I just couldn’t let this study pass by without asking for your thoughts.

Thursday’s issue of the Journal of Investigative Dermatology featured the results of a recent cancer related study conducted by researchers of Rutgers University; according to the findings, the use of certain moisturizing creams increases one’s chances of developing a form of skin cancer called squamous cell carcinoma.

In the study, Dr. Allan Conney and his team put a group of hairless mice through UVB radiation sessions two times a week for a period of twenty weeks. Four randomly chosen types of moisturizing creams that had been applied on the mice caused tumors to develop more rapidly and grow larger than they would have in normal conditions.

Dr. Allan Conney said that although right now it can’t really be said exactly how the situation is with humans, the study should represent a red light and lead to further epidemiological studies for human populations.

The producers of the creams (Eucerin Original Moisturizing Creme, Vanicream, Dermabase and Dermovan) contradicted the study’s results. Beiersdorf Inc., maker of Eucerin Original Creme, said its product has been on the market for more than a century and it is known as a perfectly safe, dermatologist-recommended brand.

According to PSI Pharmaceutical Specialties, maker of Vanicream, the newly released information has “doubtful significance” because of the methods the team used in carrying out the procedures. Company officials added that the cream has been used for almost thirty years with very good results.

The chief of the dermatology department of the Hackensack University Medical Center said a lot of doctors currently recommend moisturizers and that he would question the study’s results.

What do you think? Could this be a cause for concern or are you on the other side of this and think that the study is just a bunch of bologna?

image credit: Eucerin

Share This

I noticed a rather interesting open access paper the other day: researchers found strong similarities in the gene expression changes with age in several types of mice. On the one hand normally aging mice, on the other hand various long-lived mice (calorie restricted, Ames dwarf mice, etc), and on the third hand progeroid mice suffering from a form of accelerated aging. Changes in gene expression represent, amongst other things, a part of the feedback loop whereby an organism responds to circumstances by changing its own cellular programming. Calorie restriction is a great example of that in action, and demonstrates that this sort of evolved metabolic reprogramming can make a real difference to health and lifespan.

In all the mice examined, the same sorts of gene expression changes were kicking in:

Contrary to expectation, we find significant, genome-wide expression associations between the progeroid and long-lived mice. Subsequent analysis of significantly over-represented biological processes revealed suppression of the endocrine and energy pathways with increased stress responses

...

we subsequently confirmed these findings on an independent aging cohort. The majority of genes showed similar expression changes.

Our tissues react to stress in the same way, whether that stress is accelerated aging, calorie restriction, or the biochemical damage of normal aging. This is a beneficial adaptation - as calorie restriction demonstrates - but it isn't enough to hold back the consequences of either accelerated aging or the accumulated damage of very late stage "normal" aging.

The angle of the researchers here is the search for biomarkers of aging and predictors of longevity. They believe that because so many different biological states cue the same responses, you must look at gene expression of the whole genome to determine whether the state is good or bad:

The correlations we found between certain groups of mice are most likely due to distinct groups of differentially expressed genes, i.e. there might be one large set of genes similarly affected in short-lived and long-lived mice and a separate large group of genes similarly affected in progeroid and naturally aged mice. This appears indeed to be the case. Nonetheless, there are also groups of genes, such as genes of the somatotropic axis that are similarly affected in accelerated, delayed and natural aging.

...

However, the [progeroid] and long-lived animals employed in this study had a biological age of ~50% and 10-15% of their lifespan respectively. Thus, these findings also indicate that a genome-wide correlation analysis may serve as a powerful tool to determine the biological age of animals and might hence allow prognosis of longevity.

Determination of biological age is indispensable for the assessment of anti-aging treatments. Although reliable biomarkers of aging are long sought after, they have yet remained elusive. To this end, single genes or limited sets of genes used as biomarkers of aging may poorly reflect a true biological age; ... In diagnostic terms, a CR treatment might [induce] a similar age-related biomarker [as] treatment with a DNA damaging agent does.

We, therefore, propose the facilitation of comprehensive genome-wide correlation analyses to evaluate pro- and anti-aging effects of treatments aimed at health-span extension.

Summer may nearly be over, but is doesn’t mean you should stop using a moisturizer with SPF. Really - you need to use one all year, every single day. So, you know this, but how about your best friend?

