Does giving antibiotics to animals hurt humans? By Matthew Perrone, Associated Press Updated 4/20/2012 3:00 PMWASHINGTON – The bacon Americans have for breakfast is at the center of a 35-year debate over antibiotics.

That's because the same life-saving drugs that are prescribed to treat everything from ear infections to tuberculosis in humans also are used to fatten the animals that supply the chicken, beef and pork we eat every day.Farmers say they have to feed the drugs to animals to keep them healthy and meet America's growing appetite for cheap meat. But public health advocates argue that the practice breeds antibiotic-resistant germs in animals that can cause deadly diseases in humans.The U.S. government moved to ban the use of some of the drugs in animals in the 1970s, but the rule was never enforced. Then last week, the Food and Drug Administration outlined plans to phase out the use of antibiotics in farm animals for nonmedical purposes over three years.The U.S., the biggest global consumer of meat by far, follows Europe and other developed nations in restricting the use of penicillin and other antibiotics in animals. The issue has moved to the front burner as documentaries such as "Meet Your Meat" and "Food Inc." have led Americans to focus more on what goes into their food. Sales of antibiotic-free meat, for instance, are up 25 percent to $175 million in the past three years."Consumers are beginning to understand the cost of eating cheap meat," said Stephen McDonnell, CEO of Applegate Farms, which markets antibiotic-free meats and cheeses. "As people really understand what it takes to create a healthy animal they will probably eat less meat, but they are going to eat better meat."THE HISTORYAntibiotics have been hailed as one of the greatest medical discoveries of the 20th century since their first use in humans in the 1940s. They've enabled doctors to cure deadly bacterial diseases like tuberculosis, typhoid fever and meningitis.The FDA approved the use of antibiotics in livestock in the 1950s after studies showed that animals that got the drugs in their feed put on more weight in less time than animals on a traditional diet. For example, pigs that got an antibiotic were shown to need 10 to 15 percent less feed to reach the same weight as pigs on regular diets.Since feed can account for as much as 70 percent of total animal production costs, the discovery was a windfall for farmers. It meant they could produce more meat for less money, resulting in fatter profits.But by the 1970s, researchers began warning regulators that routine use of antibiotics was contributing to a surge in drug-resistant germs, or superbugs, that render antibiotics powerless against deadly infections. Professor Stuart Levy of Tufts University conducted the first study in 1976 showing highly-resistant e. coli E. coli bacteria could pass from chickens to farm workers who worked with the animals in just a few weeks.The study contributed to the FDA's decision to ban nonmedical use of penicillin and tetracycline in farm animals a year later. But farmers and drugmakers pushed back, and the FDA rule was never enforced."Why did no one act on it? Because there was a strong lobby," said Levy, who is co-founder and president of the Alliance for Prudent Use of Antibiotics, a nonprofit advocacy group that favors restrictions on the drugs. "They said, 'Well, show us the deaths. Show us the real problem. Otherwise, this isn't so terrible."But it's difficult to link the overuse of antibiotics to deaths. It's tough to find the source of bacteria-resistant germs, which can spread from animals to humans through a number of ways, including undercooked meat and drinking water contaminated by animal waste. And bacteria mutate when passing between species, meaning that the same strain of drug-resistant bacteria in chicken can take on a different form once it enters the human body.THE DEBATEWhile the issue mostly was tabled in the U.S., it was gaining momentum elsewhere in the world.In 1999, the European Union backed a ban on penicillin and other human antibiotics for growth in farm animals. Within four years, the use of antibiotics on animals fell 36 percent in Denmark, 45 percent in Norway and 69 percent in Sweden.Levy, the Tufts University professor, and his colleagues had hoped that the EU's ban would bolster the case for restricting the use of antibiotics in the U.S. But instead, the data has been used to argue both sides of the issue.U.S. farmers have seized on reports that cases of diarrhea among young pigs increased in the first year after the EU ban, suggesting that animal health had declined. But public health advocates say that the outbreaks among pigs

