These Dangerous Weight Loss Methods Can Actually Destroy Your Metabolism

Metabolism plays an important role in how quickly your body burns calories. Unfortunately, “boosting” your metabolism isn’t as simple as many make it seem. Falling for effective weight loss methods could actually cause you serious harm.

Beware of these dangerous weight loss methods that could ruin your metabolism forever.

Avoiding entire food groups 

Many people avoid fruit because it has “too much sugar.” Some shun grains and ignore vegetables completely. However, without produce and other plant foods, you’re depriving your body of a nutrient it needs to help you lose weight and maintain its metabolic rate: fiber. According to Healthline, a specific type of fiber, as part of a nutritious diet, proves essential for weight loss and maintaining a healthy metabolism.

Don’t cut foods out of your diet unless you’re allergic to them, or know how to replace the nutrients you’ll lose by eating something else instead.

Giving up animal proteins 

There’s nothing wrong with a plant-based diet. But if you don’t replace the protein you normally get from meat, fish, and dairy with enough protein from plants, your body won’t respond the way you’re hoping it will. A high-protein diet allows your body to burn more energy, build more muscle, and helps you avoid excess fat storage. It not only helps regulate your metabolism — it also promotes weight loss. Eggs, meat, fish, and cheese are not forbidden foods. Don’t miss out on one of the most important nutrients.

Saying no to fatty foods 

Fat doesn’t make you fat — but saying no to fat actually could. In fact, losing too much fat, on top of restricting dietary fat, can be extremely risky. You need fat to stay healthy. Without it, your metabolism will slow down significantly to preserve as much of your stored fat as possible. Healthy fats are extremely important, but some saturated fats, like those found in dairy and other animal proteins, are fine in moderate amounts.

Eating ‘diet’ foods 

According to Healthline, it likely takes less energy to “digest” processed junk foods than whole foods high in protein and lower in calories. This means, metabolically, you’re burning fewer calories after eating than you normally would. Diet snack foods, realistically, aren’t any better for you than full-fat or calorie-dense snacks. Relying too much on these foods to lose weight can actually backfire.

Working out too much 

Working out can increase your metabolism, but overdoing it can decrease the rate at which your body burns calories. Exercising more doesn’t guarantee you’ll lose weight, especially if you don’t also change your eating habits. Even then, depriving yourself of essential nutrition — even unintentionally — can also negatively impact your metabolism. They really do mean it when they say moderation matters.

Going on a juice cleanse 

No amount of solid food or liquid calories can speed up your metabolism, Livestrong.com warns. Only physical activity can do that. Even worse, if you take a juice cleanse too far, you could end up completely wrecking your metabolism altogether. Your body needs a healthy balance of nutrients from a variety of foods. Are fruits and vegetables healthy? Yes. But drinking too much sugar and shunning protein isn’t.

Restricting calories 

Body fat is an important part of your energy stores — it’s what gives you fuel after you burn through all your carbs. Not eating enough calories can not only result in fat loss, weight loss, and a slow metabolism, but muscle loss, too. This can be extremely dangerous, especially considering your heart is the most important muscle you have.

These Canned Foods Are Destroying Your Health — Avoid Them at All Costs

It’s pretty amazing how many foods we’ve preserved in a can over the years. The usual suspects, such as tuna fish, beans, and soup, probably come to mind first and foremost. But if you peruse your local grocery store aisles, there are hundreds of cans left and right. You might have even popped open a can of food to add to a meal today and didn’t even think twice about it.

Canned foods certainly have their place. But not every canned food is good for you. There are plenty that sound convenient and tasty but are truly horrible for your health. Let’s take a quick look at 11 canned foods that are destroying your health (No. 6 might be too tasty to give up). We’ll also take a brief look at which canned foods are actually good for you.

1. Libby’s Corned Beef Hash 

Corned beef hash has been a breakfast staple for decades. Thanks to companies, such as Libby’s, you don’t even have to make it from scratch — you can dump it right out of a can and have it ready in just minutes. This mixture of beef, spices, and potatoes isn’t exactly the perfect health food, however. In one 15-ounce can of Libby’s, you can expect to eat 840 calories, 22 grams of saturated fat, and 2,460 milligrams of sodium.

