DEAR DR. BLONZ: I have arthritis, and except for pain relief, medical science has been unable to help me so far. I have heard of herbal supplements that could help, but when I bring up the topic with my medical doctor, I get a blank stare and rejection. Why is there always plenty of information on drugs, but precious little on alternatives? Science seems to move way too slowly when investigating new concepts, and hardly at all when investigating herbs. -- S.T., Oakland, California

DEAR S.T.: Funding is a key factor in determining what gets studied, since many scientists depend upon research grants from federal and private institutions to keep their laboratories in operation. These monies, from which a university takes a cut for its operating expenses, cover items such as salaries of research assistants, equipment and other costs connected with the research. Grant applications include a collection of the theories, preliminary findings and previous publications assembled in a format dictated by the funding agency. There are always more requests than money, and once submitted, funding agencies review and prioritize the applications. If a request receives a low funding priority, the applicant must look elsewhere for their research dollars if, indeed, “elsewhere” exists.

The big picture associated with this sobering reality is that we must maintain a pro-research stance and keep funding coffers flush if we want to foster scientific advances. It also helps explain the generally conservative nature of science. When new frontiers are considered, initial results may not be clear. This might lead to a reluctance to investigate new ideas. If a scientist cannot secure research funds, it limits the progress of their research efforts. This delays experimental results and the completion of scholarly publications, both of which can affect their ability to attract grants in the future.

Equally important is the need for researchers to show progress at their institution. In essence, a new professor can find themselves without secure employment (tenure) if they don’t publish. Aware of this reality, some scientists focus their research on topics with a higher likelihood of financial support. In some instances, funding can come from private sources, earmarked for particular types of research. Given that private funders are less likely to support research that makes them or their products look bad, it’s not surprising that research reporting beneficial effects from a food or product has been supported by companies involved with that substance.

The source of the funding does not automatically compromise the integrity of the research. This would more likely be the case when studies are conducted at a major university, as they tend to have policies that prohibit funding agencies from exerting overt pressures on the conduct of the research and how the findings are reported. That’s the ideal, at least. There’s additional assurance if the results appear in a quality peer-reviewed journal, as this would signify that the findings have been critically examined by other experts in the field.

It is also important that breakthroughs are then confirmed by independent researchers at other institutions. All this is meant to provide perspective on why research tends to move slowly with new theories, trends or products.

Send questions to: “On Nutrition,” Ed Blonz, c/o Universal Uclick, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO, 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: Weight loss products typically promise wonderful things and many offer free trials, although the “shipping and handling” are there to recover costs. I have replayed some of the ads and detected “squiggle” words that didn’t really promise anything -- only saying what might occur to some people. Who is in charge of what can be said in these advertisements? -- M.Q. Scottsdale, Arizona

DEAR M.Q.: We are affected not only by what is said, but in the way a concept is communicated. Certain words or phrases function as qualifiers. Think of it as the difference between saying “A causes B” and “A may cause B.” The responsibility falls on the listener (or reader) to interpret what’s going on. When strung together with skill, these types of statements can bring forth an aura of belief that appears as solid as truth.

This is the bread and butter of advertising, law and science, as well as politics. One gets to speak of possibilities without addressing probabilities. That seed of potential is planted, a clever context provided, and the listener is lured into the land of certainty. Those with such skills find work in sales, politics and public relations.

Examples of “squiggle” words and phrases include: may, could, might, has been known to, possibly, chance, potentially, conceivably, plausible, seem to, we believe, in my opinion, and feasible. All of these communicate some level of likelihood without citing objective evidence.

In my experience, I have seen dubious claims associated with substances and devices. But just because a product or method is unproven does not mean it’s false; it only signifies that it has not been tested. The key is what follows: An objective scientist will test the concept, while those of a lesser stripe go directly to the public to make money, making use of “squiggle words” to state their case. The consuming public gets caught in the middle, being forced to play the game of “Who do you trust?”

It is an unfortunate fact of human nature that when we want something to be true (or false), and we hear information that supports that desire, we tend to let down our guard and welcome the information. I always encourage consumers to be alert and informed. In my experience, people tend to have more knowledge and be more critical when they go to purchase an automobile or major appliance than when it comes to matters that relate to their health. It certainly doesn’t have to be that way.

