The chemical disruption of human metabolism.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence highlights the reality of unprecedented human exposure to toxic chemical agents found throughout our environment - in our food and water supply, in the air we breathe, in the products we apply to our skin, in the medical and dental materials placed into our bodies, and even within the confines of the womb. With biomonitoring confirming the widespread bioaccumulation of myriad toxicants among population groups, expanding research continues to explore the pathobiological impact of these agents on human metabolism. METHODS: This review was prepared by assessing available medical and scientific literature from Medline as well as by reviewing several books, toxicology journals, government publications, and conference proceedings. The format of a traditional integrated review was chosen. RESULTS: Toxicant exposure and accrual has been linked to numerous biochemical and pathophysiological mechanisms of harm. Some toxicants effect metabolic disruption via multiple mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: As a primary causative determinant of chronic disease, toxicant exposures induce metabolic disruption in myriad ways, which consequently result in varied clinical manifestations, which are then categorized by health providers into innumerable diagnoses. Chemical disruption of human metabolism has become an etiological determinant of much illness throughout the lifecycle, from neurodevelopmental abnormalities in-utero to dementia in the elderly.

Use of ovulation predictor kits as adjuncts when using fertility awareness methods (FAMs): a pilot study.

PURPOSE: Difficult clinical signs such as confusing cervical mucus or erratic basal body temperature can make the use of fertility awareness methods (FAMs) difficult in some cases. The goal of this study was to assess the feasibility of using a cheap urinary luteinizing hormone (LH)-surge identification kit as an adjunct to identify the infertile phase after ovulation when facing these scenarios. METHODS: The study used a block-allocation, crossover, 2-arm methodology (LH kit/FAM vs FAM only). Comparison of the 2 arms was done with regard to the accuracy of identification (yes/no) of the luteal phase in each cycle as confirmed by serum progesterone concentrations. RESULTS: We recruited 23 Canadian women currently using FAM, aged 18 to 48 years, who have had menstrual cycles 25 to 35 days long for the past 3 months and perceive themselves to have difficulty with identifying the infertile phase after ovulation. LH kits identified 100% of the luteal phases, whereas FAM indentified 87% (statistically significant). In those identified cycles, LH kits provided a mean of 10.3 days of infertility, and FAM only provided 10 days of infertility (not statistically significant). CONCLUSIONS: Among this population, LH kits may offer an adjunct for women who may wish to have an additional double-check. However, there are still clinical circumstances when even an LH kit does not provide confirmation. More research in this area is encouraged.