Considering the American Heart Association recommends you only take in 2,300 milligrams of sodium a day tops, we highly suggest skipping this horrifying can of death. 

2. Hormel Chili With Beans 

Canned chili is a great go-to when you’re starving and in need of a protein-filled meal. But we can’t exactly recommend you try Hormel’s Chili With Beans after taking a look at the nutrition facts. One can holds over 500 calories, 5 grams of saturated fat, and nearly 2,000 milligrams of sodium.

Even if you can get past these atrocities, there’s another number that’s sort of confusing — and that’s the 10 grams of sugar. Do you throw sugar in your homemade chili recipe? Yeah, we didn’t think so. Why there’s anything sweet in this food is really beyond us. Just say no.

3. Del Monte Fruit Cocktail 

You probably remember having this canned food as a kid. If you recall it tasting so much better than fresh fruit, it’s because its contents were swimming in a high-fructose corn syrup bath. At first glance, Del Monte’s Fruit Cocktail looks innocent — 100 calories isn’t bad, and 21 grams of sugar isn’t too much of a nightmare. But once you realize there are actually 3.5 servings in one of these little cans, those numbers are much, much worse. No one eats just a third of a can of fruit cocktail, which means you’ll most likely be taking in 63 grams of sugar in one sitting. You might as well just reach for a candy bar. 

4. Bush’s Honey Baked Beans 

Beans are known for their high protein content, and who doesn’t love a good baked bean dish at their picnics and barbecues? Unfortunately, baked beans are one of the least nutritious ways to consume an otherwise healthy food. And Bush’s Honey Baked Beans certainly aren’t doing your health any favors.

In one of these cans, you’re getting nearly 600 calories and over 50 grams of sugar. Even if you’re not eating the whole can yourself, you probably wouldn’t suspect this food to be so gut-busting. Do yourself a favor, and control the sugar content with your own recipe. 

5. Lucky Leaf Lemon Crème Filling & Topping 

There’s really nothing healthy about a lemon pie. But when it comes to pies that are also made from fillings in a can, you know you’re in for a sickeningly sweet caloric nightmare. Lucky Leaf’s Lemon Crème Filling & Toppingreally outdoes itself in the horrible-for-your-health department. One can of the stuff contains almost 800 calories and 140 grams of sugar. And the second ingredient is high-fructose corn syrup.

It’s a good thing pies are meant to be shared. Otherwise you’d feel pretty awful after eating a can of this stuff. 

6. Progresso Loaded Potato With Bacon soup 

In all honesty, we really could put just about any cream-based canned soup on this list and find a reason as to why it’s bad for your health. But we’re calling particular attention to the disaster that is Progresso’s Loaded Potato soup. One can of this soup contains 340 calories, which is reasonable for a meal. But the 20 grams of fat and 5 grams of saturated fat you’ll also be eating is really cause for concern. And like all cans of soup, the sodium content is outrageous at 1,600 milligrams.

We can guarantee making your own potato soup would be 10 times more healthy and delicious. 

7. Chef Boyardee Beef Ravioli 

Who needs real Italian food when you can just pop open a can of Chef Boyardee? There’s a reason no one’s ever asked themselves that question (at least, we hope they haven’t). The chef’s recipes are nice to have on hand for when you want something conveniently saucy and cheesy, but we really have nothing good to say about the Beef Ravioli.

One can has 11 grams of fat, 4.5 grams of saturated fat, and 1,140 milligrams of sodium. There’s also a horrifying surprise of 9 grams of sugar in there. Do you add several tablespoons of sugar to your beef ravioli at home? We didn’t think so. 

