Is Eating Chocolate Actually Good for You? Researchers Seem to Think So!

Despite a bad rap for causing weight gain and loosely being associated with acne, Chocolate is the ultimate comfort food for many.  Americans spend $10 billion annually on chocolaty treats.  For many, it is a sure-fire relief in times of stress, a reliable source of consolation in times of disappointment, and a mood-enhancer and romance-magnifier in more positive circumstances.

But is it at all healthy?  If you consume lots of it, obviously not; but the next time you savor a piece of chocolate, you may not have to feel so guilty about it. Countless studies document a host of medically proven ways in which chocolate — good chocolate, which is to say dark chocolate, with a cocoa percentage of around seventy per cent or more — really is good for us.

Fast facts on chocolate

  • Chocolate is made from tropical Theobroma cacao tree seeds.
  • Its earliest use dates back to the Olmec civilization in Mesoamerica.
  • After the European discovery of the Americas, chocolate became very popular in the wider world, and its demand exploded.
  • Chocolate consumption has long been associated with conditions such as diabetes, coronary heart disease, and hypertension.
  • Chocolate is believed to contain high levels of antioxidants.
  • Some studies have suggested chocolate could lower cholesterol levels and prevent memory decline.
  • Chocolate contains a large number of calories.
  • People who are seeking to lose or maintain weight should eat chocolate only in moderation.

Benefits

Chocolate receives a lot of bad press because of its high fat and sugar content. Its consumption has also been associated high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, and diabetes.

However, a review of chocolate’s health effects published in the Netherlands Journal of Medicine point to the discovery that cocoa – the key ingredient in chocolate –  contains biologically active phenolic compounds.  This has changed people’s views on chocolate, and it has stimulated research into how it might impact aging, and conditions such as oxidative stress, blood pressure regulation, and atherosclerosis.

It is important to note many of the possible health benefits mentioned below are gleaned  from single studies.

1)  Cholesterol

One study, published in The Journal of Nutrition, suggests that chocolate consumption might help reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels, also known as “bad cholesterol.”

The researchers set out to investigate whether chocolate bars containing plant sterols (PS) and cocoa flavanols (CF) have any effect on cholesterol levels.

The authors concluded: “Regular consumption of chocolate bars containing PS and CF, as part of a low-fat diet, may support cardiovascular health by lowering cholesterol and improving blood pressure.”

2)  Cognitive function

Scientists at Harvard Medical School have suggested that drinking two cups of hot chocolate a day could help keep the brain healthy and reduce memory decline in older people.

The researchers found that hot chocolate helped improve blood flow to parts of the brain where it was needed.

Lead author, Farzaneh A. Sorond, said:

“As different areas of the brain need more energy to complete their tasks, they also need greater blood flow. This relationship, called neurovascular coupling, may play an important role in diseases such as Alzheimer’s.”

Another study, published in 2016 in the journal Appetite, suggests eating chocolate at least once weekly could improve cognitive function.

Flavanols are thought to reduce memory loss in older people, and the anti-inflammatory qualities of dark chocolate have been found beneficial in treating brain injuries such as concussion.

Research has shown that when elderly people were given specially prepared cocoa extracts which was high in flavanols, their cognitive function greatly improved. The only problem is that when it comes to eating chocolate, the percentage of those cocoa flavanols is much reduced due to the processing and the addition of eggs, sugar and milk.

3)  Heart disease

Lots of studies reveal that the flavonoids in chocolate can help your veins and arteries to stay supple. Over 7 studies followed 114,000 participants who were given a few servings of dark chocolate a week. The results showed that their risk of getting a heart attack was reduced by about 37% while the chances of getting a stroke were 29% less when they had a higher consumption of chocolate.

Research published in The BMJ, suggests that consuming chocolate could help lower the risk of developing heart disease by one-third.  Based on their observations, the authors concluded that higher levels of chocolate consumption could be linked to a lower risk of cardiometabolic disorders.

A 2014 study found that dark chocolate helps restore flexibility to arteries while also preventing white blood cells from sticking to the walls of blood vessels – both common causes of artery clogging.

4)  Stroke

Canadian scientists, in a study involving 44,489 individuals, found that people who ate chocolate were 22 percent less likely to experience a stroke than those who did not. Also, those who had a stroke but regularly consumed chocolate were 46 percent less likely to die as a result.

A further study, published in the journal Heart in 2015, tracked the impact of diet on the long-term health of 25,000 men and women.  The findings suggested that eating up to 100 grams (g) of chocolate each day may be linked to a lower risk of heart disease and stroke.

5)  Good for moms, fetal growth and development

Eating 30 g of chocolate every day during pregnancy might benefit fetal growth and development, according to a study presented at the 2016 Pregnancy Meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine in Atlanta, GA.

A Finnish study also found that chocolate reduced stress in expectant mothers, and that the babies of such mothers smiled more often than the offspring of non-chocolate-eating parents.

One of the complications of pregnancy, known as preeclampsia, can cause blood pressure can shoot up. Researchers have established that one of the chemicals in dark chocolate, theobromine, can stimulate the heart and help the arteries dilate. When pregnant women were given higher doses of chocolate, they had a 40% less chance of developing this complication.

6)  Athletic performance

Findings published in The Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition suggest a little dark chocolate might boost oxygen availability during fitness training.

Another magical flavanol in chocolate is epicatechin. Mice were given this substance and they were much fitter and stronger than those mice on water only. Researchers say that to get the best results from your workout you have to limit the amount to only about half of one square of chocolate a day! If you have too much, it could undo the beneficial effects.

7)   It’s mineral rich

Dark chocolate is packed with beneficial minerals such as potassium, zinc and selenium, and a 100g bar of dark (70 per cent or more) choc provides 67 per cent of the RDA of iron.  It has almost all of your RDA for copper and manganese, contains over half your magnesium RDA and delivers about 10% of fiber.

8)  It reduces cholesterol

Consumption of cocoa has been shown to reduce levels of “bad” cholesterol (LDL) and raise levels of “good” cholesterol, potentially lowering the risk of cardiovascular disease.

The Journal of Nutrition published an interesting article about the results of a study done to determine whether dark chocolate could have any effect on the LDL cholesterol levels. They found when subjects were given bars of dark chocolate with plant sterols and flavanols, they were getting lower scores on their cholesterol levels.

9)  It’s good for your skin

The flavanols in dark chocolate can protect the skin against sun damage.     One study conducted in London found that women who were given chocolate with a high flavanol content were able to withstand double the amount of UV light on their skins without burning, compared to those on lower doses.  Still, you are probably better off slapping on some sunscreen.

10) It can help you lose weight

Chocolate can help you lose weight. Really. Neuroscientist Will Clower says a small square of good choc melted on the tongue 20 minutes before a meal triggers the hormones in the brain that say, “I’m full”, cutting the amount of food you subsequently consume. Finishing a meal with the same small trigger could reduce subsequent snacking.

11) It may prevent diabetes

It sounds mad, but cocoa has been shown to improve insulin sensitivity. So dark chocolate – in moderation – might delay or prevent the onset of diabetes. One small study at the University of L’Aquila in Italy found that the right does of chocolate flavonoids can help the body’s metabolism and enhance insulin function.

12) Chocolate makes you feel better

Chocolate contains phenylethylamine (PEA), which is the same chemical that your brain creates when you feel like you’re falling in love. PEA encourages your brain to release feel-good endorphins. These Endorphins play a key role in helping to prevent depression and other mental malaise.

Some chocolate lovers also add certain kinds of chocolate may be good for the soul: this is chocolate for which the raw materials have been grown with care by farmers who are properly rewarded for their work; then processed by people who take time and care in their work and finished by chocolatiers who love what they do. It is not mass-produced, and it may not be cheap. But it could be good for you, heart and soul.

13) It may help people with Alzheimer’s disease

As we know, the nerve pathways to the brain get damaged when Alzheimer’s disease strikes, causing severe loss in certain mental functions. It is fascinating to read about how one extract from cocoa, called lavado, can actually reduce the damage done to these vital pathways.

Results of a lab experiment, published in 2014, indicated that a cocoa extract, called lavado, might reduce or prevent damage to nerve pathways found in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. This extract could help slow symptoms such as cognitive decline.

14) It can help to lower your blood pressure

You may not know it but having the right amount of NO (Nitric Oxide) in your body can help your arteries to relax. That will, in turn help to take some of the pressure off them and the result is a lower BP count. Just another benefit of the dark chocolate flavanols which help to produce this vital Nitric Oxide.

15) It can also help you see better

University of Reading researchers were curious to see if dark chocolate flavanols could actually improve vision as they knew it certainly improved blood circulation in general. They decided to do a small experiment and gave two groups of volunteers some white and dark chocolate. The dark chocolate groups were doing better on vision tests afterwards.

16) It may help reduce fatigue

If you suffer from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome you should try adding chocolate to your daily diet. One group of sufferers were given a daily dose of chocolate for two months. They were less tired and the best news of all is that they did not put on any extra weight.

17) It may help to lower your Body Mass Index

There has been a lot of emphasis on how chocolate can actually reduce your BMI (Body Mass Index) which is how you measure up as regards your height versus your weight. One study took 1,000 Californians and they found that those who ate chocolate more often during the week had a lower BMI. Overall diet and exercise regimes were not factors which influenced this result.

18) It may help reduce your chances of getting cancer

As we have mentioned, the cocoa flavanols in dark chocolate have both anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. These are important in keeping the actions of free radicals at bay. As we know, these are the protagonists when cancer starts to invade cells.

19) It may help your cough

Another marvelous effect of the theobromine chemical in chocolate is that it can calm a troublesome cough. Manufacturers are looking at this to produce safer cough syrups instead of using codeine which has some undesirable side effects.

20) It may help with blood circulation

Normally you take an aspirin to help prevent blood clotting and to improve circulation. Studies now show that chocolate can have a similar effect.

Light vs. dark chocolate

Chocolate’s antioxidant potential may have a range of health benefits. The higher the cocoa content, as in dark chocolate, the more benefits there are. Dark chocolate may also contain less fat and sugar, but it is important to check the label.

