Back pain is one of the most common health problems, affecting around 80 per cent of the adult population at some point in their lives. Some researchers estimate this percentage to be higher, at least 90%.
People often take painkillers such as ibuprofen when they have low back pain. However, these drugs do not work and may well have unwelcome side effects. A new study has concluded that these risks outweigh the benefits.
STUDY FINDINGS:
Only one in six people who use an NSAID (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory) painkiller get any relief for their back pain
Earlier studies had already concluded that paracetamol and opioids were ineffective
So these drugs do not work for 5 out of 6 people, i.e. for the vast majority of people. Moreover, these drugs have considerable side effects: NSAIDS more than double the risk of gastro-intestinal problems, say researchers at the George Institute for Global Health in Sydney.
Researchers analysed 35 studies that had involved more than 6,000 people suffering from low back pain. The researchers’ conclusion was that there is hardly any benefit and, if there is, it is only very slight and not worth risking incurring the side effects these drugs can cause.
One of the researchers, Manuela Ferreira, said: “When you factor in the side effects which are very common, it becomes clear that these drugs are not the answer to providing pain relief to the many millions of people who suffer from this debilitating condition every year.”
Instead, a more effective therapy is urgently needed, and researchers need to explore just why low back pain is so prevalent. And this is the end of what this study was saying. You may be left wondering…
WHAT IS THE ANSWER?
While researchers spend more time on these topics, what should we do in the meantime?
Research has shown again and again that exercise has its place, particularly in keeping chronic back pain at bay.
General exercise (even tai chi) helps but specific exercise may be more helpful (more on this later on)
Not all types of movement helps back pain and “being fit” does not preclude back issues. In fact, athletes are at (greater ?) risk of sustaining a spine injury in the lower back, due to physical activity. In sports like skiing, basketball, football, ice skating, soccer, running, golf, or tennis, the spine undergoes a lot of stress, absorption of pressure, twisting, turning, and even bodily impact. This strenuous activity puts a strain on the back that can cause injury to even the fittest of athletes.
While “general physical activity” / movement may help this multifactorial problem that is back pain, some types of movement / exercise is better than other for a certain individual
Exercise that targets the specific issue is much more likely to be helpful than just general movement
Exercise which prioritises good posture and neuromuscular control is very likely to be helpful in preventing recurrence of back pain.
PILATES
Pilates is a great choice for back (especially lower back) issues. It targets not just the pain aspects but prevents painful incidents from (re-)occurring by improving our core function:
it helps improve core strength
it helps with flexibility
it results in better posture (no unnecessary back strain while at rest/sitting)
it allows us to move better, avoiding straining our backs unnecessarily during everyday movements
it helps improve athletic performance – and keeps us safer in doing so
HOW to CHOOSE the RIGHT PILATES CLASS for YOU
If you want to do Pilates to improve a back condition (or other injury), I recommend that you:
AVOID LARGE, GENERIC classes where no individual attention is given or no suitable adaptations are provided. Or classes given by non-suitably qualified instructors. In general, gym classes fall into the large and “generic” category.
Instead, LOOK FOR:
a small Pilates class (no more than 12 people) led by
a suitably knowledgeable instructor with years of experience in Pilates in a rehabilitative role or at least someone who is also a personal trainer & rehab trainer or sports massage therapist as well as Pilates instructor.
an instructor who will follow you properly during the class, adapting exercising to your needs
a fitness professional who has studied the Level 4 Back Pain specialist course
If you live in Leicester, please do consider my classes. I tick all the boxes in the “look for” category and have helped many people with various injuries (but especially lower back pain) over the years.
Emanuela at www.pilatesfitness.co.uk
References
(Source: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 2017; doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210597)
Autoimmune diseases and the physical, chemical and emotional pain they create impacts millions around the world. The primary way doctors treat these diseases is to prescribe immune suppressing drugs. Unfortunately, this approach has failed to achieve a meaningful outcome and has created an even greater health crisis–what Dr. Peter Osborne calls “The Prescription Pain Trap”–which you will learn more about during this important event.
WHY ATTEND?
Dr. Osborne created The Autoimmune Revolution to help you prevent and reverse autoimmune pain. It’s time to achieve greater health and improved happiness so you can break the cycle of pain and start living again!