decreased once farmers improved the sanitary conditions by cleaning feedlots more frequently and giving animals more space.U.S. groups like the National Chicken Council warn that restricting use of antibiotics will result in sicker animals, increasing costs for farmers — and the price of meat and poultry for consumers. Some industry groups have projected costs for farmers would rise by $1 billion over 10 years, though those estimates have not been backed by outside groups.Liz Wagstrom, chief veterinarian of the National Pork Producers Council, said the modern farming system is designed to keep animals healthy and produce large quantities of meat."The bottom line is that if these products go away, it may result in sicker pigs, more expensive food, and we don't think it will improve public health," Wagstrom said.Meat prices in Europe have not risen dramatically since the EU's ban. Danish authorities estimate the total costs for pig farmers increased by just 1 percent, or about $1.35 for every pig slaughtered — far below food industry estimates.U.S. health experts suggest the increase here would be modest, too. The Institute of Medicine, a non-partisan nonpartisan group of medical experts who advise the federal government on public health issues, estimates the average U.S. consumer would spend between $5 and $10 more per year on meat if antibiotics were restricted.THE RESULTFarmers continue to argue that antibiotics are necessary to have a steady supply of low-cost, disease-free meat for Americans, who eat about three-quarters of a pound per day — roughly twice the global average. They acknowledge that antibiotic-free animals can be raised by small, organic farms but say large-scale meat production requires antibiotics to keep animals healthy."We're pretty darn committed to our cattle, and our goal is to not have them get sick," said Mike Apley, a cattle farmer and professor of veterinary medicine at Kansas State University.Farmers like Apley also point to a handful of studies that conclude the risk to humans is extremely low. One 2004 estimate conducted by scientists consulting for the meat industry, for instance, placed the likelihood that antibiotic would not work in a human due to animal use at 1 in 82 million.And, they argue, it's the overuse of antibiotics in humans — not animals — that's causing a rise in drug-resistant bacteria. Indeed, for decades, doctors have prescribed antibiotics for common ailments like the flu and sinus infections that are not caused by bacteria. Studies show doctors often feel pressured to prescribe the drugs."The problem is not an animal or human issue per se," said Dr. Tom Chiller, associate director for epidemiologic science at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "It's about using the antibiotics as judiciously as we possibly can in situations where they are needed."Some Americans are becoming more aware of the issue. Liza Greenfield, 33, said she will only buy organic, antibiotic-free meat at farmers markets because she doesn't think animals should be given antibiotics for growth."A cow is supposed to eat grass," said Greenfield, an administrator at the New York University. "I want to know it was out on the pasture eating grass."As Americans show more interest, so are companies. Some of the largest restaurant and grocery chains including Kroger and Safeway now offer antibiotic-free meat. And last month, executives from companies such as Chipotle Mexican Grill and Bon Appetit food services that offer antibiotic-free meat and poultry gathered in Washington to lobby for restrictions on the use of antibiotics in animals.The FDA last week said it would ask drugmakers to voluntarily stop marketing antibiotics for non-medical uses on their labels with a goal of completely stopping the practice in a few years. Animal drugs can only be legally prescribed for uses listed on the label, so the change is expected to have a major impact on how farmers use them.Some public safety advocates complained that the FDA, which worked with drugmakers on the proposal, should have mandated the change. But the FDA said a formal ban would have required individual hearings for each drug, which could have taken decades."We think the science is very solid in showing that largely indiscriminate use of antibiotics contributes to resistance," said FDA Deputy Commissioner MichaeI Taylor. "I don't think there's really any question about it."Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-04-20/antibiotics-animals-human-meat/54434860/1

Flu shot may decrease risk of heart attack and stroke

By Shawn Radcliffe Published October 22, 2013Healthline.comWith winter quickly approaching, doctors and public health officials are encouraging people to roll up their sleeves for a flu shot. According to new research, this annual ritual is especially important for people who already have, or who are at risk of, heart disease.The new study, published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), found that people vaccinated against the flu had a lower risk of a major cardiovascular event such as a heart attack or stroke, compared with those who received no flu vaccine.

“The study is important because it reconfirms that there are benefits to getting the flu vaccination,” Dr. David Frid, staff cardiologist in preventative cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, said, “especially in people who have recently had a cardiac event, because it reduces the likelihood of their having some type of cardiovascular complication if they do develop the flu.”

Don't Skip Your Annual Flu Shot

For the JAMA article, researchers from the University of Toronto analyzed five published studies and one unpublished study. They combined the data to get a stronger picture of the connection between flu vaccination and cardiac events. Together, the studies included more than 6,000 patients, with an average age of 67. More than one third of those people had a history of heart disease.

People who were vaccinated against the flu had a 2.9 percent risk of having a major cardiovascular event within eight months of follow-up. This risk increased to 4.7 percent for people who skipped the vaccine or received a placebo shot.

While the term “flu” is commonly used to describe any cold or virus that occurs during the winter, the new study looked specifically at the influenza virus. Flu shots are given each year at doctors' offices, pharmacies, and malls, and may even be available for free or at a reduced cost. These vaccinations are designed to protect people against the flu but are ineffective against the common cold and non-influenza viruses.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that everyone older than six months be vaccinated against the flu. And flu shots are especially important for people at risk of complications, including those with heart disease and people with compromised immune systems.

