Search

Resolved to get healthier in 2010? If so, good for you. Of course, the big challenge with any resolution is following through. When it comes to health resolutions, there's another one: making sure you're following sound advice.

Too often, the health advice we get is filled with hype, half-truths, and spin. While we think we're helping ourselves, our efforts may actually be wasting time and money, and doing little to promote our health. They may even cause harm.

Here are some pitfalls to avoid for three common resolutions.

1. LOSE WEIGHT
We're bombarded with ads for weight loss plans that promise dramatic results, and bookstore shelves bulge with guides that offer all kinds of "secrets" to help us shed those unwanted pounds. The sad reality is that there are no magic bullets for weight loss, and over the long term, dieting rarely works. About 95 percent of dieters eventually regain lost weight.

One reason is that most diets leave us feeling deprived, and we fall back on our old eating habits. Another is genetics. No matter how much they diet, people prone to be heavier are unlikely to become skinny, and even if they do shrink substantially, their bodies eventually return to a higher weight. (Just ask Oprah.) This doesn't mean we're completely powerless regarding our weight, just that there are limits to how much we can control.

If you've tried and failed at counting calories, cutting out carbs, or combining foods, consider a different approach: focus on eating healthfully (meaning more fruits, veggies, and whole grains, and less junk food) and getting more physical activity. Unlike many diet plans, this method offers no guarantees to melt away pounds quickly. But it will make you healthier, give you more energy, and help you feel better.

2. EAT BETTER
Every day, it seems we hear about another food that we're supposed to eat to ward off illness. Acai berries, pomegranate juice, green tea, dark chocolate, yogurt, garlic, tomatoes. The list goes on and on. While there's nothing wrong with most of these foods–indeed many are quite healthful–the claims for them tend to be overblown.

In recent years, there's been an explosion of research on all kinds of constituents in superfoods–everything from alpha-linolenic acid to zeaxanthin. Though this line of inquiry is interesting scientifically, it's still in its infancy. Because foods contain multiple nutrients, which may interact with one another and with other foods to affect our bodies in a myriad of ways, teasing out the precise effects of a single constituent in one food is tricky, to say the least. But that hasn't stopped superfood promoters from pushing the misleading idea that specific foods, in isolation, are proven to keep us healthy.

While it's tempting to believe that tossing some blueberries into a cup of ice cream will keep heart disease at bay, what matters in the long run is our overall diet–not whether we include one specific food or another. Instead of stuffing yourself with superfoods, focus on broad categories–fruits, veggies, whole grains, fish, legumes–that constitute a healthful diet. When you can choose a variety of foods you like, rather than specific ones you feel compelled to consume, it makes eating far more enjoyable.

3. EXERCISE
We've all seen those ads for gadgets promising to give us rock-hard abs or thinner thighs. Targeted exercises can in fact strengthen muscles in a particular area, but they can't get rid of fat that covers those muscles. How quickly and easily fat disappears depends on where it's located, as well as your age, gender, and genes. But in any case, it requires vigorous, whole body exercise. Unfortunately, you can't spot reduce flab with ab crunches or leg lifts alone.

Likewise, you generally can't reshape your body with moderate exercise. Yet that's sometimes the promise we get from fitness clubs or personal trainers. Certainly, a half-hour a day of walking on a treadmill or riding a bike is highly worthwhile; it can provide an array of benefits from improved heart health to increased energy. But don't expect it to give you a perfectly-sculpted body. Changing your physique requires far more intense, sustained activity.

False promises about exercise create unrealistic expectations that eventually lead to disillusionment. After failing to get the results we're led to expect, we may give up entirely. Don't let that happen to you in 2010. Set reasonable goals–and get going!

As summer draws to a close, many of us will be hitting the beach for one last hurrah. If, like some members of my family, you prefer building sandcastles over swimming because the ocean seems dirty and disgusting, I have some unsettling news: The sand is even worse.

Scientists have found that levels of E. coli bacteria in sand tend to be higher than those in the water. The result, according to a recently-published study in the American Journal of Epidemiology, is that people who dig in the sand are more likely to get sick than those who take a dip in the ocean or walk on the beach.