I have an exclusive offer for you where you and a friend can try Lisa Hoffman’s Day Cream SPF 15 for FREE by replying to this offer and referring a friend. This is a full size tube of Lisa’s Day Cream - a $75 value! This is a lightweight moisturizer made with advanced anti-aging ingredients and beautiful naturals.  Richly hydrating ingredients plump the skin with moisture, thereby boosting radiance and diminishing the appearance of dehydration lines.

Here is what you have to do:

- send an email to info@lisahoffmanbeauty.com
- make sure the subject line reads “Friend”
- inclusion of the name, email address and shipping address for each person (including you!) receiving the complimentary Day Cream
- for every Day Cream they ship, they will include a note to your friend that says that you have personally requested that the product be sent to them. This way, they’ll know the gift came from you!
  - offer is valid while supplies last.

So, go on! Send that e-mail now!

image credit: lisahoffmanbeauty.com

Share This

Now, this is pretty unique. Dr. Perricone has developed a diet that will help your outsides look better by treating you from the inside. By following this Three-Day plan, Dr. Perricone says that you will notice a reduction in puffiness in the face and neck, increased facial contour, a more firm jaw line, all while giving skin a more naturally healthy glow.

If you follow this for three days (no cheating), teh good Doctor says that you will see visible results! Let’s see.

Breakfast
3 egg omelet and/or 4-6 oz. grilled salmon - He does not recommend smoked salmon or lox on the three-day diet because of the salt intake
½ cup cooked oatmeal (not instant) - Cooked oatmeal is a great source of fiber and a low glycemic carbohydrate
2” wedge of cantaloupe or 1/3 cup fresh berries - Cantaloupe is very hydrating to the skin and contains important antioxidants. Blueberries, blackberries, raspberries, and strawberries are high in antioxidants.
No Juice, No Coffee or Toast  - If you normally drink large amounts of coffee, drink black or green tea to prevent caffeine withdrawal
8 - 12 oz. of spring water

Lunch
4-6 oz. grilled salmon - Option: you can also use canned salmon and mix a little mayo and fresh squeezed lemon
2 cups green salad made with romaine lettuce or other dark leafy greens
Dressing: extra virgin olive oil and fresh squeezed lemon to taste
1 kiwi fruit or cantaloupe and berries
8 – 12 oz. of spring water

Snack
1 apple
2 oz. slice of turkey breast or 6 oz. plain yogurt
Small handful of hazelnuts, walnuts or almonds - Great source of fatty acids and folic acid

Dinner
4-6 oz. grilled salmon
green salad as described above
½ cup steamed veggies - Especially asparagus, broccoli, spinach, etc. NO root vegetables, such as potatoes, carrots, beets, parsnips, etc.
Cantaloupe and berries
8 – 12 oz. of spring water

Before Bedtime Snack
1 pear or apple
2 oz. slice chicken or turkey breast or 6 oz. plain yogurt
Small handful of hazelnuts, walnuts or almonds

There is just so much in this diet that I do not eat, but I challenge some of you to take the test. If you like the foods on the list and would like to try the diet, please let me know so we can hear about your results.

image credit: perriconemd.com

Share This

I wrote a post on Beautiful Makeup Search about all of the new high tech mascaras that has gotten a bit of attention. Excuse the duplicate information if you read me over there, but I was wondering how more of you felt.

Maybe I am old, or old fashioned. Or maybe I am pretty good at applying my mascara, because I am not so sure about all of these new mascaras.

The madness began when companies started making giant wands and huge brushes, a la Benefit’s BADgal and the newer CoverGirl’s LashBlast. Then there are the rubber-like brushes, a la Lancôme’s High Définicils, and again Lash Blast combines this type of bristle with it’s large wand. Needless to say that these are my favorites of the many mascara’s that have veered away from the norm. Then there is now. Now we have an even weirder looking brush in the shape of a ball and some rotating and vibrating wands.

While I am tempted to try these, you know I am a sucker for anything beauty related; I honestly don’t know if any of these mascara’s would become a staple in my makeup bag.

I have SpinLash and it is not a favorite of mine. The brush spins very slowly aiding mascara application. I can see it being a help to those gals that are not only mascara challenged, it can force a curl at the base of the lashes for those that need it. I was very excited to hear of Estee Lauder’s TurboLash (sold out) and Lancôme’s Ôscillation (sold out in the exclusive preview). Alas, the more I read about them and study them - I am afraid I could really poke my eye out with one of these vibrational wands. Then there is one that looks almost like a torture device, Givency’s Phenomen’Eyes. I don’t know how this one could evenly coat my lashes.