The Flu Can Strain Your Heart

Though people in the new study who received a flu shot had a lower risk of complications from the flu, Frid says there is no direct relationship between the flu virus and developing heart disease. In other words, getting the flu will not also give you heart disease.

“What happens is when somebody either has cardiovascular disease or is at risk of cardiovascular disease, the stress of having influenza—an upper respiratory infection—can precipitate a stress or strain on the person,” Frid said, “which can increase their likelihood of having some type of cardiovascular event.”

In younger people, the flu can cause missed days of work or school. In older people and those with other health conditions, however, it can lead to hospitalization or even death.

Reaffirming the Benefits of Flu Shots

According to the study authors, less than half of people under the age of 65 with high-risk conditions receive the flu vaccine, which puts them at risk of complications like heart attack and stroke. Older people, who often have existing health problems, are more likely to be vaccinated, although up to one third still skip the annual flu shot.

“The data supports what has been the recommendation of a lot of public health organizations,” Frid said, “that people should get the flu vaccine, especially people with underlying cardiac disease.”

For people with a history of heart disease, the study provides assurance that a flu shot is a win-win.

“There does not appear to be any negative cardiovascular effects from getting the vaccine,” Frid added. “It all appears to be in the positive direction.”

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/10/22/flu-shot-may-decrease-risk-heart-attack-and-stroke/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=straight-talk-about-vaccination

Straight Talk about Vaccination Parents need better information, ideally before a baby is born By Matthew F. Daley and Jason M. Glanz | Wednesday, August 24, 2011 | 127

Last year 10 children died in California in the worst whooping cough outbreak to sweep the state since 1947. In the first six months of 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded 10 measles outbreaks—the largest of which (21 cases) occurred in a Minnesota county, where many children were unvaccinated because of parental concerns about the safety of the standard MMR vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella. At least seven infants in the county who were too young to receive the MMR vaccine were infected.

These troubling statistics show that the failure to vaccinate children endangers both the health of children themselves as well as others who would not be exposed to preventable illness if the community as a whole were better protected. Equally troubling, the number of deliberately unvaccinated children has grown large enough that it may be fueling more severe outbreaks. In a recent survey of more than 1,500 parents, one quarter held the mistaken belief that vaccines can cause autism in healthy children, and more than one in 10 had refused at least one recommended vaccine.

This sad state of affairs exists because parents have been persistently and insidiously misled by information in the press and on the Internet and because the health care system has not effectively communicated the counterarguments, which are powerful. Physicians and other health experts can no longer just assume that parents will readily agree to childhood inoculations and leave any discussion about the potential risks and benefits to the last minute. They need to be more proactive, provide better information and engage parents much earlier than is usually the case.

Peril of Business as Usual

Right now pediatricians typically bring up the need for vaccines during the well-baby checkup held about two months after birth. That visit has a jam-packed agenda. In the usual 20 minutes allotted for the appointment, the physician must learn the answers to many questions, of which the following are but a sample: How many times is the baby waking to feed at night? Is the child feeding well? Where do measurements of height, weight and head circumference fall on a standard growth chart? Do the parents know how and when to introduce solid food and how to safely lay the child down to sleep? Are various reflexes good? Can the sounds of a heart murmur be heard through the stethoscope? Are the hip joints fitting properly in their sockets, or are they dislocated?

Generally in the final seconds of the visit, assuming all has gone well to this point, the doctor mentions the required schedule for six recommended inoculations: the first DTaP shot (for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, also known as whooping cough), the polio shot, a second hepatitis B shot (the first having been given in the first few days after birth), the pneumococcal conjugate shot (for bacterial pneumonia and meningitis), the HiB shot (for another type of meningitis) and finally the rotavirus vaccine (to prevent a severe diarrheal infection). This is the point in the visit at which more and more pediatricians report a disheartening turn of events: although most parents agree to the inoculations without hesitation, a growing number say they would like to delay or even refuse some or all of the vaccinations for their infants.

A proper conversation that respects the reluctant parents’ concerns, answers their questions and reassures them that the inoculations are indeed necessary—that countless studies by hundreds of researchers over many decades have shown that vaccinations save millions of lives—will likely take at least another 20 minutes. Meanwhile, though, other families sit in the waiting room, itching for their own well-baby checkups to start.

This all too common scene should never happen. Having this discussion at the two-month well-baby visit is too late. By then, parents may have read about any issues on the Web or chatted with other moms and dads in the park. Discussion with medical professionals should begin long before, usually during, or even prior to, the pregnancy. The evidence summarized below should form the basis for these exchanges.

