Music and the Mind
The next book in the Healing, Meaning and Purpose cycle will be entitled Sacred Cycles. One chapter is entitled Music and the Mind. I am in no doubt that music can produce incredibly powerful healing.
I was interested to read about a small study published in the journal Brain.
Canadian scientists from McMaster University compared 6 children aged four to six who took music lessons for a year with 6 children who did had no music lessons outside school. The six who had lessons attended a Suzuki music school, using a Japanese approach that encourages children to listen to and imitate music before they attempt to read it.
They found the musical group performed better on a memory test also designed to assess general intelligence skills such as literacy and mathematical ability.
The investigators also measured changes in the children’s brain electrical responses to sounds during the year. They measured brain activity using a technique called magnetoencephelography while the children listened to two types of sounds: a violin tone or a burst of white noise.
All the children recorded larger responses when listening to the violin tones compared with the white noise – indicating that more of the brain’s activity was being deployed to process meaningful sounds.
All the children responded more quickly to the sounds over the course of the year of the study – suggesting greater efficiency of the maturing brain.
However, when the researchers focused on a specific measurement related to attention and sound discrimination, they found a greater change over the year among the Suzuki children.
In the group having music lessons, there were measurable changes in as little as four months. Previous studies have shown that older children given music lessons recorded greater improvements in IQ scores than children given drama lessons, but this is the first time that such young children have been tested.
Though this is only a small study, it strongly suggests that music is good for children’s cognitive development. I ifnd this particularly interesting after researchers appeard to have dismantled the "Mozart Effect." Perhaps they were premature in doing so.
I also take my hat off the researchers. As someone who’s done a lot of scanning and measurement, I know only too well, that to get young children to stay still enough to get meaningful readings must have been a Labor of Hercules!
I’d also like to mention a conference in November that sadly I shall not be able to attend, but promises to be a splendid event. It’s the International Sound Healing Conference, taking place on November 10-14 in Santa Fe, New Mexico. They have a stellar group of presenters, including Jill Purce, Don Campbell, Fabien Maman, James D’Angelo, Master Charles Cannon, John Diamond and a host of other experts in the fields of sound and healing. It should be quite an event!
“Words are the pen of the heart, but music is the pen of the soul.” –Shneur Zalman of Liadi (Rabbi and Founder of Chabad Lubavitch, 1745-1812)
“Music is the wine that fills the cup of silence.” –Robert Fripp (Musician, Guitarist and Spiritual Seeker, 1946-)
When Is It An Illness?
There’s been a very worrying trend in recent years, and that is constantly to medicalize every kind of behavior: we are no longer allowed to be shy, we have to be “socially phobic;” many things once regarded as vices, like excessive gambling, drinking or eating are now being re-cast as impulse control disorders and adolescent temper tantrums could be “Intermittent explosive disorder.” And I now read a report about giving selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) antidepressants to people with emotional lability.
In April of this year the Public Library of Science published a series of articles on the important topic of “disease mongering,” which two authors define as “the selling of sickness that widens the boundaries of illness and grows the markets for those who sell and deliver treatments.” The authors made the point that some of the medicalization of human behavior is being driven by some pharmaceutical companies. They picked on several conditions or illnesses in which claims of prevalence and severity have been inflated in order, they claimed, to generate a need for medicines. One of their targets was female sexual dysfunction, where there has been a serious attempt to convince the public in the United States that 43% of women live with this condition. Many experts have heavily contested those figures.
One of the big worries about expanding the boundaries of an illness is that it is easy to throw out the baby with the bathwater. To use this last example: saying that the figures for female sexual "dysfunction" are inflated can lead some clinicians to dismiss everyone who has a problem, and then not to treat people with genuine organic difficulties. It is tragic to see people referred to a psychiatrist for a physical problem like low testosterone or undiagnosed diabetes or thyroid disease.
There can also be marked differences of opinion about the nature of illness. “Premenstrual dysphoric disorder,” (PMDD), is a particularly severe premenstrual syndrome, with some additional mood features. The American Psychiatric Association has precise diagnostic criteria for PMDD. The regulatory authorities in the European Union decided that this was not a real illness and declined to let a pharmaceutical company market a medicine for it.
I’m all for doing anything that I can to help people and to alleviate suffering. Part of the problem is that it is acceptable to have a “disorder.” The prevailing attitude is that no one can be blamed for being sick. The reality is that by most estimates, 70% of human illness is caused by lifestyle choices. By turning everything into disorders we take away our responsibility for our actions.
Most people are not looking for the causes of their troubles, they want a quick fix. Changing is hard, it is inconvenient and it is much easier to believe a pill will make everything better.
