This company will tell you which vitamins and supplements to take based on your DNA

Nutrigene believes your genes may hold the secret to what you might be missing in your diet. The company will send you tailor-made liquid vitamin supplements based on a lifestyle quiz and your DNA.

You fill out an assessment on the startup’s website, choose a recommended package, such as essentials, improve performance or optimize gut health, and Nutrigene will send you liquid supplements built just for you. It is also going to start allowing customers to upload their 23andMe data to find get an assessment of their nutritional needs based on DNA.

Founder Min FitzGerald launched the startup out of Singularity and later accepted a Google fellowship for the idea. Nutrigene is now going through the current YC class. Her co-founder and CTO Van Duesterberg comes from a biotech and epigenetics background and holds a PhD from Stanford.

The idea sounds a bit far-fetched at first — simply take a quiz, import your DNA and you magically have all your nutritional needs taken care of. However, Dawn Barry, former VP at Illumina and now president of Luna DNA, a biotech company powered by the blockchain, says it could have some scientific underpinnings. But, she cautioned, nutrigenetics is still an early science.

Amir Trabelsi, founder of genetic analysis platform Genoox, agrees. And, he pointed out, these types of companies don’t need to provide any proof.

“That doesn’t mean it’s completely wrong,” Trabelsi told TechCrunch. “But we don’t know enough to say this person should use Vitamin A, for example… There needs to be more trials and observation.”

Still, the vitamin industry is big business, pulling in more than $36 billion dollars in just the U.S. last year. With or without the genetic component, Nutrigene promises to deliver high-quality ingredients, optimized in liquid form.

Fitzgerald says the liquid component helps the supplements work 10 times better in your body than powder-based pills and, she points out, some people can’t swallow pills.

Hesitant, I agreed to try it out for myself. The process was fairly easy and the lifestyle quiz only took about 10 minutes. Then, I sent in my raw data from my 23andMe account.

Though genetics are a factor in Nutrigene’s ultimate formulation, FitzGerald told me the DNA part is pretty new and that my biometric details and goals were more indicative of how the company tailored my dosages.

However, I did apparently need more B12, according to FitzGerald. “Hence we gave you a good dose of B12 in your elixir,” she told me.

Does the stuff work? Tough to say. I didn’t feel any different on Nutrigene’s liquid vitamins than I do normally. Though, full disclosure, I’ve been taking what I believe to be some pretty good prenatal vitamins from New Chapter and a DHA supplement from Nordic Naturals for almost a year now while I’ve been building a baby in my womb. My doctor tested my nutritional levels at the beginning of my pregnancy through a blood sample, seemed pleased with my choice to take prenatals and didn’t tell me to do anything different.

Would Nutrigene’s formula be ideal for someone else? Possibly, especially if that person holds a high standard for ingredients in their supplements or has a hard time swallowing pills. However, it seems the jury is still out on the science behind vitamins tailored to your genetics and, like Trabelsi mentioned earlier, we likely need a lot more study on the matter.

For those interested in trying out Nutrigene, you can do so by ordering on the website. Package pricing varies and depends on nutritional needs, but starts at around $85 per month.

Read more: https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/05/this-company-will-tell-you-which-vitamins-and-supplements-to-take-based-on-your-dna/

You Don’t Need a Personal Genetics Test to Take Charge of Your Health

The online storefront for the consumer genetics company Orig3n features an image of a young woman facing toward a sepia horizon. Her tresses are wavy, her triceps enviably toned. Her determined stance complements the copy floating beside her: "Take charge of your future," it reads. "Orig3n DNA tests uncover the links between your genes and how you think, act, and feel. The more you know, the easier it is to reach your highest potential."

It's the promise of a growing number of services: Genetic insights you can act on. There are tests tailored to tell you about your diet, your fitness, your complexion—even your wine preference. Helix, another consumer genetics company, sells a Wine Explorer service that recommends wine "scientifically selected based on your DNA."