Manufacturers of light, or milk, chocolate, claim their product is better for health because it contains milk, and milk provides protein and calcium. Supporters of dark chocolate point to the higher iron content and levels of antioxidants in their product.

How do the nutrients compare?

Here are some sample nutrient levels in light and dark chocolate,

Nutrient Light (100 g) Dark (100 g)
Energy 531 kcal 556 kcal
Protein 8.51 g 5.54 g
Carbohydrate 58 g 60.49 g
Fat 30.57 g 32.4 g
Sugars 54 g 47.56 g
Iron 0.91 mg 2.13 mg
Phosphorus 206 mg 51 mg
Potassium 438 mg 502 mg
Sodium 101 mg 6 mg
Calcium 251 mg 30 mg
Cholesterol 24 mg 5 mg

The darker the chocolate, the higher the concentration of cocoa, and so, in theory, the higher the level of antioxidants there will be in the bar.

However, nutrients vary widely in commercially available chocolate bars, depending on the brand and type you choose. It is best to check the label if you want to be sure of the nutrients.

Risks and precautions

More research is needed to confirm eating chocolate can really improve people’s health.  In addition, chocolate bars do not contain only cocoa. The benefits and risks of any other ingredients, such as sugar and fat, need to be considered.

Weight gain: Some studies suggest that chocolate consumption is linked to lower body mass index (BMI) and fatness. However, chocolate can have a high calorie count due to its sugar and fat content. Anyone who is trying to slim down or maintain their weight should limit their chocolate consumption and check the label of their favorite product.

Sugar content: The high sugar content of most chocolate can also be a cause of tooth decay.

Migraine risk: Some people may experience an increase in migraines when eating chocolate regularly due to cocoa’s tyramine, histamine, and phenylalanine content. However, research is mixed.

Bone health: There is some evidence that chocolate might cause poor bone structure and osteoporosis. The results of one study, published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found that older women who consumed chocolate every day had lower bone density and strength.

Heavy metals: Some cocoa powders, chocolate bars, and cacao nibs may contain high levels of cadmium and lead, which are toxic to the kidneys, bones, and other body tissues.

In 2017, Consumer Lab tested 43 chocolate products and found that nearly all cocoa powders contained more than 0.3 mcg cadmium per serving, the maximum amount recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Conclusion

All in all, eating chocolate can have both health benefits and risks. As with anything, moderation is key.  Research is continuing, and while experts have already found chocolate is good for the heart, circulation and brain, it has been suggested it may even greater benefit in such major heath challenges as autism, obesity and  diabetes.

If you are interested in speaking with a physician about the delicious benefits of chocolate or starting a workout to shed the unwanted effects of too much, find a doctor in the nation’s largest healthcare social ecosystem – HealthLynked.  Here, patients a connecting with physicians in unique ways to Improve HealthCare.

Ready to get Lynked?  Go to HealthLynked.com to sign up for Free!

 

Sources:

20 Health Benefits of Chocolate, Robert Locke

Health benefits and risks of chocolate, Natalie Butler, RD, LD

 

Is Workaholism Destroying Your Health and Your Career?

Our society is obsessed with the concept we all must be the best at what we do, and overworking or becoming a ‘workaholic’ sometimes seem the best means to achieving that goal. While researchers and psychologists have been arguing for decades about what constitutes “workaholism” and whether it is a disorder at all, the term started being thrown around in the 1970s.  Since then, mountains of evidence have piled up showing workaholics display many of the same characteristics as those addicted to drugs or alcohol, such as engaging in compulsive behaviors that are ultimately destructive.

Today, there are more ways to overwork yourself than ever, and few leaders will discourage it.  Surveys  consistently show at least one-third of Americans are chronically overworked. According to the current OECD Better Life Index, the United States ranks 30 out of 38 advanced nations in the category of “work-life balance”.  While refusing vacation time, eating lunch at your desk or never shutting off your work email might seem like smart ways to impress the boss, they also could have dire consequences for your health down the road.

The research is pretty cut and dry when it comes to the effects of workaholism on mental health. 32.7 percent of workaholics met ADHD criteria, compared to 12.7 percent of non-workaholics. 25.6 percent of workaholics met OCD criteria, compared to 8.7 percent of non-workaholics. 33.8 percent of workaholics met anxiety criteria, compared to 11.9 percent of non-workaholics. And 8.9 percent of workaholics met depression criteria, compared to 2.6 percent of non-workaholics.

Consider two more facts:

  • People who work eleven hours per day rather than eight have a 67% increased risk of developing heart disease.
  • Those who work more than 50 hours per week are three times more likely to develop an alcohol-abuse problem.

Those are some pretty damning numbers.   The problem is, workaholism is the rare mental health issue that can often have positive rewards in the short term — things like the praise of a happy boss or increased income. For these reasons, psychologist Bryan Robinson once called workaholism “the best-dressed mental health problem.”

So, if you’re trying to wean yourself off your work addiction but are just having a little difficulty, here are some things to keep in mind.

Not taking vacations hurts your career.

Almost three-quarters of American workers don’t use all their vacation time and less than half take the time to plan out their vacations each year, according to Project: Time Off –  sponsored by the U.S. Travel Association. As a result, they end up burning valuable time.

By forfeiting 658 million unused vacation days, workers cost the US economy an estimated $223 billion in total economic impact and 1.6 million jobs. That makes ditching vacation both one of the most costly and common ways Americans overwork themselves.

Workers that don’t take vacation were also found to be less productive and score lower on performance reviews.

According to a new study published in the Journal of Management, there is a significant difference between being engaged at work and being addicted to it. While the former is characterized by hard work because the employee is passionate about the job, the latter is often motivated by negative feelings like guilt, fear and compulsion.

Your brain needs breaks.

So, you are totally engaged, but do you leave time to take a much needed break or two during the day? Giving your brain some down time is essential to increasing productivity. A recent study found that the ideal work-to-break ratio should be 52 minutes of work followed by a 17-minute break.

The study is backed up by several others that have found giving your brain some time to relax and day dream increases productivity, problem-solving and creativity.

Eating lunch at your desk is bad for you.

For one, a lunch break is a perfect time to recharge your gray matter.  Also, the physical activity of getting up and away from your desk can help   improve productivity and stave off obesity.  A U.K. study found that people who ate more meals at work were more likely to be overweight.

What’s more, experts agree that grabbing lunch with co-workers and clients can be a great way to network and further your career.  It is also important to note skipping lunch altogether is maybe the worst thing you can do.

Constantly checking email wastes your life.

No matter what you tell yourself, constantly being on your work email isn’t helping your state of mind or your productivity. A 2012 study found  when workers were forced to take a five-day break from work email they  experienced less stress and became more efficient at completing work tasks. The hiatus even led to workers having “more natural, variable heart rates.”

Workers who answer emails late in to the evening were also more likely to be exhausted the next day and hence less engaged, two 2014 studies found.

You’re probably hurting your relationship.

Being addicted to work can cause serious rifts between partners in romantic relationships. Since workaholism can be thought of as being similar to substance addiction, workaholics often prioritize their job over their friends and family. For example, those addicted to work can leave a disproportionate amount of domestic duties to spouses who have a more balanced approach to their careers.

Marriages involving a workaholic are twice as likely to end in divorce, a 1999 study found. For those that stay together, the psychological damage can be considerable. Kids of workaholics have been found to experience greater levels of depression and anxiety than the children of alcoholics.

You can’t keep it up forever.

In short, workaholics burn out. What may begin as simply spending a few extra hours at the office every week can quickly spiral into much more destructive behavior because workaholics don’t take the time to give themselves a break, CNNMoney reports. All that nonstop activity can result in bad personal habits and ultimately lead to what one expert called “incapacitating ‘burnout.’”  What’s more, studies have shown that limiting workers to a 40-hour week is the best way to maintain long-term productivity.

It’s bad for your co-workers and employers.

Having workers who take on too much stress, as workaholics often do, isn’t just bad for the employee — it’s bad for companies and co-workers, too. Businesses lose an estimated $300 billion in productivity due to stress each year, according to the World Health Organization.

But that stress can also have collateral damage on co-workers. Since workaholics tend to be perfectionists, they can often put added , often unnecessary stress on their colleagues, according to experts.

And even worse for you.

In short, workaholism has been linked with a laundry list of disorders, including alcoholismsleep problems, heart disease, depression and anxiety, weight gainhigh blood pressure and even premature death.

Here are a few tips you can implement to begin a much healthier relationship with your work:

Make Relaxation Part of Your Day

Learning to work smarter, not longer, will increase productivity and help to eliminate the potential disastrous results from being overworked. Take a break for a few minutes at a time each day and relax periodically. You should relax by physically slowing down. Take deeper breaths, drink more water, take a walk outside. All of these things will help you to relax your body and your mind and will make you more productive.

Condense Your Workload

Give yourself a set amount of time to work each day and each week; then stick to it. You’ll find yourself becoming more productive during the time you actually work, because you have to get your stuff done faster. To help you stick with your new schedule, set appointments for 30 minutes after you’re supposed to be done. So, if you tell yourself you’re absolutely going to stop working at 5 p.m., set an appointment for 5:30 p.m. and stick to it. Make it a barber or beauty shop, or an appointment with your spouse or kids or workout partner. Whatever you do, stick to it.

Have Set Email and Social Media Times

Don’t allow yourself to be available to the world every minute of the day. Set times when you will check and respond to email. You really don’t need to be connected all the time. Now, take the time that you save from responding to email, and claim it by reducing your work hours. Also, now that you’re not being interrupted all the time, you can focus more.

Don’t Skip the Vacation

Taking the occasional vacation for a few days at a time can help you physically and emotionally recharge. If you can’t afford your dream vacation, more affordable mini vacations or stay-cations can be the answer. Take a day off to go hiking or sightseeing. Visit a relative within driving distance for the weekend. Pretend you’re a tourist in your own city and visit some attractions. Take the family camping.