The second issue is that “better living through chemistry” may not be. There’s been a question rumbling round for some time now: has the over-exposure of young people to antibiotics, analgesics and sleeping tablets, been partly responsible for the rise in asthma and in substance abuse in later life? We don’t know the answer but it is important for us to think about.
The third point is that we need to think about what we are doing to ourselves if we want to medicate our way to happiness. Do we really want to deny ourselves the opportunity for becoming happy by our own actions rather than relying on a pill and being told what is normal?
P.S. Four years ago the Nuffield Council on Bioethics produced an important report entitled Genetics and Human Behaviour: the Ethical Context. It looked at some of the ethical challenges that are coming with the constant new discoveries in biology, and warned against the dangers of widening diagnostic categories, to encourage the use of medication by people who would not necessarily be thought of as exhibiting outside the normal range. It is well worth reading.
Laughter is The Best Medicine
“Time spent laughing is time spent with the gods.”
–Japanese Proverb
In the book and movie Anatomy of an Illness, Norman Cousins reported how he overcame a sever arthritic condition with a combination of huge doses of vitamin C, together with a positive mental attitude and hours of laughing at Marx Brothers movies. He wrote that, "I made the joyous discovery that ten minutes of genuine belly laughter had an anesthetic effect and would give me at least two hours of pain-free sleep. When the pain-killing effect of the laughter wore off, we would switch on the motion picture projector again and not infrequently, it would lead to another pain-free interval."
I’ve had a longstanding interest in the vascular endothelium, the single layer of cells that line blood vessels. Some very small blood vessels consist only of endothelial cells. These cells form the interface between the blood and the tissues, and they are involved in many disease processes. They are involved in diabetic vascular disease, arteriosclerosis, inflammation, many infections, and they play a role in the spread of tumors. There is some new evidence that laughter is good for you in more ways than one.
Investigators from University of Maryland School of Medicine found that watching a funny movie had a healthy effect on blood vessel function, allowing them to expand and contract more effectively in response to changes in blood flow. But watching a mentally stressful movie, like a war drama, may have the opposite effect, causing the vascular endothelial cells to narrow and restrict blood flow. On average, artery diameter increased by 22% during laughter and decreased by 35% during mental stress.
This work follows on from earlier research that showed an inverse association between sense of humor and coronary heart disease: people who laughed a lot seemed less likely to suffer form heart disease.
There is a very nice review article available online that confirms what is intuitively obvious humor and laughter may have a positive influence on health and on the outcome of many diseases.
There may be something to the old saying, "You don’t stop laughing because you grow old; You grow old because you stop laughing.”
Healia is Here!
Several months ago, I wrote about Healia.com, a new and innovative search engine for all things to do with health.
This morning I got the news that I’d been waiting for from Carol Kirshner my Web Mistress (I’m still not sure that’s a PC term for her) and researcher. Healia will be officially launched to the public tomorrow, September 18th.
As a writer on health, wellness and personal development, I think that this is going to become a major source of information for me. Much as I love Google, this is a search engine dedicated to these topics.
From a release that I’ve just received, Healia says that:
The newest version of Healia has several major improvements over our initial version:
- We have enhanced the accuracy and performance of our filtering algorithms
- We are offering additional filters to allow people to filter by the topic of the document when they submit a disease or drug-related search (Try searching on a disease and drug name to see how they are handled differently)
- We provide a “Suggested Result” from a reference site for disease and drug-related searches
- We detect and provide expanded equivalents to common medical abbreviations and acronyms
I’ve been putting it through its paces, and I must say that I’m very impressed. I’m probably a lot more demanding than most users, and it’s very quick and accurate.
If you are a consumer or potential consumer, Healia will likely be the best place to research an illness. Or ways of keeping healthy.
I agree with the points in Carol’s evaluation: It would be nice if search results opended in a separate window. Even though I use a laptop for everything (Macintosh, of course), and don’t have much screen real estate, with Macintosh OS X, that’s not a problem: navigating from one screen to another is a snap. Having to keep going back is a pain in the posterior.
And my cri du coeur: please, please, please could we have a Healia Search widget to add to our blogs??
I do everything that I can to provide my readers with totally accurate, up to date information, and I encourage them to check on everything. I’d love readers to be able to search directly from within medical blogs. It would be a real win/win, IMHO.
Wouldn’t it be great to be able to demonstrate it at the Healthcare Blogging Summit in Washington in December???
Religion and Health
I have written and spoken about the association between spiritual and physical health in my books and CDs, and on this blog.
There is yet more confirmation of this link in a paper that just came across my desk. This was an analysis of the published data on religious activity and health.
