Dietlose

Most people think only of positive benefits of green tea. However, while this type of tea does offer some excellent benefits, many directly related to health, it is also important to understand there are some negative effects of green tea leaves. Just as with many foods and drinks we consume, green tea may not be good for everyone. Therefore, we wanted to address some of the negative effects of green tea leaves so you can determine if this is right for you.

Green tea comes from a bush in the Camellia family, which is why the official name for green tea is Camellia sinensis, which is Latin. This evergreen bush has shiny, pointed leaves that have a wonderful aroma. This particular bush also produces beautiful white flowers. Today, green tea is grown in more than 50 countries to include Argentina, Brazil, and Russia, among others.

The exciting thing about this tea is that study after study shows positive effects on the body, meaning the negative effects of green tea leaves is minimal. For instance, green tea contains powerful antioxidants that have been proven to help fight various forms of cancer, as well as tooth decay, obesity, high cholesterol, and heart disease. Because of the amazing benefits, the level of consumption for green tea has skyrocketed throughout the globe.

Now, when it comes to the negative effects of green tea leaves, we want to start with pregnant women. Although most doctors agree that a small consumption of green tea is fine but when large amounts are consumed, caffeine can increase the risk of spontaneous abortion, low birth rate, and even growth retardation. Keep in mind that these risks are associated with the beverage of green tea, as well as supplements.

EGCG molecules, which are similar to a methotrexate compound, work by fighting off cancer cells by bonding with the dihydrofolate reductase enzyme, which is good in non-pregnant women. However, in pregnant women, the negative effects of green tea leaves involves involve the epigallocatechins, otherwise known as EGCG. In this situation, EGCG can affect the way in which the body uses folate, which is vital in the prevention of neural tube birth defects.

Nursing women should also consider the negative effects of green lea leaves. Remember, green tea is high in caffeine. Therefore, a woman who is breastfeeding and consuming green tea would be passing the caffeine on to the baby. Even small amounts or green tea powder used for baking, smoothies, and other foods should be avoided while nursing a baby.

In addition, negative effects of green tea leaves would link to individuals who have allergies. In this case, someone who is caffeine sensitive could develop problems such as hives and rash from consuming green tea. With caffeine being a stimulant that affects the central nervous system, other problems could result such as insomnia, excessive urination, reduction of potassium levels, and even incontinence. Just keep in mind that if you have any concerns about negative effects of green tea leaves for you, we recommend that you talk to your doctor or a health food specialist.

Julie Health writes about the benefits of drinking green tea and the harmful problems of green tea. Visit her website to discover more about how a miracle in a cup can improve your health.

You may reprint the article above in its entirety provided the resource box and its links remain.

Estelle B. Richman, Secretary of Public Welfare, recently established the Brain Injury Recovery Task Force to address barriers and gaps in the service system for brain injury survivors and their families as part of the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. The need for the task force was brought to Secretary Richman's attention through the advocacy of brain injury survivors, families, advocates and brain injury service providers.

The Brain Injury Recovery Task Force held its kick-off event on April 28, 2008. The event was well attended by brain injury survivors, families, advocates, brain injury service providers, state staff and others who worked together in small groups to discuss the issues. You can review the notes from the kick-off event at the link below.

The Brain Injury Recovery Task Force will work over several months to create a final report for Secretary Richman by mid-September 2008. The work will be done in work groups on specific topic areas and are open to public participation.

You can access additional information on the Task Force as well as how to become a member here.

The North American Brain Injury Society (NABIS) is pleased to announce that the accepted abstracts from the Sixth Annual Conference on Brain Injury will be published in the Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation.

The NABIS Annual Meeting is the largest gathering of brain injury professionals in North America. The meeting attracts a wide range of multidisciplinary professionals seeking to benefit from the latest developments in brain injury research, treatment and rehabilitation.

Attendees are comprised of basic scientists, rehabilitation physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, neuropsychologists, neurosurgeons, speech pathologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, social workers, nurses, case managers, legal professionals, advocates and all others working in the field of brain injury.

