Researchers from Essex and Oxford Universities recently published the results of a study in the European Journal of Public Health that showed that moms should keep feeding those little babies on demand if they want their children to have higher IQs than their routinely scheduled friends.

The researchers looked at three types of mothers and babies – those who were fed on a strict schedule, those who were supposed to be fed on a schedule but weren’t really and those who were fed on demand.

The data came from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children that looked at over 10,000 children who were born in the Bristol area in the early 1990s.

The researchers were able to isolate that babies fed on demand showed higher IQ scores, by four to five points, at the age of 8; they performed better on national curriculum tests at the ages of 5, 7, 11 and 14.

Interestingly enough, the findings related to both bottle fed and breast fed babies, as reported by Dr Maria Iacovou from the Institute for Social and Economic Research at Essex University.

The researchers found a definite trade off, as mothers who fed on a schedule got more sleep and seemed to enjoy parenting more, while those who fed on demand had children who performed better on IQ tests.

Dr Iacovou cautioned people not to be too excited by this information just yet.  As she said,

‘Nonetheless, this is the first and only study of its kind, and further research is needed before we can say categorically that how you feed your baby has a long-term impact on his or her IQ and academic attainment, and before we can say definitively what the mechanisms are by which this relationship comes about.’

A recent study has found a tentative link between blueberries, apples and pears and a lower risk of type 2 diabetes.

Fruits such as these contain flavonoids, a compound which has been associated with other health benefits as well, such as lower risk of cancer and heart disease.

An Pan, a research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health, said “People who ate a higher amount of blueberries or apples tended to have a low risk of type 2 diabetes.” He was careful to state, however, that the study’s findings do not prove that the fruits prevent diabetes.

The research was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. A similar study, published last year, claimed that foods rich in flavonoids, including fruits, vegetables and grains, lowered the risk of high blood pressure as well.

Type 2 diabetes is the most common form of diabetes. It is often noninsulin-dependent. This condition usually develops slowly, over long periods of time. Those diagnosed with type 2 diabetes are often overweight, or elderly. Genetics, family history, lack of physical activity and a poor diet are some of the leading causes of this condition.

Diabetes can lead to increased levels of sugar in the blood, which is called hyperglycemia. Though fruit sugars, found in all fruits, raise glucose levels dramatically, the fibers and pectin they contain may in fact have diabetes-related health benefits.

Dr. Loren Greene, a professor of medicine not involved in the study added that the research “argues very nicely for the consumption of whole fruit rather than fruit juices.”

In a recently published travel book “Traveling Solo: Faith Not Fear,” Karen Stilson Armour offers unique advice for travel.  Choosing obscure locations over the popular and typical travel spots, Armour chooses to travel alone.  Her self-published paper back is a charming addition to anyone’s travel shelf.

She weaves her religious views into the book that discusses interesting locations, conquering fears, and using spirituality while traveling.  She intended, through her slim book to discuss two topics that have rarely been woven together: solo traveling and building a relationship with God.

She offers ten key reasons that traveling alone is to the traveler’s advantage, while also offering readers advice about destinations, health concerns, clothing, safety and more.

She also presents interesting pictures from around the world with her guidebook and offers relevant quotes from heavy hitters like Khalil Gibran, Mark Twain and others.

As Armour describes at her website for the book,

"Even those who have no fear will enjoy reading my new book, Traveling Solo, Faith Not Fear, as I recount numerous travel experiences that I have had throughout Africa, Central America and French Polynesia. I share stories of adventure, romance, and humor along with some moments that will tug at your heart."

The medical world is filled today with dietary advice.  One day you hear that drinking red wine is good for you; the next day it’s a killer. It’s hard to know which mantra to follow and who to believe. Even First Lady Michelle Obama has gotten into the mix with the Let’s Move! Program and the government’s MyPlate plan.

