More Fruits & Vegetables Improve Arterial Function
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is believed to start with damage to the inner lining of the arteries. This lining is known as the endothelium. The endothelium releases chemical signals that can dilate blood vessels and increase blood flow when needed. The endothelium’s ability to dilate its surrounding muscle layer with chemical signals such as nitric oxide can be compromised by inflammation, elevated blood fats, the stress of increased blood pressure and/or perhaps electrolyte changes.
Factors that compromise the function of endothelium in the short run are also known to increase the chances for CVD events in the longer term. A well-established measure of endothelium function is called flow-mediated dilation (FMD), which measures the ability of blood vessels to dilate in response to intravenous injection of chemical signals such as acetylcholine. Previous research has shown even a single fat-rich meal can impair FMD for several hours compared to an isocaloric low-fat meal.1 More recently reducing salt/sodium in the diet from 3,600 to 1,500 mg per day improved FMD by 45% in just a few weeks in normotensive subjects (see March 2009 CFFH for details). Dietary fat may impair FMD at least in part by increasing inflammation perhaps due to toxins absorbed along with the fat from the gut (see Feb. 2009 CFFH for details).
British researchers looked at the impact of consuming more fruits and vegetables on FMD in 117 hypertensive subjects 40-65 years old. Subjects were randomly assigned to 3 groups that were instructed to eat 1, 3 or 6 standard servings of fruits and vegetables daily for 8 weeks. Dietary compliance was assessed with 4-day food logs during weeks 4 and 8 and also by measuring the levels of vitamin C and several carotenoids in their blood. The authors conclude “…among hypertensive participants, there is a dose-response relationship between fruit and vegetable consumption and endothelium-dependent vasodilation, ….”2 This study found each additional serving of fruit or vegetable consumed daily improved FMD by about 6% or about 30% improvement for an extra 5 servings. The results of this study may help explain why prospective cohort studies have found a reduced risk of coronary heart disease3 and stroke4 in people who eat more fruits and vegetables.
Precisely how eating more fruits and vegetables may have improved endothelial function in this study is not known. The increased intake of vitamin C, carotenoids, polyphenols, and other phytochemicals found in fruits and vegetables may help protect the endothelial cells from the damaging effects of postprandial lipemia, endotoxins, and increased plasma sodium levels. In addition, the increased potassium intake from extra fruits and vegetables may also mitigate the damage from excessive salt intake. It is also possible that subjects who ate more fruits and vegetables modestly reduced their intake of fat and salt. Nevertheless, the results of this study clearly show that instructing people to eat more fruits and vegetables is likely to improve their endothelial function and cut their risk of CVD events in the future.
Bottom Line:
It seems increasingly clear that the typical modern diet high in fat and salt impairs FMD by compromising the ability of the endothelium to function properly. By contrast, this recent study has shown when hypertensive people eat more fruits and vegetables they dramatically improve the FMD response in their arteries.
By James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN
References:
1. Am J Cardiol. 1997;79:350-354
2. Circulation 2009;119:2153-60
3. J Nutr 2006;136:2588-93
4. Lancet 2006;367:320-6
Monday, May 31, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Healthy Eating?
Healthy Eating or Wishful Thinking
A recent survey of Americans by Harris Interactive found that nearly two-thirds of those polled say they are “healthy eaters”. The survey also found that 75% of those age 55 or older reported eating healthy while only 47% of those 18 to 34 considered their eating habits healthy.
Are they right or is this just wishful thinking? Another survey of the dietary habits of American adults found that only about 5% actually consumed a diet that was close to that recommended by the U.S. Dietary Guidelines.
So, the question remains, are most Americans overzealous about the healthfulness of their dietary habits or do they really have a lot of work to do to follow the Dietary Guidelines?
Diet-Related Diseases Kill Most Americans
Half of all Americans ages 55 to 64 have high blood pressure and most of the rest have prehypertension. More than 90% of those living to age 65 without hypertension, develop it before their 85th birthday. So nearly all Americans will develop high blood pressure sooner or later. Every 20/10 mmHg increase in blood pressure starting around 110/70 doubles the risk of dying from cardiovascular disease (CVD).
There’s little reason to believe that factors other than diet play much of a role in the development of hypertension. An Institute of Medicine (IOM) report said even healthy young Americans should consume no more than 1,500 mg of sodium a day, but most Americans consume two to three times that amount. More is not healthy since excess salt intake is the primary dietary factor promoting increased blood pressure over time.
The IOM report said ideally older Americans and those with elevated blood pressure should consume less than 1,300mg of sodium per day. Those past 70 should consume no more than 1,200mg per day. It is doubtful that even 5% of Americans routinely meet those guidelines, which may help explain why nearly everyone develops hypertension and CVD kills more than half of all Americans after age 65.
The vast majority of older Americans have too much LDL in their blood because most have diets high in saturated fat, cholesterol and hydrogenated fat. Diets high in junk foods and fatty animal products lead to atherosclerosis and clogged arteries, which have killed more Americans than anything else for decades.
Hypertension and atherosclerosis have been linked to strokes and senility which often leave so many older Americans unable to care for themselves. With 700,000 strokes and twice that many heart attacks each year, it is clear a lot of Americans aren’t eating nearly as healthfully as they seem to believe.
Healthy eating leads to obesity?
We’ve all heard the frightening statistic that nearly 2/3 of all American adults, as well as more and more children, are overweight or obese.
It gets worse. A recent study found that about 90% of men and more than 70% of women are destined to become at least overweight if not obese in their life times.
This is the result of unhealthy diets full of refined carbohydrates and fat and too low in fiber coupled with a sedentary lifestyle.
About 21 million Americans now have diabetes and that number is expected to increase dramatically as the Baby Boomers move into their 50s and 60s.
Bottom Line:
This Harris survey demonstrates that most Americans need far better nutrition education to better understand what constitutes healthy eating and how they can protect themselves from diet related diseases. The back page to this issue explains the disconnect between the survey and the actual dietary practices of most Americans.
A recent survey of Americans by Harris Interactive found that nearly two-thirds of those polled say they are “healthy eaters”. The survey also found that 75% of those age 55 or older reported eating healthy while only 47% of those 18 to 34 considered their eating habits healthy.
Are they right or is this just wishful thinking? Another survey of the dietary habits of American adults found that only about 5% actually consumed a diet that was close to that recommended by the U.S. Dietary Guidelines.
So, the question remains, are most Americans overzealous about the healthfulness of their dietary habits or do they really have a lot of work to do to follow the Dietary Guidelines?
Diet-Related Diseases Kill Most Americans
Half of all Americans ages 55 to 64 have high blood pressure and most of the rest have prehypertension. More than 90% of those living to age 65 without hypertension, develop it before their 85th birthday. So nearly all Americans will develop high blood pressure sooner or later. Every 20/10 mmHg increase in blood pressure starting around 110/70 doubles the risk of dying from cardiovascular disease (CVD).
There’s little reason to believe that factors other than diet play much of a role in the development of hypertension. An Institute of Medicine (IOM) report said even healthy young Americans should consume no more than 1,500 mg of sodium a day, but most Americans consume two to three times that amount. More is not healthy since excess salt intake is the primary dietary factor promoting increased blood pressure over time.
The IOM report said ideally older Americans and those with elevated blood pressure should consume less than 1,300mg of sodium per day. Those past 70 should consume no more than 1,200mg per day. It is doubtful that even 5% of Americans routinely meet those guidelines, which may help explain why nearly everyone develops hypertension and CVD kills more than half of all Americans after age 65.
The vast majority of older Americans have too much LDL in their blood because most have diets high in saturated fat, cholesterol and hydrogenated fat. Diets high in junk foods and fatty animal products lead to atherosclerosis and clogged arteries, which have killed more Americans than anything else for decades.
Hypertension and atherosclerosis have been linked to strokes and senility which often leave so many older Americans unable to care for themselves. With 700,000 strokes and twice that many heart attacks each year, it is clear a lot of Americans aren’t eating nearly as healthfully as they seem to believe.
Healthy eating leads to obesity?
We’ve all heard the frightening statistic that nearly 2/3 of all American adults, as well as more and more children, are overweight or obese.
It gets worse. A recent study found that about 90% of men and more than 70% of women are destined to become at least overweight if not obese in their life times.
This is the result of unhealthy diets full of refined carbohydrates and fat and too low in fiber coupled with a sedentary lifestyle.
About 21 million Americans now have diabetes and that number is expected to increase dramatically as the Baby Boomers move into their 50s and 60s.