Whatever your vacation idea, schedule it on your calendar and plan for it in advance. The payoff is greater balance between your personal and professional lives as well as delivering the emotional lift of something to look forward to. Your business will survive without you, so leave the laptop at home.

To avoid becoming one of the statistics from above, there are resources available for those who feel they may be losing the ability to balance their personal and work lives.   For example, Workaholics Anonymous is a 12-step program based on the one designed for recovering alcoholics. It’s just one of many ways people can learn to set clear boundaries between the office and the home, according to CNNMoney.

Finally, if you are looking for a health professional who might help you find a really great work life balance, you can find them using HealthLynked. It is the first of its kind medical network built as a social ecosystem with a Higher Purpose – Improving HealthCareGo to HealthLynked.com to sing up for free and find our additional resources on mental health information.

 

Why Being A Workaholic Is Awful For You AND Everyone Around You, Harry Bradford, Huffington Post

Being a Workaholic is Bad For Your Health, Scott And Heidi Shimberg, 28 May 2015

 

Why is it Important to Know My Family Health History?

Family Health History: Why It’s Important and What You Should Know
Why is it important to know my family history?

by Kimberly Holland

Family members share more than similar appearance. You may recognize that you have your father’s curly hair or your mother’s button nose. Thank goodness my kids got my wife’s food looks. What is not so easy to see is that your great-grandmother passed along an increased risk for both breast and ovarian cancer.

That’s why discovering and knowing your family health history is vitally important. Your medical history includes all the traits your family shares you can’t see. These traits may increase your risk for many hereditary conditions and diseases, including:

• cancer
• diabetes
• asthma
• heart disease and blood clots
• Alzheimer’s disease and dementia
• arthritis
• depression
• high blood pressure and high cholesterol

Whose history do I need?

The general rule for family health history is that more is better. First, you’ll want to focus on immediate family members who are related to you through blood. Start with your parents, siblings, and children. If they’re still alive, grandparents are another great place to start. They may know partial histories of many members of your family.

You can also gather information from your aunts and uncles, and other blood relatives. Once you move beyond this core circle of family, genetic makeups change so greatly that you may not be able to learn much about your own risk. Still, keep information handy for any family members you learn about during your search for medical history. It may be helpful down the road.

How can I gather this information?

Talking about health may not come naturally to you or your family. You can start the conversation by letting your family members know why you want to gather health information. Also, let them know that you’re willing to share information with them, so that you can all have more complete health histories. It may be easier to start out by having one-on-one conversations.

Get the right information

When you’re ready to gather family health history information, keep these things in mind:

Major medical issues: Ask about every major medical issue anyone in close relation to you has been diagnosed with. In this fact-finding stage, nothing is too small, though issues are only significant if the cause was genetic. Lyme disease, injuries, and other things caused by external factors can’t be inherited.
Causes of death: Find out the cause of death for any family members who’ve passed away. That might provide a clue to your family medical history, too.
Age of onset: Ask when each family member was diagnosed with each condition. This may help your doctor recognize the early onset of certain diseases.
Ethnic background: Different ethnicities have varying levels of risk for certain conditions. As best you can, identify your ethnic background to help spot potential health risks.
Environment: Families share common genes, but they also share common environments, habits, and behaviors. A complete family history also includes understanding what factors in your environment could impact your health.

5 questions to ask

Here are some questions you can ask to start the conversation:

  1. How old was my relative when they died, and what was the cause of death?
  2. Are there health problems that run in the family?
  3. Is there a history of pregnancy loss or birth defects in my family?
  4. What allergies do people in my family have?
  5. What is my ethnicity? (Some conditions are common among certain ethnicities.)

What should I do with this information?

Knowing your own health history is important, and sharing it with your doctor may be more important. That’s because your doctor can help you interpret what it means for your current lifestyle, suggest prevention tips, and decide on screening or testing options for conditions you may be more at risk for developing.

The genes you’re born with can’t be changed or altered. If you know your family history, you’re one step ahead of the game. You can take the initiative to adopt healthier lifestyle habits. For example, you could decide to stop smoking or drinking alcohol, or to start exercising regularly and maintaining a healthy weight. These lifestyle changes may reduce your chances for developing hereditary conditions.

Is incomplete information still useful?

Even a family health history that’s incomplete is still useful to your doctor. Share any information you have with them.

For example, if you know that your sibling was diagnosed with colon cancer at age 35, your doctor may suspect a possible genetic issue. They may then decide it’s important that you have regular colon cancer screenings before the recommended age of 50. Your doctor may also suggest you undergo genetic counseling or testing to identify any genetic risks.

What if I was adopted

Environment plays an important part in your health history, and you can get the details for this from your adoptive family. Learning more about your birth family’s health history may require a large investment of time and energy.

Ask your adoptive parents if they have any information about your birth parents. It’s possible family health history information was shared during the adoption process. If not, ask the agency that arranged the adoption if they retained any personal health history information for your birth parents. Understand your state’s statutes before you begin requesting adoption history information.

If all of these avenues come up short, you may need to make a choice about seeking out your birth parents. You may not wish to pursue that route, or you may be unable to connect with them. In that case, alert your doctor to your personal history. The two of you can then work to identify ways to screen for and detect your risk of certain conditions.

What if I’m estranged from my family?

If you’re estranged from only part of your family, you can try a few things to collect your family health history:

Talk to the family members you’re connected with. You may not need to reconnect with your whole family to collect your family health history.
Reach out via your doctor. Some medical offices may be able to send out questionnaires to family members asking for information in an official capacity. This may prompt people to respond.

Do some research. You may be able to discover the cause of death of your relatives from death certificates. Search online to find state-specific death records or check ancestry sites for this information. Obituaries, often available online or archived by public libraries, might also provide health information.

What about genetic testing and genetic predisposition?

Certain ethnic backgrounds and races may be predisposed to conditions for which a genetic test is useful. For example, women of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry have an increased risk for breast cancer. A specific gene mutation is more common in these women than in other women. Genetic screening may help your doctor detect this gene mutation and prepare you for treatment options early.

Although genetic tests can help identify potential risks you may have inherited for a specific disease, they don’t guarantee you’ll develop that disease. Results may show you have a predisposition to several conditions. While you may never actually develop any of these, you might feel the added anxiety isn’t worth the knowledge. Seriously consider the benefits and concerns you may have with knowing your genetic risk factors before you do any testing.

How do I record the details?

Make sure you write down or electronically document the health information your relatives provide. You can use HealthLynked for this. Just complete one profile per family member whose medical records you are responsible for and have other family members complete and share their own with you.

Outlook

Knowing your health history helps you to be more proactive about your health. Share this information with your doctor so they can screen early for conditions you’re predisposed to and suggest lifestyle choices that can help reduce your risk.



Also talk to your doctor if you need more help figuring out how to uncover your health history or what questions you should ask. If you don’t have one you depend on today, you might find a great physician using the first of its kind social ecosystem designed specifically for everything described in the article.

Ready to get Lynked? Go to HealthLynked.com now to start compiling your medical history and sharing with those you choose, for Free, today!

Source

 

UV Exposure: Why Do We Ignore the Health Risks?

 

Published Thursday 17 July 2014

By Honor Whiteman

The sun is shining, so what are your plans? For many of us, the answer will be to hit the beach and soak up the rays. But while you are busy packing beachwear and towels, are you considering the dangers of sun exposure?

Exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation – from the sun, tanning beds, lamps or booths – is the main cause of skin cancer, accounting for around 86% of non-melanoma and 90% of melanoma skin cancers. In addition, excessive UV exposure can increase the risk of eye diseases, such as cataract and eye cancers.

The health risks associated with exposure to UV radiation have certainly been well documented, so much so that the World Health Organization (WHO) have now officially classed UV radiation as a human carcinogen.

This year alone, Medical News Today reported on an array of studies warning of UV exposure risks. One study, published in the journal Pediatrics, revealed that tanning bed use among youths can increase the risk of early skin cancer, while other research found that multiple sunburns as an adolescent can increase melanoma risk by 80%.

Furthermore, in response to reported health risks, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently changed their regulation of tanning beds, lamps and booths. Such products must now carry a visible, black-box warning stating that they should not be used by anyone under the age of 18.

How does UV radiation cause damage?

UV radiation consists of three different wavebands: UVA, UVB and UVC. The UVC waveband is the highest-energy UV but has the shortest wavelength, meaning it does not reach the earth’s surface and does not cause skin damage to humans.

However, UVA has a long wavelength and accounts for 95% of solar UV radiation that reaches the earth’s surface, while UVB – with a middle-range wavelength – accounts for the remainder. Tanning beds and tanning lamps primarily emit UVA radiation, sometimes at doses up to 12 times higher than that of the sun.

Both UVA and UVB radiation can damage the skin by penetrating its layers and destroying cellular DNA. UVA radiation tends to penetrate deeper layers of skin, known as the dermis, aging the skin cells and causing wrinkles. UVB radiation is the main cause of skin reddening or sunburn, as it damages the outer layers of the skin, known as the epidermis.

Excessive UV exposure can cause genetic mutations that can lead to the development of skin cancer. The browning of the skin, or a tan, is the skin’s way of trying to stop further DNA damage from occurring.

Of course, it is not only the skin that can be subject to damage from UV radiation. Bright sunlight can penetrate the eye’s surfaces tissues, as well as the cornea and the lens.

Ignoring the risks of UV exposure

But regardless of the numerous studies and health warnings associated with UV exposure, it seems many of us refuse to take note.

A 2012 survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 50.1% of all adults and 65.6% of white adults ages 18-29 reported suffering sunburn in the past 12 months, indicating that sun protection measures are not followed correctly, if at all.

A more recent study from the University of California-San Francisco stated that the popularity of indoor tanning is “alarming” – particularly among young people.

The study revealed that 35% of adults had been exposed to indoor tanning, with 14% reporting tanning bed use in the past year. Even more of a concern was that 43% of university students and 18% of adolescents reported using tanning beds in the past year.

Overall rates of tanning bed use, the researchers estimate, may lead to an additional 450,000 non-melanoma and 10,000 melanoma skin cancer cases every year.