Fears and Facts

Although parents give many reasons for not wanting to vaccinate their children, we have noticed at least three recurring themes. Some do not believe their children are at risk for diseases such as polio, measles and tetanus, which are now rarely seen in the U.S. Others do not believe that certain vaccine-preventable diseases, such as chicken pox and measles, are particularly serious. And many worry about the safety of vaccines. The concerns may be about immediate, well-defined side effects such as fever or may take the form of anxiety that vaccines might harm the immune system or cause chronic diseases years later. Each of these concerns can be met with a careful review of the evidence.

Together we have conducted a series of studies to better quantify the risks of not vaccinating—information that speaks to the mistaken belief that today’s children are unlikely to come down with whooping cough, measles or the like if they skip their inoculations. Our investigations looked at hundreds of thousands of children in Colorado and compared the risk of various vaccine-preventable diseases in children whose parents had refused or delayed vaccines, compared with children whose parents had had them vaccinated. We found that unvaccinated children were roughly 23 times more likely to develop whooping cough, nine times more likely to be infected with chicken pox, and 6.5 times more likely to be hospitalized with pneumonia or pneumococcal disease than vaccinated children from the same communities. Clearly, the parental decision to withhold vaccination places youngsters at greatly increased risk for potentially serious infectious diseases. These results also show the flaws in the “free rider” argument, which erroneously suggests that an unvaccinated child can

avoid any real or perceived risks of inoculation because enough other children will have been vaccinated to protect the untreated child.

Depending on fate to soften the blow from an infection is also more dangerous than most people realize. One out of every 20 previously healthy children who get the measles will come down with pneumonia. One out of 1,000 will suffer an inflammation of the brain that can lead to convulsions and mental retardation, and one to two out of 1,000 will die. Similarly, chicken pox can lead to severe infections of the skin, swelling of the brain, and pneumonia. Even when no complications arise, chicken pox is painful and triggers high fevers and itchy rashes. Vaccinated children who develop chicken pox (no vaccine is perfectly effective all the time) usually suffer much milder symptoms.

Even when parents appreciate the peril of not vaccinating, they want to know that vaccines are safe. Because vaccines are given to huge numbers of people, including healthy infants, they are held to a much higher safety standard than medications used for people who are already sick. Nothing in medicine is 100 percent safe, however, and the absolute safety of vaccines cannot be proved. Safety can be inferred, though, by the relative absence of serious side effects in multiple studies.

Studying the safety of vaccines is a complicated, labor-intensive process. Fortunately, the U.S. has a sophisticated system, a federally funded program that does not receive any money from vaccine manufacturers. This system can both test specific hypotheses and perform general monitoring of the safety of newly licensed vaccines. As a new theory arises, it can be rigorously tested.

Perhaps the biggest boost to the antivaccine movement came in 1998, when, in a paper in the Lancet, Andrew J. Wakefield and 12 colleagues proposed that the measles vaccine could cause autism in susceptible children. In the years since, more than a dozen studies have convincingly shown that vaccines do not cause autism. In fact, it is rare in science that published scientific findings have been so thoroughly, and publicly, disproved. The Lancet retracted the Wakefield article in early 2010. Most of the co-authors no longer vouch for the study findings. And Wakefield himself was accused of falsifying the data and lost his medical license.

Despite the complete dismantling of Wakefield’s vaccines-cause-autism hypothesis, public skepticism about vaccination has only increased as new speculative theories have been put forward. Maybe, some contend, vaccine preservatives cause long-term problems. Or maybe the growing number of vaccines all assaulting the immature immune system at once causes complications. Or perhaps trouble can arise from a toxic combination of vaccines with air pollution, chemical and metal contamination of the environment, and the increasing stress of modern life.

That this cycle—debunked links followed by ever grander speculation—keeps repeating itself is a clear indication that the scientific community is more reactive than proactive when engaging the public about vaccine safety. Investigating narrow, specific theories about vaccines does not seem to provide adequate reassurance to parents with broad and vague worries about vaccines.

So where does this leave the conversation between health professionals and parents? A good place for talks to begin would be in a prenatal class devoted to vaccines or through Web chats with physicians and vaccine researchers. Web interactions, in particular, might encourage prospective parents to openly air their concerns and raise sensitive questions they may not feel comfortable asking in a face-to-face visit with their child’s own pediatrician. Education campaigns should also be carried out. But many moms and dads will still need a forum where they can find accurate information, voice their worries, and engage in a full discussion about the benefits and risk of vaccines. And many will still want their infant’s doctor to look them in the eyes and say, “This is one of the best things you can do for your child’s health.”