Register for FREE now at the following link: Register Here
Own all of the expert talks to watch at your own pace: Order here
During The Autoimmune Revolution, you’ll learn about:
Conquering chronic pain and autoimmune conditions
The connection between autoimmune diseases, diet and lifestyle choices
6 diet and behavior changes you need to make to radically improve health
Breaking the cycle of medications and dependency on allopathic treatmentsThe Autoimmune Revolution is online and free from January 30 – February 6, 2017! Register for FREE today
Own all of the expert talks to watch at your own pace (or watch after the event): Order here
Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) are drugs that are often prescribed for heartburn, peptic ulcers and “hearburn-like” disorders of the upper gastrointestinal tract.
PPIs are among the most frequently (over)prescribed drugs overall and their use has been increasing sharply, especially among the elderly.
OVERPRESCRIBING
“Unfortunately, overprescribing of PPIs is reported frequently,” said researcher Britta Haenisch, PhD, from the German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases. According to some research, up to 70% of all PPI prescriptions could be inappropriate, she added. “In general, clinicians should follow guidelines for PPI prescription to avoid overprescribing PPIs and inappropriate use.”
This post highlights some of the reasons why you should avoid being on them for any considerable amount of time.
Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) Linked to Dementia
A new study has confirmed an association between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and increased risk for dementia in older patients.
The new study, by Willy Gomm, PhD, from the German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Bonn, Germany, and colleagues and published online February 15 in JAMA Neurology. It is important because PPI use is so widespread and also because this was a large study of nearly 80,000 people aged 75 and over.
The results showed that 2950 patients were regularly using a PPI. These users had a significantly higher risk for dementia compared with those not taking this drug (hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36 – 1.52; P < .001).
Several confounding factors were significantly associated with increased dementia risk; for example, depression (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.24 – 1.32; P < .001) and stroke (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.29 – 1.46; P < .001).
Having diabetes and being prescribed five or more drugs other than the PPI (defined as polypharmacy) were also associated with significantly elevated dementia risk.
Researchers are not clear on how PPI use might raise dementia risk. Evidence suggests some PPIs may cross the blood–brain barrier and interact with brain enzymes and, in mice, may increase beta amyloid levels in the brain.
Although the current study did not include vitamin B12 levels, other research has linked PPI use to vitamin B12 deficiency, which has been shown to be associated with cognitive decline, Dr Haenisch noted.
The study can only provide a statistical association between PPI prescription and occurrence of dementia and does not prove that PPIs cause dementia: to evaluate the cause-and-effect relationships in the elderly, randomized, prospective clinical trials are needed.
However:
Lewis H. Kuller, MD, DrPH, from the Graduate School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, notes that even a relatively small increased risk for dementia could translate into many more people in the population having dementia.For example, he writes, a 1.4-fold increased risk, as suggested by the study, would increase the estimated incidence rate of dementia from 6.0% to about 8.4% per year.
There are several alternatives to PPIs to treat gastrointestinal disorders in the elderly. According to Dr Haenisch, these include histamine H2 receptor antagonists, prostaglandins, and antacids. Holistic therapists would be able to suggest other options that are safer and more effective in the long run.
Proton Pump Inhibitors Increase Risk of Vascular Dementia
A higher risk of heart attack, dementia and renal failure has been observed in chronic and long-term antacid users for some time. A recent study offers insights as to why this may be.
The recent study found that prolonged taking of antacids can lead to a much more rapid aging of these endothelial cells. The acidity levels within their lysosomes are also reduced; lysosomes are like the cells’ garbage disposals and require optimal acid levels to function properly. An accumulation of waste in endothelial cells also accelerates vascular decline.
Proton Pump Inhibitors Increase Risk of Ischaemic Stroke
2016: Researchers at the Danish Heart Foundation in Denmark add ischaemic stroke—the most common type—to the lethal roll call. It happens when clots block blood flowing to and from the brain.
The risk increased by up to 94 per cent for one PPI, Protonix (pantoprazole), and by 30 per cent for Prevacid (lansoprazole) if people were taking them at the highest dose. The average risk was 21 per cent.
No increase in ischaemic stroke risk was found for H2 blockers, which include Pepcid (famotidine) and Zantac (ranitidine). However, the researchers said this did not necessarily mean the drugs were any safer.
Proton Pump Inhibitors and Hypomagnesemia in General Population
A Prospective cohort study of 9,818 individuals from the general population (Rotterdam Study) found lower serum magnesium levels in people taking PPIs for long periods of time:
Serum magnesium level was 0.022 mEq/L lower in PPI users (n = 724; 95% CI, −0.032 to −0.014 mEq/L) versus those with no use. PPI use was associated with increased risk of hypomagnesemia (n = 36; OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.36–2.93) compared to no use.
People taking both PPIs and loop diuretics had even lower serum magnesium levels.