But researchers will tell you to approach lifestyle-tailored testing kits with extreme skepticism. "What you see in the consumer genetics market is that legitimate genetic findings, often from studies with very large sample sizes, are being turned around and marketed to people in a way that implies it's going to be actionable for individuals," says Harvard geneticist Robert Green, who's been researching direct-to-consumer genetic testing for close to 20 years. But in most cases, he says, the extent to which consumers can act upon their results "really remains to be proven."

Not that researchers aren't trying. On the contrary: This week, scientists led by Christopher Gardner, director of nutrition studies at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, published one of the most rigorous investigations to date on whether dieters can use personal DNA results to identify more effective weight-loss strategies. The researchers compared the effectiveness of low fat and low carbohydrate diets in a year-long randomized controlled trial involving more than 600 test subjects. And crucially, the researchers also looked at whether test subjects' genes impacted their results. Earlier studies, some led by Gardner, had suggested that a combination of mutations in PPARG, ADRB2, and PABP2, three genes linked to the metabolism of fat and carbohydrates, could predispose test subjects to lose more weight on one diet than the other.

But the results, which appear in this week's issue of the Journal of American Medicine, found no association between test subjects' genetic profiles and their success with either program; test subjects lost the same amount of weight, regardless of which diet they were assigned. And study participants who were assigned diets that "matched" their genetic profile fared no better than those who weren't.

"When I saw the results, this wave of disappointment washed over me," Gardner says. "It was like, wait, it didn’t work? None of the genetic variants had an effect?”

Nope. The study was big, well-designed, and pricey (it received funding from the Nutrition Science Initiative, a non-profit devoted to funding rigorous nutrition research), yet it failed to replicate smaller, less carefully controlled studies. Such is science! It also illustrates why establishing the usefulness of home DNA kits will be so difficult and time consuming. Research into the link between genetic determinants and diet will probably continue; for the JAMA study, Gardner and his colleagues examined the predictive power of mutations in just three genes, but there are dozens to consider, in a staggering number of combinations. It's plausible—even likely, Gardner says—that some of these genetic signatures could lead people to more effective diets. "But nutrition is just so complex, it's not likely there's going to be an answer soon."

And that's for nutrition. The odds of somebody funding a rigorous, controlled investigation into the link between your DNA and your ideal exercise regimen are … well … let's just say that kind of research isn’t very high on researchers’ to do list.

"It's hard to make a case for studying anything in the lifestyle realm, because it's pretty low stakes," says geneticist Lawrence Brody, director of the Division of Genomics and Society at the National Human Genome Research Institute. Personalized cancer treatments, rare-disease diagnosis, reproductive health screening—you know, the urgent stuff—these are the types of genomic investigations that receive funding. Which is why, even in a field as large as nutrition research, Brody says there are few examples of studies examining the link between genetics and diet with the level of rigor you find in Gardner's JAMA study. "A lot of researchers don't think it's a high enough priority, or likely enough to show results, to conduct and fund a full randomized trial."

And just think: If it's that hard to conduct a solid study on actionable associations between DNA and diet, imagine how unlikely it is we'll see RCTs on personalized skin care plans, "what makes your child unique," or your "unique superhero traits".

You might expect consumer genetics companies to fund this kind of research themselves. Guess again. Most don't have the cash, and, even for those that do, it's risky to perform such studies in the first place, in the event they turn up results like Gardner's. “Most companies don’t feel they need those kinds of studies to sell a narrative that supports the purchase of their products,” Green says.

All of which should make consumers wary of lifestyle-oriented commercial DNA kits, which occupy a gray area somewhere between tests for ancestry and, say, cancer-associated mutations. The experts I spoke with were all optimistic about the long-term future of in-home DNA kits, and supportive of people's right to access their genetic information. But right now, for most tests, the evidence base just isn't there. Something to keep in mind the next time a personal genetics company's motivational ad implies their kit can point you toward a more effective diet or workout, or tell you "whether your genes have the raw potential football legend John Lynch looks for in a player.".

On the upside, the participants in Gardner's JAMA study lost a combined 6,500 pounds, averaging 13 pounds of weight loss apiece, regardless of their genetic profile, and regardless of their assigned diet. A lot of people hear "genetics" and think "destiny," but the vast majority of the time, that's not how genes work. Which means that the vast majority of the time, you don't need a personal genetics test to take charge of your future.