The key facts parents need to know, though, are that vaccines prevent potentially fatal diseases, that vaccines have a high degree of safety, and that their safety is constantly evaluated and reevaluated in a system operating independently from the pharmaceutical companies that make vaccines. Unless this message gets spread widely and well, too many doctors and parents are going to find themselves in emergency rooms and isolation wards, watching children suffer with the devastating effects of measles, whooping cough or some other readily preventable infectious disease. 

So Do Prosthetic Limbs Give Sprinters an Advantage Or Not?

After a year-long study of the case of Oscar Pistorius, two starkly opposing scientific camps

emerge on each side of the debate

By Clay Dillow Posted 11.19.2009 at 1:00 pm

Using the same set of data--an analysis of double-amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius and his carbon fiber Cheetah prosthetic

legs--two teams of researchers have come to very different conclusions on whether his prostheses give him an advantage

over sprinters with both of their legs.

The future of modern prostheses' usage in sports hangs in the balance, and the fight is getting ugly.

In a point-counterpoint published by the Journal for Applied Physiology today, Dr. Peter Weyand of Southern

Methodist University and Dr. Matthew Bundle of the University of Wyoming claim sprinters' prosthetic legs can shave

more that 10 seconds from a runner's 400-meter.

Dr. Rodger Kram of the University of Colorado and his colleagues' response: "You cannot be serious!"

In May 2008, the experts on both sides of the argument worked together to overturn the IAAF's ban on prosthetic legs

in professional sprinting. The ban remains overturned, but now, with the data from an 18-month study made public,

very different conclusions have arisen over what the data actually means. The question boils down to this: Is it the

prostheses or raw athletic ability that allows South African double-amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius to run so fast?

"Personally, I find it preposterous, ludicrous, to suggest that amputating my legs and giving me prostheses would

make me run 12 seconds faster over 400 meters," says Kram. "Take away all the muscles in my calf and foot, and I'm

going to run faster?"

The row started with Pistorius's appeal to overturn the IAAF's ban on prosthetic limbs. A research team, including

Weyand and Bundle, examined the scientific reasoning behind the ban. "The evidence put forth by the IAAF wasn't

scientifically supportable," Bundle explains. "But they didn't have the data then that we do now."

The ban was rescinded, but the new data seems little more conclusive as research team members draw lines in the

sand. On one side Weyand and Bundle found what they believe is solid evidence that Pistorius's prostheses give him

a clear advantage over other sprinters. But Kram, along with other colleagues that include Dr. Hugh Herr of MIT's

Media Lab, claim "indisputable" evidence to the contrary.

"It's important to note that this is not a new study by Weyand and Bundle," Kram says. "It's an opinion piece that has

not been peer reviewed."

The study Kram refers to is Weyand and Bundle's comparison of Pistorius to physiological data collected on other

sprinters. "Oscar swings his legs faster than anyone we've ever seen in the history of sports or science," Bundle says.

"In fact, it's significantly faster. If you compare Oscar to six of the former and current world record holders, he swings

his legs 15 percent faster."

Kram and his colleagues at MIT have since been collecting data on a different set of sprinters – single-limb amputees

– comparing the way they swing their natural legs to their artificial ones. "We decided that a study of unilateral

amputees would provide good insight because you can compare the prosthetic leg to the biological one," he says. "It

gave us good control."

They determined that prosthetic limbs produce lower ground reaction forces than those of the average sprinter, a fact

Weyend and Bundle don't dispute. But Kram and company also argue that while Pistorius' leg repositioning time is

swift, it's not unnaturally so. Rather, his repositioning speed is driven by his athleticism; Pistorius, through training,

has compensated for reduced ground force with blazing leg speed.

Weyand and Bundle fire back that Pistorius's speed is in no way natural: "Even in comparison to individuals with the

most extreme gait adaptations for speed in recorded human history, the double-artificial-limb value is not simply an

outlier; it is quite literally off the biological charts," they write. This ease of acceleration could trim 12 seconds off a

400-meter runner's time.

Back and forth it goes. Kram and company cite Weyand's previous writings claiming vertical ground reaction force is

the key determinant of sprinting speed. Weyand and Bundle respond that "more erect limb posture" in leg-amputees,

coupled with lower ground force "co-reduce the muscular forces required to attain the same sprint running speeds to

less than half of intact-limb levels," saying Pistorius needs half the strength to reach the same speeds as runners on

biological legs. Kram and company respond with the affronted incredulity of a John McEnroe.