It seems unbelievable that so many of us are willing to put our health at risk to soak up some sunshine. So why do we do it?

The desire for a ‘healthy tan’

A recent study published in the journal Cell suggested that UV radiation causes the body to release endorphins – “feel-good” hormones – which makes sun exposure addictive.

But Tim Turnham, executive director of the Melanoma Research Foundation, told Medical News Today that many people simply favor a tanned body over health:

“Despite elevated awareness of the dangers of UV radiation, people still choose to ignore the dangers in the pursuit of what they consider to be a ‘healthy tan.’ This is particularly an issue among young people who tend to ignore health risks in favor of enhancing their social status and popularity. We know that tanning appeals to people who are interested in being included, and this is a primary driver for teens – being part of the ‘in’ crowd.”

Anita Blankenship, health communication specialist at the CDC, told us that the desire for a tan is particularly common among young women.

“In the US, nearly 1 in 3 young white women ages 16-25 years engages in indoor tanning each year,” she said. “These young women may experience pressure to conform to beauty standards, and young people may not be as concerned about health risks.”

Turnham agreed, telling us that the indoor tanning industry specifically targets this population. “Aggressive marketing, deep discount and package deals are used routinely by tanning salons, who market their services preferentially to young women,” he said.

Blankenship added that the public are also presented with “conflicting messages” when it comes to the safety of excess UV exposure. She pointed out that a recent US report found that only 7% of tanning salons reported any harmful effects from tanning beds, booths or lamps, while 78% reported health benefits.

“It is important to monitor deceptive health and safety claims about UV exposure, as they may make it difficult for consumers to adequately assess risk,” she told us. “It is important for people to understand that tanned skin is damaged skin, and that damage can lead to wrinkles and early aging of the skin, as well as skin cancer including melanoma – the kind of skin cancer that leads to the most deaths.”

Progress has been made, but more needs to be done

This month is UV Safety Month – an annual campaign that aims to increase public awareness of the health implications caused by UV exposure.

With the help of such campaigns and an increase in studies detailing UV risks, many health care professionals believe there has been a change for the better in attitudes toward UV exposure.

Many health care professionals believe much progress has been made in increasing awareness of UV exposure risks in recent years, but more needs to be done.

“Certainly the scientific community, a number of federal agencies, and possibly the general public are more aware of the risk of UV exposure,” a spokesperson from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) told Medical News Today.

“Action and more coordinated efforts increased markedly about 4 years ago, when a number of epidemiological studies documented the harms of indoor tanning, the FDA held their scientific advisory committee meeting to discuss need for changing indoor tanning device regulations, and they also acted on their previous proposals to change sunscreen regulations.”

The spokesperson continued:

“We think these summaries acted as a catalyst for efforts to make the public and policy makers aware of the risks of indoor tanning, and also they gave a boost to efforts to increase awareness of outdoor sun exposure risks and encourage sun safe protective behaviors.”

In addition, some studies have indicated that many youngsters may even be moving away from the use of tanning beds. A recent Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that among high school students, indoor tanning activity decreased from 15.6% in 2009 to 12.8% in 2013.

Turnham told us that since sunless tanning – such as the use of spray tans – is on the increase, it may be that youngsters are using this as an alternative to tanning salons. But the NCI spokesperson said such an association needs to be investigated before any conclusions can be reached:

“We do not know if changes in indoor tanning are related to increases in use of spray-on and sunless tanning products and services,” they told us. “Some studies indicate that sunless products and services are used by people who continue to engage in indoor tanning, but it is an area we continue to research. We are hopeful that we will be able to measure this in an upcoming national survey supplement that is being developed by NCI and CDC.”

But despite widespread efforts to increase UV safety awareness, Turnham believes there is still a lot more that can be done to protect public health:

“Regulators could and should do much more to fight the ravages of UV exposure. We need federal legislation banning the use of tanning beds by minors. We need more funding for awareness and prevention efforts.”

He added that doctors can also play a role in increasing UV exposure awareness by warning patients of associated risks – something the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommend. They state that health care providers should counsel fair-skinned youths between the ages of 10 and 24 about the risks of indoor tanning and how to protect themselves against UV radiation from the sun.

However, Turnham noted that doctors do not have much time with each patient and proposes that signage in waiting areas warning of the risks of UV exposure may also be effective.

Protecting against UV radiation

Whether there will be further regulation for indoor tanning or an increase in awareness efforts is unclear. But one thing is certain: we can help ourselves to avoid the negative health implications associated with UV exposure.

The American Cancer Society notes young children need extra protection from the sun, as they spend more time outside and can burn easily.

The CDC recommend the following for protecting against UV radiation:

  • Stay in the shade if possible, particularly when the sun is at its strongest – usually around midday
  • Wear clothing that covers your arms and legs
  • Wear a wide-brimmed hat that provides shade for your head, face, ears and neck
  • Wear wrap-around sunglasses that protect against both UVA and UVB radiation
  • Use sunscreen with a minimum sun protection factor (SPF) of 15 that protects against UVA and UVB radiation, and reapply every 2 hours
  • Avoid indoor tanning.

In addition, the American Cancer Society notes young children need extra protection from the sun as they spend more time outside and can burn easily. They add that babies younger than 6 months should be kept out of direct sunlight and be covered with protective clothing. Sunscreen should never be used on an infants skin.

As  we embark on the glorious, sunny days of the summer season and enter into the Fourth of July Celebration, let’s do all we can to protect ourselves and our little ones from UV rays’ potential threats to our skin. Remember, UV rays are the major causes of several deadly skin cancers and sunscreen is one of the most easy and accessible ways to protect against them. So, get out those sunscreen tubes and cover your head with a hat and your eyes with some shades because sun protection is trending today and everyday!

And, if you do find an odd spot on your body’s biggest organ, you can use HealthLynked to find a great physician near you and get the help you need.  Simply go to HealthLynked.com and sign up for free, then Connect and collaborate through HealthLynked to heal your skin!

 

Genes linked with sunburn, skin cancer risk

 

May 8, 2018

Certain genes can determine which people are more at risk of getting sunburn and possibly develop skin cancer as a result..

In a trawl of the genetics of nearly 180,000 people of European ancestry in Britain, Australia, the Netherlands and United States, researchers found 20 sunburn genes.

Eight of the genes had been associated with skin cancer in previous research, according to findings published in the journal Nature Communications.

And in at least one region of the genome, “we have found evidence to suggest that the gene involved in melanoma risk… acts through increasing susceptibility to sunburns,” co-author Mario Falchi of King’s College London told AFP.

Sun exposure is critical for the body’s production of vitamin D, which keeps bones, teeth, and muscles healthy, and which scientists say may help stave off chronic diseases, even cancer.

But too much can be painful in the short-term, and dangerous for your health.

The new study, which claims to be the largest to date into the genetics of sunburn, helps explain why people with the same skin tone can have such different reactions to exposure to sunlight—some burn red while others tan brown.

It may also begin to explain factors in skin cancer risk.
“It is necessary to explore these genes in more detail, to understand the mechanism by which they contribute to propensity to burn,” said Falchi.

In future, the research may help identify people at risk, through genetic testing.

“People tend to ‘forget’ that sunburns are quite dangerous,” said Falchi.

“Given the rise in incidence in skin cancer, we hope that knowing there is a genetic link between sunburn and skin cancer may help in encouraging people to lead a healthy lifestyle.”

More information: Genome-wide association study in 176,678 Europeans reveals genetic loci for tanning response to sun exposure, Nature Communications (2018).
nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/s41467-018-04086-y
Journal reference: Nature Communications

Millennials aren’t getting the message about sun safety and the dangers of tanning

Many millennials lack knowledge about the importance of sunscreen and continue to tan outdoors in part because of low self-esteem and high rates of narcissism that fuel addictive tanning behavior, a new study from Oregon State University-Cascades has found.

Lead author Amy Watson and her colleagues found that those with higher levels of self-esteem were less likely to tan, while those with lower self-esteem and higher levels of narcissism were more likely to present addictive tanning behavior. The motivation for the addictive tanning behavior was the perception of improved appearance.

“This study gives us a clearer understanding of actual consumer behavior,” said Watson, an assistant professor of marketing at OSU-Cascades. “The number of people still deliberately exposing their skin to the sun for tanning purposes is alarming. We need to find new ways to entice people to protect their skin, including challenging the ideal of tan skin as a standard of beauty.”

The findings were published recently in the Journal of Consumer Affairs. Co-authors are Gail Zank and Anna M. Turri of Texas State University.

Skin cancer is the most common type of cancer worldwide, with more than 3.5 million cases diagnosed annually. Melanoma cases among women rose sharply between 1970 and 2009, with an 800 percent increase among women 18 to 39.

In an effort to improve consumer education about the role of sunscreen in the prevention of skin cancer, the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration developed a new “Drug Facts” panel of information now required on all sunscreen bottles. The panel includes directions for sunscreen use and advice on other sun protection measures, among other information.

The researchers’ goal with the study was to gauge whether the information on this new label is effective at curbing tanning behavior and if new information is helping to increase consumer knowledge about how and when to use sunscreen and how much to use.

The study of 250 college students, most between 18 and 23 years old, measured their sun safety knowledge and included: questions about their beliefs regarding sunscreen effectiveness and ultraviolet light exposure danger; questions about tanning motivation and behavior; an assessment of tanning addiction; and personality questions relating to self-esteem, narcissism, appearance and addictive behavior.

The study participants, 47 percent male and 53 percent female, scored an average of 54 percent on an 11-question sun safety knowledge test, which included true/false statements such as: “On a daily basis I should use at least one ounce of sunscreen on exposed skin” (true); and “When applied correctly, SPF 100 is twice as effective as SPF 50” (false).

About 70 percent of the study participants reported purposefully exposing their skin to the sun to achieve a tan. About a third of the participants reported that having a tan is important to them, while about 37 percent said they feel better with a tan, and 41 percent indicated that having a tan makes them more confident in their appearance

The participants’ levels of tanning addiction were measured through questions such as “I get annoyed when people tell me not to tan,” and “I continue to tan knowing that it is bad for me,” and “I feel unattractive or anxious to tan if I do not maintain my tan.”