Bottom Line:
This Harris survey demonstrates that most Americans need far better nutrition education to better understand what constitutes healthy eating and how they can protect themselves from diet related diseases. The back page to this issue explains the disconnect between the survey and the actual dietary practices of most Americans.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
The Fattening of Americans
The Fattening of Americans
There is widespread agreement that normal weight Americans have a reduced risk of developing cardiovascular diseases, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis, gallstones, and numerous other ills than those who are overweight or obese.
Recent data suggests that overweight and obese Americans appear to be aging faster than those who remain in the normal weight range (shorter telomeres). Not surprisingly, overweight and particularly obese Americans have a significantly shorter life expectancy than normal weight Americans.
Studies of human population groups following a hunter-gatherer lifestyle have observed that overweight and obesity are very uncommon. In addition, people living in hunter-gatherer cultures, presumably similar in many ways to that of ancient human ancestors, tend to hit their peak body weight when they are in their early to mid-20s. By contrast, in modern America, body weight tends to increase in the majority of Americans at least into their 50s and 60s, and sometimes even into their 70s. Today, about 65% of American adults are above normal weight. This cross-cultural data does not mean 35% of Americans will never have a weight problem.
An important question for which we have little data is what is the risk of normal weight American adults becoming overweight or obese? The fate of the minority of middle-aged, yet still normal weight, Americans is unclear. Are they somehow immune to the fattening of Americans? Or, are most of them destined to become overweight or obese in the future?
Study Follows Normal Weight Americans
Researchers examined data from the Framingham Heart Study to determine the future risk of 4,117 normal weight people in their 30s, 40s and 50s, becoming overweight or obese over 30 years of follow-up.
• For both men and women who were normal weight in their 30s and 40s, the calculated risk of becoming overweight or obese over the next 30 years was more than 60%.
• For that shrinking minority of men and women who made it into their 50s having remained normal weight, still 55.5% of the women and 48% of the men became overweight or obese over the next 30 years.
• About one-third of women who were not overweight in their 30s, 40s and 50s became obese. For men, the risk of obesity was similar, except for those in their 50s who had a slightly lower risk of becoming obese (25.9%).
• Overall, the researchers found more than 90% of men and more than 80% of women became overweight or obese during their lifetime.1
This study examined only those of European ancestry. It is known that Native Americans, along with African and Hispanic Americans, are even more prone to become overweight and obese than White Americans. Some of the data was collected back in the 1970s and 1980s when Americans were less likely to become overweight or obese.
Weight Gain in Adulthood Unnatural
Among those human cultures where modern foods and energy-saving devices are largely unavailable (like rural China) or shunned (like the Amish in Pennsylvania) less than 5% of adults are overweight and less than 1% are obese. Average body weight is steady or declines slightly with age. It is increasingly clear that modern foods are fattening because they are high in fat and/or refined carbohydrates, calorie-dense and low in fiber. Certainly inactivity, aided and abetted by TVs, computers and numerous energy-saving devices in the home and at work have diminished our need for calories, while modern foods promote increased calorie intake. Unless Americans are willing to exercise regularly and eat more low-fat, high-fiber foods, it is likely that most Americans will become overweight or obese.
By James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN
There is widespread agreement that normal weight Americans have a reduced risk of developing cardiovascular diseases, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis, gallstones, and numerous other ills than those who are overweight or obese.
Recent data suggests that overweight and obese Americans appear to be aging faster than those who remain in the normal weight range (shorter telomeres). Not surprisingly, overweight and particularly obese Americans have a significantly shorter life expectancy than normal weight Americans.
Studies of human population groups following a hunter-gatherer lifestyle have observed that overweight and obesity are very uncommon. In addition, people living in hunter-gatherer cultures, presumably similar in many ways to that of ancient human ancestors, tend to hit their peak body weight when they are in their early to mid-20s. By contrast, in modern America, body weight tends to increase in the majority of Americans at least into their 50s and 60s, and sometimes even into their 70s. Today, about 65% of American adults are above normal weight. This cross-cultural data does not mean 35% of Americans will never have a weight problem.
An important question for which we have little data is what is the risk of normal weight American adults becoming overweight or obese? The fate of the minority of middle-aged, yet still normal weight, Americans is unclear. Are they somehow immune to the fattening of Americans? Or, are most of them destined to become overweight or obese in the future?
Study Follows Normal Weight Americans
Researchers examined data from the Framingham Heart Study to determine the future risk of 4,117 normal weight people in their 30s, 40s and 50s, becoming overweight or obese over 30 years of follow-up.
• For both men and women who were normal weight in their 30s and 40s, the calculated risk of becoming overweight or obese over the next 30 years was more than 60%.
• For that shrinking minority of men and women who made it into their 50s having remained normal weight, still 55.5% of the women and 48% of the men became overweight or obese over the next 30 years.
• About one-third of women who were not overweight in their 30s, 40s and 50s became obese. For men, the risk of obesity was similar, except for those in their 50s who had a slightly lower risk of becoming obese (25.9%).
• Overall, the researchers found more than 90% of men and more than 80% of women became overweight or obese during their lifetime.1
This study examined only those of European ancestry. It is known that Native Americans, along with African and Hispanic Americans, are even more prone to become overweight and obese than White Americans. Some of the data was collected back in the 1970s and 1980s when Americans were less likely to become overweight or obese.
Weight Gain in Adulthood Unnatural
Among those human cultures where modern foods and energy-saving devices are largely unavailable (like rural China) or shunned (like the Amish in Pennsylvania) less than 5% of adults are overweight and less than 1% are obese. Average body weight is steady or declines slightly with age. It is increasingly clear that modern foods are fattening because they are high in fat and/or refined carbohydrates, calorie-dense and low in fiber. Certainly inactivity, aided and abetted by TVs, computers and numerous energy-saving devices in the home and at work have diminished our need for calories, while modern foods promote increased calorie intake. Unless Americans are willing to exercise regularly and eat more low-fat, high-fiber foods, it is likely that most Americans will become overweight or obese.
By James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Baggy Skin?
Battling Baggy Skin
Q: I have excess skin after weight loss. What should I do?
A: I hear this question all the time, and I've got good news and bad news. Okay, bad news first: The skin is an organ and not a rubber band — it can only stretch and tighten so much. It has nothing to do with how quickly you lose weight and everything to do with your genetics, weight, and age. The younger you are, the more collagen you have; collagen is what gives the skin its elasticity and ability to shrink after weight loss or pregnancy.
Ready for the good news? You are no longer unhealthy and obese! Let's take a look at your scorecard. You have significantly decreased if not eradicated your chances of developing type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, sleep apnea, arthritis, GERD, gout…the list goes on! And now that you are healthier, you should be feeling better both physically and emotionally. I am even willing to bet that your weight-loss success is motivating others around you to get healthy as well!
Nip and Tuck?
Of course, surgery is an option. Cosmetic surgery — such as a tummy tuck — can remedy the situation effectively, but this kind of surgery is costly and painful. My advice after weight loss is to keep the weight off for a year. If you still have loose skin and it really bothers you, then and only then consider a tummy tuck of other procedures. No matter what, please do not let the thought of some extra skin deter you from losing weight or keeping the weight off — and more important, improving your health!
Q: I have excess skin after weight loss. What should I do?
A: I hear this question all the time, and I've got good news and bad news. Okay, bad news first: The skin is an organ and not a rubber band — it can only stretch and tighten so much. It has nothing to do with how quickly you lose weight and everything to do with your genetics, weight, and age. The younger you are, the more collagen you have; collagen is what gives the skin its elasticity and ability to shrink after weight loss or pregnancy.
Ready for the good news? You are no longer unhealthy and obese! Let's take a look at your scorecard. You have significantly decreased if not eradicated your chances of developing type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, sleep apnea, arthritis, GERD, gout…the list goes on! And now that you are healthier, you should be feeling better both physically and emotionally. I am even willing to bet that your weight-loss success is motivating others around you to get healthy as well!
Nip and Tuck?
Of course, surgery is an option. Cosmetic surgery — such as a tummy tuck — can remedy the situation effectively, but this kind of surgery is costly and painful. My advice after weight loss is to keep the weight off for a year. If you still have loose skin and it really bothers you, then and only then consider a tummy tuck of other procedures. No matter what, please do not let the thought of some extra skin deter you from losing weight or keeping the weight off — and more important, improving your health!
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Berries - Power Food
Pick a Power Food This Weekend!
