Acupressure Mat Latest Shortcut to Relaxation

By Laura Johannes for The Wall Stree Journal

Once a popular circus stunt, a bed of nails is now being touted as a relaxation tool. A growing number of companies selling mats with nail-like plastic spikes say they can relieve stress, neck, back and other pain and even help insomnia. There is little published evidence, but some scientists say early results suggest they are worth further study.Rattlebug says its 8,820-spike Hälsa mat will 'stimulate your body's acupressure points, helping it to release natural pain relief hormones.

Unlike a classic nail bed made famous by performers, the modern-day mats, sometimes called "acupressure mats," are made with small disks of plastic spikes. There's no set daily usage recommendation, though some companies suggest starting with lying down, usually face up with the spikes in contact with the back and neck, for 5 to 10 minutes, then gradually longer.

The fewer spikes, the more challenge to the body—and the more benefit, says Team Shakti AB of Sweden, which puts 6,000 spikes on its main mat but offers a more comfortable version, its Shakti Light mat, with 8,000 spikes. For the biggest benefit, lie naked on the mat, Shakti says. The cost of the mats ranges from $30 to $50 or more. Shakti sells its mats on its website for $69, and the mats can be found on Amazon for as low as $39.95.

Shakti says its mat "increases the blood circulation and stimulates the body to release endorphins which help to bring about a deeply relaxed state." Rattlebug LLC of Warwick, N.Y., says its 8,820-spike Hälsa mat will "stimulate your body's acupressure points, helping it to release natural pain relief hormones."

Acupressure involves a therapist putting pressure on specific points to create a body response—such as relaxation or pain relief. There are more than 100 acupressure points on the human back—and using a mat with many evenly distributed points, "you'd have to hit some of them," says Steven Given, associate dean of Bastyr University's School of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine in Kenmore, Wash. The mat is likely to provide some benefits, he says.

Research on nail mats so far is preliminary, scientists say. A Shakti-funded study, published earlier this year in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, tested heart rate, body temperature and other physical reactions to the "nail" mat compared with a soft bed in 32 healthy volunteers during three 20-minute sessions.

Back temperature was higher on the nail mat than on the soft bed—indicating increasing circulation, says study co-author Erik Olsson, who worked on the study at a Swedish rehabilitation clinic and is now a researcher at Uppsala University in Sweden. Heart rate slowed and was more variable on the Shakti mat—signs the body's parasympathetic nervous system, responsible for relaxation, was activated, he adds. Since the participants were all healthy, the study didn't measure if there were any health benefits. Dr. Olsson says further study would be needed to determine if endorphins are produced.

A study of 36 sufferers of chronic neck and back pain, published last week in the online journal Alternative Medicine Studies, found that nail mats used 15 minutes daily for three weeks reduced the patients' peak levels of pain but failed to reduce their normal pain levels. No effects were found on depression, anxiety and sleep. The study, which used a control group of patients who received no intervention, received no funding from companies selling mats, according to lead author Anette Kjellgren, an associate professor at Karlstad University in Karlstad, Sweden.

Read about preliminary research at wsj.com

Does Potassium Iodide Protect People from Radiation Leaks?

By Larry Greenemeier for Scientific American | March 15, 2011 

A full meltdown has been avoided so far at Japan's 40-year-old Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Neverless, as far away as Tokyo, 240 kilometers to the south, the city government says small amounts of the radioactive iodine and cesium have been detected in the air. Higher levels of radioactive materials have been monitored closer to the plant, prompting the government to order the evacuation of residents within a 20-kilometer radius.

As a precautionary measure against radiation exposure, the Japanese have also distributed 230,000 units of potassium iodide tablets, comprising a stable form of iodine, to evacuation centers in the area around the Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini nuclear power complexes, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Potassium iodide, which is available in the U.S. in 130- and 65-milligram doses (smaller doses are given to children), has been shown to  protect the thyroid gland from the radioactive form of iodine released by nuclear accidents or emergencies that could lead to thyroid cancer.