Effect modification was found between the use of PPIs and loop diuretics; in participants using loop diuretics (n = 270), PPI use was associated with a further increased risk of hypomagnesemia (n = 5; OR, 7.22; 95% CI, 1.69–30.83) compared to no use.
Including dietary magnesium intake into the model did not alter results (available for 2,504 participants, including 231 PPI users).
NOTE: The increased risk with PPIs was only seen after prolonged use (range, 182–2,618 days; OR, 2.99; 95% CI, 1.73–5.15).
Why should we care?
Severe hypomagnesemia may result in tetany, convulsions, or cardiac arrhythmias. Although mild hypomagnesemia is often asymptomatic, it may still be relevant because population studies have shown that even mild hypomagnesemia is associated with increased risk of diabetes mellitus, osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, and mortality.
You can find out more here: https://www.nice.org.uk/advice/esuom4/ifp/chapter/what-is-hypomagnesaemia
PPI usage may increase the risk of infections
PPI intake favours bacterial infections including:
spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in cirrhotic patients
pneumonia or Clostridium difficile colitis
PPIs, Liver Disease, and Mortality in Patients With Cirrhosis
Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are widely used in patients with liver diseases
Yet, this study found that PPI use is an independent risk factor for mortality in patients with cirrhosis.
PPIs and Osteoporosis / Fractures
PPIs are also suspected of increasing the risk of osteoporotic fractures.
In recent years, the FDA (Food and Drug Administratio, in 2010) and the EMA (European Medicines Agency, in 2012) have issued safety warnings about the risk of fractures of the hip, wrist and spine associated with use of PPIs (see references). As is often the case, the risk was not recognised in RCTs prior to post-marketing epidemiological studies. Both regulators reported there was a possible increase in fracture risk particularly if PPIs are used in high dose and over prolonged periods (> 1 year).
The most recent meta-analysis of observational studies (mostly of postmenopausal women and older men), found the risk of hip fracture was increased in those taking PPIs by 10%- 50% while the risk for spine fractures increased 30%-80%, although heterogeneity was seen in the data leading to wide confidence intervals. The elevated risk remained when the data were stratified according to duration of use, with either short- (<1 year) or longer-term use (>1 year).
In 2014, an Australian publication for Health Professionals was recommending that health professionals regularly review prescriptions for PPIs, prescribe the lowest dose needed, and only for the period of time needed (many people do not relapse after the first course). This seems sensible advice, along with considering alternative measures (alternative medications and also lifestyle interventions, which should be the first line of defense).
If you are at increased risk of osteoporosis for any reason (genetics, comorbidities), you would be better off avoiding taking PPIs, especially for long periods of time. Talk to your doctor about alternatives to PPIs. Holistic practitioners like myself also have a whole arsenal of lifestyle interventions that can help you avoid the need for PPIs in most cases. Let me know if you are struggling with this or similar issues.
Ramsay EN, Pratt NL, Ryan P, Roughead EE. Proton pump inhibitors and the risk of pneumonia: a comparison of cohort and self-controlled case series designs. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013; 13: 82
MacLaren R, Reynolds PM, Allen RR. Histamine-2 receptor antagonists vs proton pump inhibitors on gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage and infectious complications in the intensive care unit. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174: 564–74.
European Medicines Agency. Proton-pump inhibitors – risk of bone fracture. Pharmacovigilance Working Party (PHVWP). Monthly report on safety concerns, guidelines and general matters 2012.
The promise of genetic modification was twofold: by making crops immune to the effects of weedkillers and inherently resistant to many pests, GMOs were expected to:
a) grow so robustly that they would become indispensable to feeding the world’s growing population, and at the same time
b) require fewer applications of sprayed pesticides
Comparing results on two continents, using independent data as well as academic and industry research, shows how the technology has fallen short of the promise.