Not only are berries beautiful to look at, but their colors signify health-protecting qualities. They are rich in polyphenols, the same antioxidants that give wine and chocolate their healthy qualities. Of course, unlike chocolate and wine, berries are low in calories, and they contain no alcohol or caffeine. So you can enjoy them free of guilt and know you're doing something good for your body!
Berries are colorful because they contain anthocyanins — these are a type of polyphenol that might nudge our fat-burning genes in the right direction. A Japanese researcher found that anthocyanins stop individual fat cells from getting larger and encourage fat cells to release adiponectin, a hormone that helps to reduce inflammation, lower blood sugar, and reverse resistance to leptin and insulin. Another study found that anthocyanins can reduce blood glucose levels after starch-rich meals, preventing insulin spikes that could eventually lead to insulin resistance. Black raspberries have an extremely high concentration of anthocyanins and other antioxidants and can often be found growing wild, so look out for them!
Certain polyphenols found in raspberries and strawberries block the digestive enzyme activity of specific starches and fats, reducing your body's ability to absorb them. Combine this trait with the soluble fiber in berries, and you have a sweet treat that works hard to help you lose weight and keep your blood sugar low.
Berries are starting to come into season now (the season varies depending on the type of berry and where you live), so my advice is to head to your local farmers' market and buy an entire flat. Take the berries home and gently wash them and let them dry. Place them on a cookie sheet and freeze them, then transfer them to a freezer-safe bag. This way you can keep your berries, with their nutrients intact, for up to two years — and you can enjoy them year-round!
What to Look for in a Berry
Unfortunately, conventionally grown berries are some of the most pesticide-laden fruits available, so you should always choose organic, if possible. Fresh or frozen is best because berries lose almost all their anthocyanins when they are processed. Look for packages with no visible juice stains, which suggest the berries are past their prime. Fresh berries are at their best within 48 hours after purchase — another reason to freeze your berries to make them last!
Not only are berries beautiful to look at, but their colors signify health-protecting qualities. They are rich in polyphenols, the same antioxidants that give wine and chocolate their healthy qualities. Of course, unlike chocolate and wine, berries are low in calories, and they contain no alcohol or caffeine. So you can enjoy them free of guilt and know you're doing something good for your body!
Berries are colorful because they contain anthocyanins — these are a type of polyphenol that might nudge our fat-burning genes in the right direction. A Japanese researcher found that anthocyanins stop individual fat cells from getting larger and encourage fat cells to release adiponectin, a hormone that helps to reduce inflammation, lower blood sugar, and reverse resistance to leptin and insulin. Another study found that anthocyanins can reduce blood glucose levels after starch-rich meals, preventing insulin spikes that could eventually lead to insulin resistance. Black raspberries have an extremely high concentration of anthocyanins and other antioxidants and can often be found growing wild, so look out for them!
Certain polyphenols found in raspberries and strawberries block the digestive enzyme activity of specific starches and fats, reducing your body's ability to absorb them. Combine this trait with the soluble fiber in berries, and you have a sweet treat that works hard to help you lose weight and keep your blood sugar low.
Berries are starting to come into season now (the season varies depending on the type of berry and where you live), so my advice is to head to your local farmers' market and buy an entire flat. Take the berries home and gently wash them and let them dry. Place them on a cookie sheet and freeze them, then transfer them to a freezer-safe bag. This way you can keep your berries, with their nutrients intact, for up to two years — and you can enjoy them year-round!
What to Look for in a Berry
Unfortunately, conventionally grown berries are some of the most pesticide-laden fruits available, so you should always choose organic, if possible. Fresh or frozen is best because berries lose almost all their anthocyanins when they are processed. Look for packages with no visible juice stains, which suggest the berries are past their prime. Fresh berries are at their best within 48 hours after purchase — another reason to freeze your berries to make them last!
Monday, May 24, 2010
Salt and Bones
Low Salt Diet Strengthens Bones
Most people are aware of the importance of getting adequate calcium and vitamin D to maintain strong bones and reduce the risk of osteoporosis and broken bones. However, there are other dietary factors that can influence bone metabolism. These factors may increase or decrease the risk of thinning bones in older Americans. Epidemiological studies have found that people who consume more fruits and vegetables tend to have stronger bones.1 In addition numerous studies have shown that increasing dietary salt intake leads to an increased loss of calcium in the urine and an increased serum parathyroid hormone level.2
The DASH-Sodium trial enabled researchers to examine the impact of 3 different levels of dietary salt in either a typical American diet or the DASH diet, rich in whole grains, fruits, vegetables and lowfat dairy products and less meat than most Americans eat. This new study specifically examined the individual and combined impact of different levels of sodium intake and consuming the DASH diet on bone metabolism. Switching from a typical American diet to the DASH diet resulted in about a 10 percent reduction in osteocalcin, a hormone associated with more rapid breakdown of bone. Another marker of bone breakdown was also about 17 percent lower on the DASH diet than the more typical American diet. However, urinary calcium loss was not significantly increased on the American diet compared to the DASH diet. Increasing dietary sodium was associated with a greater loss of calcium in the urine on both the DASH diet and the more typical
American diet
The authors of this study conclude, “… the DASH diet significantly reduced bone turnover, which if sustained may improve bone mineral status. A reduced sodium intake reduced calcium excretion in both diet groups and serum osteocalcin in the DASH group. The DASH diet and reduced sodium intake may have complementary, beneficial effects on bone health.”3
By James Kenney, PhD, RD, LD, FACN.
Most people are aware of the importance of getting adequate calcium and vitamin D to maintain strong bones and reduce the risk of osteoporosis and broken bones. However, there are other dietary factors that can influence bone metabolism. These factors may increase or decrease the risk of thinning bones in older Americans. Epidemiological studies have found that people who consume more fruits and vegetables tend to have stronger bones.1 In addition numerous studies have shown that increasing dietary salt intake leads to an increased loss of calcium in the urine and an increased serum parathyroid hormone level.2
The DASH-Sodium trial enabled researchers to examine the impact of 3 different levels of dietary salt in either a typical American diet or the DASH diet, rich in whole grains, fruits, vegetables and lowfat dairy products and less meat than most Americans eat. This new study specifically examined the individual and combined impact of different levels of sodium intake and consuming the DASH diet on bone metabolism. Switching from a typical American diet to the DASH diet resulted in about a 10 percent reduction in osteocalcin, a hormone associated with more rapid breakdown of bone. Another marker of bone breakdown was also about 17 percent lower on the DASH diet than the more typical American diet. However, urinary calcium loss was not significantly increased on the American diet compared to the DASH diet. Increasing dietary sodium was associated with a greater loss of calcium in the urine on both the DASH diet and the more typical
American diet
The authors of this study conclude, “… the DASH diet significantly reduced bone turnover, which if sustained may improve bone mineral status. A reduced sodium intake reduced calcium excretion in both diet groups and serum osteocalcin in the DASH group. The DASH diet and reduced sodium intake may have complementary, beneficial effects on bone health.”3
By James Kenney, PhD, RD, LD, FACN.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Life Expectancy and Weight
Do Overweight People Live Longer?
Overweight Americans do live longer than normal weight Americans, if you believe the results of a widely publicized study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.1 The results of this study showed overweight people (BMI = 25 to 29.9) were less likely to die than those who were normal weight (BMI = 18.5 to 24.9). This same study found that obese people (BMI > 30) were a little more likely to die than normal weight people but much less so than had been suggested by most earlier studies.
The results were heavily touted in the media and many overweight and obese Americans no doubt took solace in the findings. Sadly, this study was seriously flawed because it combined data gathered from the 1970s when Americans were thinner, but did not live as long as people in more recent decades. Another major flaw in this study was that it ignored the fact that people who are sick or aging faster often start losing weight long before they die. Many formerly overweight and obese people may become thin or even underweight before they die when illness and aging are causing both weight to be lost and greater mortality. So being normal weight and particularly underweight (BMI < 18.5) in this study may have been correlated with dying sooner, but this does not mean being thin increases one’s chances of dying.
Numerous studies which have followed the same people for a long time show many adverse metabolic changes occurring with increasing body fat stores. For example, insulin resistance is strongly associated with the development of type 2 diabetes and more deaths from cardiovascular diseases. Overweight and obese people are also at increased risk of developing many types of cancer and are more likely to develop fatty livers, osteoarthritis, Alzheimer’s disease and numerous other ills.
Could Increased Body Fat Slow the Aging Process?