The scientists interviewed more than 27,000 visitors at seven U.S. beaches and asked about the beachgoers' activities. Ten to 12 days later, participants were contacted by phone and asked about any illnesses they had experienced since their trip to the beach.

Those who had dug in the sand were slightly more likely to develop stomach illnesses and diarrhea than those who had not dug in the sand. The risk was further increased among people who had been buried in the sand. As you might expect, kids were especially vulnerable.

Fortunately, you don't need to forfeit that sandcastle-building contest to stay well. According to another new study, this one in the Journal of Water and Health, there's a simple solution: Wash your hands. The researchers found that subjects with sand-covered hands who rinsed in clean water removed 92% of E. coli that might otherwise have ended up in their mouths and led to illness. Rinsing four times removed virtually 100%.

Of course, it's best to use soap or an alcohol-based hand sanitizer. If you don't have access to either, though, rinsing your hands with clean water several times before you dig into your picnic basket or leave the beach can do the trick.

It's a reminder that even on vacation, Mom's advice to wash your hands still applies. To find out other surprising places where potentially harmful germs lurk and how to protect yourself, watch this video.

Looking for the best multivitamin brands? Pharmacist Doug White offers a few tips to guide you through the multiple choices on the vitamin aisle.

Cancer hit Bob Hendrickson like a rogue wave at age 37. The Coast Guard officer turned to an online support group using the screen name SpongeBob—and came away with some life-changing personal connections.

When it comes to dog owners' interactions with their pets, there are two distinct camps: those who allow -- and even encourage -- their pooches to lick them on the face, and those who react to the practice like Lucy from Peanuts. When Snoopy plants a big, wet kiss on her, she screams, "I have dog germs! Get some hot water, get some disinfectant, get some iodine!"

Turns out those who side with Lucy may have a little less to fear. Research by Dr. Kate Stenske at Kansas State University has found that people who let Fido kiss or sleep with them are no more likely than other dog owners to share the same strains of E. coli bacteria with their pets. What's more, the dogs in the study tended to have fewer drug-resistant strains of E. coli than their owners.

While these findings don't provide direct proof about germ transmission, they do suggest that people may be more likely to spread drug-resistant E. coli to their dogs than the other way around. So maybe Snoopy is the one who should be demanding disinfectant.

Still, that doesn't mean humans can't get germs from their four-legged friends. Dr. Stenske found that people who failed to wash their hands after petting their dogs had higher levels of antibiotic-resistant E. coli. (Just another reason to keep your paws clean.) And given dogs' affinity for feasting on decaying garbage, dead rodents, and other such delicacies, it's possible that their mouths harbor other germs that can be passed to humans though canine kisses.

As for sharing a bed with your dog, perhaps a bigger worry is its effect on sleep. Studies show that sleeping with pets can keep you awake and leave you feeling, uh, dog tired. In this case, though, the risk isn't reciprocal: Dogs sleeping in their owners' beds seem to have no complaints.

It's become a frustratingly familiar tale: A vitamin or mineral is hailed for its power to ward off disease. Sales of the supplement soar. But then studies suggest that the claims may have been overblown. Eventually, more definitive research--in the form of large, randomized trials--confirms that the supplement is ineffective and possibly even harmful.

Such is the disappointing story of vitamin E, an antioxidant that previous research has suggested may help ward off cancer and heart disease. But several recent studies have cast doubt on the idea. And now two large trials are putting some final nails in the coffin.

One is a massive study, funded by the National Cancer Institute, that involves 35,000 men age 50 and older. Known as SELECT, it was designed to determine whether vitamin E and the mineral selenium, taken either alone or together, prevent prostate cancer. The answer is no, according to an initial review of the data. What's more, those who took vitamin E had a slightly higher risk of prostate cancer, though it's possible the finding was due to chance. As a precaution, researchers recently decided to halt the trial early and advised participants to stop taking their supplements.

Another large randomized trial, involving more than 14,000 male physicians age 50 and older, recently found that subjects who took vitamin E supplements had no fewer heart attacks, strokes, or cardiovascular-related deaths than those who got a placebo.