Now, a new study is putting MyPlate to shame. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans includes “lean meats, poultry, fish…” and many other items.  An Pan, the lead author of the new study published online Monday in the Archives of Internal Medicine, said, “Any read meat you eat contributes to the risk” of dying.

Looking at the Facts

The study looked at 110,000 adults for more than 20 years who filled out questionnaires about their eating habits. The Harvard researchers found dramatic results about eating red meat.  Eating a serving of nuts rather than a serving of beef or pork was associated with a 10% lower risk of death during the 20 year study; substituting poultry or whole grains instead of the meat showed a 14% reduction in mortality risk; using low-fat dairy or legumes showed a 10% decrease and fish offered a 7% decrease.

In the reverse, adding one extra serving a day of processed red meat, which would include such things as a hot dog or two slices of bacon, increased the risk of death by 20% in the course of the study!

In addition, researchers did not find a distinction between processed and unprocessed meats. They thought that only processed meats would lead to increased risks, but were shocked to find that both created the risk equally.

The Critics Step In

Certainly, there are critics of the study like Carol Koprowski at the USC Keck School of Medicine who say that the research has room for error.  However, many are taking note.

Cattle and pig farmers will, undoubtedly, have much to say about the new study coming from Harvard. Bloggers are voicing their opinions on all sides as well. As one rather cranky writer, Nicholas Lezard, for the Guardian, wrote,

“Give me a stern vegetarian with strong social and ethical principles against the raising and eating of livestock any day of the week, rather than this meek and wowserish approach to eating, and to life.”

The vice principal of the Sakha Republic North-Eastern Federal University has teamed up with the most controversial cloning expert in an effort to essentially resurrect a 10,000+ year old woolly mammoth.

Vasily Vasiliev and Hwang Woo-Suk signed the deal early today, stating that research may begin this year.

The specimen, preserved in Siberian permafrost, was found in outstanding condition. Mammoth fossils and other remnants are not necessarily uncommon, but this is the first to contain undamaged DNA in the form of bone marrow.

Woolly Mammoth Tusks Found in Permafrost

Hwang Woo-Suk has a long, twisted track record in the cloning field. His research began in the late 1990’s, and he created two dairy cow clones throughout 1999. Though he had no research evidence to support this claim, Hwang was quickly accepted as a hero in the eyes of the Korean media and public. For several years, Hwang’s focus remained on modified livestock.

In 2004, Hwang’s research team announced a successful embryonic stem cell cloning. The paper, explaining the somatic cell nuclear transfer method, was published in Science. Hwang’s endeavor shocked the scientific world, as human stem cell cloning was previously considered impossible, but Hwang offered several seemingly legitimate explanations for his team’s success. A year later, the team perfected their method and created 11 human embryonic stem cells using 185 eggs. His work was considered one of the greatest genetic breakthroughs in history.

Less than two years later, after successfully cloning a dog named ‘Snuppy’, Hwang’s partner publically terminated his collaboration with the scientist. It was later revealed that the eggs used in the research had been acquired unethically. Hwang stated that he was unaware of the situation, which members of the research team confirmed. A year later, however, Hwang’s papers on embryonic stem cells were retracted under the belief that the information was contrived, and though Hwang appealed this as a conspiracy and wished to prove it, he was sentenced to two years in prison.

Now, Hwang and South Korea’s Sooam Biotech Research Foundation await the shipment of the mammoth remains. They will be joined in their efforts by the Beijing Genomics Institute as well.

“The first and hardest mission to restore mammoth cells,” said Hwang In-Sung, also of Sooam. He explained the theorized cloning method; the nuclei of an Indian elephant’s egg cell will be replaced with those of the mammoth’s somatic cells. The embryos with mammoth DNA can then be implanted in elephant wombs for “normal” embryotic development.

“This will be a really tough job, but we believe it is possible,” he said. The Sooam team, along with Hwang Woo-Suk, has cloned numerous animals, including eight coyotes last October.