Neither side of the argument wants to see amputee sprinters banned from competition, but they have different visions

for the future of the sport. Kram's side sees no problem letting amputees sporting Cheetahs take to the starting

blocks. Weyand and Bundle suggest redesigning the prostheses to remove perceived advantages. "As for Oscar,

there are some pretty simple things that could be done to his prostheses that could remedy the advantages that

we've found," Bundle says.

Could an age of running where prostheses are approved for competition by sanctioning authorities solve the

problem? It's possible, but not likely. Each runner is different and thus a standardized prosthetic would be difficult to

implement. Further, how does a governing body put limits on how fast an athlete can reposition his legs and still call it

an open competition?

The point-counterpoint article published today hopes to wring consensus from the scientific community. The piece will

remain on the Web for months, soliciting responses from other scientists, some of which will be digested into another

paper representing the feelings of the larger scientific community.

A rare point of agreement: more research is necessary. "When you think about it, the world has only studied one

bilateral amputee runner, and he happens to be the fastest," Kram says. "One would think that before leveling an

opinion on this, the scientific community should conduct more research."

Regardless of what further research shows, either prostheses will be banned from professional sprinting or they will

be permitted in some form. The former outcome will dash the dreams of many, and the latter will invite skepticism that

amputee sprinters' achievements are truly their own (Barry Bonds and the asterisk comes to mind). For athletes like

Pistorius, that means waiting in athletic purgatory until science decides whether the lack of biological limbs

constitutes a handicap or a performance enhancement.

For someone used to moving so fast, the wait must be interminable.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-11/seriously-do-prosthetic-limbs-give-sprinters-advantage

Bigger, Faster, Stronger: Will Bionic Limbs Put the Olympics to Shame?

BY JASON TURBOW 08.03.12 6:30 AM

On Euston Road in London, about seven miles from where Oscar Pistorius will run in the Olympics atop legs of carbon fiber, is the Wellcome Collection, home to an array of science-based exhibits reflecting the influences of art, history and other aspects of the humanities. One of its current features is titled Superhuman.

The show explores human enhancement of all types, with an eye toward what the future of biological augmentation might bring. It’s artsy, occasionally whimsical and very forward-thinking — and on point with regard to Pistorius’ competing in these Olympics and a sign of how future Games may change.

We’ve heard all about Pistorius, the South African sprinter born without fibulas, who wears prosthetics called Flex-Foot Cheetahs that allow him to compete not just with disabled runners, but with the best able-bodied sprinters on the planet.

His presence at the Games has sparked considerable debate. Do his prosthetics give him an unfair advantage, as some still argue, or do their limitations — not to mention his incomplete lower-body musculature, which forces him to compensate with muscle groupings elsewhere — level the competitive balance? For an example of how divergent opinions are, look no further than the team that helped overturn the 2007 ban laid down on Pistorius by the International Association of Athletic Federations, which had prevented him from competing at the Olympic level.

Pistorius is physiologically the same as other athletes, they argued in a paper published in the Journal of Applied Physiology (.pdf), even if he’s mechanically different. The Court of Arbitration in Sport agreed, and the IAAF relented; in 2008, his ban was overturned, although he did not meet the Olympic qualifying time for Beijing and ran in the Paralympics instead.

It appears that the paper’s authors have traveled divergent paths from that point.

“The lightness of Pistorius’ limbs make him 15 to 20 percent, or more, faster than he would otherwise be,” the paper’s lead author, Peter Weyand, an associate professor of applied physiology and biomechanics at Southern Methodist University, told Wired. “He can reposition his limbs 20 to 25 percent faster than intact-limb runners who have the same top speed … and 16 percent faster than five world record-holders in the 100 meters.” Weyand says that Pistorius’ blades can augment his 400 time by as much as eight seconds.

But another of the paper’s authors, Rodger Kram, went on to claim that any benefit conferred by the lightness of Pistorius’ legs is counteracted by their inefficiency in transferring force to the ground, meaning that the runner gets less energy returned with every stride he takes. (Ossur, the company that makes Pistorius’ Cheetahs, claims that its blades return 90 percent of the energyaccumulated during each stride, as compared to a 249 percent return with an able-bodied foot and leg.)

“Peter’s claim that Oscar Pistorius can swing his legs back and forth faster than any other athlete is decidedly false,” a third of the paper’s authors, Hugh Herr, director of the Biomechatronics Group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Media Laboratory, told Wired. “If an Oscar Pistorius wants to participate [in the Olympics], he should be allowed. We should have the technology that would allow a fairness of sport, that would allow him freedom.”

Herr is right. We should have technology that allows Paralympians the freedom to compete on an Olympic-caliber playing field — but currently we either don’t, or can’t agree on the fact that we do.