Mascara application takes a very steady and precise hand. It could be considered an art form (applying false lashes certainly is!). I do not need my fingers slipping or running a muck. I certainly do not need a mascara brush in my eye, let alone rotating or vibrating at unheard of speeds.

I must admit that besides SpinLash, I have not held any of these other newbies, so call me judgmental. Simply put, I don’t need eye damage and I can see it going wrong - very wrong, at some time or another.

Madness - I swear! Will it end? And where will it go from here? Let me know your thoughts in the comments. I am anxious to hear if you have tried any of these, if you love them, or are a bit of a skeptic or afraid as I.

image credits: esteelauder.com, lancome.com, sephora.com

Share This

Following on from my last post on the attitudes of pro-longevity bioethicists, here's an open-access piece by Tom Koch. It opens with these questions:

Why has longevity become a source of dismay rather than a cause for celebration? How did we turn the greatest triumph of 20th century public health and medicine into a problem for the 21st century?

This is the view from inside the paradigm of state-regulated, state-controlled medicine. Centralized systems of privilege, cut loose from price signals, inevitably devolve to rationing and crumble beneath increased demand. That increased demand is feared even when it is a great good, such as medical technology. This state of affairs stands in stark opposition to the free market, in which increased demand is a sign of great success - it is the opportunity to create progress through trade, research, and competition. A monolithic system crumbles under growth, while the competitive market thrives. Looking back at the SAGE Crossroads podcasts on (political) economics and engineered longevity, we have this:

Again I say if this were a privatized system, we would all say "gee it’s wonderful. All these people want more health care, this industry is thriving". Let me put one other analogy. Suppose we made cars a government entitlement. Instead of cheering when auto production went up, we’d say, "Oh my God, we can’t afford this!". How you finance it may greatly affect the psychology and actually the freedom of the economy to take advantage of these new opportunities.

Koch concludes in his article:

much of what we think of as geriatric [medicine] is in fact medicine for fragile persons. Geriatric expertise in the maintenance of people with multiple conditions can serve the critically ill of every age.

Blaming people who are over the age of 65 for the rising costs of our publicly funded health care systems permits us to focus on one class of patients. In truth, health care is expensive at every age and not something to be begrudged anyone because of age. The alternative is that we should all die young, at the first hint of illness, or figure out how to live healthily and forever.

If we lived in a world in which government had nothing to do with the provision of medicine, there would be no begrudging, no need for battles over centrally planned resource assignment, no rationing by fiat of the uncaring and distant. There would instead be a ferociously competitive marketplace, responsive to needs, and there would be generous medical charity for the unfortunate; we would do very well by that. It is a great pity that we stand very far indeed from such an ideal.

Bra-llelujah!

Bra-llelujah!

Really, they call this innovative bra from SPANX Bra-llelujah! for a good reason. Well, a few good reasons, in fact.

Not only is this amazing bra so lightweight and probably the most comfortable bra I have worn in, I think forever; this bra has some amazing features that address numerous bra problems.

Bra-llelujah! is made of a very unique fabric that conforms to your body while stretching to the perfect fit. The bra features a front closure as the back stretches to the perfect size - almost like an ace bandage. The straps do the same, stretch to fit without falling down my round shoulders, which almost every bra does.

The benefits of this bra being the ultimate in comfort is just the beginning. The cups are lightly molded to give breasts the perfect shape with just the right amount of support and lifting. While there is an underwire, you would never know it because of how the wire is designed and built into the bra. This bra also does the near impossible as it smoothes out the back shape to relieve the “back bra”. No bra lines or fat sticking out in all the wrong places!

What is not to love?

Bra-llelujah! comes in three colors - nude, black and mocha, and in sizes from 32A to 38D. You can purchase Bra-llelujah! online at Spanx or by shopping your major departments stores (Nordstrom, Bloomingdales, Saks, etc.). To locate a boutique that might carry SPANX near you, all you have to do it punch in your zip code into this handy store finder and voila!

images: Spanx.com

Share This

It seems I somehow missed a rather good interview with biomedical gerontologist Aubrey de Grey that was published at Betterhumans earlier this month. There are some good questions in there, touching on areas the average interviewer skips over. For example:

BH: [The Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence, or SENS] describes a whole battery of medical treatments that could theoretically defeat the aging process. These treatments range from relatively simple ones like injecting people with enzymes that can break down tough wastes inside of cells, to highly advanced ones like genetically altering trillions of somatic cells in full grown adults. Considering the differential technical challenges, what SENS therapies will most likely become available first, and which will be developed last?