More Consumer Genetics

Read more: https://www.wired.com/story/you-dont-need-a-personal-genetics-test-to-take-charge-of-your-health/

Researchers Publish Bombshell Report That Suggests Sugar Industry Conspiracy

In 1964, a group of researchers published Dietary Fats and Intestinal Thiamine Synthesis in Rats in the journal Nutrition Reviews. It tackled the classic sugar versus fat conundrum that has puzzled dieters for decades: Whats worse for health, sugar or fat?

The researchers divided rats into two groups. One group had diets that were 75 percent fat but no sugar, a sort of rodent Whole Foods regimen. It contrasted with the other group of rats, who had a lower fat countjust 15 percentbut 60 percent sucrose as well. The conclusion the team came to? Rats fed sucrose metabolized it as a carbohydrate and developed thiamine deficiency, often leading to heart failure; more complex carbohydrates helped create a gut bacteria that synthesized thiamine.

That paper got the Sugar Research Foundation interested in understanding the role of the white stuff in our microbiome. The foundationa precursor to todays Sugar Associationasked a group, referred to as Project 259 and led by Dr. W. F. R. Pover at the University of Birmingham, to study the effect of sugar in the gut between 1967 and 1971. It found that rats and guinea pigs given diets higher in sugar led to higher levels of triglycerides than those fed a standard pellet diet of cereal, soybean, and whitefish meals. That led to higher levels of beta-glucoronidase in urine, a now-proven result of bladder cancer. An internal document later described the Project 259 research as one of the first demonstrations of a biological difference between sucrose and starch fed rats. In short: A sugar-heavy diet was connected to heart disease.

But those results never saw the light of day by the now-defunct Sugar Research Foundation, according to a damning new paper published in PLOS Biology from Cristin E. Kearns, Dorie Apollonio, and Stanton A. Glantz. Its the latest in a series of papers Kearns and Glantz have teamed up on investigating the sugar industrys clamping down on research in postwar America, suggesting sugar was guilt-free and a healthier substitute to fat.

Judging by the media and public interest, it basically shows that the sugar industry pretty much behaved the same way the tobacco companies did, Glantz, a professor of medicine and tobacco control expert at the University of California, San Francisco, told The Daily Beast. Glantzs previous work explored the tobacco lobbying industry, with a 2013 paper in Tobacco Control tracing the rise of the Tea Party to tobaccos efforts to align themselves with libertarians through third party groups staunchly opposing taxation and regulation.

While a similar connection between sugar and the government hasnt been found yet, Glantz and Kearns have uncovered evidence over the past few years that shows the sugar industry was heavily involved in muffling research that indicated its product was dangerous to health. Scientific journals followed suit, with even the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine publishing a report that suggested that any linkage between sucrose and coronary heart disease was false, and that sucrose was in fact better than starch. (Pover died a few years ago, according to Kearns.)

Pover and Project 259s original research disappeared for decades, until Glantz and Kearns unearthed it. They suspect that the study was not quite ready for publication and that Pover asked for more funds to ensure accuracy. Theyd been funding it for two years and about $200,000 in todays money, Kearns said. He needed 18 more weeks, but they probably said no.

Even the incomplete results are interesting, Glantz pointed out. The sugar industry proved there were no differences to how sugar calories were metabolized compared to starch calories.

Which is, of course, totally untrueand the latest in a slow but steady unraveling of the industry that pushes soda, high fructose corn syrup, and more in the American diet.

And this isnt even the first time the sugar industry has misrepresented scientific results that would indicate sugar is not as sweet as it might appear. Glantz and Kearns published another industry-rocking report last year in JAMA Internal Medicine that showed the Sugar Research Foundation systematically discounted studies that tied sugar to ill health effects such as cancer, obesity, and heart disease by secretly funding groups in the 1960s and 1970s casting fat as the culprit behind these chronic diseases. The soda industrys denial of sodas connection with obesity and other nutritional studies backed by food giants that suggest candy does not affect a childs weight all fall in the same category.

