That buttery rich flavor that so many people love on their popcorn may
harm more than just your waistline. The chemical that provides that
butter taste has now been associated with a buildup of the brain
proteins involved in Alzheimer's disease.
The research, conducted at the University of Minnesota in
Minneapolis, analyzed the ingredient diacetyl (DA) and its effects in a
laboratory study. First, when its internal structure was explored, the
team discovered that DA bears a close resemblance to the matter within
the brain that creates beta-amyloid proteins. These abnormal proteins
bunch up into masses of plaque, which are a known hallmark of
Alzheimer's disease in the brain.
The scientists then set up conditions in test tubes placing
DA on nerve cells that were grown for the experiment. The DA behaved
just as beta-amyloid proteins do, by massing together and causing a
misfolding of amyloid, thereby creating lumps of plaque. They also
damaged the nerve cells that were hosting them.
Now, you might wonder just how they could surface in the
brain when they should just make their way through the gastrointestinal
tract. The problem lies in the fact that DA enters the bloodstream as
the food is digested and can travel up to the brain. And in even low
concentrations, the chemical has the ability to cross the blood-brain
barrier that is meant to protect the brain from many potentially harmful
elements. Once there, DA hinders our ability to clear beta amyloid out
of the brain, which is how deposits end up remaining.
Natural DA is found in dairy products, including butter,
fruit, and fermented products such as wine and beer. Concentrated
synthetic DA, however, is what is used as flavoring in processed foods.
Since it is considered "safe" by the FDA, it does not have to be listed
by name on the label. Instead, you will usually find it listed as
"butter flavor" or some similar wording.
This is not the first time DA has been found to be an
unhealthy product. Several studies over the past few years have found
that this substance may be responsible for respiratory conditions in
those who inhale it. While this wouldn't affect the average consumer of
products containing DA, it is quite problematic for those who work in
the factories in which microwave popcorn and other artificially-flavored
food items are produced.
And you may not be safe from the stuff even if you are not a
big fan of butter-flavored microwave popcorn because that's far from
the only edible product in which DA can be found. The whole range of
butter substitute products, some types of candy, and lots of packaged
baked goods obtain their buttery smell and flavor through the use of DA.
Even Fluffy is at risk since some pet food manufacturers include DA as
an ingredient, presumably to make the food a little more palatable for
finicky animals. But back to humans! Other studies have discovered an
association between diet and the development of dementia or Alzheimer's
disease. Not to say that it is the sole cause, but it definitely appears
to have a negative effect. That said, it is important to consider not
only what not to eat, such as additives and chemicals including DA, but
also what may provide us with a little protection. A 2010 study that
took place at Columbia University in New York linked a Mediterranean-style diet
with lower rates of Alzheimer's disease. Those whose food consumption
focuses heavily on olive oil-based salad dressing, nuts, fish, tomatoes,
poultry, broccoli, fruits, and dark and green leafy vegetables and less
on red meat, organ meat, and high-fat dairy products were 40 percent
less likely to develop Alzheimer's than those following a more typical
American diet.
Exercise too is key in helping to prevent Alzheimer's
disease. Research has shown that giving the body regular workouts can
aid in staving off forms of dementia as well as many other conditions.
So although nothing in life comes with a guarantee, it would seem to be
in the best interest of our brains and our health in general if we
skipped over the fake-buttered popcorn, not to mention those "heart
healthy" fake margarines, and chose a more natural, nutritious snack
during television time. Or, better yet, shelve the viewing for later and
use the time to take a brisk walk or do a little stretching and toning.
Wednesday, 19 September 2012
Olive oil health benefits | The importance of Olive oil to the health
This week, we're taking a closer look at olive oil. By now, the average
educated adult knows that for healthy eating, lard is a bad fat,
cottonseed oil not much better, and olive oil is just dandy as long as
it isn't heated too much. Now a new study published in Neurology
-- which will probably come as a huge surprise to Dr. Dean Ornish--shows
that people who use lots of olive oil, even in cooking, have a
considerably lower stroke risk than people who don't use it at all. The
French study of 7,625 people aged 65 found a 41 percent reduced stroke
risk in heavy olive oil users. In fact, the participants were divided
into three groups and those with the highest olive oil intake had a
whopping 73 percent reduced stroke risk compared to the group with the
lowest olive oil intake. The effect remained consistent even after
controlling for other factors such as overall diet and health
conditions, showing that olive oil confers benefits even independent of
the Mediterranean Diet of which it is a cornerstone. Prior to this
study, research had indicated that high olive oil consumption reduced
heart attack risk, but this new research points to the fact that its
benefits extend to other areas of health, and in a big way.