All submitted abstracts will be scored by a Peer Review Abstract Committee. NABIS values sessions that present current and best practices, including information that compliments the Conference's topic tracks (Research/Science, Medical/Clinical and Life-Long Living) as well as innovative approaches to brain injury assessment, treatment, intervention and rehabilitation. Also of interest are abstracts addressing brain injury caused by blast and meeting the needs of returning veterans. Awards will be given to the top scoring presentations.

NOTE: The deadline for submitting an abstract is June 13, 2008. You can find additional information and instructions on how to submit an abstract here.

The much-awaited New Hampshire Supreme Court decision in Baxter v. Temple was handed down yesterday as a unanimous New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that the trial court committed error in striking the testimony of a neuropsychologist who utilized the Boston Process Approach (BPA) in evaluating a plaintiff.

Readers of this blog will recall, that the trial court found that plaintiff’s neuropsychologist, Dr. Bruno-Golden used the BPA in evaluating the plaintiff. The trial court found that this approach used by Dr. Bruno-Golden, while generally accepted in the appropriate scientific literature as a sound clinical approach to evaluating injuries for brain injury, failed to show that it was “generally accepted in the making of a forensic assessment.” Thus, the trial court found that the plaintiff had not shown that the methodology was generally accepted in the appropriate scientific literature as reliable in a legal proceeding. In reaching its conclusion, the trial court focused on the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate that the specific battery - the entire series of tests viewed as a whole - employed by plaintiff’s neuropsychologist was or could be tested, or subject to peer review and publication or as a known or potential rate of error.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court, utilizing the standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert, rejected the trial court’s determination. The Court held that there does not exist a different standard for testing in the forensic setting as opposed to the clinical setting.

The Court noted that the BPA is a variation of the flexible battery approach that adds “a qualitative element to evaluating brain function.” The Court opinion, 22 pages in length, discusses in great detail why the flexible battery approach is admissible under the Daubert standard. The Court, in soundly rejecting defendant’s contention (defendant’s expert was David Faust, Ph.D.) that in order for a “battery” to be admissible in a forensic setting, all of the tests needed to be evaluated as an entire battery in order to determine known error rates, reasoned:

“To conclude otherwise would require the field of neuropsychology to test, peer review, and calculate error rates for an infinite number of test combinations for the interpretations to be reliable. Each time a new validated and reliable test or battery of tests such as the NPSY is developed or even updated, a clinical examiner could not use it as part of a comprehensive battery since it would be unknown how it interacted with the other tests within that battery. Since the flexible battery approach is the generally accepted approach to conducting neuropsychological assessments, the APA standards could not logically mandate that a neuropsychologist always use a comprehensive test battery that is validated as a whole.”

The New Hampshire Supreme Court also found that the evidence in the record indicated that the BPA as a flexible battery approach could be tested. It stated that while the BPA itself does not have a known or potential error rate, this was not critical to its admissibility. In its opinion, the Supreme Court concluded:

“Accordingly, we find that, when the BPA is administered in a manner consistent with the flexible battery approach, as described above, it is generally a reliable approach to neuropsychological assessment and is thus a reliable methodology for determining a person’s cognitive status.”

For those forensic neuropsychologists from the Reitan school which have consistently attacked the admissibility of the flexible battery approach, this decision stands as a monumental defeat.

On a side note, I was surprised but honored to see that my paper, The Admissibility of Neuropsychological Testimony After Daubert and Kumho, was cited as authority.

On Monday, October 13th, at the Montclair State University, an all-day continuing education program, open to all interested health professionals and the public, will take place. This landmark meeting of invited national and international expert neuroscientists, behavioral specialists, and physicians will convene at the St. Joseph ’s Regional Medical Center.

Its purpose is to generate a comprehensive report to U.S. Congress with concrete recommendations to address the psychological health difficulties and traumatic brain injury of our returning military veterans. Experts will specifically examine relevant science and research, treatment modalities, family and community resources, current and proposed policies, and ethical issues. The product will be a consensus statement that will ultimately impact science and services for all individuals afflicted with post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury.

For more information about these events and sponsorship opportunities, please contact
Ms. Lindsey Meade at 973.754.2001 or Dr. Rosemarie Moser at 609.895.1070.