8. Pillsbury Grands! Refrigerated Biscuits 

There’s nothing quite as tasty as a Pillsbury biscuit. But there’s a reason these buttery, flakey pastries from the can that you’ve eaten since childhood are so delicious — and that’s because they’re full of unhealthy ingredients. In just one Southern Homestyle biscuit, you’re getting 170 calories and 6 grams of fat, with 2.5 grams being saturated. There’s even 4 grams of sugar and 470 grams of sodium in every single serving. Seeing as just one eating one of these addicting pastries is nearly impossible, you can pretty much double these numbers for yourself, too. ingredients.

9. Hunt’s Manwich Bold Sloppy Joe Sauce 

It’s the dinner staple that defined many childhoods — the Sloppy Joe. And if you’re someone who loves a little extra tang and flavor, you’re probably a fan of Hunt’s Manwich Bold Sloppy Joe Sauce.

Upon first glance, it’s not the biggest offender on the list. With only 70 calories and 0 grams of fat per serving, you might be tempted to really pile it on your bread of choice. What’s really puzzling, however, is why there’s a whopping 13 grams of sugar in a serving of this sauce. And seeing as a serving is just a mere quarter cup, you’re probably eating a ton of sugar without realizing. 

10. Libby’s Country Sausage Gravy 

We know how tempting the smell of biscuits and gravy can be. But you’ll want to do your body a favor and skip out on the canned varieties of gravy (and biscuits, for that matter). Libby’s Country Sausage Gravy is another offensive canned good that doesn’t seem so bad until you really delve into the facts. A quarter cup contains 70 calories — not too bad — but you’re also getting 6 grams of fat, 1.5 of which is saturated. The 2 grams of protein is an added bonus, but compared to the nearly 300 milligrams of sodium in one serving, it doesn’t really measure up.

And it’s also time to be honest — how many of us can really stop at just a quarter cup of gravy? We say give this one a pass. 

11. Nabisco Easy Cheese 

You may not have questioned the nutritional value of this product 20 years ago, but today, we’re highly suggesting you take several steps back from Nabisco’s Easy Cheese. It’s bright, it stays “fresh” for a number of years, and it’s in a can, which all spell trouble. And just 2 tablespoons of the stuff is almost 100 calories and 6 grams of fat. Nabisco also manages to add 430 milligrams of sodium into those measly spoonfuls. The 4 grams of protein certainly can’t redeem this bad canned food, so it’s time to leave this one in the ’80s where it belongs. 

1. Lentils 

If you’ve forgotten about this legume, it’s time to incorporate it into your diet. Lentils are high in protein and fiber, mindbodygreen says, making them the perfect accompaniment when you’re sick of rice or pasta as a side dish. They also aid in digestion, can help reduce your risk of heart disease, and can help lower your cholesterol levels.

If you’re trying to lose weight, lentils should definitely be on your radar too. An entire cup cooked comes to just 230 calories. 

2. Pumpkin 

Let’s be clear: We’re not talking about the sugary pumpkin pie filling in the baking aisle — we’re talking about straight canned pumpkin with nothing added. And this canned food is full of beta-carotene, which can help prevent heart disease and enhance your eye health, Greatist says. It may also surprise you to know that you’ll feel pretty full after eating a dish with pumpkin due to its incredibly high fiber content and decent amount of protein.

Unsure of how to add canned pumpkin to your meals? Try adding it to oatmeal or yogurt for breakfast, or you can even toss it into mac and cheese or chili for extra creaminess. 

3. Artichokes 

This often forgotten vegetable can seem intimidating to cook, no matter how much you’re craving spinach and artichoke dip. And that’s where the canned version comes in. Livestrong.com reports just one medium artichoke contains over 40% of your recommended daily value of fiber, which also can help lower cholesterol and balance blood sugar. This fiber is also unique because it can stimulate the production of good bacteria in your gut.

If you’re stumped on how to use canned artichokes, try throwing them on pizzas, using them in a salad, or even just sautéing them in a pan with olive oil and garlic. 

4. Black or kidney beans 

Beans are cheaper if you buy them dried, but the prep time is undesirable. In that case, feel free to go for the cans of black and kidney beans. All varieties of this legume are high in protein and fiber, and black beans in particular may help to strengthen your bones and heart, says Medical News Today. And Livestrong.com noteskidney beans could aid in cancer prevention.