The researchers found that those with lower self-esteem and higher narcissism rates were also more likely to exhibit addictive tanning behavior. They found no evidence that increased knowledge about sun safety leads to lower levels of addictive tanning.

“What we found is that this knowledge doesn’t matter to the consumers,” Watson said. “That tactic to require sunscreen manufacturers to include this information is not effective.”

Sun safety and sunscreen messaging from the CDC is all statistics-based, emphasizing the likelihood of a skin cancer occurrence or diagnosis, Watson said. But that type of message isn’t resonating with millennials. The next step for Watson and her colleagues is to begin testing other types of messages to identify ways millennials would respond more positively to sun safety measures.

“People are starting to get the message about the dangers of using tanning beds, but a large number of people are still tanning outdoors, deliberately exposing their skin to the sun, because they think it’s attractive,” she said.

“We need to move away from the narrative where tan skin is associated with health and youth. That’s the opposite of reality. Because reality is tan skin is damaged skin.”

More information: Amy Watson et al, I Know, but I Would Rather Be Beautiful: The Impact of Self-Esteem, Narcissism, and Knowledge on Addictive Tanning Behavior in Millennials, Journal of Consumer Affairs (2018). DOI: 10.1111/joca.12179
Provided by: Oregon State University

Here comes the sun, and kid sun safety

(HealthDay)—Summer sun brings childhood fun, but experts warn it also brings skin cancer dangers, even for kids.

“Don’t assume children cannot get skin cancer because of their age,” said Dr. Alberto Pappo, director of the solid tumor division at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn. “Unlike other cancers, the conventional melanoma that we see mostly in adolescents behaves the same as it does in adults.”

His advice: “Children are not immune from extreme sun damage, and parents should start sun protection early and make it a habit for life.”

So, this and every summer, parents should take steps to shield kids from the sun’s harmful UV rays.

Those steps include:

* Avoid exposure. Infants and children younger than 6 months old should avoid sun exposure entirely, Pappo advised. If these babies are outside or on the beach this summer, they should be covered up with hats and appropriate clothing. It’s also a good idea to avoid being outside when UV rays are at their peak, between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.

* Use sunscreen. It’s important to apply a broad-spectrum sunscreen to children’s exposed skin. Choose one with at least SPF15 that protects against both UVA and UVB rays. Pappo cautioned that sunscreen needs to be reapplied every couple of hours and after swimming—even if the label says it is “water-resistant.”

However, sunscreen should not be used on infants younger than 6 months old because their exposure to the chemicals in these products would be too high, he noted.

* Keep kids away from tanning beds. Melanoma rates are rising among teenagers, partly due to their use of indoor tanning beds. Use of tanning beds by people younger than 30 boosts their risk for this deadly form of cancer by 75 percent, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

* Get children screened. Early detection of melanoma is key to increasing patients’ odds of survival. Children with suspicious moles or skin lesions should be seen by a doctor as soon as possible, Pappo advised. Removing melanoma in its early stages also increases the chances of avoiding more invasive surgical procedures later on, he added.

More information: There are more sun-safety tips at the Skin Cancer Foundation.

The Beat Goes On | Heart Transplants Still a Marvel of Modern Medicine

On this day in 2001, a petite 44-year-old woman received a successful heart transplant at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, thanks to an experimental Total Artificial Heart designed for smaller patients.

The UCLA patient was the first person in California to receive the smaller Total Artificial Heart, and the first patient in the world with the device to be bridged to a successful heart transplant — that is, to go from needing a transplant to receiving one.

The 50cc SynCardia temporary Total Artificial Heart is a smaller investigational version of the larger 70cc SynCardia heart, which was approved for use in people awaiting a transplant by the Federal Food and Drug Administration in 2004 and has been used by more than 1,440 patients worldwide.

The 50cc device is designed to be used by smaller patients — including most women, some men and many adolescents — with end-stage biventricular heart failure, where both sides of the heart are failing to pump enough blood to sustain the body. The device provides mechanical support until a donor heart can be found

Nemah Kahala, a wife and mother of five, was transferred to UCLA from Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center in March.  She was suffering from restrictive heart muscle disease and in critical condition.  Her heart failure was so advanced that repair surgery and other mechanical assist devices could not help.

Kahala was placed on a life support system called extra corporal membrane oxygenation, but this only works for about 10 days before a person’s organs begin to deteriorate.

With the clock ticking, doctors needed to buy time by replacing Kahala’s failing heart with an artificial heart while she waited for a heart transplant.  Her chest cavity was too small for her to receive the larger 70cc artificial heart.  However, under a one-time emergency use permitted under FDA guidelines, her doctors were able to implant the experimental 50cc device.

“Mrs. Kahala’s condition was deteriorating so rapidly that she would have not survived while waiting for a transplant,” said her surgeon, Dr. Abbas Ardehali, a professor of cardiothoracic surgery and director of the UCLA Heart and Lung Transplant Program. “We were grateful to have this experimental technology available to save her life and help bridge her to a donor heart.”

The artificial heart provides an immediate and safe flow of blood to help vital organs recover faster and make patients better transplant candidates.

After the two-hour surgery to implant the artificial heart, Kahala remained hospitalized in the intensive care unit and eventually began daily physical therapy to help make her stronger for transplant surgery.

Two weeks after the total artificial heart surgery, she was strong enough to be placed on the heart transplant list.  After a week of waiting, a donor heart was found.

“In addition to the high-tech medicine that kept her alive, Mrs. Kahala and her family exemplified how a solid support system that includes loved ones and a compassionate medical team practicing what we at UCLA have termed ‘Relational Medicine’ plays an important role in surviving a medical crisis,” said Dr. Mario Deng, professor of medicine and medical director of the Advanced Heart Failure, Mechanical Support and Heart Transplant program at UCLA.

Kahala was discharged from UCLA on April 18.

Since 2012, the UCLA Heart Transplant Program has implanted eight 70cc SynCardia Total Artificial Hearts. UCLA also participated in the clinical study of a 13.5-pound Freedom portable driver — a backpack-sized device that powers the artificial heart, allowing the patient to leave the hospital — that received FDA approval on June 26, 2014.

The FDA cautions that in the United States, the 50cc SynCardia temporary Total Artificial Heart is an investigational device, limited by United States law to investigational use.  The 50cc TAH is in an FDA-approved clinical study.

First Fully Contained Artificial Heart

On the same day, a patient was implanted with the world’s first self-contained mechanical heart after a 7-hour operation, a hospital in Louisville, Kentucky. The procedure was the first major advance in the development of an artificial replacement heart in nearly two decades.

The device, created by Danvers, Massachusetts-based Abiomed Inc., replaces the lower chambers of a patient’s failing heart with a plastic-and-metal motorized hydraulic pump which weighs 2 pounds (1 kg) and is about the size of a grapefruit.

It was the first artificial heart to be free of wires connecting it to the outside.

“This is the first time this has ever been done,” said Kathy Keadle, a spokeswoman at Jewish Hospital where the procedure was performed by University of Louisville surgeons Laman Gray and

Neither Abiomed nor hospital officials would disclose the name, sex or gender of the patients, all of whom are seriously ill.  The long-awaited surgery had been expected by June 30 but was delayed because the company had not completed patient screening.

Abiomed got U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval in February’s 2001 to test the device on as many as 15 patients, all of whom are too ill to be candidates for a heart transplant.  Unlike existing devices, which serve as a temporary solution to extend a patient’s life until a patient can secure a donor heart, the AbioCor heart is designed to be a fully functioning replacement heart.

The trial involved severely ill patients with less than 30 days to live, said John Thero, vice president and chief financial officer of Abiomed.

“This is not a bridge to transplant. There is a scarcity of donor hearts available,” Thero said in a telephone interview. “We are starting with patients who are at the ends of their lives. They are not candidates for transplant and are near death. Our goal is to provide them with a reasonable quality of life and an extension of life.”

Thero said the current candidates had a life expectancy of two months. “While the device is designed to eventually go much longer, if we were able to double someone’s life expectancy, we would be very pleased,” he said.

The 40,000 patients awaiting heart transplants far outnumber the number of hearts available, and a successful mechanical heart could fill a huge need.

Earlier versions of the artificial heart were bulky and provided limited benefit to patients.  In 1982, Dr. Barney Clark, 61, of Salt Lake City, Utah, received the first permanent artificial heart, known as Jarvik-7. He was bound to his bed by protruding cables, tubes and a noisy box-like air compressor during the 112 days that he survived with the artificial heart.

With the Jarvik-7 and other “bridge devices,” the outside connectors leave patients exposed to infection.  The AbioCor contains a small electric motor attached to an implanted battery and is designed to last for years. Patients could wear a battery pack or plug into an electrical outlet to recharge the heart’s battery.

A Brief History of Heart Transplant

Long before human-to-human transplantation was ever imagined by the public, scientists were conducting pioneering medical and surgical research that would eventually lead to today’s transplantation successes. From the late 1700s until the early 1900s, the field of immunology was slowly evolving through the works of numerous independent scientists. Among the notable breakthroughs were Ehrlich’s discovery of antibodies and antigens, Lansteiner’s blood typing, and Metchnikoff’s theory of host resistance.

Because of advances in suturing techniques at the end of the 19th century, surgeons began to transplant organs in their lab research. At the start of the 20th century, enough experimentation had taken place to know that xenographic (cross species) transplants invariably failed, allogenic transplants (between individuals of same species) usually failed, while autografts (within the same individual, generally skin grafts) were almost always successful. It was also understood that repeat transplants between same donor and recipient experienced accelerated rejection, and that graft success was more likely when the donor and recipient shared a “blood relationship.”

Alexis Carrel was a French surgeon and Nobel laureate whose experiments involved sustaining life in animal organs outside the body. He received the 1912 Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology for his technique for suturing blood vessels. In the 1930s, he collaborated with the aviator Charles Lindbergh to invent a mechanical heart that circulated vital fluids through excised organs. Various organs and animal tissues were kept alive for many years in this fashion.