Thyroid cancer ended up being the biggest negative health impact caused by the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster, according to a report issued last month by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. The report (pdf) specifies that more than 6,000 Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian residents who were children at the time of the disaster had been diagnosed with thyroid cancer as of 2006, the disaster's 20th anniversary. Fifteen of these people had died as of 2005. The incidence of thyroid cancer in contaminated areas of the Ukraine and Belarus was triple that of normal thyroid cancer incidence in the area, although the study's authors acknowledge that more attention was paid to medical examinations and improved record-keeping in those areas affected by the Chernobyl event. 

As Japan struggles regain control of the Fukushima Daiichi plant, demand for potassium iodide is growing even 8,000 kilometers away on North America's west coast. Anbex, Inc., based in Williamsburg, Va., announced on its Web site Tuesday that it has sold out of its iOSAT brand of potassium iodide. Other makers of the substance have announced similar shortages.

Scientific American spoke with John Boice, a professor at Vanderbilt University's Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center and a cancer epidemiologist with the International Epidemiology Institute in Rockville, Md., to better understand why potassium iodide is in demand as well as what it can (and cannot) do. 

[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

Why is potassium iodide administered to people who have been exposed to radioactive iodine?
The thyroid is like a sponge for iodine. It's been known from the 1970s that if you administer normal iodine the thyroid will absorb it and then block the uptake of subsequent exposures to  radioactive iodine. Therefore, if you take potassium iodide and then are exposed to radioactive iodine, there won't be any place for it to go because your thyroid is all filled and the radioactive material will be excreted from the body.

One pill is good for 24 hours, but then you have to take another pill. You don't take two pills at once, because having too much potassium iodide isn't good for you either. Like anything else, it's not 100 percent effective, but it appears to be quite a benign thing to take, and it does block the uptake of radioactive iodine.

Is thyroid cancer the foremost risk when radioactive iodine is in the air?
With regard to radioactive iodine, it's just the thyroid gland that you're worried about; you're not concerned about anything else. Of course, in an event like Chernobyl where the reactor's containment vessel did not hold everything a number of other radioactive elements were also released, including cesium and strontium as well as some of the reactor fuel—the uraniums and plutoniums. Still, the two main elements of concern from a radiation leak would be radioactive iodine and cesium, [the latter of] which has a half-life of 30 years, so it stays around for a little while. 

Would potassium iodide protect a person from other forms of cancer?
No, this is unique. These potassium iodide pills are not magic pills. They protect against thyroid cancer but they don't protect you against other possible cancers.

Assuming there is more than radioactive iodine in the air, what can people do to protect themselves?
There is no protective agent against other cancers. The protective measures are to evacuate, get as far away from the radiation exposure as you can so that your dose is much lower. Stay inside, don't go out and breathe contaminated air. If you do get some exposure to radioactive elements, take a shower and wash them off immediately. 

Did 'Power of Touch' Help Giffords From Brink?

By Courtney Hutchison, ABC News Medical Unit

Five days after being shot in the head, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords opened her eyes of her own accord.

In a display that surprised doctors and elicited tears of joy from her loved ones who were present, Giffords reportedly reached out toward husband Mark Kelly in an attempt to give him a hug.

Doctors say it is difficult to tell whether the frequent company and physical contact she has had with her loved ones contributed to what her physicians are calling a quick recovery -- but some medical experts say it is possible.

Giffords began the struggle to open her eyes and lift her left arm in response to the support and encouragement of friends Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who visited Giffords at the hospital Wednesday evening.

"It was just, really, it felt like a miracle," Schultz, a Florida Democrat, recounted to reporters on the return trip from Tucson aboard Air Force One. "It felt like we were watching a miracle. [W]e just both wanted so badly to be there for her as her friends.

"But you could ... clearly see the determination in her face that she was struggling to get her eyes open because she was responding to our voices. It was like she wanted us to know that she knew we were ... there."

In response to the doctor's examinations, Giffords had been partially opening her eyes starting Sunday, but Wednesday evening marked the first time she opened them voluntarily in response to the "familiar" presence of others.

Such a response is "very different" in terms of measuring recovery, Giffords' doctor, Dr. Michael Lemole, said at a news conference today.

Soon after opening her eyes in response to commands, Giffords' husband urged her to give them the thumbs up, and instead she stretched her left arm toward him

"And we were just in tears of joy watching this and beyond ourselves, honestly," Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, told reporters. "And then Mark said, 'You know, touch my ring, touch my ring.' And she touches his ring and then she grabs his whole watch and wrist. And then the doctor was just so excited.