Not likely. It is well established that calorie restriction retards biological aging and delays or prevents most age-associated disease processes in rodents.2 Research in monkeys at the National Institute of Aging showed monkeys experience the same reductions in aging seen in rodents.3 It seems likely that the slow down in the aging process associated with decreased calorie intake in animals would also occur in people.
Indeed, a study published in the June 2005 online edition of the Lancet, by a team of British and American researchers, suggests overweight and obese people are aging faster than normal weight people. Dr. Spector of St. Thomas Hospital in London, looked at the length of telomeres in the white blood cells of 1,122 New Jersey women aged 18 to 76.
Telomeres are at the ends of chromosomes. They shorten with age and so represent a kind of biological clock. The shorter telomeres in the obese women showed their biological clocks had ticked away an extra 9 years.
Calorie restriction in animals has been shown to slow the shortening of telomeres and slow aging. So it appears being overweight or obese not only increases the risk of many life threatening diseases, but also causes people to age more quickly.
The oldest documented human population lives in Okinawa, Japan. Middle-aged and older Okinawans have an average BMI of about 21.6, whereas middle-aged and older Americans now have an average BMI in the overweight range. The prevalence of centenarians is 5-10 times higher in Okinawa as in the U.S. Life expectancy and disability-free years are six years greater on Okinawa than in the U.S. In the U.S., people in their 30s with a BMI of 19 to 21.5 are 2-3 times less likely to die each year as those who are obese (BMI > 30).4
The evidence clearly demonstrates overweight and obese people are at increased risk of dying earlier from a variety of diseases and appear to be aging faster too. By contrast, growing evidence suggests people who reduce their calorie intake and remain very lean throughout life will live significantly longer and healthier lives.
By James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, LD, FACN.
Overweight Americans do live longer than normal weight Americans, if you believe the results of a widely publicized study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.1 The results of this study showed overweight people (BMI = 25 to 29.9) were less likely to die than those who were normal weight (BMI = 18.5 to 24.9). This same study found that obese people (BMI > 30) were a little more likely to die than normal weight people but much less so than had been suggested by most earlier studies.
The results were heavily touted in the media and many overweight and obese Americans no doubt took solace in the findings. Sadly, this study was seriously flawed because it combined data gathered from the 1970s when Americans were thinner, but did not live as long as people in more recent decades. Another major flaw in this study was that it ignored the fact that people who are sick or aging faster often start losing weight long before they die. Many formerly overweight and obese people may become thin or even underweight before they die when illness and aging are causing both weight to be lost and greater mortality. So being normal weight and particularly underweight (BMI < 18.5) in this study may have been correlated with dying sooner, but this does not mean being thin increases one’s chances of dying.
Numerous studies which have followed the same people for a long time show many adverse metabolic changes occurring with increasing body fat stores. For example, insulin resistance is strongly associated with the development of type 2 diabetes and more deaths from cardiovascular diseases. Overweight and obese people are also at increased risk of developing many types of cancer and are more likely to develop fatty livers, osteoarthritis, Alzheimer’s disease and numerous other ills.
Could Increased Body Fat Slow the Aging Process?
Not likely. It is well established that calorie restriction retards biological aging and delays or prevents most age-associated disease processes in rodents.2 Research in monkeys at the National Institute of Aging showed monkeys experience the same reductions in aging seen in rodents.3 It seems likely that the slow down in the aging process associated with decreased calorie intake in animals would also occur in people.
Indeed, a study published in the June 2005 online edition of the Lancet, by a team of British and American researchers, suggests overweight and obese people are aging faster than normal weight people. Dr. Spector of St. Thomas Hospital in London, looked at the length of telomeres in the white blood cells of 1,122 New Jersey women aged 18 to 76.
Telomeres are at the ends of chromosomes. They shorten with age and so represent a kind of biological clock. The shorter telomeres in the obese women showed their biological clocks had ticked away an extra 9 years.
Calorie restriction in animals has been shown to slow the shortening of telomeres and slow aging. So it appears being overweight or obese not only increases the risk of many life threatening diseases, but also causes people to age more quickly.
The oldest documented human population lives in Okinawa, Japan. Middle-aged and older Okinawans have an average BMI of about 21.6, whereas middle-aged and older Americans now have an average BMI in the overweight range. The prevalence of centenarians is 5-10 times higher in Okinawa as in the U.S. Life expectancy and disability-free years are six years greater on Okinawa than in the U.S. In the U.S., people in their 30s with a BMI of 19 to 21.5 are 2-3 times less likely to die each year as those who are obese (BMI > 30).4
The evidence clearly demonstrates overweight and obese people are at increased risk of dying earlier from a variety of diseases and appear to be aging faster too. By contrast, growing evidence suggests people who reduce their calorie intake and remain very lean throughout life will live significantly longer and healthier lives.
By James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, LD, FACN.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Diet and Colon Cancer
Diet and Colon Cancer
Americans who are non-smokers are more likely to die from colorectal cancer than any other type of cancer. Even higher rates of colorectal cancer are seen in Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic and Austria. The incidence of colorectal cancer in these countries and the U.S. are from 3 to 8 times higher than in countries like China, Colombia, Greece and India. Those who migrate from a low-risk country to a high-risk country experience an increase in risk of colorectal cancer after just a few years. It seems likely that most of the differences in risk seen between populations is probably due to diet.
In most cases cancer of the colon and rectum arise from polyps. These precancerous lesions are an early warning sign that colorectal cancer may develop. Indeed, screening for polyps and surgically removing them when present dramatically reduces the risk of developing and dying from colorectal cancer. Of course it is better to prevent these polyps from developing than it is to have them surgically removed every few years.
What is the best diet?
Early epidemiological research suggested that diets high in fat and low in fruits, vegetables and fiber promoted colorectal cancer. However, the fairly low incidence of colorectal cancer in Greece compared to more northern European countries suggests that a diet high in olive oil does not promote colorectal cancer. This certainly conflicts with the theory that a high-fat diet promotes colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer is also much less common in Finland than in Germany and other central European countries. The Fins eat a lot more whole grain bread than do Germans and Americans. But is it the increased cereal fiber responsible for the reduced risk of developing colorectal cancer?
Fiber and colon cancer
Two recent studies looked at the impact of dietary changes in people at high-risk of developing colorectal cancer due to the presence of polyps. The Polyp Prevention Trial followed 2079 patients whose colon had been surgically cleared of polyps. Half were provided with intensive counseling and placed on a low-fat (20% fat calories), high-fiber (18g/1000kcal) diet that contained more fruits and vegetables (3 1/2 servings per 1000 kcal). The control group was simply given standard brochures on healthy eating. All patients then underwent colonoscopy after 1 to 4 years. The incidence of polyps was virtually identical in the two groups.1 In the second study, a similar group of 1429 patients were randomly assigned to either a low intake of wheat fiber (2g/day) or a high wheat fiber (13.5g/day) diets. Both groups were then re-examined 3 years later. The recurrence of polyps was 51% and 47% in the two groups, which was not significantly different.2
Lower Meat Intake
The results of these two studies suggest that simply increasing the intake of fruits and vegetables is not going to help prevent the formation of polyps in high-risk individuals. Perhaps a better approach would be to focus more attention on sources of carcinogens in
Western diets.
The incidence of colorectal cancer is only 1/8 as common in India as the U.S. In India, much of the population is Hindu and cattle are considered sacred. India has one of the lowest intakes of red meat of any country. All countries where the incidence of colorectal cancer is low also have a low intake of red meats. Meat contains a substance called creatine. At high temperatures, creatine reacts with amino acids to form heterocyclic amines, which are potent carcinogens. Sausages and cured meats contain nitrites, which react with amino acids to form cancer-causing chemicals. A large epidemiological study found an association between red meat intake and the incidence of colorectal cancer.3
Other factors
People who take aspirin regularly have a reduced risk of colorectal cancer. There is some evidence that increased calcium reduces the risk of colorectal cancers.4 Omega-3 fatty acids, found in cold water fatty fish such as salmon and tuna, may inhibit the growth of some cancers by reducing inflammation. People with inflammatory bowel diseases (e.g. ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease) have a much greater risk of developing colorectal cancer.
Inactivity and weight gain appear to increase the risk of colorectal cancer. There is also some evidence suggesting that a lack of selenium, folic acid and/or vitamin D may contribute to the development of colorectal cancer. However, there is a need for prospective studies with these nutrients before any firm conclusions should be drawn.
