20 pounds. 177 pounds here I come!