Insights from the Editor

Whenever I see others driving erratically, the first thing I suspect is that they're yakking on their cell phones and not paying attention to the road. And that's often indeed the case.

But what about conversing with other passengers? Isn't that just as distracting as talking on a cell phone? It's a question that psychology professor David Strayer and his colleagues put to the test in their driving simulator lab at the University of Utah. Click here to watch a clip of the simulator.

The study, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, found that cell phone users made more mistakes than those chatting with other passengers. They were more likely to drift out of their lanes and less likely to exit at the correct location. In short, they were more distracted.

So why is this? Unlike people on the other end of a phone, passengers typically know to clam up when the driver needs to concentrate. And they can serve as a second pair of eyes, pointing out potential hazards or helping with directions. Hear more about this from Dr. Strayer.

In general, adult drivers accompanied by other passengers are less likely to have an accident than those motoring solo. Of course, who the passengers are can make a difference. If you're stuck with a carload of screaming kids or a carping backseat driver who makes you nervous, you're probably safer going it alone. Just stay off the phone.

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.

Living a healthful lifestyle can certainly be a challenge. It requires an ongoing effort, not to mention an ability to resist the temptations we face at every turn to eat too much and move too little. It also requires information. Yet it seems the more information and advice we get about staying healthy - and there's now more than ever - the harder it is to know what to believe and to do.

That's where this blog comes in. Relying on my 20 years of experience as a health journalist and my academic training in public health, I'll sort through the information for you, directing you to trustworthy sources - Web sites, books, articles, and research studies - that I think you'll find useful and interesting. I'll also try to provide some perspective on health issues in the news and on the minds of consumers.

I don't want this to be a one-way street, however. I invite you to let me know about resources that you've found helpful and to share your reactions to what you read here. It's my hope that by taking this journey together, we'll all be able to navigate with greater ease the twists, turns, and forks in the road to wellness.