Studies with supplements of beta-carotene, and vitamins C and E have shown no reduction in polyp formation.
Bottom Line:
People concerned about the development of colorectal cancer should be advised to cut back on red meats and cured meats, especially ones cooked at high temperatures. These should be replaced in the diet by beans, soy products and some seafood. While an increase in fruits and vegetables didn’t help lower the risk of recurrence of polyps in high-risk patients, this does not mean they may not reduce the risk if consumed throughout life. A low fat diet that is higher in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, sea food and nonfat milk and beans should promote weight loss and will likely reduce the risk of colorectal cancer and many other serious diseases.
5 Top Strategies for Lowering the Risk of Colorectal Cancer
1. Reduce your intake of red meats and processed meats. When cooked at high temperatures, these meat products will generate a variety of known and suspected chemical carcinogens (eg, Heterocyclic amines, nitrosamines, benzopyrene). High temperature methods of cooking include frying, broiling and barbecuing. Roasted pan drippings can also contain these carcinogens.
2. Replace red meats and processed meats with seafoods, legumes, nuts and seeds. These foods are good sources of omega-3 fatty acids, folic acid and selenium. Preliminary research suggest that low levels of these 3 nutrients may increase the risk of colorectal cancer.
3. Consume 2-3 servings daily of nonfat milk. It is a rich source of calcium and vitamin D. Epidemiological research suggests that low intakes of these nutrients may increase the risk of colorectal cancers.
4. Eat more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and cut back on foods rich in refined fats, oils, sugars and grains. Whole foods are rich sources of folic acid, fiber and other phytochemicals that many studies suggest may reduce the risk of colorectal cancer. This type of diet will help reduce excessive body fat stores, which have been consistently associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer in the long run.
5. If you have a history of colon cancer, colon polyps or reason to believe you are genetically predisposed to develop colorectal cancer, talk to your doctor about the risk and benefits of talking aspirin or the new COX-2 inhibitor medications to help reduce your risk of developing more polyps or colorectal cancer.
By James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN.
References:
1 Schatzkin A, et al. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1149-55
2 Alberta DS, et al. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1156-62
3 Willett W. et al. N Engl J Med 1990;323:1664-72
4 Mobarhan S, Nutr Rev 1999;57;124-9
Americans who are non-smokers are more likely to die from colorectal cancer than any other type of cancer. Even higher rates of colorectal cancer are seen in Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic and Austria. The incidence of colorectal cancer in these countries and the U.S. are from 3 to 8 times higher than in countries like China, Colombia, Greece and India. Those who migrate from a low-risk country to a high-risk country experience an increase in risk of colorectal cancer after just a few years. It seems likely that most of the differences in risk seen between populations is probably due to diet.
In most cases cancer of the colon and rectum arise from polyps. These precancerous lesions are an early warning sign that colorectal cancer may develop. Indeed, screening for polyps and surgically removing them when present dramatically reduces the risk of developing and dying from colorectal cancer. Of course it is better to prevent these polyps from developing than it is to have them surgically removed every few years.
What is the best diet?
Early epidemiological research suggested that diets high in fat and low in fruits, vegetables and fiber promoted colorectal cancer. However, the fairly low incidence of colorectal cancer in Greece compared to more northern European countries suggests that a diet high in olive oil does not promote colorectal cancer. This certainly conflicts with the theory that a high-fat diet promotes colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer is also much less common in Finland than in Germany and other central European countries. The Fins eat a lot more whole grain bread than do Germans and Americans. But is it the increased cereal fiber responsible for the reduced risk of developing colorectal cancer?
Fiber and colon cancer
Two recent studies looked at the impact of dietary changes in people at high-risk of developing colorectal cancer due to the presence of polyps. The Polyp Prevention Trial followed 2079 patients whose colon had been surgically cleared of polyps. Half were provided with intensive counseling and placed on a low-fat (20% fat calories), high-fiber (18g/1000kcal) diet that contained more fruits and vegetables (3 1/2 servings per 1000 kcal). The control group was simply given standard brochures on healthy eating. All patients then underwent colonoscopy after 1 to 4 years. The incidence of polyps was virtually identical in the two groups.1 In the second study, a similar group of 1429 patients were randomly assigned to either a low intake of wheat fiber (2g/day) or a high wheat fiber (13.5g/day) diets. Both groups were then re-examined 3 years later. The recurrence of polyps was 51% and 47% in the two groups, which was not significantly different.2
Lower Meat Intake
The results of these two studies suggest that simply increasing the intake of fruits and vegetables is not going to help prevent the formation of polyps in high-risk individuals. Perhaps a better approach would be to focus more attention on sources of carcinogens in
Western diets.
The incidence of colorectal cancer is only 1/8 as common in India as the U.S. In India, much of the population is Hindu and cattle are considered sacred. India has one of the lowest intakes of red meat of any country. All countries where the incidence of colorectal cancer is low also have a low intake of red meats. Meat contains a substance called creatine. At high temperatures, creatine reacts with amino acids to form heterocyclic amines, which are potent carcinogens. Sausages and cured meats contain nitrites, which react with amino acids to form cancer-causing chemicals. A large epidemiological study found an association between red meat intake and the incidence of colorectal cancer.3
Other factors
People who take aspirin regularly have a reduced risk of colorectal cancer. There is some evidence that increased calcium reduces the risk of colorectal cancers.4 Omega-3 fatty acids, found in cold water fatty fish such as salmon and tuna, may inhibit the growth of some cancers by reducing inflammation. People with inflammatory bowel diseases (e.g. ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease) have a much greater risk of developing colorectal cancer.
Inactivity and weight gain appear to increase the risk of colorectal cancer. There is also some evidence suggesting that a lack of selenium, folic acid and/or vitamin D may contribute to the development of colorectal cancer. However, there is a need for prospective studies with these nutrients before any firm conclusions should be drawn.
Studies with supplements of beta-carotene, and vitamins C and E have shown no reduction in polyp formation.
Bottom Line:
People concerned about the development of colorectal cancer should be advised to cut back on red meats and cured meats, especially ones cooked at high temperatures. These should be replaced in the diet by beans, soy products and some seafood. While an increase in fruits and vegetables didn’t help lower the risk of recurrence of polyps in high-risk patients, this does not mean they may not reduce the risk if consumed throughout life. A low fat diet that is higher in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, sea food and nonfat milk and beans should promote weight loss and will likely reduce the risk of colorectal cancer and many other serious diseases.
5 Top Strategies for Lowering the Risk of Colorectal Cancer
1. Reduce your intake of red meats and processed meats. When cooked at high temperatures, these meat products will generate a variety of known and suspected chemical carcinogens (eg, Heterocyclic amines, nitrosamines, benzopyrene). High temperature methods of cooking include frying, broiling and barbecuing. Roasted pan drippings can also contain these carcinogens.
2. Replace red meats and processed meats with seafoods, legumes, nuts and seeds. These foods are good sources of omega-3 fatty acids, folic acid and selenium. Preliminary research suggest that low levels of these 3 nutrients may increase the risk of colorectal cancer.
3. Consume 2-3 servings daily of nonfat milk. It is a rich source of calcium and vitamin D. Epidemiological research suggests that low intakes of these nutrients may increase the risk of colorectal cancers.
4. Eat more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and cut back on foods rich in refined fats, oils, sugars and grains. Whole foods are rich sources of folic acid, fiber and other phytochemicals that many studies suggest may reduce the risk of colorectal cancer. This type of diet will help reduce excessive body fat stores, which have been consistently associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer in the long run.
5. If you have a history of colon cancer, colon polyps or reason to believe you are genetically predisposed to develop colorectal cancer, talk to your doctor about the risk and benefits of talking aspirin or the new COX-2 inhibitor medications to help reduce your risk of developing more polyps or colorectal cancer.
By James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN.
References:
1 Schatzkin A, et al. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1149-55
2 Alberta DS, et al. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1156-62
3 Willett W. et al. N Engl J Med 1990;323:1664-72
4 Mobarhan S, Nutr Rev 1999;57;124-9
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Vinegar and Blood Sugar
Vinegar Reduces Blood Sugar
Refined grains and sugars are rapidly absorbed in the blood stream. Growing evidence suggests that the greater rise in blood sugar levels that result from foods with a high glycemic index (GI) may contribute to the loss of beta cells in the pancreas that make insulin. Switching to a diet with fewer processed foods and more fiber-rich foods reduces blood sugar levels. Indeed those who eat whole grains have been shown to have a reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes, while those who eat refined grains have an increased risk.