These guys are not nice, Glantz said. They were distorting the whole process. People would look at you and say you need psychological treatment for daring to suggest that sugar was not as healthy as it was made out to be.

That made Glantzs and Kearns work especially difficult as they waded through old documents that often showcased conflicting results and confusion about the exact effects of sugar on a diet. Kearns is a professor of dentistry at the University of California, San Francisco, and started researching the sugar industry after attending a dental conference about a decade ago. In a session about diabetes and periodontal diseasetwo conditions that are affected by sugar intakeshe noticed that no one was talking about reducing sugar to control them.

The diet advice was to reduce fat and reduce calories, and all the brochures said that, too, Kearns told The Daily Beast. But its not what the research and guidelines say. Im a dentist, and I know: The role of sugar in tooth decay is significant, and its the number one chronic disease in children.

So Kearns teamed up with Glantz, who had made a name for himself uncovering the tobacco industrys stealthy PR campaign during the 1960s and 1970s to distance itself from lung cancer, funding research that downplayed its health effects, and allowed for advertising that glamorized smoking. The two found internal documents that suggested natural alternatives to sugar, such as the sugar beet industry in Colorado in the 1970s, went out of business. Kearns found that odd, along with the demonization of high fructose corn syrup (a corn product) by the sugar industry, and started delving more into the industry.

Glantz, for his part, said there are immediate parallels between the sugar and tobacco industry. The two even shared lobbyists, with several going from tobacco to sugar, explaining the similar PR campaign and philosophy of both. They wanted to stay on top of the science and be ahead of the science, Glantz said. They worked to manipulate the process and prevent a scientific consensus from emerging.

The fact that the sugar industry funded an alternate study to quash scientific results it had itself found to continue an image of being a sensible item to have in a diet is something that heavily contributed to the very modern American obesity, heart disease, and cancer epidemics, but have also repeatedly been shown to be used in marketing campaigns for impoverishedand often, heavily Hispanic and African-Americancommunities. It was what convinced Coca-Cola to use sucrose [instead of high fructose corn syrup], Kearns pointed out. Glantz added that sugar is seen as pure and unadulterated, something that is innocent and not considered a serious vice or health detraction on the levels of smoking: You add sucrose to your coffee. You bake with it. You have snack and beverages in it. Its even in your hamburgers and pizza.

The sugar industry, for their part, released a statement, saying: The article we are discussing is not actually a study, but a perspective: a collection of speculations and assumptions about events that happened nearly five decades ago, conducted by a group of researchers and funded by individuals and organizations that are known critics of the sugar industry. (The report was funded by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the Samuel Lawrence Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, the UCSF Philip R. Lee Institute of Health Policy Studies, the UCSF School of Dentistry, and the Nutrition Science Initiative.)

The ubiquity of sugar in our diet, whether we realize it or not, has huge implications not only for our health but also for medical expenses in this country. Glantz and Kearns hope that this most recent paper will pressure the Food and Drug Administration to recommend diets contain less than 10 percent of sugars daily (as of 2011, average sugar consumption hovered in the 15 percent range) and for stricter oversight on nutrition research.

A lot of people, they ask, Why are you looking at this ancient history? Who cares? Glantz said of his work investigating the tobacco and sugar industries and how they funded research. I always say, Trust me, people will care.

Read more: https://www.thedailybeast.com/researchers-publish-bombshell-report-that-suggests-sugar-industry-conspiracy

Nutritional Shake-Up: The FDA Now Recommends That Americans Eat A Bowl Of 200 Eggs On Their 30th Birthday And Then Never Eat Any Eggs Again

If you’re at all concerned about maintaining a healthy diet, there’s a new update you definitely need to hear! The Food and Drug Administration has just released a new set of nutritional guidelines recommending that Americans eat a bowl of 200 eggs once on their 30th birthday and then never eat eggs again.

Looks like health nuts are going to have to start adjusting their diets!