Before you rush to Costco for a giant tub of olive oil to guzzle, consider that the researchers caution that the results might actually indicate something other than the miraculous properties of olive oil. For instance, they say, olive oil consumers might be healthier, wealthier, and happier than those who rely on Safflower. On the other hand, as already indicated, the study did control for those factors, so olive oil emerges looking like a big winner. The key here is that you need to use only organic, extra-virgin, cold first-pressed, which is rich in phytonutrients. Studies show that in comparison to the pure stuff, processed olive oils don't necessarily offer any benefit at all. Although the report on the French study didn't mention what type of olive oil was tested, in France, virtually all the available olive oil is cold-pressed extra virgin.
Why is olive oil such a healthy fat compared to the typical fat added to commercial goods? First, olive oil contains a high proportion of antioxidants, particularly polyphenols, which have powerful anti-inflammatory properties.3 Studies have shown that one of the polyphenols, hydroxytyrosol (HT), has a particularly powerful ability to protect blood vessel walls. Also, the composition of olive oil differs from most commercial cooking oils in that about 75 percent of the fat comes in the form of oleic acid, which is a monounsaturated, omega-9 fatty acid -- and that's a good thing. Other oils with lower monounsaturated content are higher in omega-6 fatty acids, and high consumption of omega-6 fatty acids causes a build-up of harmful "non-esterified fatty acids," otherwise known as a NEFAs. NEFAs in the blood are associated with sudden heart attacks. Compare olive oil to soybean oil, which is only 50-55 percent monounsaturated, or safflower oil, which is only 15 percent.
The positive health benefits of the high proportion of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) in olive oil include reduction of overall cholesterol levels as well as of LDL cholesterol, and improvement in LDL to HDL ratios. Plus, the high ratio of MUFAS helps to regulate blood glucose levels and apparently, to lower blood pressure.4 Which brings us to the problem of cooking at high heats and the puzzling results of the French study. The thing is that any oil that is heated beyond the point at which it smokes can release carcinogenic free radicals, and most commercial varieties of olive oil have a low smoke point. In other words, it's generally not considered a great choice for cooking at high heats, since the negative impact of creating free radicals in heating cancels out the positive benefits the oil proffers.
On the other hand, those who cooked with olive oil in the French study clearly benefited. The reason might have to do with the quality of the oil they used. Although different charts list different values for the same oils (since smoke points are not absolutes), some experts contend that refined olive oil has a smoke point of around 350 degrees, while high-quality (low acidity, less than .8 percent) extra-virgin has a much higher smoke point, up around 410 degrees. "Virgin" olive oil is not blended with other oils, but has a higher acidity, less quality. "Light" olive oil has a higher smoke point, but it is made from refined olive oil, which means it is a refined blend of pomace oil and virgin olive oil. Lastly, pure "olive oil" is really just a blend that contains as little as 5 to 10 percent virgin olive oil and is cheaper to produce. In any event, extra virgin olive oil maintains its nutritional integrity even when heated to high temperatures, and even as it creates those carcinogens.
To be on the safe side, use olive oil only for lower-temperature cooking. If you throw in with the olive oil lobby and buy that the higher-quality product has a relatively high smoke point, simply heat your oil in a pan and notice when it starts to emit smoke. Voila! You've found the smoke point, and you need to draw the line before that. As I've said before, you can use avocado oil for high temperature cooking. Avocado oil has a very high smoke point by comparison to other cooking oils. It will not burn or smoke until it reaches 520 F (271 C), which is ideal for searing meats and frying in a Wok. Other good choices include grapeseed oil (485 F) or rice bran oil 495 F. Again, look for organic, cold-processed oil. One other possibility is Spectrum Naturals High Heat Canola oil, which can handle temperatures up to about 450 degrees F.
Before you rush to Costco for a giant tub of olive oil to guzzle, consider that the researchers caution that the results might actually indicate something other than the miraculous properties of olive oil. For instance, they say, olive oil consumers might be healthier, wealthier, and happier than those who rely on Safflower. On the other hand, as already indicated, the study did control for those factors, so olive oil emerges looking like a big winner. The key here is that you need to use only organic, extra-virgin, cold first-pressed, which is rich in phytonutrients. Studies show that in comparison to the pure stuff, processed olive oils don't necessarily offer any benefit at all. Although the report on the French study didn't mention what type of olive oil was tested, in France, virtually all the available olive oil is cold-pressed extra virgin.