SpaceX poised to launch 'world's most powerful rocket'

SpaceX is poised for the first test launch on Tuesday of its Falcon Heavy, which aims to become the world`s most powerful rocket in operation, capable of reaching the Moon or Mars some day.

SpaceX is poised for the first test launch on Tuesday of its Falcon Heavy, which aims to become the world`s most powerful rocket in operation, capable of reaching the Moon or Mars some day.

The launch, scheduled for 1:30 pm (1830 GMT) from Cape Canaveral, Florida, is the most ambitious yet for SpaceX, and has been hailed by industry experts as a game-changer because of its potential to propel the California-based company to the very forefront of the modern day space race.

"NASA may decide to use it (the Falcon Heavy) as a way of fast-tracking its plans to get to the Moon and Mars," Erik Seedhouse, assistant professor of applied aviation sciences at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.


Tuesday`s launch is a "huge deal, even for a spaceflight company that routinely accomplishes huge deals," said Jason Davis of the Planetary Society, describing the Falcon Heavy as "mythical."

No people are on board, just a mannequin wearing a futuristic spacesuit, strapped into CEO Elon Musk`s very own cherry red Tesla car.

"Starman in a Red Roadster," Musk posted on Instagram Monday, showing the rocket`s payload on a pedestal, aiming skyward.


Musk has also said David Bowie`s hit "Space Oddity" would play in the vehicle during the launch.

An animated video released by SpaceX to preview the launch showed all three rocket boosters returning to upright landings on Earth, while the car and mannequin emerged from the protective nose cone and sailed into orbit.

The car is destined for an elliptical orbit around the Sun, taking it into the vicinity of Mars.


"At times, it will come extremely close to Mars, and there is a tiny, tiny chance that it will hit Mars," Musk told reporters. "Extremely tiny."

Musk reiterated his warning that the maiden launch of the Falcon Heavy -- a project he first unveiled in 2011 -- may indeed fail. It may even explode on the launchpad.

"I would consider it a win if it just clears the pad and doesn`t blow the pad to smithereens," he said.


There is also a chance the Tesla might not make it beyond low-Earth orbit. First it has to go through the violent Van Allen belt where it will be pummeled by charged particles for about six hours.

"It is going to get whacked pretty hard," Musk said.

Even if there is a disaster Tuesday, Seedhouse said it is unlikely to harm the reputation of SpaceX -- already a top cargo supplier to the International Space Station under a $1.6 billion contract with NASA and busy with a steady stream of satellite clients and government payloads.


"Last year, they had more launches than any other country in the world -- never mind any other company," Seedhouse said.

"Every failure they have had they have bounced straight back."The Falcon Heavy is essentially three Falcon 9 rockets in one, with a total of 27 Merlin engines.

These engines "together generate more than five million pounds of thrust at liftoff, equal to approximately eighteen 747 aircraft," said SpaceX.


The 230-foot (70-meter) tall rocket is designed to carry nearly 141,000 pounds (64 metric tonnes) into orbit, more than the mass of a fully loaded 737 jetliner.

Although SpaceX has said the Falcon Heavy was "designed from the outset to carry humans into space and restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars," the plans for it to one day carry people appear to have changed.

Musk said another massive rocket under development, called BFR -- short for "Big Fucking Rocket" -- may be the one to transport crew, while Falcon Heavy may be reserved for equipment.


In any case, when the Falcon Heavy lifts off, "it will be the most powerful operational rocket in the world by a factor of two," SpaceX said.

The Falcon Heavy is designed to lift more than twice the payload of the next closest operational vehicle, the Delta IV Heavy, at a far lower cost.

The Delta IV Heavy costs about $350 million per launch, according to United Launch Alliance.


SpaceX`s Falcon Heavy starts around $90 million.

"That is way, way, way below anything else in the government launch industry," Seedhouse said.