The FDA says its new egg-consumption guidelines maximize the nutritional benefits of eggs by concentrating all the eggs you’ll ever eat in your life into one terrifying, mountainous serving of eggs on the day that you turn 30 years old. The food safety organization specified that the eggs be served without salt or any other seasonings, and also that the eggs be consumed “as quickly as possible or as slowly as possible” in order to optimize the effects on your health.

“Eggs are high in protein and vitamin D, but also very high in cholesterol, so we strongly recommend that the average American eat a single serving of 200 eggs from a bowl as soon as the clock strikes midnight on their 30th birthday,” the FDA said in a nutritional guide published on its website. “Also, the 200 eggs in the bowl should be hard-boiled. While more studies are needed, the FDA currently believes that if any of your 200 birthday eggs are not hard-boiled, you will immediately die.”

The FDA further noted that the 200 number it recommends for your once-ever serving of birthday eggs isn’t a hard-and-fast rule. Depending on your height and weight, you might need to eat a few hundred more eggs. The most important thing from a nutritional standpoint is that when you turn 30, you eat hundreds of eggs all at once, and then don’t eat any more eggs for the rest of your life.

For anyone who wants a handy resource to help keep their egg consumption within the new recommended guidelines, here’s a useful chart straight from the FDA’s website:

Major props to the FDA for working hard to keep Americans healthy! Changing your diet is always a challenge, but if eating a single bowl of eggs on your 30th birthday and then never eating eggs again is the way to stay healthy, we’re pretty sure we’re up to the task!

Read more: http://www.clickhole.com/article/nutritional-shake-fda-now-recommends-americans-eat-6849

Poor diet is a factor in one in five deaths, global disease study reveals

Study compiling data from every country finds people are living longer but millions are eating wrong foods for their health

Poor diet is a factor in one in five deaths around the world, according to the most comprehensive study ever carried out on the subject.

Millions of people are eating the wrong sorts of food for good health. Eating a diet that is low in whole grains, fruit, nuts and seeds and fish oils and high in salt raises the risk of an early death, according to the huge and ongoing study Global Burden of Disease.

The study, based at the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, compiles data from every country in the world and makes informed estimates where there are gaps. Five papers on life expectancy and the causes and risk factors of death and ill health have been published by the Lancet medical journal.

It finds that people are living longer. Life expectancy in 2016 worldwide was 75.3 years for women and 69.8 for men. Japan has the highest life expectancy at 84 years and the Central African Republic has the lowest at just over 50. In the UK, life expectancy for a man born in 2016 is 79, and for a woman 82.9.

Diet is the second highest risk factor for early death after smoking. Other high risks are high blood glucose which can lead to diabetes, high blood pressure, high body mass index (BMI) which is a measure of obesity, and high total cholesterol. All of these can be related to eating the wrong foods, although there are also other causes.

causes of death graphic

This is really large, Dr Christopher Murray, IHMEs director, told the Guardian. It is amongst the really big problems in the world. It is a cluster that is getting worse. While obesity gets attention, he was not sure policymakers were as focused on the area of diet and health as they needed to be. That constellation is a really, really big challenge for health and health systems, he said.

The problem is often seen as the spread of western diets, taking over from traditional foods in the developing world. But it is not that simple, says Murray. Take fruit. It has lots of health benefits but only very wealthy people eat a lot of fruit, with some exceptions.

Sugary drinks are harmful to health but eating a lot of red meat, the study finds, is not as big a risk to health as failing to eat whole grains. We need to look really carefully at what are the healthy compounds in diets that provide protection, he said.

undernourishment graphic

Prof John Newton, director of health improvement at Public Health England, said the studies show how quickly diet and obesity-related disease is spreading around the world. I dont think people realise how quickly the focus is shifting towards non-communicable disease [such as cancer, heart disease and stroke] and diseases that come with development, in particular related to poor diet. The numbers are quite shocking in my view, he said.

The UK tracks childhood obesity through the school measurement programme and has brought in measures to try to tackle it. But no country in the world has been able to solve the problem and it is a concern that we really need to think about tackling globally, he said.