Why is olive oil such a healthy fat compared to the typical fat added to commercial goods? First, olive oil contains a high proportion of antioxidants, particularly polyphenols, which have powerful anti-inflammatory properties.3 Studies have shown that one of the polyphenols, hydroxytyrosol (HT), has a particularly powerful ability to protect blood vessel walls. Also, the composition of olive oil differs from most commercial cooking oils in that about 75 percent of the fat comes in the form of oleic acid, which is a monounsaturated, omega-9 fatty acid -- and that's a good thing. Other oils with lower monounsaturated content are higher in omega-6 fatty acids, and high consumption of omega-6 fatty acids causes a build-up of harmful "non-esterified fatty acids," otherwise known as a NEFAs. NEFAs in the blood are associated with sudden heart attacks. Compare olive oil to soybean oil, which is only 50-55 percent monounsaturated, or safflower oil, which is only 15 percent.
The positive health benefits of the high proportion of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) in olive oil include reduction of overall cholesterol levels as well as of LDL cholesterol, and improvement in LDL to HDL ratios. Plus, the high ratio of MUFAS helps to regulate blood glucose levels and apparently, to lower blood pressure.4 Which brings us to the problem of cooking at high heats and the puzzling results of the French study. The thing is that any oil that is heated beyond the point at which it smokes can release carcinogenic free radicals, and most commercial varieties of olive oil have a low smoke point. In other words, it's generally not considered a great choice for cooking at high heats, since the negative impact of creating free radicals in heating cancels out the positive benefits the oil proffers.
On the other hand, those who cooked with olive oil in the French study clearly benefited. The reason might have to do with the quality of the oil they used. Although different charts list different values for the same oils (since smoke points are not absolutes), some experts contend that refined olive oil has a smoke point of around 350 degrees, while high-quality (low acidity, less than .8 percent) extra-virgin has a much higher smoke point, up around 410 degrees. "Virgin" olive oil is not blended with other oils, but has a higher acidity, less quality. "Light" olive oil has a higher smoke point, but it is made from refined olive oil, which means it is a refined blend of pomace oil and virgin olive oil. Lastly, pure "olive oil" is really just a blend that contains as little as 5 to 10 percent virgin olive oil and is cheaper to produce. In any event, extra virgin olive oil maintains its nutritional integrity even when heated to high temperatures, and even as it creates those carcinogens.
To be on the safe side, use olive oil only for lower-temperature cooking. If you throw in with the olive oil lobby and buy that the higher-quality product has a relatively high smoke point, simply heat your oil in a pan and notice when it starts to emit smoke. Voila! You've found the smoke point, and you need to draw the line before that. As I've said before, you can use avocado oil for high temperature cooking. Avocado oil has a very high smoke point by comparison to other cooking oils. It will not burn or smoke until it reaches 520 F (271 C), which is ideal for searing meats and frying in a Wok. Other good choices include grapeseed oil (485 F) or rice bran oil 495 F. Again, look for organic, cold-processed oil. One other possibility is Spectrum Naturals High Heat Canola oil, which can handle temperatures up to about 450 degrees F.
Periodontitis effects and what your need to know
"In
periodontitis, the connection between the teeth, gums, and jawbone is
broken down -- in fact, your jawbone and the ligaments that hold your
teeth to your jawbone are literally eaten away. If you think this is
something you don’t need to worry about, think again! Often, this
destructive process has very mild symptoms (at first), so that many
people are unaware that they suffer from it. About 75 percent of
Americans have gum disease and don’t know it! The bottom line is that
periodontitis results in loosening of the gums from the teeth, and
eventually loosening of the teeth from the jawbone—not to mention bad
breath and an increasing risk of life-threatening chronic illnesses such
as heart disease.
Why Your Doctor Wont tell you everything you need to know about your health risks
When going to the hospital for a surgical procedure -- or to your doctor
for any sort of treatment, for that matter -- it is in your best
interest to be armed with as much knowledge about it ahead of time as
possible. And don't be afraid to ask your doctor questions, because once
you've had the procedure done, there is no turning back. Oh, and new
research has found that physicians do not always inform their patients
voluntarily of all possible health hazards that might be faced.
The study took place at the University of Melbourne in Australia and was conducted by a team of scientists from both Australia and the United States. The researchers evaluated 481 claims of malpractice as well as official complaints by Australian patients. Every one of them was centered on an allegation of inadequate informed consent because of lack of risk disclosure.