Previous rockets that are no longer in commission have been more powerful than the Falcon Heavy -- including the Saturn V moon rocket, last flown in 1973, which delivered more payload to orbit.


The Soviet era Energia, which flew twice in 1987 and 1988, was also more powerful than the Falcon Heavy.

The United States has been unable to send its own astronauts to space since 2011, when the 30-year shuttle program ended, leaving the world`s astronauts to rely on Russian Soyuz rockets for transport to the International Space Station.

NASA is building its own massive rocket, called the Space Launch System, but costs are high and the project is years away from completion.


Musk said he was feeling "giddy" about Tuesday`s launch, and was not feeling the dread and anxiety he usually experiences ahead of time.

"It is guaranteed to be exciting, one way or another. Either it is going to be an exciting success or an exciting failure," he told reporters.

"I`d say tune in. It is going to be worth your time."


A live webcast of the launch is scheduled to begin around 1:00 pm (1800 GMT) on SpaceX.com. 

TRAPPIST-1 planets could hold 250 times more water than the oceans on Earth

The form that water would take on TRAPPIST-1 planets would depend on the amount of heat they receive from their star, which is a mere nine percent as massive as our Sun. 

 In September 2017, scientists with the help of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope found that the outer Earth-sized planets orbiting the nearby dwarf star TRAPPIST-1 might still harbour substantial amounts of water.


The findings lent further weight to the possibility that the planets may indeed support alien life.

Now, a new study has offered more hope by saying that while all of the planets orbiting TRAPPIST-1 are mostly made of rock, some have the potential to hold far more water than Earth – 250 times more than the oceans on our home planet.


The form that water would take on TRAPPIST-1 planets would depend on the amount of heat they receive from their star, which is a mere nine percent as massive as our Sun.

Planets closest to the star are more likely to host water in the form of atmospheric vapour, while those farther away may have water frozen on their surfaces as ice.

TRAPPIST-1e is the rockiest planet of them all but still is believed to have the potential to host some liquid water, said the study published in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics.


The findings are based on data from NASA's Spitzer and Kepler space telescopes.

"We now know more about TRAPPIST-1 than any other planetary system apart from our own," said study co-author Sean Carey, Manager of the Spitzer Science Center at the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center (IPAC) at California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, California.

"The improved densities in our study dramatically refine our understanding of the nature of these mysterious worlds," Carey said.


TRAPPIST-1 is named for the Transiting Planets and Planetesimals Small Telescope (TRAPPIST) in Chile, which discovered two of the seven TRAPPIST planets we know of today – announced in February 2016.

NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, in collaboration with ground-based telescopes, confirmed these planets and uncovered the other five in the system in February 2017.

In the new study, scientists led by Simon Grimm at the University of Bern in Switzerland created computer models to better simulate the planets based on all available information.


"Densities, while important clues to the planets' compositions, do not say anything about habitability. However, our study is an important step forward as we continue to explore whether these planets could support life," said co-author Brice-Olivier Demory from the University of Bern.

The study showed that TRAPPIST-1b, the innermost planet, is likely to have a rocky core, surrounded by an atmosphere much thicker than Earth's.

TRAPPIST-1c also likely has a rocky interior, but with a thinner atmosphere than planet b.


TRAPPIST-1d is the lightest of the planets - about 30 percent the mass of Earth, the study said.

Scientists were surprised that TRAPPIST-1e is the only planet in the system slightly denser than Earth, suggesting it may have a denser iron core than our home planet.

In terms of size, density and the amount of radiation it receives from its star, this is the most similar planet to Earth.


TRAPPIST-1f, g and h are far enough from the host star that water could be frozen as ice across these surfaces. If they have thin atmospheres, they would be unlikely to contain the heavy molecules of Earth, such as carbon dioxide, the study said.

NASA made the ground-breaking revelation and announced the discovery of seven Earth-like exoplanets orbiting TRAPPIST-1 – a star in a galaxy lying 40 light-years away from Earth – in February 2017.

It was also found that TRAPPIST is up to twice as old as our solar system – between 5.4 and 9.8 billion years.