Throughout the 1940s and 50s, small but steady research advances were made. In 1958, Dickinson Richards, MD, chairman of the Columbia University Medical Division, and Andre Cournaud were awarded the same Nobel Prize for their work leading to fuller understanding of the physiology of the human heart using cardiac catheterization.

In that same year, Keith Reemtsma, MD, a member of the faculty of Tulane University who later became chairman of the Department of Surgery at Columbia University Medical Center, showed for the first time that immunosuppressive agents would prolong heart transplant survival in the laboratory setting.

At this time, Norman Shumway, MD, Richard Lower, MD, and their associates at Stanford University Medical Center were embarking on the development of heart-lung machines, solving perfusion issues, and pioneering surgical procedures to correct heart valve defects. Key to their success was experimentation with “topical hypothermia,” the localized hyper-cooling of the heart which allowed the interruption of blood flow and gave the surgeons the proper blood-free environment and adequate time to perform the repairs. Next came “autotransplantation,” where the heart would be excised and resutured in place.

By the mid-1960s, the Shumway group was convinced that immunologic rejection was the only remaining obstacle to successful clinical heart transplantation. In 1967, Michael DeBakey, MD, implanted an artificial left ventricle device of his design in a patient at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

In 1967, a human heart from one person was transplanted into the body of another by a South African surgeon named Dr. Christiaan Barnard in Cape Town. In early December, Dr. Barnard’s surgical team removed the heart of a 25-year-old woman who had died following an auto accident and placed it in the chest of Louis Washkansky, a 55-year-old man dying of heart damage. The patient survived for 18 days. Dr. Barnard had learned much of his technique from studying with the Stanford group. This first clinical heart transplantation experience stimulated world-wide notoriety, and many surgeons quickly co-opted the procedure. However, because many patients were dying soon after, the number of heart transplants dropped from 100 in 1968, to just 18 in 1970. It was recognized that the major problem was the body’s natural tendency to reject the new tissues.

Over the next 20 years, important advances in tissue typing and immunosuppressant drugs allowed more transplant operations to take place and increased patients’ survival rates. The most notable development in this area was Jean Borel’s discovery of cyclosporine, an immunosuppressant drug derived from soil fungus, in the mid 1970s.

The cardiac transplant program at Columbia University Medical Center began in 1971 as part of an investigational surgery program initiated by Dr. Keith Reemtsma. At that time, Columbia University Medical Center was one of only a handful of medical centers in the nation actively engaged in cardiac transplant research. Columbia University Medical Center’s first cardiac transplant was performed by Dr. Reemtsma in 1977, when survival rates had begun to improve significantly. That patient survived for 14 months. Two additional transplants were performed that year. Initially Columbia University Medical Center accepted patients deemed too risky for transplantation by Stanford and the Medical College of Virginia, the only other medical centers in the country performing heart transplants.

Thanks to the persistence of pioneers in immunosuppression research, transplant patients have dramatically expanded life expectancies. The first immunosuppressant drugs used in organ transplantation were the corticosteroids. In 1983, Columbia University Medical Center became one of a small group of medical centers to initiate clinical trials of cyclosporine; approved for commercial use in November of that year, it is still the most commonly prescribed immunosuppressant used in organ transplantation. General information on the variety of medications that may be prescribed for you is found in the chapter on Medications in the section Care and Concerns after Your Operation.

In 1984, the world’s first successful pediatric heart transplant was performed at Columbia on a four-year-old boy. He received a second transplant in 1989 and lived until he succumbed to other health issues in 2006.

Also, in 1984, in Loma Linda, California, Leonard Bailey, MD, implanted a baboon heart into a 12-day-old girl who came to be known as “Baby Fae.” The infant survived for twenty days as the most famous recipient of xenographic transplantation. Throughout the decade of the 1980s and into the 90s, physicians continue to refine techniques for balancing dosages of immunosuppressant medications to protect the new heart yet allow the patient sufficient immunologic function to stave off infection. In 1994 a new drug, tacrolimus or FK-506, originally discovered in a fungus sample, was approved for immunosuppression in transplant patients. Newer formulations of cyclosporine now enable efficacy (effectiveness) at lower, less toxic dosages.

While research on transplantation issues continues, other techniques for the management and cure of heart disease are also under development. Some future directions include:

Coronary assist devices and mechanical hearts are being developed or perfected to perform the functions of live tissues. Artificial hearts have been under development since the 1950s. In 1966, Dr. DeBakey first successfully implanted a booster pump as a temporary assist device. Columbia’s cardiac surgeons have been instrumental in the development of a LVAD (left ventricular assist device) to function as a bridge-to-transplantation for those waiting for a new heart to become available. Columbia University Medical Center’s lead role in the REMATCH clinical trial helped to lead to approval for the the LVAD as a permanent, or destination, therapy as well.

In 1969, Dr. Denton Cooley implanted the first completely artificial heart in a human, again on a temporary basis. The first permanent artificial heart, designed by Dr. Robert Jarvik, was implanted in 1982. Numbers of patients have received Jarvik or other artificial hearts since, but surviving recipients have tended to suffer strokes and related problems.

There is a tremendous gap in the number of patients waiting for new hearts and the number of organs that actually become available. In addition to avoiding the immunosuppression and rejection complications of transplantation, success in clinical application of such mechanical devices can help resolve the issue of organ availability and thus, stakes are high to continue research in this arena.

Advances in immunosuppression have most recently involved the development and expanded use of polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies to counteract steroid-resistant rejection. Research continues into the management, reversal and avoidance of accelerated atherosclerosis in the transplanted heart, believed to be caused or aggravated by the required suppression of the body’s normal immunology. From the development of more powerful and specific immunosuppressants to new treatments for accelerated graft atherosclerosis, advances in the science of immunology appear to hold the key to expanding the success of heart transplantation in our treatment of end-stage cardiac disease.

If your ticker needs an update, or you are just feeling a little BLAH, go to HealthLynked.com to find the right physician for you.  We are the world’s first every healthcare ecosystem designed to connect physicians to patients in unique ways for the efficient exchange of information.

Transplant the old ways of finding and sharing with your doctor.  Restore great relational medicine.  Go to Healthlynked.com today and sign up for free!

Sources

UCLAnewsroom.edu

Wired.com

Columbiasurgery.org

Title:  The Beat Goes On | Heart Transplants a Marvel of Modern Medicine

 

#heart,#transplant,#immunosuppression

 

Relativity, Radiology and 6 Things You May not Know About Einstein

More than any other profession, radiologists and radiologic technologists put theoretical quantum physics to practical use Improving the health and lives of their patients. Although quantum light theory can explain everything from the tiniest subatomic particles to immense galaxy-devouring black holes, radiologists apply this technology at the human level to diagnose and treat disease and thus alleviate human suffering.

More than 100 years ago in 1895, Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen discovered a form of radiation which had strange new properties. These new rays were so unique and mysterious that he named them “X-rays”, for the unknown. Although often described as a fortuitous discovery, chance favors the prepared mind, and Roentgen’s astute observations back then are still accurate today.

X-rays

6 Things You May not Know About Einstein
Digital portrait of Wilhelm Roentgen holding a cathode ray tube. Image by Mark Hom
  • transmit in complete darkness
  • invisible to the human eye
  • originate from a cathode ray tube
  • expose covered photographic plates
  • diminish in intensity following the inverse square law of light emission
  • soft tissues appear trans­parent, but metal and bone appear opaque.
  • transparency of intervening objects depends on their molecular density and thickness
  • not reflected by mirrors nor deflected by glass prisms
  • travel at a constant speed – the speed of light
  • share some properties with visible light, yet also have uniquely different properties

For the very first time, doctors (without using a scalpel) could see beyond the skin surface of their patients and peer deep inside the human body. It was later found that X-rays were a form of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths shorter and with energies greater than visible light.

Subsequent research into particle theory by Albert Einstein and others led to the physics principles that not only laid the groundwork for state-of-the-art medical imaging but also changed the understanding of our entire universe, from the mechanics of the atom to the largest objects in the universe. In 1901, Roentgen received the very first Nobel Prize awarded in physics, an indication that his discovery of a form of invisible light was the beginning of a remarkable scientific journey.

Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity soon followed and would explain the space time continuum and the equivalence of mass and energy. Throughout his brilliant career, Einstein was fascinated and preoccupied with the strange properties of light. Einstein once said, “For the rest of my life I will reflect on what light is.”

His concept of special relativity came to him when he was riding his bicycle towards a lamp post. He realized that the speed of light was the only constant for all observers and that the classic Newtonian measurements of mass, distance, and time were all subject to change at velocities approaching the speed of light. Einstein’s relativity means that the science fiction adventures of galaxy-hopping space travel in Star Trek and Star Wars are mere fantasy. The vast distances of space and the universal speed limit of light make intergalactic travel too impractical. If a hypothetical space craft approaches the speed of light, time slows, length compresses, the mass of the space craft increases, and impossibly high amounts of energy are required. At a certain point, the space craft stops accelerating, despite greater and greater energy input.

A result of Einstein’s special theory of relativity has been called the most famous equation in all of science. Energy (E) equals mass (m) multiplied by the speed of light squared (c2), that is E=mc2. This simple equation, which states that energy and mass are interchangeable quantities, is often misinterpreted as the formula of the atomic bomb. The principle of the atomic bomb is bom­bardment of a uranium atom with a neutron that splits the uranium atom into two smaller atoms and more neutrons that trigger a fission chain reaction. Although tremendous energy is released, it is the energy of internuclear binding forces, and there is no appreciable change in mass.