"He said, 'You don't understand, this is amazing, what's she's doing right now, and beyond our greatest hopes.'"

View the rest of the story.

Opinion: Vitamin D Panel Misses the Mark on Deficiency

By Woodson Merrell, M.D.

The IOM report on calcium and vitamin D questioned what’s accepted as state-of-the-art thinking on what constitutes a vitamin D deficiency. This is a key point because the amount of vitamin D a person takes above and beyond the new Daily Recommended Intake of 600 international units should be based on whether they have a measurable deficiency or not, which is determined by how much of the vitamin is stored in their body. [D is stored mainly in fat cells, and most accurately established by measuring circulating blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D or 25(OH)D.] The new IOM report sets the “normal” range for 25 (OH) D at 20-30 nanograms/milliliter, back to levels that were established when the test was first developed 3 decades ago. But I will not adapt this new recommendation.25-hydroxyvitamin D: Doctors must measure 25 (OH) D levels in the blood to establish a deficiency.

When scientists first set the normal D range thirty years ago, they lacked accurate tools for gauging a deficiency, and so they rather simplistically measured 25 (OH) D levels of people who had no symptoms of deficiency, using those levels to set the bar for what was considered healthy. Now, we have the capability of looking at functional biomarkers (biochemical indicators that the vitamin is doing its job) such as parathyroid hormone, calcium absorption, and bone mineral density. Based on voluminous research  spearheaded by one of the world’s leading experts, Bruce Hollis PhD, scientists have more accurately defined vitamin D deficiency as circulating 25 (OH) D levels of less than 32 nanograms. That’s what I look for when I counsel my patients on D supplements. 

The amount of D a person takes beyond the new minimum of 600 international units (and maximum of 4,000) is best  determined by the blood test--not by guesswork. In my opinion, the IOM panel, while correct in tripling the minimum daily dose and doubling the maximum safe dose, has missed the mark in determining what constitutes a deficiency that necessitates additional vitamin D supplementation. 

Vitamin D Hatchet Job

Here we go again. New York Times reporter Gina Kolata--who has written articles critical of mammograms, food allergy testing, and even the humble exercise cool-down--has another ax to grind, this time against vitamin D. She's so eager to debunk that her article in yesterday's paper makes it tough to even make sense of the report by a prestigious Institute of Medicine panel convened to make new recommendations on Vitamin D and calcium intake. The Times headline alone, "Report Questions Need for 2 Diet Supplements," does little to convey the contents of the panel's 999 page report.Gina Kolata

In fact, the panel concluded the U.S. should triple recommended daily intake of Vitamin D from 200 to 600 international units daily, and double what's considered a safe upper limit of intake from 2,000 to 4,000 international units daily for maintaining optimum health in people ages 9 to 70 years old. A major take-away from the report (produced by a committee of 13 physician professors at major university medical centers including Harvard, Yale, Baylor, Penn State, Cornell and University of California at San Diego) is that before taking more than the recommended amount of vitamin D, people should be tested for a deficiency of the vitamin, which is fat soluble and can accumulate to levels that adversely effect health if taken by someone without a deficiency. 

The IOM press release states the new recommendations (to take at least 600 and no more than 4000 international units of vitamin D per day) are "based on much more information and higher-quality studies than were available when the values for these nutrients were first set in 1997." We repeat: the new report recommends increasing the Daily Recommended Intake (DRI) of vitamin D, and it contains a warning about the very real dangers of taking high-dose vitamin D without an established deficiency. But Kolata manages to turn it into a broad indictment of D.

The new report leaves room for debate about D--how much is enough (the new range of 600-4000 international units  leaves ample room for interpretation); and what constitutes a deficiency (the new report says blood levels below 20 nanograms/milliliter are too low, but many experts who've studied the issue feel 32 nanograms is optimal for bone and other health.) But when you get into the body of Kolata's story, you won't find any of the substantial arguments clearly articulated. You will, however, learn plenty about how much vitamin D and calcium is sold in the U.S., and how the market for those supplements has grown. This seems to bother Kolata a lot. While helping people avoid unnecessary expenditures on supplements is a worthy journalistic goal, consumers seeking optimal health want to learn about the latest scientific advances in order to make informed purchasing decisions. Kolata's story adds confusion to the panel's announcement, and gives scant information about the science behind the new recommendations. 