A new study by Arizona State researcher Carol Johnston, PhD, RD, showed that vinegar is quite effective at blunting the rise in blood sugar after consuming a high-carbohydrate meal. She fed people with normal and elevated blood sugar levels a high-carbohydrate meal. Before the test meal, the subjects consumed either a placebo drink or one to which 2 tablespoons of vinegar were added. In those who had impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or prediabetes, she found the rise in blood sugar was cut by 34% by the vinegar compared to the placebo. The vinegar also reduced blood sugar by 20% in those with type 2 diabetes and in those with normal blood sugar.1 The acetic acid in the vinegar appears to inhibit the starch-digesting enzyme and slows the digestion of starch. When starch is broken down quickly, it is absorbed more rapidly and elevates blood sugar levels. Of course, the best way to reduce insulin resistance and lower blood sugar levels (both fasting and after meals) in those with diabetes or IGT is regular exercise and weight loss.
Bottom Line: Starting lunch and dinner with a big salad should aid weight loss by reducing the calorie density of the meal. In addition, the vinegar on the salad will slow the digestion of starch from high-GI foods such as potatoes. This should keep blood sugar levels lower in those with diabetes and may also remove some of the nutritional stress on the beta cells that causes them to wear out.
By James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN.
Refined grains and sugars are rapidly absorbed in the blood stream. Growing evidence suggests that the greater rise in blood sugar levels that result from foods with a high glycemic index (GI) may contribute to the loss of beta cells in the pancreas that make insulin. Switching to a diet with fewer processed foods and more fiber-rich foods reduces blood sugar levels. Indeed those who eat whole grains have been shown to have a reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes, while those who eat refined grains have an increased risk.
A new study by Arizona State researcher Carol Johnston, PhD, RD, showed that vinegar is quite effective at blunting the rise in blood sugar after consuming a high-carbohydrate meal. She fed people with normal and elevated blood sugar levels a high-carbohydrate meal. Before the test meal, the subjects consumed either a placebo drink or one to which 2 tablespoons of vinegar were added. In those who had impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or prediabetes, she found the rise in blood sugar was cut by 34% by the vinegar compared to the placebo. The vinegar also reduced blood sugar by 20% in those with type 2 diabetes and in those with normal blood sugar.1 The acetic acid in the vinegar appears to inhibit the starch-digesting enzyme and slows the digestion of starch. When starch is broken down quickly, it is absorbed more rapidly and elevates blood sugar levels. Of course, the best way to reduce insulin resistance and lower blood sugar levels (both fasting and after meals) in those with diabetes or IGT is regular exercise and weight loss.
Bottom Line: Starting lunch and dinner with a big salad should aid weight loss by reducing the calorie density of the meal. In addition, the vinegar on the salad will slow the digestion of starch from high-GI foods such as potatoes. This should keep blood sugar levels lower in those with diabetes and may also remove some of the nutritional stress on the beta cells that causes them to wear out.
By James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
More Fiber for Diabetes
More Fiber Improves Type 2 Diabetes
In January 2004 the American Diabetes Association (ADA) released its dietary recommendations for patients with type 2 diabetes.1 While they are reasonable, they are far from optimal. They state, “In subjects with type 2 diabetes, it appears that ingestion of very large amounts of fiber are necessary to confer metabolic benefits on glycemic control, hyperinsulinemia, and plasma lipids.” But they go on to say “It is not clear whether palatability and the gastrointestinal side effects of fiber would be acceptable to most people.” A little more intestinal gas and bloating is a lot better than having a heart attack, going blind or ending up on dialysis.
It has been clearly shown that consuming more dietary fiber from foods (50 g/day) and particularly soluble fiber (25 g/day) improves blood sugar control, lowers the need for insulin and reduces “bad” blood lipids in type 2 diabetic patients even if no weight is lost.2 Those with type 2 diabetes should consume as much fiber from foods as possible to reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetic complications.
The new ADA recommendations overlook the importance of limiting sugar to lose weight. They state, “When dieting to lose weight, fat is probably the most important nutrient to restrict.” True, but if weight loss is a goal, reducing calorie density by limiting fat is fine but it’s best if refined grains and sugars are limited, too. The ADA states, “…intake of sucrose and sucrose-containing foods does not need to be restricted.” In fact, dietary fructose (sucrose is half fructose) has adverse effects on blood lipids and all refined sugars are very calorie dense. The more sugar, refined grains, fats and oils people eat, the higher the calorie density and the lower the fiber content of their diet. Overweight type 2 diabetes patients should eat a diet high in whole grains, fruits and vegetables with at least 50 g of fiber per day and reduce nonessential dietary fat and refined carbohydrates as much as possible.
1. Diabetes Care 2004;27:S36-S46
2. N Engl J Med 2000;342(19):1440-1
By James Kenney, PhD, RD, LD, FACN.
In January 2004 the American Diabetes Association (ADA) released its dietary recommendations for patients with type 2 diabetes.1 While they are reasonable, they are far from optimal. They state, “In subjects with type 2 diabetes, it appears that ingestion of very large amounts of fiber are necessary to confer metabolic benefits on glycemic control, hyperinsulinemia, and plasma lipids.” But they go on to say “It is not clear whether palatability and the gastrointestinal side effects of fiber would be acceptable to most people.” A little more intestinal gas and bloating is a lot better than having a heart attack, going blind or ending up on dialysis.
It has been clearly shown that consuming more dietary fiber from foods (50 g/day) and particularly soluble fiber (25 g/day) improves blood sugar control, lowers the need for insulin and reduces “bad” blood lipids in type 2 diabetic patients even if no weight is lost.2 Those with type 2 diabetes should consume as much fiber from foods as possible to reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetic complications.
The new ADA recommendations overlook the importance of limiting sugar to lose weight. They state, “When dieting to lose weight, fat is probably the most important nutrient to restrict.” True, but if weight loss is a goal, reducing calorie density by limiting fat is fine but it’s best if refined grains and sugars are limited, too. The ADA states, “…intake of sucrose and sucrose-containing foods does not need to be restricted.” In fact, dietary fructose (sucrose is half fructose) has adverse effects on blood lipids and all refined sugars are very calorie dense. The more sugar, refined grains, fats and oils people eat, the higher the calorie density and the lower the fiber content of their diet. Overweight type 2 diabetes patients should eat a diet high in whole grains, fruits and vegetables with at least 50 g of fiber per day and reduce nonessential dietary fat and refined carbohydrates as much as possible.
1. Diabetes Care 2004;27:S36-S46
2. N Engl J Med 2000;342(19):1440-1
By James Kenney, PhD, RD, LD, FACN.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Weight and Diabetes
Body Weight and Diabetes
Each day, 2200 people are diagnosed with diabetes. 90-95% of these have type 2 diabetes mellitus or adult onset diabetes (Type 2 DM).1 At least 16 million Americans have diabetes but as many as half don’t know it, because they haven’t had their blood sugar tested recently. High blood sugar initially produces few symptoms with the exception of increased thirst. However, when blood sugar is elevated for many years, it can lead to blindness, kidney failure, amputations and nerve damage.
Insulin Resistance Leads to Type 2 Diabetes
Nearly all Type 2 DM patients have insulin resistance, which is a reduced ability of insulin to control blood sugar.2 But not everyone who has insulin resistance has increased blood sugar levels or Type 2 DM, although they are often headed in that direction. While insulin resistance has been estimated to occur in 20-30% of the US population, there are currently no routine laboratory procedures for establishing its presence. Patients with an increased waist-to-hip ratio and a strong family history of Type 2 DM, should be presumed to have clinically significant insulin resistance, especially if they also have hypertension, a low HDL and/or an elevated triglyceride level.
Higher Body Fat Increases Insulin
Insulin resistance requires the beta cells of the pancreas to produce more insulin day after day, year after year, to keep blood sugar levels within the normal range. It has long been known that insulin levels are elevated in individuals who are overweight.3 Figure 1 shows that the body must produce much more insulin, on average, even in the fasting state, in order to maintain normal blood-sugar levels in heavier people. For reasons that are not clear, the stress of producing all this extra insulin can take a toll on pancreatic beta cells. Eventually they can no longer keep up with the increased need for insulin. When insulin production can no longer be ratcheted up to meet the growing demand, blood sugar levels begin to rise. Eventually, both fasting and post-meal blood sugar levels drift high enough for Type 2 DM to be diagnosed. More than anything else, insulin resistance and Type 2 DM are the long-term consequence of the nutritional stress placed on the body by too many calories and too little exercise. The human body is not biologically designed to function optimally in the modern world, where the diet is unusually rich and large amounts of physical activity are no longer needed.