A much better demonstration of E=mc2 is the physics of positron emission tomography (PET scan­ning), in which an electron and positron (the antiparticle of an electron) annihilate each other and convert their masses into pure light energy, consisting of photons traveling in opposite directions. This light is detected and calculated as a three-dimensional image of the patient. Einstein was another founder of radiology because his theory of the Photoelectric Effect (published in 1905 and awarded the Nobel Prize in 1921) explained how X-rays interact with matter. This theory also showed that light was absorbed and emitted in discreet packets of energy, leading to the Quantum Theory revolution in physics. 6 Things You May not Know About Einstein

Here are a few more interesting things to know about Einstein’s theory of relativity:

  1. Einstein relied on friends and colleagues to help him develop his theory. 
    Though the theory of general relativity is often presented as a work of solo genius, Einstein actually received considerable help from several lesser-known friends and colleagues in working on the math behind it. College friends Marcel Grossmann and Michele Basso (Einstein supposedly relied on Grossmann’s notes after skipping class) were especially important in the process. Einstein and Grossman, a math professor at Swiss Polytechnic, published an early version of the general relativity theory in 1913, while Besso—whom Einstein had credited in the acknowledgments of his 1905 paper on the special theory of relativity—worked extensively with Einstein to develop the general theory over the next two years. The work of the great mathematicians David Hilbert—more on him later—and Emmy Noether also contributed to the equations behind general relativity. By the time the final version was published in 1916, Einstein also benefited from the work of younger physicists like Gunnar Nordström and Adriaan Fokker, both of whom helped him elaborate his theory and shape it from the earlier version.
  2. The early version of the theory contained a major error. 
    The version published by Einstein and Grossmann in 1913, known as the Entwurf (“outline”) paper, contained a major math error in the form of a miscalculation in the amount a beam of light would bend due to gravity. The mistake might have been exposed in 1914, when German astronomer Erwin Finlay Freundlich traveled to Crimea to test Einstein’s theory during the solar eclipse that August. Freundlich’s plans were foiled, however, by the outbreak of World War I in Europe. By the time he introduced the final version of general relativity in November 1915, Einstein had changed the field equations, which determine how matter curves space-time.
  3. Einstein’s now-legendary paper didn’t make him famous—at first. 
    The unveiling of his masterwork at the Prussian Academy of Sciences—and later in the pages of Annelen Der Physik—certainly afforded Einstein a great deal of attention, but it wasn’t until 1919 that he became an international superstar. That year, British physicist Arthur Eddington performed the first experimental test of the general relativity theory during the total solar eclipse that occurred on May 29. In an experiment conceived by Sir Frank Watson Dyson, Astronomer Royal of Britain, Eddington and other astronomers measured the positions of stars during the eclipse and compared them with their “true” positions. They found that the gravity of the sun did change the path of the starlight according to Einstein’s predictions. When Eddington announced his findings in November 1919, Einstein made the front pages of newspapers around the world.
  4. Another scientist (and former friend) accused Einstein of plagiarism. 
    In 1915, the leading German mathematician David Hilbert invited Einstein to give a series of lectures at the University of Gottingen. The two men talked over general relativity (Einstein was still having serious doubts about how to get his theory and equations to work) and Hilbert began developing his own theory, which he completed at least five days BEFORE Einstein made his presentation in November 1915. What began as an exchange of ideas between friends and fellow scientists turned acrimonious, as each man accused the other of plagiarism. Einstein, of course, got the credit, and later historical research found that he deserved it: Analysis of Hilbert’s proofs showed he lacked a crucial ingredient known as covariance in the version of the theory completed that fall. Hilbert actually didn’t publish his article until March 31, 1916, weeks after Einstein’s theory was already public. By that time, historians say, his theory was covariant.
  5. At the time of Einstein’s death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action. 
    Though the solar eclipse test of 1919 showed that the sun’s gravity appeared to bend light in the way Einstein had predicted, it wasn’t until the 1960s that scientists would begin to discover the extreme objects, like black holes and neutron stars, that influenced the shape of space-time according to the principles of general relativity. Until very recently, they were still searching for evidence of gravitational waves, those ripples in the fabric of space-time caused (according to Einstein) by the acceleration of massive objects. In February 2016, the long wait came to an end, as scientists at the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) announcedthey had detected gravitational waves caused by the collision of two massive black holes.
  6. You can thank Einstein for GPS. 
    Though Einstein’s theory mostly functions among things like PET scanners and in the black holes and cosmic collisions of the heavens, on an ultra-small scale (think string theory), it also plays a role in our everyday lives. GPS technology is one outstanding example of this. General relativity shows that the rate at which time flows depends on how close one is to a massive body. This concept is essential to GPS, which takes into account the fact that time is flowing at a different rate for satellites orbiting the Earth than it is for us on the ground. As a result, time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds a day. This might not seem like a significant difference, but if left unchecked it would cause navigational errors within minutes. GPS compensates for the time difference, electronically adjusting rates of the satellite clocks and building mathematical functions within the computer to solve for the user’s exact location—all thanks to Einstein and relativity.

Quantum Theory

Following Einstein’s ideas that light was transmitted in packets of energy, Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg developed a model of the atom that diverged from classic Newtonian physics. The Rutherford atomic model consisting of electrons orbiting the central nucleus was inadequate because charged particles changing direction in an orbit would lose energy and fall into the nucleus. Bohr’s model had to explain the Photoelectric Effect, chemical reactions, and the inherent stability of atoms.

A carbon atom can undergo countless chemical reactions yet remains a carbon atom. As Bohr further investigated the atom, the simplistic idea of light just being a wave and electrons just being particles was no longer valid. With the Photoelectric Effect, Einstein showed that light could be a photon particle. Louis de Broglie then showed that particles could be waves. Both photons and electrons have particle-wave duality. The electron therefore could exist as a standing wave around the nucleus, absorb and emit quanta of light energy, and yet remain stable.

The paradoxes that resulted from Bohr’s quantum theory shook the foundations of science. Werner Heisenberg found that the method of investiga­tion alters the result of an experiment. He explained this idea mathematically in his Uncertainty Principle, which remains a major tenet of quantum mechanics. The light used to measure particles imparts energy, altering the momentum or location of the particles, thus changing the results by the mere act of obser­vation. An experiment can be designed to measure either momentum or location precisely, but not both (the experimenter must choose).

“The violent reaction on the recent development of modern physics can only be understood when one realizes that here the foundations of physics have started moving; and that this motion has caused the feeling that the ground would be cut from science.” – Werner Heisenberg

This finding was unsettling for physicists who strove for precise measurements, because precision was not possible at the atomic and subatomic levels. Heisenberg showed that every experiment (and radiologic examination) is subject to limitation. Einstein objected to this inherent fuzziness, stating that “God does not play dice with the Universe.”

The Doppler Effect

Christian Doppler was a professor who studied mathematics, physics, and astronomy. He published a paper on spin­ning binary star systems, noting that starlight shifts to the violet spectrum when a star is moving toward an observer on Earth, and that starlight shifts to the red when a star is moving away. The explanation was that the wavelength of the light wave was compressed or elongated depending on the motion of the source relative to the observer.

When the Doppler Effect is applied to sound, it explains the tone of an approaching or departing train whistle; when applied to radar it pre­dicts violent weather; when applied to ultrasound (another radiology modality) it determines the direction and velocity of blood flow; and when applied to distant starlight it explains our expanding (red shifted) universe. Using Doppler ultrasound, a technologist can screen for: the risk of stroke from carotid artery stenosis, renal arterial causes of hypertension, abdominal aortic aneurysms, periph­eral vascular disease, deep vein thrombosis, portal vein thrombosis and varices, and post-catheterization pseudo-aneurysms.

Countless lives have been saved or improved because of a phenomenon originally observed in starlight. Doppler’s idea extends well beyond the sonography suite and even tells us about the origins of our universe. Edwin Hubble demonstrated that all objects observed in deep space have a Doppler red-shifted veloc­ity that is proportional to the object’s distance from the Earth and all other interstellar bodies. This tells us that our universe is expanding and supports the theory that the universe was created by the Big Bang, which occurred about 13.7 billion years ago.

Old Master Painters

Artists such as Rembrandt and Vermeer (17th century) were adept at depicting light to create the illusion of realistic three-dimensional subjects on two dimensional canvases. These artists studied the interaction of light with their models and understood visual percep­tion of subtle shading and light to make their artwork dramatic and convincing.

Rembrandt van Rijn’s famous por­traits and self-portraits displayed skill with light source positioning and intensity, later duplicated by movie director Cecil B DeMille who coined the term “Rembrandt lighting,” a technique that is still used today by portrait photographers. Johannes Vermeer was skilled at depicting subjects in naturally lit interiors with a subtle photorealistic style that is con­sidered uncanny even today.

Some believe Vermeer used special optics and mirrors because his depiction of light was too subtle for the naked eye to detect.  For example, scientific analysis showed that his backgrounds demonstrated the inverse square law, with exponential diffusion of light, which is difficult to capture when using only an artistic eye.

Experienced radiologic technologists use artistic vision when they create radiographs. By positioning and framing their subjects and by adjusting contrast and exposure, each image can be a work of art, not only pleasing to the eye but also containing a wealth of infor­mation.

Light as the Medium for Medical Imaging

Light, as visual information, is portrayed in art. Light also is the medium for medical imaging, whether in the form of a backlit film, cathode ray tube monitor, liquid crystal display screen, or plasma monitor. The eye is our most complex and highly evolved sense organ, capable of detecting subtle changes in light and color, and transferring this information (via the optic nerves and optic tracts) to the visual cortex of our occipital lobes.

However, what distinguishes artists and seasoned radiology professionals from other people is post-pro­cessing (i.e., the thinking that occurs after perceiving visual data). Much of science and medicine is about logic, language, analysis, and categorization (left brain functions). However, visual processing (the artistic eye) is about conceptualization, spatial orientation, and pattern recognition (right brain functions). These right brain skills are harder to teach and measure but are just as important in radiology.

With the rapid increases in digital image resolution and in the number of multi-planar images involved with each case, developing the right brain is crucial to make sense of this visual information overload. Knowingly or unknowingly, seasoned radiologists develop the right side of their brains through the experience of viewing thousands of medical images. This “artistic eye” can be further enhanced in radiolo­gists and radiologic technologists who appreciate the techniques used by great artists. Or better yet, they can train their right brains by creating original art themselves.