(It should be noted that for devices like the Cheetahs to make a difference of Olympic proportions, they have to be worn by double-amputees. People who have lost only one leg face significant challenges getting their biological and prosthetic limbs to sync with elite-athlete perfection with regard to things like the distribution of weight and energy.)

Suffice it to say that there are no easy answers. But forget Pistorius for a moment: No matter how he does in the 400-meter preliminaries Saturday, his is today’s problem, featuring today’s technology — and in some cases, yesterday’s. The Cheetahs he uses are very similar to the Cheetahs introduced in 1997; the science behind them seems to have plateaued, but that almost certainly won’t be the case much longer.

Today’s prosthetics are attempting to emulate the human body, particularly joint functionality. Scientists are exploring regulated power (synching a knee’s motion to that of an ankle, for example) and see a future with osseointigration, in which a limb is connected directly to the body, rather than strapped onto a stump, and neural control.

Herr’s company, iWalk, currently offers a lower-leg system with a bionic ankle that can sense movement and adjust to terrain. It contains robotics that imitate muscles and tendons. The salient point here is that such a device, like those imagined in the preceding paragraph, are designed not to confer athletic advantage, but to put their users, if you’ll pardon the phrase, on equal footing with the rest of us.

But what happens when the technological curve climbs even further? How will coming generations of prosthetics affect what Paralympians can achieve beyond even their able-bodied counterparts? If human growth hormone can tilt a playing field, what might bionics wreak?

This is not so far-fetched as it might sound. Already Esco Bionics and Argo Medical Industries are developing powered exoskeletons designed to help the wheelchair-bound become ambulatory. From there, it isn’t difficult to envision technology that is augmentary, not assistive, an array of bigger-stronger-faster gadgetry that affords people abilities far beyond those provided by human physiology. We can already glimpse such a future in devices like Raytheon’s XOS 2 exoskeleton, designed to increase a soldier’s strength.

When such devices are perfected to the point that they can be used for athletic purposes, we’ll be looking at an entirely new concept of sport. It’s doubtful the Olympics will ever feature exoskelletally assisted runners or weightlifters, but what’s to say that a different type of venue won’t arise for such a thing?

“I think that once the technology is proven to exceed normal human function, then the stage will be set for the introduction of a whole new type of enhanced sporting entertainment,” said Matthew Garibaldi, director of the Orthotic and Prosthetic Centers for the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery at UC San Francisco.

This raises a fundamental question for the next generation: What do we want our sport to be?

“On the one extreme, is it supposed to be biological and pure,” asked Weyand, “or on the other, will we be perfectly okay with it being a gladiator sport and pharmaceutical freakshow?”

In other words, the future of sport — or, at the least, one facet of it— may well involve competing manufacturers helping athletes square off in a sort of Robocop games. “People have always thought the human body is the ideal,” Herr, himself a bilateral amputee, once told ESPN. “It’s not.”

Even in the face of such an outlandish future, however, it’s likely that sanctioning bodies governing the world’s sports — especially those in which artificially assisted athletes compete against the able-bodied — will face many of the same challenges they do today when it comes to the likes of Pistorius: deciding what’s fair, and determining legal from illegal.

There are many questions regarding Pistorius’ prosthetics. Are the advantages that come with their light weight counteracted by the drawbacks of diminished energy return? And forget the energy lost where foot meets track; how much dissipates at the point of contact between stump and prosthetic? How profound is the affect of having to use thigh

and trunk muscles to make up for those that are no longer in his legs? Current science is unable to agree on definitive answers, and will undoubtedly face greater concerns, and trickier questions, in the future.

Even when technology gives us a leg that precisely mimics biologic function, confirming the extent of that function for the sake of competition could be just as tricky as figuring out the details of the leg in the first place. Every amputee, after all, interacts with his or her prosthetic in unique ways, making the fine-tuning of an elite athlete’s false limb as important as the limb itself. NASCAR required the use of carburetor restrictor plates on some tracks to keep cars below a certain speed. Could the International Association of Athletic Federations do the same?

All this, of course, is in the future. Today, not far from Olympic Stadium, the Wellcome Collection has amassed an assortment of futuristic ideas that are of interest to the sporting world primarily because they come from people who, by the looks of it, have no professional interest in the sporting world.

Take, for example, Andy Miah, chair in Ethics and Emerging Technologies at the University of the West of Scotland, who on the Wellcome website offers a taped exegisis about the look of future sports. His vision eliminates much of what makes today’s elite athletes elite.