Flight Attendants Reveal Some Of The Crazy Sh#T They've Seen On The Job (20 Pics)

Being a flight attendant is not that easy.

Poo smelly enough to land a plane

The BBC reports that in March 2015 a British Airways flight from London to Dubai was forced to turn around because of a "smelly poo."
Abhishek Sachdev, who was on board the flight, told BBC, "The pilot made an announcement requesting senior cabin crew, and we knew something was a bit odd. About 10 minutes later he said 'you may have noticed there's a quite pungent smell coming from one of the toilets.' He said it was liquid fecal excrement. Those are the words he used."
A BA spokesperson said the situation posed a health and safety problem because only half the air is recycled and cleaned on an airplane.
Passengers were put up in a hotel overnight since the next available flight was 15 hours later, BBC reports.

Dirty diapers in the seat

Emotional support marsupials

Dangerously impatient passengers

In 2014, a passenger on a China Eastern Airlines plane who said he wanted to "get off the plane quicker" deployed the emergency slide after the aircraft landed at Sanya Phoenix International Airport.
The incident caused the aircraft to be delayed for two hours and reportedly cost about $16,000 in damages.
In April, a United Airlines flight attendant mysteriously pulled the same stunt.

Whatever this is

Exploding e-cigarettes

In March, a Delta Air Lines flight was delayed at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport after an e-cigarette belonging to a passenger ignited on board the flight.
While battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices are permitted on planes as long as they're not checked, the lithium ion batteries in e-cigarettes have shown a propensity to ignite if they are damaged.

People who make soup with the airline water

In response to the Quora question, "What are the weirdest things flight attendants have seen in their line of duty?" former flight attendant Heather Wilde says she's seen her fair share of things many people would consider weird.
Among the strangest were people who made soup using the airline water. "Guys, the water lines haven't ever been cleaned — ever," she says.

Flying pigs

Animals left on planes

More than 700 international cabin-crew members revealed an extensive list of items they found on flights after passengers disembarked to Skyscanner in 2013.
Animals accounted for several of the more unusual items on the list, including a falcon, dried fish, a frog, a tortoise, and a parrot.

The worst place to put a baby

Strange item requests

A flight attendant with the pen-name "Betty" writes in her online series "Confessions of a Fed-Up Flight Attendant" that the strangest things people have asked her for on a plane are actually fairly ordinary items. What's surprising is what some of these items would be used for.
Items requested include tweezers for pulling thorns out of a passenger's butt; a pen to clean ears with; a screwdriver "to take the seat apart;" and a cup, lid, straw, and knife "to make a catheter."

In-flight laundry

Ambien zombies

From streaking down the aisle totally nude to falling like an axed tree, when passengers consume an unfortunate mix of Ambien, which people take to sleep on planes, and airplane cocktails, it make even the most normal people do very bizarre things, "Betty" says.
"These folks are sleeping, which means they think they are at home and safe in their beds. When they are home and safe in their beds they think it is perfectly acceptable to take off all of their clothes," she explains.
Alas, this is not acceptable behavior on a long-haul international flight.

Unfortunate accidents

"Betty" writes that passengers tend to get more inebriated on flights to Las Vegas. In his drunken state, one passenger passed out while he was in the restroom, fell backward, and ended up on the galley floor with his fly still down and his privates exposed.
After much debate between the attendants on the flight about what to do, "they finally decided to get the long metal tongs that we use to serve bread in first class to move the exposed body part back into his pants! He didn't feel a thing," Betty writes.

Pee hazards

Balancing acts

Uncomfortable 'cat-cidents'

"I know more than one fellow flight attendant who has had the uncomfortable situation of having to tell a woman that she can't breastfeed her … cat! You read that right: Breastfeeding. A. Cat. And this isn't an isolated incident," "Betty" writes.
She says the cat-feeders' response is always the same: "I'm just feeding my 'baby.'"

Spiders on a plane

In-flight workouts

So many feet!