Today, 72% of deaths are from non-communicable diseases for which obesity and diet are among the risk factors, with ischaemic heart disease as the leading cause worldwide of early deaths, including in the UK. Lung cancer, stroke, lung disease (chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder) and Alzheimers are the other main causes in the UK.

The success story is children under five. In 2016, for the first time in modern history, fewer than 5 million children under five died in one year a significant fall compared with 1990, when 11 million died. Increased education for women, less poverty, having fewer children, vaccinations, anti-malaria bed-nets, improved water and sanitation are among the changes in low-income countries that have brought the death rate down, thanks to development aid.

People are living longer but spending more years in ill health. Obesity is one of the major reasons. More than a billion people worldwide are living with mental health and substance misuse disorders. Depression features in the top 10 causes of ill health in all but four countries.

Our findings indicate people are living longer and, over the past decade, we identified substantial progress in driving down death rates from some of the worlds most pernicious diseases and conditions, such as under age-five mortality and malaria, said Murray Yet, despite this progress, we are facing a triad of trouble holding back many nations and communities obesity, conflict, and mental illness, including substance use disorders.

In the UK, the concern is particularly about the increase in ill-health that prevents people from working or having a fulfilling life, said Newton. A man in the UK born in 2016 can expect only 69 years in good health and a woman 71 years.

This is yet another reminder that while were living longer, much of that extra time is spent in ill-health. It underlines the importance of preventing the conditions that keep people out of work and put their long term health in jeopardy, like musculoskeletal problems, poor hearing and mental ill health. Our priority is to help people, including during the crucial early years of life and in middle age, to give them the best chance of a long and healthy later life, he said.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/14/poor-diet-is-a-factor-in-one-in-five-deaths-global-disease-study-reveals

Crazy Health Site Claims Coconut Oil Cures Alzheimer’s, Gets Promptly Called Out on Facebook

This the kind of shit that makes us want to scream!

  • 1

    Via: [deleted]


  • 2

    Via: [deleted]


  • 3

    Via: [deleted]


  • 4

    Via: [deleted]

Read more: http://cheezburger.com/2494981/crazy-health-site-claims-coconut-oil-cures-alzheimers-gets-promptly-called-out-on-facebook

I Will Force You to Use These Recipes for Vaginal Burning Cure

I Will Force You to Use These Recipes for Vaginal Burning Cure

read more
Successful Experience in Vaginal Burning For Fast Relief!

Follow us on our page on google+

our page on fb

Vaginal Infection Cure – Top 4 Remedies for fast relief!
Persistent vaginal burning and itching? Constant pain and burning? Arghhhh! It is enough to drive any woman crazy. A vaginal infection, also known as a yeast infection or thrush, is a yeast infection and can affect any part of your body of dentures under the breast, vagina and the folds of the skin.

Unfortunately, it is a high common infection in most women, because yeast thrives in dark, moist environments, leading to infections. As a former sufferer of yeast with expertise in this article, I will describe some of the priests who worked as a wife for me.

Cure # 1: Garlic

Garlic is one of the amazing healing of nature and a great enemy of yeast! It is also particularly effective for a vaginal infection. It is more effective when used raw and leave in the vagina for a few hours.

Cure # 2: Yogurt

Plain yogurt contains friendly bacteria, if for a vaginal infection that kill the yeast causing the symptoms disappear within a few days of help. You can eat every day, or applied directly to the infected area.

Cure # 3: Honey

Raw honey is a miracle cure for many infections and is particularly effective in treating a vaginal infection. A little difficult to handle, but works great. Apply raw honey on the affected area for a few minutes.

Cure # 4: Apple Cider Vinegar

Apple cider vinegar is very excellent for restoring the natural pH of the vagina and kills the Candida. Use to help add a little vinegar to a warm bath, give relief from the painful burning suite.

All these remedies urgent supplies needed pain relief and soothing. This, together with a change in diet can permanently cure the cause of a yeast infection without any side effects and dramatically improve the overall quality of their natural life without drugs.

I Will Force You to Use These Recipes for Vaginal Burning Cure