A few examples of the tepid (at best) evidence presented by Kolata in support of her dark thesis: "To assess the amounts of vitamin D and calcium people are getting, the panel looked an national data on diets. Most people, they concluded get enough calcium from the foods they eat."  So now we are to believe the American diet provides adequate calcium and vitamin D? We would have liked contarian Kolata to ask the IOM committee members she interviewed to site some evidence  from their voluminous report to support that claim. If she did, she didn't bother to put it in her story.

On Vitamin D intake, Kolata had this to say: "In general, most people are not getting enough vitamin D from their diet, but they have enough of the vitamin in their blood, probably because they are also making it naturally after being out in the sun and storing it in their bodies." We're sorry, but seeing as how this is a front page article debunking one of the hottest areas of medical research in one of the most important newspapers on the planet, we would hope for a bit more scientific back-up than this. Since when is "probably" a definitive word in science? Here's what the National Institute of Health has to say on the subject:

"The energy from the sun is not enough for the skin to make vitamin D during the coldest months in the northern half of the United States—above a line drawn between Boston and the northern border of California. Cloudy days, shade, and having dark-colored skin also cut down on the amount of vitamin D the skin makes.

People who avoid the sun, who cover their bodies with sunscreen or clothing, or who live in the northern half of the United States during the winter months should include good sources of vitamin D in their diets or take a supplement. Recommended intakes of vitamin D are set on the assumption of little sun exposure."

On how much Vitamin D is enough, Kolata wrote, "The committee concluded a level of 20-30 25(OH)D nanograms is all that is needed for bone health, and nearly everyone is in that range." This is a statement in direct contradiction to conclusions by researchers, including Holick and the National Institute of Health, who have been studying vitamin D metabolism for a decade, and say 32 is the minimum amount of circulating vitamin 25 ()H) D required for maintaining health. It would be important to ask the panel what evidence they are basing this recommendation on, but Kolata offers no such substantiation. We can only assume she didn't ask the question. 

And on why more doctors have begun to recommend vitamin D testing and supplementation over the past 5 years, Kolata wrote this: "It's not clear how or why the claims for high vitamin D levels start, medical experts say." We'd like to know who the medical experts are that she refers to here--and make sure to avoid their pronouncements in the future. Anyone who's not comatose in the world of medical science knows the spotlight was shed on vitamin D deficiency by the world renowned expert Michael Holick, a biochemist and endocrinologist at Boston University who has spent a career researching the effects of vitamin D--which is actually not a vitamin but a hormone precursor. Not calling Dr. Holick for a quote in this article is an omission rather like forgetting to call the State Department for a quote on the Wikileaks scandal. 

Kolata went to the trouble to get market data on vitamin D sales, which is a specious, even insinuating reporting tactic. Companies make money selling insulin for diabetes and chemotherapy to treat cancer too, but those drugs' profitability doesn't automatically cast suspicion on them. We would expect less innuendo and more hard reporting from The New York Times, but we have to admit we've come not to expect that from Gina Kolata.

Yes of course we need more research into the biological mechanisms of vitamin D, and all of the vitamins for that matter. And yes, it's never a good idea to take mega-doses of any substance based on the logic that more-is-better. And yes it's important to establish through an accurate blood test that an individual has a deficiency before recommending supplementation above the DRI (Daily Recommended Intake.) Furthermore, I agree with the report, which found no advantage, and perhaps even harm, in taking high levels of calcium.  Vitamins and minerals are not the magic bullets many people would like them to be, nor are they the scourge of a health-crazed nation. We are constantly learning more about the value and power of all of the essential nutrients--they are not to be trifled with, but neither should they be dismissed.

In terms of making headlines, let's strive to accurately report what we do know, and resist the temptation to swing wildly from sensationalizing a nutrient to tearing it down, leaving consumers confused and even frightened in the aftermath of a media frenzy. 

Click here to read a National Institute of Health report on the current state of vitamin D research.