AdG: Some of them are already pretty close: probably the closest is in fact not the enzyme therapy you mention, but the use of vaccines to eliminate extracellular aggregates (especially amyloid). But when we consider the others, actually I wouldn't like to make the call, because the hardest ones are the ones that the Methuselah Foundation and I are prioritising in terms of the early research. In other words, we're hoping that they will start to catch up with the easier ones. I suspect that the challenge of genetically modifying a high proportion of cells by somatic gene therapy will have been largely solved before we complete the development of all the genes that we want to introduce.

...

BH: At one point in your book, you criticize the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) drawn-out medical approval process and suggest that drugs should instead be approved after completion of Phase 2 trials. Why do you want such a change, and won’t it lead to more deaths thanks to unsafe drugs and medical procedures becoming available?

AdG: I want this change because it will save more lives than it costs. This question has been carefully analysed by experts and it’s clear that we are vastly over-cautious now in approving drugs. That over-caution is not the fault of the FDA or the government, because it reflects public attitudes: every death from an unsafe medical treatment causes an outcry and a lot of legal action, whereas we turn a blind eye to death from the unavailability of good drugs. But when aging is recognised as defeatable, public opinion will become more rational in this regard, and so will public policy.

It's a long piece - there's much more to read though, so head on over and do just that.

I cannot believe that Madonna is 50 years old. Or, make that 50 years young!

I remember listening to Madonna when I was a teenager and how my parents were like - oh, she is such a bad influence. Ha! Looks like she has the last laugh as Madonna is still going strong - in more ways than one.

Dexie - one of our very own fabulous Beauty & Style bloggers also writes in the music channel at Pop Music Scene. Dexie just posted a bit of a rant on how some “women” think Madonna is too old and should go home already. I ask - what are these women thinking? Is it not time for us to celebrate our age? And really, what do they want Madonna to do?

I ask you - what do you think? Check out Dexie’s post and let me know in the comments.

Share This

The writing of Collin Farrelly is a reasonable median point in the range of views amongst bioethicists in favor of engineering far greater human longevity through medical science. Arthur Caplan might be another good median example.

Personally, I'm not fond of bioethics as a field - its members all too often serve as no more than useful mouthpieces for those who work to suppress freedom of research and development. There will always be demagogues and popular opinion-mongers, but that arena would much more constructive in the absence of empowered bureaucrats and political appointees who delight in shackling a ball and chain to progress. As things stand, modern bioethics all has the air of supplicants to majesties, of begging for scraps and the simple freedom to make progress.

If unelected, unaccountable, uncaring government employees didn't have the power to control the future of your access to medical technology, you could cheerfully ignore bioethicists as another bunch of crazies - men and women busy overthinking the issue of common sense - if you so decided. The world would be a better place for that freedom.

In any case, take a look at this piece that references the Longevity Dividend Initiative:

Given that many people see longevity science itself as unethical, it is not surprising that proposals to invest greater funding into tackling aging, rather than research on specific diseases, will likely be met with strong opposition and protests that this is unfair. For the latter proposal implicates the allocation of scarce resources, and thus it raises complex questions of distributive justice. Is it fair, the critic will ask, to divert resources dedicated to saving lives (e.g. with possible treatments for cancer, AD, etc.) to medical research that seeks to merely extend lives? Let us call this the Fairness Objection to prioritizing aging research.

In this paper I will examine, and critique, this Fairness Objection to making aging research a greater priority than it currently is. The Fairness Objection presumes that support for the Longevity Dividend is limited to a simplistic utilitarian justification. Utilitarians invoke a mode of justification that is, at base, aggregative. Thus the critics of utilitarianism charge that it is a moral theory that maintains that imposing high costs on a few could be justified by the fact that this confers benefits on others, no matter how small these benefits may be as long as the recipients are sufficiently numerous.

On the other hand, given that the course of one's life is a private matter, how about we all just get on with supporting, advocating, fundraising, and conducting longevity research as we see fit? Unfortunately, that delightful thing called government allows naysayers to grab the reins of power and interfere in every private endeavor. Plurity of choice is crushed beneath the battle over control. It is a despicable state of affairs, and I don't see how playing within the system - according any legitimacy to those who would use force to remake your every private choice - will make things better in the long term.