Dude Watches Hockey For The First Time Ever And His Tweets About It Are Hilarious (10 Pics)

Twitter user @soIoucity wanted to watch some Cardinals baseball but instead got Game 7 between the St. Louis Blues and Chicago Blackhawks. He also live tweeted it and his tweets are priceless, check ‘em out. 

The Connection Between Dental Health and Cancer

The way we think about oral hygiene has come a long way since my grade-school days in the fifties, when a trip to our family dentist inevitably included a lecture about eating too many sweets and brushing with insufficient vigor (flossing had not yet been invented). By the time Dr. Larson completed his muscular drilling and mercurial filling and Mom and I were heading home on the bus, I was always left with a singular thought: How can I avoid this punishment in the future?

You would think that an 8-year-old with a low pain threshold wouldn’t need much incentive to elevate his dental care after all the shame and misery visited upon him by his demonic dentist, but by the time the Novocaine wore off, I’d blocked it all out and headed for the cookie jar. Who needs good teeth, anyway? I figured. Dad seemed to be getting along just fine with his dentures; every time he popped them out of his mouth at suppertime, it always got a laugh.

It took years — decades really — before I stumbled upon a dentist who could explain to me why a mouthful of bad teeth and flimsy gums is no laughing matter. And recent research continues to corroborate his opinion. Last August, for instance, a University at Buffalo survey of more than 65,000 older women revealed a link between periodontal disease and cancer — especially breast cancer. And last week, two other studies suggested an association between gum disease and lung, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer. 

Researchers at Tufts University and Johns Hopkins followed nearly 7,500 participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study for more than a decade and reported that those with severe periodontitis had more than double the chance of developing lung cancer compared with those with mild or no gum disease. Toothless study subjects saw an 80 percent increased risk of colorectal cancer than their more toothsome counterparts. The risk of pancreatic cancer was smaller, but noteworthy, the study reported.

Meanwhile, University of Helsinki researchers last week published a study involving 70,000 Finns over a 10-year period that explained how a specific bacteria associated with periodontitis, Treponema denticola (Td), may trigger an outbreak of cancer cells. They found that Td’s “primary virulence factor,” an enzyme called Td-CTLP proteinase, was also active in malignant tumors found in the gastrointestinal tract. Td-CTLP had been shown in earlier studies to activate enzymes that cancer cells use to invade healthy tissue while suppressing the immune system.

“These studies have demonstrated for the first time that the virulence factors of the central pathogenic bacteria underlying gum disease are able to spread from the mouth to other parts of the body, most likely in conjunction with the bacteria, and take part in central mechanisms of tissue destruction related to cancer,” said lead study author Timo Sorsa, PhD, in a statement released by the university.

I’m not a big proponent of fear-based public-health initiatives, but the whole oral hygiene–cancer connection raises some real issues among the senior set. As I reported last year, a quarter of all Americans over 75 are toothless and one in five over 65 is chewing on untreated cavities. I doubt that all these geezers are avoiding the dentist because of some vague childhood memories of dental-related discomfort. Even the most routine teeth-cleaning is expensive, and Medicare doesn’t cover the cost.

I don’t know how any retiree could even afford the preventive treatment I’ve undergone to stabilize my own periodontitis these past several years. Every three months, I’m in the dentist chair getting my teeth and gums cleaned. It’s kept the disease at bay so far, but each visit costs about $200. It’s a small price to pay to avoid gum surgery (my main incentive) and the disease’s potential cancer-causing consequences, but it’s not cheap.

I’m fortunate enough to be gainfully employed and covered by dental insurance, which allows me to shoulder that burden without too much difficulty, but any major reconstruction work is another story. During my visit last week, for example, my dentist recommended that I replace the bridge that Dr. Larson installed after I knocked out three teeth in a bicycle crash nearly 40 years ago. “These things are supposed to last for 15 years,” he said.

It seemed like a reasonable suggestion until I saw the price tag: About $6,300.

Insurance might knock that down into the range of five grand, I’m told, but the more I think about it the more I’m coming around to the idea that Dr. Larson might have been a pretty decent dentist after all.