This was what they concluded:
“Religious intervention such as intercessory prayer may improve success rates of in vitro fertilization, decrease length of hospital stay and duration of fever in septic patients, increase immune function, improve rheumatoid arthritis, and reduce anxiety. Frequent attendance at religious services likely improves health behaviors. Moreover, prayer may decrease adverse outcomes in patients with cardiac disease.”
Since they were looking only at religious interventions rather than spirituality in general, the investigators did not pick up a lot of research into psychiatric illnesses, pain and cancer. That does not detract in any way from this important publication.
As I’ve said before please don’t ever lose touch with your spirituality. It is essential to your health and well-being.
Spirituality and Personal Well-Being
It is no coincidence that most us involved in fashioning the new model of health care are also deeply involved in spirituality. People including Deepak Chopra and Larry Dossey have recognized that health and spiriruality are inextricably linked.
Healing, Meaning and Purpose was written and recorded to support a spiritual journey as part of a comprehensive approach toward wellness.
As I travel the world I am constantly astonished by the ever-increasing interest in spirituality, health and well-being.
A new study has just been published by researchers from the University of Aberdeen in Scotland. Using data from the 2001 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, they found that what they called "alternative" spiritual practices could be divided into two groups: concerns with personal well-being and interest in divination. They found something that we have also discovered in the United States. Women, particularly if they are educated, are particularly interested in applying spirituality in their lives to promote their own well-being and the health and wellness of their families. This fits in with other data that have shown that in every culture studied, women are more likely to seek health care, whether they have a skin rash, depression or cancer.
Your spiritual health is essential to the health of your body and your relationships. Please don’t ever neglect it.
Thrifty Genes, Thrifty Bodies and the Barker Hypothesis
“They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.”
–The Bible (Hosea, 8:7)
In 1962, a geneticist named James Neel first proposed a “thrifty gene” theory to explain why 60% of adult Pima Indians living in the United States have diabetes, and 95% are overweight. Neel’s theory was that populations like the Pimas, that have for millennia relied on farming, hunting and fishing for food, would experience alternating periods of feast and famine. Neel hypothesized that in order to adapt to these extreme changes in caloric needs, people developed a “thrifty gene” that allowed them to store fat during times of plenty so that they would not starve during times of famine.
A similar theory was advanced to explain the high rates of diabetes in people from the Indian subcontinent, once they are exposed to plentiful supplies of food. These was traced by the great Diaspora from central Asia at the end of the last age, when the ancestors of modern Indians and Pakistanis made the great trek through modern Afghanistan into the Indus valley. A journey that had been impossible at the height of the Ice Age and which was still difficult. The idea was that people who could quickly lay down a lot of intra-abdominal fat would have a huge survival advantage.
This is an attractive hypothesis, but here have always been some problems with it:
- The gene or genes would have to be able to work with the environment: the Pimas of Mexico and people living in rural India do not have the high rates of diabetes and obesity
- Despite looking for over 40 years, no such gene has yet been found
- If the thrifty gene is so advantageous, why doesn’t everyone have it?
- Until recently, famines were rare and usually occurred every 100-150 years. As John Speakman has pointed out that would mean that most human populations have experienced at most 100 famine events in the course of their evolutionary history
- Famines do increase mortality but only in about 10% of the population
- In famines most people die of disease rather than starvation, and the worst affected are the young. Having a “thrifty gene” would not help them survive starvation OR disease
- Simple genetic models would suggest that famines would not provide enough selective advantage and there has not been enough time for a “thrifty gene” to have penetrated the population
There could yet be some complex genetic model involving “reserve” genes that appear when needed, or some epigenetic inheritance, but we have no evidence for that either.
A second concept is gaining a lot of traction. It is what is known as the “Thrifty phenotype,” and is part of a larger theory called the “Barker Hypothesis.” I’m going to stick my neck out, and predict that David Barker may receive the Nobel Prize in medicine for his discoveries. They are that important.
Essentially the Barker Hypothesis suggests that in addition to genetic, epigenetic and environmental factors in disease, there is another, and that is the intrauterine environment. The idea is that if a mother is malnourished, she can modify the development of her unborn child. From an evolutionary perspective, her body is preparing the unborn child to survive in an environment where food is in chronic short supply, resulting in the “Thrifty phenotype:” smaller body size, lower metabolic rate and a propensity to be less active.
The problem is this. If you are born with the thrifty phenotype and actually grow up in an affluent environment, you are more likely to develop obesity, diabetes and vascular disease later in life. If true – and virtually all the evidence suggest that it is – then it has serious implications for countries that are transitioning from sparse to better nutrition, and may have contributed to some of our current health problems. Many of us were born to mothers who had poor nutrition, either because of the Great Depression, the Second World War, poverty, or just plain poor information about good nutrition during pregnancy. And now we are reaping the whirlwind.