Study Links Increased Body Weight to Risk of Developing Type 2 DM
Harvard researchers examined the association between body weight and the risk of developing Type 2 DM in a study of 114,281 female nurses.4 In this study, nurses who were in general good health and between the ages of 30 to 55, were followed for 14 years. During that period, 1917 nurses were diagnosed with diabetes. As can be seen from figure 2, the risk of developing diabetes increased dramatically with increasing BMI. Compared to the thinnest women (BMI < 22.0), the heaviest women were 93 times more likely to develop diabetes during the next 14-years. However, even within the “normal” weight group, those with a BMI of 24.5 were 5 times more likely to develop diabetes than those who had the lowest BMI (<22).
This study also showed that even after adjusting for present body weight, the women who had gained 11 to 17 pounds after age 18 were nearly twice as likely to develop diabetes as those whose weight had remained fairly constant. In addition, those women who had lost 11 pounds or more since they were 18 cut their risk for Type 2 DM by half or more.
It should be noted that even in people with a strong family history for Type 2 DM, the risk of becoming diabetic can be dramatically reduced or at least postponed to very old age, by adopting a healthier diet and exercise program which results in long-term weight control.5 There is no known diet that can increase the body’s capacity to produce insulin in Type 2 DM patients. However, exercise and weight loss do reduce insulin resistance and so reduces the need for insulin, which improves blood sugar regulation.
The bottom line:
If you want to avoid becoming insulin resistant and developing diabetes, you must increase your daily activity level. If overweight, adopt a lowfat, high-fiber diet with more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans and less refined carbohydrates e.g. products made with a lot of white flour and sugar. Planning a diet for successful, long-term weight control, requires sophisticated knowledge about the composition of foods and the impact of those foods on appetite, blood sugar regulation and body weight. This is especially true in people with Type 2 DM. For best results, consult a registered dietitian. If you have been sedentary for a long period of time and have diabetes or cardiovascular disease, talk with your physician before starting a vigorous exercise program.
References:
1. www.diabetes.org
2. DeFronzo RA. Diabetes 1988;37:667-87
3. Bagdade JD. J Clin Invest 1967;46:1549-57
4. Corditz GA. Ann Intern Med 1995:122;481-6
5. Saad MF. N Engl J Med 1988;319: 1500-6
By Dr. James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN.
Each day, 2200 people are diagnosed with diabetes. 90-95% of these have type 2 diabetes mellitus or adult onset diabetes (Type 2 DM).1 At least 16 million Americans have diabetes but as many as half don’t know it, because they haven’t had their blood sugar tested recently. High blood sugar initially produces few symptoms with the exception of increased thirst. However, when blood sugar is elevated for many years, it can lead to blindness, kidney failure, amputations and nerve damage.
Insulin Resistance Leads to Type 2 Diabetes
Nearly all Type 2 DM patients have insulin resistance, which is a reduced ability of insulin to control blood sugar.2 But not everyone who has insulin resistance has increased blood sugar levels or Type 2 DM, although they are often headed in that direction. While insulin resistance has been estimated to occur in 20-30% of the US population, there are currently no routine laboratory procedures for establishing its presence. Patients with an increased waist-to-hip ratio and a strong family history of Type 2 DM, should be presumed to have clinically significant insulin resistance, especially if they also have hypertension, a low HDL and/or an elevated triglyceride level.
Higher Body Fat Increases Insulin
Insulin resistance requires the beta cells of the pancreas to produce more insulin day after day, year after year, to keep blood sugar levels within the normal range. It has long been known that insulin levels are elevated in individuals who are overweight.3 Figure 1 shows that the body must produce much more insulin, on average, even in the fasting state, in order to maintain normal blood-sugar levels in heavier people. For reasons that are not clear, the stress of producing all this extra insulin can take a toll on pancreatic beta cells. Eventually they can no longer keep up with the increased need for insulin. When insulin production can no longer be ratcheted up to meet the growing demand, blood sugar levels begin to rise. Eventually, both fasting and post-meal blood sugar levels drift high enough for Type 2 DM to be diagnosed. More than anything else, insulin resistance and Type 2 DM are the long-term consequence of the nutritional stress placed on the body by too many calories and too little exercise. The human body is not biologically designed to function optimally in the modern world, where the diet is unusually rich and large amounts of physical activity are no longer needed.
Study Links Increased Body Weight to Risk of Developing Type 2 DM
Harvard researchers examined the association between body weight and the risk of developing Type 2 DM in a study of 114,281 female nurses.4 In this study, nurses who were in general good health and between the ages of 30 to 55, were followed for 14 years. During that period, 1917 nurses were diagnosed with diabetes. As can be seen from figure 2, the risk of developing diabetes increased dramatically with increasing BMI. Compared to the thinnest women (BMI < 22.0), the heaviest women were 93 times more likely to develop diabetes during the next 14-years. However, even within the “normal” weight group, those with a BMI of 24.5 were 5 times more likely to develop diabetes than those who had the lowest BMI (<22).
This study also showed that even after adjusting for present body weight, the women who had gained 11 to 17 pounds after age 18 were nearly twice as likely to develop diabetes as those whose weight had remained fairly constant. In addition, those women who had lost 11 pounds or more since they were 18 cut their risk for Type 2 DM by half or more.
It should be noted that even in people with a strong family history for Type 2 DM, the risk of becoming diabetic can be dramatically reduced or at least postponed to very old age, by adopting a healthier diet and exercise program which results in long-term weight control.5 There is no known diet that can increase the body’s capacity to produce insulin in Type 2 DM patients. However, exercise and weight loss do reduce insulin resistance and so reduces the need for insulin, which improves blood sugar regulation.
The bottom line:
If you want to avoid becoming insulin resistant and developing diabetes, you must increase your daily activity level. If overweight, adopt a lowfat, high-fiber diet with more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans and less refined carbohydrates e.g. products made with a lot of white flour and sugar. Planning a diet for successful, long-term weight control, requires sophisticated knowledge about the composition of foods and the impact of those foods on appetite, blood sugar regulation and body weight. This is especially true in people with Type 2 DM. For best results, consult a registered dietitian. If you have been sedentary for a long period of time and have diabetes or cardiovascular disease, talk with your physician before starting a vigorous exercise program.
References:
1. www.diabetes.org
2. DeFronzo RA. Diabetes 1988;37:667-87
3. Bagdade JD. J Clin Invest 1967;46:1549-57
4. Corditz GA. Ann Intern Med 1995:122;481-6
5. Saad MF. N Engl J Med 1988;319: 1500-6
By Dr. James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Diet and Blood Pressure
Aggressive Diet Effective, Aggressive Drugs Not Effective for Blood Pressure
James Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN
04/26/2010 01:03 pm
Aggressive dietary strategies work far better to lower blood pressure than drugs.
Far too many American physicians today focus on controlling cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors with drugs rather than diet and lifestyle changes despite the fact that CVD is caused in large part by poor dietary habits. A very-low-fat, near-vegetarian diet low in salt can prevent and even reverse the CVD process in many cases. By contrast, CVD risk factor reducing drugs alone are rarely very effective at stopping the progression of CVD although some can be modestly effective in those whose CVD risk factors are quite high. Over the past 30 years medical guidelines have increasingly advocated using more drugs and at higher doses to more aggressively lower CVD risk factors, especially in type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) patients. However, whether or not more aggressive treatment with most CVD risk reduction drugs are safe and more effective than older treatment goals remains unproven. To evaluate the potential risk and benefits of more intensive CVD risk factor control with pharmacotherapy a series of 4 studies from the ACCORD Study Group were conducted. The New England Medical Journal published the results online in March 2010. The ACCORD Study Group examined the impact of more aggressive pharmaceutical treatments for elevated blood pressure (BP), dyslipidemia, and blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). The results of these 4 studies should make physicians and the pharmaceutical companies question the wisdom of using more drugs and/or higher doses to more tightly control CVD risk factors.