The vast majority of the cases -- 90 percent, in fact -- pertained to disagreements over exactly what the physician said prior to treatment. In nine percent of the cases, the argument was directly about whether the possibility of a certain risk should have been discussed with a patient before the procedure. Of these situations, referred to as disputed duty cases, two-thirds revolved around surgery. And nearly 85 percent of them had to do with five outcomes -- the need for a second surgery, chronic pain, poor cosmetic results, loss of vision or hearing, and infertility or sexual dysfunction. Needless to say, any one of these issues can create a poor quality of life for the patient post-surgery.
How do the doctors involved in these cases defend their decisions not to disclose all of the possible risks? In some instances, the physicians felt that they had mentioned a risk as a subset of other complications they discussed. At other times, they said that they considered a particular risk as too uncommon to require inclusion in pre-procedure discussions. Most significantly though, the scientists found that doctors consistently underestimated their patients' desire to be fully informed and have knowledge of the potential health hazards they face from a treatment. And scarily, it was often surgeons who were the most likely to be unsure of just how much information to provide a patient with before a procedure.
This study didn't touch at all on the myriad mistakes made by doctors and all types of hospital personnel that can leave patients with major health problems or kill them outright -- merely the possibility of complications and/or side effects that can result post-treatment. You are truly putting your life in other people's hands when you are undergoing surgery. Obviously, if it's a medical necessity, it is essential to go ahead and take your chances -- unless, of course, there are alternatives. But, especially with all of the unnecessary surgeries taking place these days, a second and third opinion would seem to be not only wise and precautious, but the sanest course of action.
So, what's a person to do if you are told by several different physicians that a surgical procedure is the only option for what ails you? Prepare yourself on several fronts. First, do your research and find out as much about the procedure as possible, as well as any different procedures or treatments that may be used. For instance, is it something that can be performed laparascopically, using smaller incisions and surgical tools? That often lends to a quicker release from the hospital and faster overall healing. Your doctor may not offer it because he may not know how to perform it. Why should you undergo greater risk just because your surgeon is not up-to-date on the latest techniques? Go to your chosen surgeon with questions and be sure to ask about any potential risks -- then there can be no squabbling afterward that the doctor was not sure what to tell you. If he or she won't make the time to discuss the surgery with you, find another surgeon.
In addition, do whatever you can to maximize your health prior to the procedure. The better shape you are in beforehand, the better off you will be afterward. Keep up your exercise routine and eat a nutritious diet. Make sure, if you have an option, that you chose a hospital with a good report card and avoid those times when hospitals tend to have higher error rates. Finally, do what you can to relax. Anxiety is common before surgery, but it will only serve to raise your blood pressure. Find some relaxation technique that works for you, whether it's meditation, focusing on relaxing each body part, simple stretching, or some other method. And, to continue to keep your mind at ease, choose a trusted family member or friend to stay by your side as much as possible both before and after the procedure to play the role of advocate for your stay in the hospital.
The study took place at the University of Melbourne in Australia and was conducted by a team of scientists from both Australia and the United States. The researchers evaluated 481 claims of malpractice as well as official complaints by Australian patients. Every one of them was centered on an allegation of inadequate informed consent because of lack of risk disclosure.
The vast majority of the cases -- 90 percent, in fact -- pertained to disagreements over exactly what the physician said prior to treatment. In nine percent of the cases, the argument was directly about whether the possibility of a certain risk should have been discussed with a patient before the procedure. Of these situations, referred to as disputed duty cases, two-thirds revolved around surgery. And nearly 85 percent of them had to do with five outcomes -- the need for a second surgery, chronic pain, poor cosmetic results, loss of vision or hearing, and infertility or sexual dysfunction. Needless to say, any one of these issues can create a poor quality of life for the patient post-surgery.
How do the doctors involved in these cases defend their decisions not to disclose all of the possible risks? In some instances, the physicians felt that they had mentioned a risk as a subset of other complications they discussed. At other times, they said that they considered a particular risk as too uncommon to require inclusion in pre-procedure discussions. Most significantly though, the scientists found that doctors consistently underestimated their patients' desire to be fully informed and have knowledge of the potential health hazards they face from a treatment. And scarily, it was often surgeons who were the most likely to be unsure of just how much information to provide a patient with before a procedure.