When vitamin E fails tests such as these, proponents are sometimes quick to blame the research. One common complaint is that studies used synthetic vitamin E rather than the "natural" form. (You can tell which is which by looking at the label; dl-alpha-tocopherol means it's synthetic, while a "d" instead of "dl" indicates it's natural.) Though some vitamin users and sellers believe that natural vitamin E is more effective, there's no compelling evidence to support such assertions.

Other possible explanations are that the dose (400 IUs daily in both studies) wasn't optimal or that the follow-up periods (an average of five years in SELECT and eight in the heart disease trial) were too short.

Perhaps. But the information yielded by health studies is rarely perfect. We have to make decisions based on what's known--not what we hope is true. And multiple studies--involving different doses and different populations, using different forms of vitamin E--have now shown that it does not live up to its earlier billing.

The take-home message is that we need to be careful not to swallow supplement claims prematurely. First, do some homework. Databases provided by the Mayo Clinic and Consumer Reports, which objectively review the scientific evidence for a host of dietary supplements, are two good places to start.

After nearly every election, there's discussion and debate about what role, if any, the news media played in influencing the outcome. This year is likely to be no different.

But what kind of influence might the media have on our perceptions of disease? Here's a little test. Consider the following description of something we'll call Condition X:

Condition X is transmitted by a bite from an infected mosquito. Eighty percent of people who get infected will not show any symptoms. Symptoms can include headaches, nausea, vomiting, skin rash, high fever, neck stiffness, tremors, muscle weakness, vision loss, and paralysis.

On a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being most severe), rate the severity of Condition X.

Now, what if I tell you that Condition X is actually West Nile virus? Would that change your answer?

It's a question that researchers at McMaster University in Canada put to the test. In an ingenious study published in the current issue of the journal PLoS ONE, they asked subjects about 10 infectious conditions. Five of them -- anthrax, avian (bird) flu, Lyme disease, SARS, and West Nile virus -- have received extensive media coverage, while the other five have not.

When subjects were given the names of the conditions, they rated the widely reported ones to be more serious than the others. But when the labels were removed and only descriptions were provided, they judged the conditions with low media exposure to be more severe.

So what does this tell us? Our perceptions about what threatens our health are shaped --
and often skewed -- by the news media, which tend to emphasize risks that are novel and dramatic. The result is that we may end up fixating on small (often tiny) risks -- anthrax, plastic bottles, shark attacks -- rather than things that really matter, such as smoking, lack of exercise, and a poor diet.

While none of us can entirely escape the media's influence, we can learn to think more critically about what they tell us. To that end, an excellent site called Health News Review rates medical reports for accuracy, balance, and completeness. And if you'd like a reality check on your own risk for major conditions such as heart disease, cancer and stroke, here's an excellent tool developed at Harvard. Both can help you get past the hype and focus on what's really important for your own health.

Whether you prefer Shakira or Springsteen to serenade you while you work out, you know that music can make exercise more enjoyable. But if you choose the right music - and that's the key - you may also be able to boost your performance.

Yes, there are scientists who study such things, and Dr. Costas Karageorghis of Brunel University in London is among them. In his latest study, he asked 30 volunteers to listen to specially-selected music while they exercised on a treadmill. His finding: Their physical endurance increased by an average of 15%.

The key to the right music is the number of beats per minute (BPM). For maximum performance, Karageorghis recommends tunes with 120 to 140 BPM. Songs at the lower end of this range are appropriate for moderate activities such as walking, while those at the upper end are best suited for more intense forms of exercise.

Wondering how many BPMs your favorite Snoop Dogg ditty has? Here's a cool tool that helps you figure it out. Or check out Jogtunes.com. Created by a physician who's a runner, the site lists BPMs for a wide array of music and has downloadable mixes for various types of activities. Runner's World also features recommended playlists for warming up, running, doing yoga, and lifting weights.

So what does Karageorghis suggest? According to his research, "The Heat is On" by Glenn Frey is particularly effective for intense workouts. I'm not so sure, though. I think I'll stick with the Beach Boys.

Dietitian Carolyn O’Neil comes to the defense of a high-powered attorney whose eating habits have become a real liability. The verdict: A healthy diet to fit even the busiest schedule.