“Fifty years from now, we may not have [the Olympics and Paralympics]—we may have only one set of performances that people compete in, that reveal how capable they are at using their bodies in combination with technology. . . .” he says. “When I tune into the Olympics 50 years from now, I not only expect to see different kinds of sports [than we have today], but you never know—I may even be competing there.”

Computer geek as Olympic hero. We’re looking at a whole new world indeed.

UPDATE 2:20 p.m. Aug. 7: Wired incorrectly reported that professor Peter Weyand of Southern Methodist University indicated that double amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius can stride 20 to 25% faster than intact-limb runners who have the same top speed and 16% faster than five former world record holders in the 100 meter dash. Weyand’s statements to Wired referred to Pistorius’ limb repositioning times, and not his stride rate as was reported. Although Wired quoted Hugh Herr of MIT as saying Weyand’s statement was “decidedly false”, the valid measurements available indicate that Weyand’s statement to Wired was completely accurate. The relevant valid measurements are as follows:

● Oscar Pistorius limb repositioning time = 0.284 seconds● Intact-limb athletes average limb repositioning time = 0.359 seconds● Five former world-record holders average limb repositioning time = 0.337 seconds● The single briefest valid repositioning time measurement for a male sprinter = 0.300 seconds

As documented in the scientific and popular literature, the limb repositioning time of Oscar Pistorius is off the biological charts as Weyand has indicated.

http://www.wired.com/playbook/2012/08/next-gen-prosthetics-and-sports/all/

Q. Is Raw Milk More Nutritious than Pasteurized Milk? By Matthew G. Kadey, R.D., September/October 2008A. It depends on who you ask. Raw milk—milk that is not pasteurized or homogenized—is making its way into more cereal bowls, with 29 states now allowing the sale of raw milk under varying restrictions. Raw-milk proponents will pay upwards of $10 a gallon, because they believe it is safe and healthier. A swell of testimonials about raw milk’s ability to relieve asthma, autism and allergies is further fueling the demand, though much of this praise remains anecdotal with few studies to back up these claims. Enthusiasts claim raw milk dishes out more flavor, vitamins, minerals and beneficial proteins, enzymes and bacteria than milk that has been “degraded” during pasteurization.But the Centers for Disease Control and the FDA beg to differ, stating that pasteurized milk has all the same nutrients as raw milk and that raw milk comes with an added formidable risk of pathogen outbreaks. According to the CDC, these outbreaks accounted for more than 1,000 illnesses, more than 100 hospitalizations and two deaths between 1998 and 2005.Catherine W. Donnelly, Ph.D., a food microbiologist at the University of Vermont, believes that the dangers cancel out any potential nutritional benefits. “Of particular concern is Listeria [a bacterium that results in a foodborne illness, listeriosis], which has a 30 percent mortality rate,” Donnelly warns. “If raw milk is your choice, it’s buyer beware.” When USDA scientists collected raw milk samples from 861 farms in 21 states, nearly a quarter of them contained bacteria linked to human illness, including 5 percent that tested positive for Listeria.In short, it’s still too early to tell if raw milk lives up to its purported benefits, but the risks are real. We don’t recommend drinking raw milk or eating a raw-milk cheese that’s been aged less than the minimum of 60 days required for legal sale. (However, that caveat doesn’t apply to raw-milk cheeses aged 60 days or more, since the salt and acidity of the cheesemaking process make for a hostile environment to pathogens, says Donnelly.)Deciding whether to take the risks associated with drinking raw milk is only one of the health-related choices you need to make when it comes to choosing the best milk for your family. When making a decision about which milk to buy, here are two other issues you may want to consider:Fat content. Nutrition experts recommend drinking low-fat (a.k.a. 1%) or nonfat milk to limit intake of the saturated fats that boost risk of heart disease. Don’t be fooled: reduced-fat, or 2%, milk is not a low-fat food. One cup has 5 grams fat, 3 of them the saturated kind. Drink whole milk, which contains 5 grams of saturated fat per cup, only once in a while, if at all. The one exception to this rule is infants. Children under age 2 need extra fat in their diets to support their developing brains. Whole milk can help provide that fat.Lactose. Up to 50 million Americans lack the enzyme lactase, which is needed to digest lactose, the sugar naturally found in milk. For these people, drinking most milks can cause digestive

problems. Solution: Choosing lactose-free milk. This product is basically regular cow’s milk minus lactose. It provides all of the same healthful nutrients (e.g., protein and calcium), just not the sugar that stokes the digestive issues.http://www.eatingwell.com/nutrition_health/nutrition_news_information/is_raw_milk_more_nutritious_than_pasteurized_milk