This study didn't touch at all on the myriad mistakes made by doctors and all types of hospital personnel that can leave patients with major health problems or kill them outright -- merely the possibility of complications and/or side effects that can result post-treatment. You are truly putting your life in other people's hands when you are undergoing surgery. Obviously, if it's a medical necessity, it is essential to go ahead and take your chances -- unless, of course, there are alternatives. But, especially with all of the unnecessary surgeries taking place these days, a second and third opinion would seem to be not only wise and precautious, but the sanest course of action.
So, what's a person to do if you are told by several different physicians that a surgical procedure is the only option for what ails you? Prepare yourself on several fronts. First, do your research and find out as much about the procedure as possible, as well as any different procedures or treatments that may be used. For instance, is it something that can be performed laparascopically, using smaller incisions and surgical tools? That often lends to a quicker release from the hospital and faster overall healing. Your doctor may not offer it because he may not know how to perform it. Why should you undergo greater risk just because your surgeon is not up-to-date on the latest techniques? Go to your chosen surgeon with questions and be sure to ask about any potential risks -- then there can be no squabbling afterward that the doctor was not sure what to tell you. If he or she won't make the time to discuss the surgery with you, find another surgeon.
In addition, do whatever you can to maximize your health prior to the procedure. The better shape you are in beforehand, the better off you will be afterward. Keep up your exercise routine and eat a nutritious diet. Make sure, if you have an option, that you chose a hospital with a good report card and avoid those times when hospitals tend to have higher error rates. Finally, do what you can to relax. Anxiety is common before surgery, but it will only serve to raise your blood pressure. Find some relaxation technique that works for you, whether it's meditation, focusing on relaxing each body part, simple stretching, or some other method. And, to continue to keep your mind at ease, choose a trusted family member or friend to stay by your side as much as possible both before and after the procedure to play the role of advocate for your stay in the hospital.
The Male Contraceptives
After starring as a pregnant man in the 1994 film, Junior, Arnold
Schwartzenegger won the gubernatorial race in California in 2003. Maybe
seeing Arnold fat with child on the big screen won over some supporters
who couldn't warm up to him as the Terminator. In any event, when Junior
came out 16 years ago, not only did the idea of a male pregnancy seem
silly -- even impossible--but so did the idea of male contraceptive
pills. Now, though, it looks like the pharmaceutical industry may have
come up with just such a contraceptive pill for guys.
The contraceptive effect actually was discovered by accident, as scientists at the Dana Farber Cancer Center in Boston experimented on mice with a new cancer-fighting compound called JQ1. The drug works by making cancer cells "forget" their function. In other words, when exposed to JQ1, tumor cells forget to contribute to the tumor and instead act like normal cells. Since the drug is new, the research team was conducting trials to discover side effects when they found that it seemed to also have the same memory-wipe effect on sperm cells. More specifically, it targets a protein in the testes that triggers sperm to mature. When influenced by JQ1, the protein neglects to do its job and the sperm don't develop.
After three weeks of daily treatment with the pill, the male mice had a 72 percent reduction in sperm count. Most of the remaining sperm swam too slowly to impregnate an egg. After six weeks, sperm count was down by 89 percent, and of the remaining sperm, only five percent had any motility at all.
The thing that has the medical community aflutter, though, isn't just that this male contraceptive pill works to reduce sperm. It's that it's a non-hormonal solution and so won't cause hormone-related side effects, the effects are completely reversible, and it works without reducing a guy's libido. On this last point, one of the study directors, Dr. James Bradner, said, "There is no effect on the mouse's mojo. The animals exhibit the normal sexual behaviors and frequency of copulation."
It's interesting that the "mojo" aspect is one of the key points highlighted in the press, given that when the women's pill came out 50 years ago, that point was hardly at the forefront. The female pill did indeed inhibit libido in many cases, but it didn't seem to matter much to the medical community. It also had some horrific side effects--especially when it first came to market--depression, headaches, heart attacks, lethal blood clots. Oh, and it did mess with female hormones. That, in fact, is how the female pill works -- by disrupting hormonal patterns. Nevertheless, the female pill was released even with all its problems and touted as the great liberator for women.
"The pill permitted women to have control, sometimes even against the wishes of their partners," says Dr. Ruth Westheimer, speaking for many of her generation, "I think that all of us have to be grateful."
It is true that many women do feel grateful for the freedom the pill has afforded them. It's also true that the incipient development of a less harmful male version certainly is good news, but it's hard to ignore the politics. As Cynthia Graham, who heads Indiana University's Kinsey Institute says, "There's pretty good evidence that there's a bit of a gender bias here." She points to the emphasis in the press on how the male pill doesn't inhibit male sexuality.