As individuals choosing commercial products, we are the ultimate decision makers. But luckily, there are agencies that act on our behalf and help us make informed decisions. On the national level, we have the Federal Trade Commission (tinyurl.com/jn2f74h), and on the state level, we have our attorneys general, who are charged with overseeing misleading advertising claims in the media and on product labels and websites. Private attorneys bring cases to represent classes of individuals victimized by questionable promotional claims.

As effective as these consumer protection efforts can be, the overflow of dubious advertisements in our newspapers, online, on the air, and flooding into our email accounts means we are forced to serve as the ultimate protectors of our best interests.

Send questions to: “On Nutrition,” Ed Blonz, c/o Universal Uclick, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO, 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: I know smoking is bad for me, but feel that my addiction will continue to get the best of me. Coughing is a concern, as is dry skin. Are there any foods that might be of assistance? -- D.S., Chicago

DEAR D.S.: Cigarette smoke is nasty stuff that affects all parts of the body. On the outside, smoke enables a dramatic, premature aging of the skin. On the inside, even more goes wrong.

Our lungs normally secrete mucus to entrap dust and other inhaled particles. A healthy lung shuttles this material out through a series of cilia, or hairs. But tobacco smoke causes a breakdown in this self-cleaning system. Mucus then collects in the lungs, resulting in that hacking “smoker’s cough.” Smoking is also a leading cause of emphysema, a condition where the air sacs (alveoli) in the lungs become damaged, resulting in shortness of breath and labored breathing.

Foods are an important consideration, given that smoke is a carcinogen and an oxidizing agent. A well-nourished body should have a daily supply of antioxidant nutrients from whole foods, such as fruits, vegetables and grains. They each do different things, but together they produce a powerful synergy. Don’t rely on dietary supplements; a focus on whole foods is the ticket. And while foods can help, they cannot make us invincible. Long-term exposure to a cancer risk factor, such as tobacco, is going to take its toll, regardless of what foods we eat. But your body will work to make things better, starting immediately after your last cigarette. Here’s what you can expect:

Twenty minutes after your last smoke, your blood pressure and pulse rate both drop, and the temperature of your hands and feet increases.

After eight hours, the level of carbon monoxide in your blood has dropped, and the oxygen level in your blood is returning to normal.

After 24 hours, there has been a decrease in the chance of a heart attack.

After 48 hours, the nerve endings have started to regrow, and you will experience an increased ability to taste and smell.

After 72 hours, the bronchial tubes will relax, and there will be an increase in lung capacity.

From two weeks to three months, there will be improvements in your circulation, and your lungs will function approximately 30 percent more effectively.

From one to nine months after quitting, the hairlike cilia in your lungs will have regrown, increasing your ability to clear normal mucus and unwanted substances from the lungs. There will be decreases in coughing, sinus congestion, fatigue and shortness of breath. Your overall energy level will likely have increased.

After a year, the high risk for heart attack associated with smoking will be cut in half.

After five years, the risk of dying of lung cancer will have decreased by almost one-half.

After 10 years, your risk of dying of lung cancer will be about the same as a nonsmoker.

From five to 15 years, the risk of stroke will have decreased to that of a nonsmoker, and the risk of cancer of the mouth, throat or esophagus will have been reduced to half that of a current smoker.

Fifteen years after that last cigarette, your risk of lung cancer, risk of heart disease and life expectancy are no longer significantly different from an individual who had never smoked.

If you have an ulcer, by quitting smoking you will reduce recurrence and improve healing. If you have diabetes, quitting smoking slows the type of small blood vessel damage associated with eye and kidney disease and amputation. If you have Type 1 diabetes, quitting can decrease your need for insulin.

Other benefits: You won’t have to constantly interrupt your life to go outside and smoke. You’ll smell better, get fewer colds and respiratory infections and save lots of money. Others won’t have to breathe your smoke. And perhaps most importantly, you’ll be setting a life-affirming example for yourself, your children and the rest of your family and friends.

Send questions to: “On Nutrition,” Ed Blonz, c/o Universal Uclick, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO, 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.