UNIMPRESSIVE YIELDS
Genetic modification in the United States and Canada has NOT accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides. An analysis by The Times using United Nations data showed that the United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields — food per acre — when measured against Western Europe. [1]
The Times compared Western Europe with Canada in terms of rapeseed production. Despite rejecting genetically modified crops, Western Europe has maintained a lead over Canada in rapeseed yields. While that is partly because different varieties are grown in the two regions, the trend lines in the relative yields have NOT shifted in Canada’s favor since the introduction of G.M. crops, the data shows. [1]
For corn, The Times compared the United States with Western Europe. Over three decades, the trend lines between the two barely deviate. And sugar beets, a major source of sugar, have shown stronger yield growth recently in Western Europe than the United States. [1]
Jack Heinemann, a professor at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, did a pioneering 2013 study comparing trans-Atlantic yield trends, using United Nations data. Western Europe, he said, “hasn’t been penalized in any way for not making genetic engineering one of its biotechnology choices.” [1]
2. HIGH PESTICIDE USE
At the same time, herbicide use has increased in the United States, even as major crops like corn, soybeans and cotton have been converted to modified varieties. And the United States has fallen behind Europe’s biggest producer, France, in reducing the overall use of pesticides, which includes both herbicides and insecticides. [1]
“Currently available G.M. crops would not lead to major yield gains in Europe,” he said. And regarding herbicide-resistant crops in general: “I don’t consider this to be the miracle type of technology that we couldn’t live without.”, says Matin Qaim, a researcher at Georg-August-University of Göttingen, Germany,
PRESENT & FUTURE
Newer genetically modified crops claim to do many things, such as protecting against crop diseases and making food more nutritious. We cannot believe these claims at face value, as previous claims have just NOT stacked up.
Shifting crucial crops like corn, soybeans, cotton and rapeseed almost entirely to genetically modified varieties in many parts of the world is a huge marketing opportunity but also a major threat to our health. [2]
Roundup herbicide and Roundup Ready seeds have been show to significantly negatively impact human health. Sales of Roundup herbicide and Roundup Ready genetically engineered corn, soy and cotton constitute 90% of Monsanto’s revenue.
For example, the World Health Organization declared Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, a probable human carcinogen. Since that announcement in March, 2015, several countries, cities, and retail chains worldwide have banned or severely limited the use of glyphosate products. As of October 2015, at least 700 personal injury non-Hodgkin lymphoma lawsuits were pending against Monsanto.
Monsanto’s liability may persist long into the future. Not only can glyphosate be detected for decades in many types of soil, GMO contamination self-propagates in the gene pool and cannot be fully eradicated.
Numerous livestock farmers who switch to non-GMO feed report improved livestock health and increased profits. If these claims are validated, Monsanto could lose its biggest GMO market and become liable for extraordinary cumulative losses from an entire industry.
Monsanto’s GMOs—designed to either kill insects or tolerate Roundup herbicide—are failing in the field; as of 2010, superbugs and superweeds are becoming resistant on over 300 million acres worldwide.
Consumer rejection of GMOs in the United States is prompting food brands to eliminate GMO ingredients and label products “non-GMO.” This same trend kicked GMOs out of Europe in 1999 and is now approaching a tipping point in the US, as 58% of consumers are looking for non-GMO products.
Monsanto’s success has been propped up by enormous political clout, especially in the United States. Politics is unstable; it shifts with elections and current events. As the non-GMO movement gains momentum and product safety is questioned, political support may wane, further eroding Monsanto’s fortunes.
Monsanto’s negative reputation adds political and economic instability. Referred to as the “World’s Most Hated company,” their unpopularity was illustrated when hundreds of Moms Across America groups nationwide, and more than 2 million people in 52 countries internationally, took to the streets to “March Against Monsanto.”
Monsanto’s GMOs have proven to be more affected by climate change (e.g. periods of droughts) than traditional varieties, leading them to failing more often and leading to more financial failures / bankruptcies.
Because of GMOs being more sensitive to climate change, Monsanto is basically bankcrupting many farmers in Third World countries (where additional irrigation facilities are less likely to be available).
Monsanto insists on yearly seeds purchase: this company forces farmers (including poor farmers from third world countries) to purchase their seeds year after year (no chance of saving seeds from one year to the next, as has always been traditionally done).
Monsanto sues organic farmers who have had their crop damaged by Monsanto seeds. Such events should lead to GMOs being outlawed or very strongly restricted, not to the injustice of making the innocent pay.
Monsanto and other GM companies patenting nature? Monsanto and others are acquiring traditional seeds for free, modifying them “a little” (often with many negative consequences) and then patenting them and selling them at a huge profit. Year after year. Does this sound like a fair practice?
Questions about GM Foods? This document may help answer them: http://www.gmwatch.org/files/10-Questions-about-GM-Foods.pdf
This online video conference creates a shift in human consciousness of the awareness that we are not just a physical body. Emotional trauma, chronic negatives emotions that affect our health are at the root cause of cancer and other health conditions, which illustrates the importance of emotional healing.
The online video Summit brings together, in an unprecedented way, over 35 Speakers including doctors/experts in the field of integrative/holistic/alternative cancer treatments with Energy Healers from different modalities, Cannabis Health experts, experts in the fields of Emotional Healing and Healing Arts like Acupuncture, Homeopathy, and Chiropractic, survivors who have healed themselves and more. All cutting edge Healing Methods for this Century!