Conclusion

Radiologists and radiologic technologists use light technology and artistic vision in their daily work. They sense subtle shades, recognize patterns, and use symmetry and bal­ance to detect abnormalities. When this artistic skill is applied in combination with an appreciation for the underlying physics that created the images, a thorough knowledge of human anatomy, and an understanding of the pathophysiology of disease, they serve their patients by providing timely diagnosis and excellent medical care.

Sources:  This is the synthesis of two articles:

[1]  PRUITT, SARAH.  6 Things You Might Not Know About Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, MARCH 18, 2016, History.com

[2]  Hom, Mark. Radiology: Combining Quantum Theory, Medicine, and Artistic Vision, http://scitechconnect.elsevier.com/radiology-quantum-theory-medicine, January 25, 2016

More Information

For more about Dr. Hom’s writings, concepts, and artwork, please refer to his recent articles and book:

The Art and Science of Light: An Illustrated Retrospective, Mark Hom, Radiologic Technology, July/Aug 2015 86 (6), 702-708.
The Artistic Eye and the Radiologist, Mark Hom, American Roentgen Ray Society, Senior Radiologists Section Notes, Fall 2014.
The Science of Fitness: Power, Performance, and Endurance, Greg LeMond and Mark Hom, Publisher: Elsevier, December 2014.

This article first appeared on Memeburn.comClick here for the original.

Dr. Mark Hom is a Johns Hopkins University trained biologist, an award-winning medical illustrator, an interventional radiologist, an educator of young doctors, an Elsevier author, and an avid fitness cyclist. Dr. Hom’s work with Greg LeMond in their recent book The Science of Fitness: Power, Performance, and Endurance explains how the human body, various organ systems, and individual cells function in the biologic process of exercise. He is currently a member of the Department of Radiology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, VA, USA.

 

  Disruptive Technology Turns 11; Creator Set to Break Through $1T

It  was the worst kept tech secret of all time; and though everyone knew it was coming,  no one predicted how the iPhone would change the world.  11 years after its launch, Apple is now poised to become the first ever $1T company.

While people published rumors and others guessed at design, buyers began to camp outside stores days in advance to snag a $600 device they’d never seen. Before its release, the hype for an Apple-devised phone was off the scale. It even garnered the nickname the “Jesus phone” — or “jPhone”.  Some felt it would be miraculous, while most believed it could in no way live up to the hype.

It wasn’t the first time in tech history a frenzy was create over a new device. The first whispers came in the summer of 1944: a Hungarian inventor living in Argentina had created something sensational. On the day of its release, New Yorkers “trampled on another” in 1945 to buy the first commercially available ballpoint pens, where they paid the equivalent of $175 in today’s money. That was for a pen, not an Ubersmart mobile device that connects you to the universe.

Despite drawing hordes of fans, the iPhone didn’t immediately charm its way into the mainstream because of its high price tag. Just two months after the iPhone’s initial release, Apple trimmed the handset’s price down to $400. That helped a little, but it wasn’t until 2008 — when Apple unveiled the iPhone 3G with a new $200 price tag and access to the faster 3G network — that the smartphone exploded in popularity. Apple sold over 10 million iPhone 3G units worldwide in just five months.

It wasn’t the faster network or the price tag that really set the iPhone ahead of its competitors. Apple’s core philosophy, then and now, is that software is the key ingredient; and the operating system lying beneath the iPhone’s sleek and sexy touchscreen broke new ground. Unlike other cellphones’ software, the iPhone’s operating system was controlled by Apple rather than a mobile carrier.

Just as the Apple II in 1977 was the first computer made for consumers, the iPhone was the first phone whose software was designed with the user in mind. It was the first phone to make listening to music, checking voicemail and browsing the web as easy as swiping, pinching and tapping a screen — pleasant like a massage.

“An iPod, a phone, an internet mobile communicator,” Jobs said when preparing to introduce the iPhone in 2007. “An iPod, a phone, an internet mobile communicator…. These are not three separate devices!”  Apple put a miniature computer in consumers’ pockets.

But that wasn’t enough for iPhone users. Operating on a closed platform, the iPhone was limited to the few apps that Apple offered — and the handset was restricted to one U.S. carrier — AT&T. The iPhone’s software limitations gave birth to an underground world of hackers seeking to add third-party applications, known as the Jailbreak community. And the AT&T exclusivity created a subset of that hacker community focusing on unlocking the iPhone to work with various carriers — today famously known as the iPhone Dev-Team.

Apple did benefit tremendously from iPhone hackers. The company learned from the Jailbreak community that third-party applications were in high demand and would add even more appeal to the phone. This revelation led to Apple opening its iPhone App Store, which launched concurrently with the second-generation iPhone, iPhone 3G.

Fast forward.  The iPhone turned out to be a game-changer – the proverbial paradigm shift wrapped in a sleek black case housing powerful innovative technology.  It has gone on to Impact the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world, changing the way we communicate, work, learn and play.

77.3 Million iPhones were sold in the fourth quarter of 2017.  Assuming that each boxed iPhone weighs approximately 500g, give or take, that’s around 39,000 metric tons of iPhones, which is the equivalent of 630  Abrams M1A2 battle tanks.  The Sales volume works out to almost ten iPhones a second, and they sold for an average of $796.  This is how Apple will likely crest $1T this year.

Just like that, Apple flipped cellphone business on its head and transformed mobile software into a viable product. But the most surprising thing about the iPhone is the impact it’s had on six major industries.

The PC Industry –  Apple’s stroke of genius was to put one in your pocket. Until the iPhone shipped, PC sales were around 400 million a year.  As the iPhone and smartphones in general have become critical tools for information, used for productivity, communications and pleasure, the PC has become less important to many people. Until the mobile revolution that came with the iPhone, the only way people could access the Internet was from a PC or laptop.

Today, thanks to the iPhone, iPad and all the Android equivalents inspired by Apple’s ideas, people have many more options to make the connections they need regardless of location. Consequently, the PC industry is now shipping only about 275 to 290 million PCs a year, and this has caused a level of industry consolidation that is now concentrated around Lenovo, HP, Dell, Acer and Apple.

Telecom – Before the iPhone, most of the original telco business models were around voice. Voice over IP became popular by 2000 and had already started pushing the telecom companies to move to digital voice instead of traditional landline voice delivery methods. But with the advent of the iPhone, they were effectively forced out of the traditional voice business altogether.  While there were millions of payphones in place a decade ago, Try and locate a payphone today.

Now, telecom providers are data communications companies whose business models have been completely transformed. All have added things like information and entertainment services, and all have become conduits for multiple types of data services to their customers.

Movie and TV – In order to watch a movie, you once  had to go to a movie theater; and to watch a TV show, you had to sit in front of my television at home and scan three channels….plus PBS.  The iPhone created a mobile platform for video delivery, and since 2007, every major movie and TV studio has been forced to expand their distribution methods to include downloaded and streaming services to mobile devices.

We can thank the millions of iPhones in the field, capable of letting people watch video anytime and anywhere, for prodding these studios to make this so. We can also thank the iPhone for fueling new types of video services like YouTube, Netflix and Hulu — video powerhouses, at least 50% of whose content is viewed on some type of mobile device.

Software distribution.  With the launch of the App Store, Apple shook up the mobile industry again by reinventing software distribution. Apple designed the App Store’s model with a do-it-yourself mentality: All software developers had to do was code an interesting app, submit it to the App Store for approval and market the app however they wished.

The App Store’s method is proving far more effective than the old-fashioned computer shareware model, where developers would offer a free trial of their apps and then cross their fingers that consumers would eventually pay. The shareware model especially didn’t help independent coders, whose apps got trampled on by large software companies with fatter marketing budgets.

Video Gaming.  Before 2007, most games were either delivered by way of game consoles, a PC or a dedicated handheld device like the Nintendo DS or Sony PlayStation Portable. The iPhone expanded the market for mobile games as well as created an entirely new category of touch-based gameplay, persuading even holdouts like Nintendo to come aboard with games based on its iconic franchises.

And though the mobile dominant free-to-play model fractionalizes revenue, the potential for brand exposure is unprecedented: Niantic’s augmented reality-angled Pokémon Go alone has been downloaded over 750 million times. Contrast with Nintendo’s entire Mario franchise’s lifetime sales of just over 500 million.

HealthCare. Today, one can use an iPhone to monitor various health metrics as well as access detailed health information, connecting with health professionals and even receiving health advice virtually anytime and anywhere across a number of different applications.  And we’ve only begun to see how smartphones can impact the health industry – an impact that will doubtless expand as this industry embraces the smartphone for outpatient care.

And HealthLynked will be a huge part of this.  We are not unlike the iPhone.  Where multiple apps do one thing, we are combining all that makes mobile health great into one easy to use, secure platform.  It’s sort of a Swiss Army knife, meets iPhone meets medicine, wrapped in the sleek, easy to use interface of a social platform.  You can find it in the Apple Store.

Ready to start taking control of your health in ways never thought possible?  Get Lynked!  Go to HealtheLynked.com to sign up For Free!



Sources:  Blending the two fantastic articles below.

JUNE 29, 2007: IPHONE, YOU PHONE, WE ALL WANNA IPHONE, by  Brian X. Chen.  Brian wrote a book about the always-connected mobile future called Always On (published June 7, 2011 by Da Capo). Check out Brian’s Google Profile.

 

How Apple’s iPhone Changed These 5 Major Industries, By TIM BAJARIN June 26, 2017.  Tim is recognized as one of the leading industry consultants, analysts and futurists, covering the field of personal computers and consumer technology. Mr. Bajarin is the President of Creative Strategies, Inc and has been with the company since 1981 where he has served as a consultant providing analysis to most of the leading hardware and software vendors in the industry.

 

Photo: Young Steve Jobs
Credit: Ben Lovejoy in Tim Cook Tweets, 9to5Mac

 

Title:  Disruptive Technology Turns 11; Creator Set to Break Through $1T

 

#apple,#iPhone,#healthcareIT,#healthcarereform,#healthcareITreform