In her book, America and the Pill: A History of Promise, Peril, and Liberation, author Elaine Tyler May concludes that the female pill actually liberated men more than women. "They no longer had to worry about whether they impregnated a woman," she says. "It lifted the burden of responsibility from them."
It's probably worth mentioning that Jon Barron has expressed a slightly different point of view. Back in the day when women commentators were complaining about all the hysterectomies being performed, saying it would never happen to a man, Jon disagreed. He said that money, not gender, was the final arbiter. If doctors ever found an equivalent procedure that they could justify performing on men, they'd be only too happy to do so. And in fact, by 2009, doctors were performing 158,000 prostatectomies a year on men in the U.S., with sexual dysfunction a common side effect.6 Then again, according to the same chart, three times as many hysterectomies were performed that year.
In any event, it will be at least a few years before the male pill gets translated from mouse to men and is ready for market. We can hope that when that pill does come out, it will truly offer a safe, effective solution that will benefit both genders in the end. Given that one-third of all pregnancies still are unplanned and unwanted, it's an important goal.
The contraceptive effect actually was discovered by accident, as scientists at the Dana Farber Cancer Center in Boston experimented on mice with a new cancer-fighting compound called JQ1. The drug works by making cancer cells "forget" their function. In other words, when exposed to JQ1, tumor cells forget to contribute to the tumor and instead act like normal cells. Since the drug is new, the research team was conducting trials to discover side effects when they found that it seemed to also have the same memory-wipe effect on sperm cells. More specifically, it targets a protein in the testes that triggers sperm to mature. When influenced by JQ1, the protein neglects to do its job and the sperm don't develop.
After three weeks of daily treatment with the pill, the male mice had a 72 percent reduction in sperm count. Most of the remaining sperm swam too slowly to impregnate an egg. After six weeks, sperm count was down by 89 percent, and of the remaining sperm, only five percent had any motility at all.
The thing that has the medical community aflutter, though, isn't just that this male contraceptive pill works to reduce sperm. It's that it's a non-hormonal solution and so won't cause hormone-related side effects, the effects are completely reversible, and it works without reducing a guy's libido. On this last point, one of the study directors, Dr. James Bradner, said, "There is no effect on the mouse's mojo. The animals exhibit the normal sexual behaviors and frequency of copulation."
It's interesting that the "mojo" aspect is one of the key points highlighted in the press, given that when the women's pill came out 50 years ago, that point was hardly at the forefront. The female pill did indeed inhibit libido in many cases, but it didn't seem to matter much to the medical community. It also had some horrific side effects--especially when it first came to market--depression, headaches, heart attacks, lethal blood clots. Oh, and it did mess with female hormones. That, in fact, is how the female pill works -- by disrupting hormonal patterns. Nevertheless, the female pill was released even with all its problems and touted as the great liberator for women.
"The pill permitted women to have control, sometimes even against the wishes of their partners," says Dr. Ruth Westheimer, speaking for many of her generation, "I think that all of us have to be grateful."
It is true that many women do feel grateful for the freedom the pill has afforded them. It's also true that the incipient development of a less harmful male version certainly is good news, but it's hard to ignore the politics. As Cynthia Graham, who heads Indiana University's Kinsey Institute says, "There's pretty good evidence that there's a bit of a gender bias here." She points to the emphasis in the press on how the male pill doesn't inhibit male sexuality.
In her book, America and the Pill: A History of Promise, Peril, and Liberation, author Elaine Tyler May concludes that the female pill actually liberated men more than women. "They no longer had to worry about whether they impregnated a woman," she says. "It lifted the burden of responsibility from them."
It's probably worth mentioning that Jon Barron has expressed a slightly different point of view. Back in the day when women commentators were complaining about all the hysterectomies being performed, saying it would never happen to a man, Jon disagreed. He said that money, not gender, was the final arbiter. If doctors ever found an equivalent procedure that they could justify performing on men, they'd be only too happy to do so. And in fact, by 2009, doctors were performing 158,000 prostatectomies a year on men in the U.S., with sexual dysfunction a common side effect.6 Then again, according to the same chart, three times as many hysterectomies were performed that year.
In any event, it will be at least a few years before the male pill gets translated from mouse to men and is ready for market. We can hope that when that pill does come out, it will truly offer a safe, effective solution that will benefit both genders in the end. Given that one-third of all pregnancies still are unplanned and unwanted, it's an important goal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)