The hypothesis has become sophisticated. If you are born small or premature, then your liver and kidneys may not have completed their final growth spurt, which might predispose you to metabolic problems and hypertension.
The story of how this all came to light would be worthy of Sherlock Holmes himself.
English counties used to have people who were responsible for providing midwifery services. In the county of Buckinghamshire a single midwife collected data for almost thirty years. Information about the mother, the length and weight of the baby and the weight of the placenta. Information that would be impossible to collect these days. Some civil libertarian somewhere would probably dream up some way of hiding this enormously important information.
David Barker discovered these extraordinarily good records, and then set about finding the adults that these babies had become. And what he found has changed medicine: babies who had small placentas – a good measure of being small or premature – were more likely to develop obesity, diabetes or hypertension as adults. Then he and others turned their attention to other early physical characteristics and found correlations with health later in life. The highest risk of coronary heart disease was seen amongst people who were born small and became heavier during childhood.
The practical implications?
Find out your own birth weight and anything else that you can about your early development.
If you were a very large baby (bigger than nine and a half pounds), it implies that your mother may perhaps have had a metabolic problem. If you were small (less than five and a half pounds), then you should get the regular health checks that we recommend for anyone in a “high risk” group.
Probiotics: Caveat Emptor
You may well have heard the advice that we all need to keep the bacetria in our intestines healthy. Countless experts have recommended that, as long as we are not lactorse intolerant, we should regularly take some live yoghurt to "re-colonize" our intestines with nice friendly bacteria.
There has just been a briefing in London to warn the public that as many as half of the "probiotic" or "friendly bacteria" products on sale in the United Kingdom could be ineffective and some may even be harmful.
The experts on the panel included Professor Glen Gibson from the University of Reading who is an expert in food microbiology, and recommended sticking to products made by major manufacturers. Too many of the other productsmight not contain the numbers of bacteria advertised, and the icrobes might not survive long enough in the intestines to do much good.
The evidence that probiotics help is still far from settled, as discussed in a recent review. But there are enough reports to think that probiotics may be helpful for irritable bowel syndrome and perhaps inflammatory bowel disease.
An even newer area or interest in the use of "prebiotics:" short-chain carbohydrates that alter the composition, or metabolism, of the intestinal organisms in a beneficial way.
Make sure that if you are using a product, it comes from a reputable manufacturer, and that it contains at least 10 million bacteria. And as I said in my title, "Caveat Emptor," "Let the buyer beware."
BMI R.I.P.
For experts in metabolism, we have long worried about the over-emphasis on the use of body mass index (BMI) as the arbiter of a "healthy" weight. It is one of those measurements that is in some senses too easy, and the results are deceiving. I regularly see people claim that a certain BMI will "predict" the risk that someone will develop cardiovascular disease or diabetes. The truth is very diferent.
There are two ways to calculate your BMI:
1. Metric system – Kilograms and Metres
[Your weight] divided by [Your height squared]
2. Imperial System – Pounds and Inches
[You weight] divided by [Your height squared] times 703.5
A person is said to be healthy if his or her BMI is between 18.5 and 24.9.
The trouble with this is that the calculation lumps together fat and muscle: a muscular six foot tall football player weighing 300 pounds and with 3% body fat, would have an "unhealthy" BMI of 26.3. That is clearly absurd, and one of the reasons that most experts use BMI only as one part of an evaluation of health.
Our scepticism has been confirmed by an important study from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and published in this week’s issue of the medical journal The Lancet.
The researchers looked at 40 studies involving 250,152 patients. Their analysis revealed that people with a BMI of 30-35 were at lower risk of cardiovascular disease than those whose BMI was below 20.
BMI does not correlate well with fat. A better way to distinguish between fat and muscle is to take a cross-sectional view of the abdomen, and to focus on the waist-hip ratio.
A separate study by researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine of 14,833 people over the age of 75 was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. They also came to the conclusion that BMI is a poor indicator of health in both men and women in this age group. These researchers also agreed that waste-hip ratio was a better indicator of mortality risk.
This is all music to my ears. For almost three decades we have been teaching about the importance of different stores of fat and the limitations of the BMI calculation. It has been known since the 1940s that gaining weight on the hips, or developing "lover’s handles" are only very weak predictors of diabetes and vascular disease: it is the intra-abdominal fat that is the problem.
There are particular problems with using BMI in the elderly and in some ethnic groups, especially people from the Indian sub-continent and Japan.
The bottom line?
BMI is misleading, and in some age groups and races, grossly misleading.
Much better to use weight and waist-hip ratio.
And BMI only if there is a space on the medical forms where they still need to have it filled in.