Intensive Drug Treatment of Hypertension Fails
One of the ACCORD trials examined the efficacy of using more BP drugs to more aggressively lower elevated BP in patients with type 2 DM. A total of 4733 people with type 2 DM were randomly assigned to either lowering systolic BP to <120 or to the conventional BP target of <140. In theory pushing BP even lower than the older BP target of <140/90 makes sense because research has clearly shown the risk of CVD events increases dramatically with increasing BP starting at levels below 115/75mmHg. Indeed, the risk of death from CVD roughly doubles for each 20mmHg rise in systolic BP and this is true whether or not one also has diabetes. In this study the average BP for those in the more intensively treated group averaged only 119 compared to 134 in the usual care control group throughout the average 4.7y study period. The greater BP reduction achieved in the intensive BP control group used the same FDA approved drugs used in the control group subjects except that subjects in the more intensive drug treatment group received more of those drugs and/or took the drugs at higher doses than those in the control group. If the higher doses of BP drugs used in the intensive care group completely eliminated the increased CVD risk attributable to higher BP then the greater reductions in BP (Systolic BP reduced 15mmHg on average) seen in this study should have reduced CVD events by about 70%. Unfortunately, aside from a modest reduction in nonfatal strokes seen in the more intensively treated group the lower BP achieved with more drugs did not reduce CVD events or CVD deaths significantly. Worse still total mortality after 4.7y of follow-up was 1.19% in the standard therapy group and 1.28% in the intensive drug treatment group. In addition the study authors found 3.3% of those in the more intensive drug treatment group experienced significantly more serious adverse events attributed to the antihypertensive treatment compared with only 1.3% in the standard treatment group. 2
Bottom Line: The results of the ACCORD studies clearly show prescribing more drugs to more aggressively lower BP and other CVD risk factors in type 2 DM patients is not medically justified. Patients who wish to reverse insulin resistance, hypertension, and dyslipidemia should be told that more aggressive dietary approaches such as a low-sodium, very low-fat, more vegetarian diet and weight loss is not only a far safer but also a far more efficacious treatment strategy than the increasingly knee-jerk response of using more aggressive pharmacotherapy to "improve" blood glucose levels and CVD risk factors. It is a sad commentary on America's drug-oriented approach to healthcare that diseases known to be largely caused by the modern Western diet are largely treated with only marginally effective drugs. Is this not why CVD remains the killer of almost half of all Americans who die each year while the prevalence of type 2 DM continues to rise?
By Dr. James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN
References:
1. 10.1056/NEJMoa1001286
James Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN
04/26/2010 01:03 pm
Aggressive dietary strategies work far better to lower blood pressure than drugs.
Far too many American physicians today focus on controlling cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors with drugs rather than diet and lifestyle changes despite the fact that CVD is caused in large part by poor dietary habits. A very-low-fat, near-vegetarian diet low in salt can prevent and even reverse the CVD process in many cases. By contrast, CVD risk factor reducing drugs alone are rarely very effective at stopping the progression of CVD although some can be modestly effective in those whose CVD risk factors are quite high. Over the past 30 years medical guidelines have increasingly advocated using more drugs and at higher doses to more aggressively lower CVD risk factors, especially in type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) patients. However, whether or not more aggressive treatment with most CVD risk reduction drugs are safe and more effective than older treatment goals remains unproven. To evaluate the potential risk and benefits of more intensive CVD risk factor control with pharmacotherapy a series of 4 studies from the ACCORD Study Group were conducted. The New England Medical Journal published the results online in March 2010. The ACCORD Study Group examined the impact of more aggressive pharmaceutical treatments for elevated blood pressure (BP), dyslipidemia, and blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). The results of these 4 studies should make physicians and the pharmaceutical companies question the wisdom of using more drugs and/or higher doses to more tightly control CVD risk factors.
Intensive Drug Treatment of Hypertension Fails
One of the ACCORD trials examined the efficacy of using more BP drugs to more aggressively lower elevated BP in patients with type 2 DM. A total of 4733 people with type 2 DM were randomly assigned to either lowering systolic BP to <120 or to the conventional BP target of <140. In theory pushing BP even lower than the older BP target of <140/90 makes sense because research has clearly shown the risk of CVD events increases dramatically with increasing BP starting at levels below 115/75mmHg. Indeed, the risk of death from CVD roughly doubles for each 20mmHg rise in systolic BP and this is true whether or not one also has diabetes. In this study the average BP for those in the more intensively treated group averaged only 119 compared to 134 in the usual care control group throughout the average 4.7y study period. The greater BP reduction achieved in the intensive BP control group used the same FDA approved drugs used in the control group subjects except that subjects in the more intensive drug treatment group received more of those drugs and/or took the drugs at higher doses than those in the control group. If the higher doses of BP drugs used in the intensive care group completely eliminated the increased CVD risk attributable to higher BP then the greater reductions in BP (Systolic BP reduced 15mmHg on average) seen in this study should have reduced CVD events by about 70%. Unfortunately, aside from a modest reduction in nonfatal strokes seen in the more intensively treated group the lower BP achieved with more drugs did not reduce CVD events or CVD deaths significantly. Worse still total mortality after 4.7y of follow-up was 1.19% in the standard therapy group and 1.28% in the intensive drug treatment group. In addition the study authors found 3.3% of those in the more intensive drug treatment group experienced significantly more serious adverse events attributed to the antihypertensive treatment compared with only 1.3% in the standard treatment group. 2
Bottom Line: The results of the ACCORD studies clearly show prescribing more drugs to more aggressively lower BP and other CVD risk factors in type 2 DM patients is not medically justified. Patients who wish to reverse insulin resistance, hypertension, and dyslipidemia should be told that more aggressive dietary approaches such as a low-sodium, very low-fat, more vegetarian diet and weight loss is not only a far safer but also a far more efficacious treatment strategy than the increasingly knee-jerk response of using more aggressive pharmacotherapy to "improve" blood glucose levels and CVD risk factors. It is a sad commentary on America's drug-oriented approach to healthcare that diseases known to be largely caused by the modern Western diet are largely treated with only marginally effective drugs. Is this not why CVD remains the killer of almost half of all Americans who die each year while the prevalence of type 2 DM continues to rise?
By Dr. James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN
References:
1. 10.1056/NEJMoa1001286
Friday, May 7, 2010
Diet and Alzheimer's?
Modern Diet Linked to Alzheimer's Disease
James J Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN
04/26/2010 01:33 pm
Epidemiological studies show the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease is increasing in the USA and other countries that are adopting a modern Western diet high in saturated fat, cholesterol, salt, and low in vegetables and fruits.
Alzheimer's disease appears to have much the same risk factors as cardiovascular disease including higher cholesterol levels, obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, elevated homocysteine levels. However, most clinical trials have looked at the impact of individual nutrients on the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease risk and have been disappointing. People eat diets with complex combinations of nutrients and other substances that may have synergistic effects on risk factors promoting or inhibiting the development of Alzheimer's disease.
A recent study found that individuals whose diet includes more salads, nuts, fish, poultry and certain fruits and vegetables and fewer high-fat dairy products, red meats, organ meats and butter were significantly less likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease The lead author of this study Yian Gu, Ph.D., of Colum bia University Medical Center studied 2,148 adults (age 65 and older) without dementia living in New York. Participants provided information about their diets and were assessed for the development of dementia every 1.5 years for an average of 4 years. Several dietary patterns were identified with varying levels of 7 nutrients previously shown to be associated with Alzheimer’s disease risk: saturated fatty acids, monounsaturated fatty acids, omega-3 fatty acids, omega-6 fatty acids, vitamin E, vitamin B12 and folate. Over the next 4 years 253 individuals developed Alzheimer’s disease. A dietary pattern associated with higher intakes of salads nuts, fish, tomatoes, poultry, fruits and cruciferous and dark and green leafy vegetables but low intakes of high-fat dairy, red meat, organ meat and butter.
The combination of nutrients in the low-risk dietary pattern reflected a variety of metabolic pathways suspected to play a role in the development of Alzheimer’s disease. Lower levels of vitamin B12 and folate are associated with higher homocysteine levels that appear to promote Alzheimer’s disease. Dietary factors that promote atherosclerosis, thrombosis or inflammation may alter brain metabolism and membrane functioning leading to the accumulation of beta-amyloid proteins seen in large amounts in the brain's of patients with Alzheimer's disease. “Our findings provide support for further exploration of food combination–based dietary behavior for the prevention of this important public health problem,” concludes Dr. Gu and his colleagues.
Bottom Line: There is already plenty of research proving that a diet low in refined carbohydrates, fatty meats and dairy products and higher in minimally processed plant foods will reduce cardiovascular disease and many other ills so this study linking the modern diet to Alzheimer's disease as well provides yet one more reason to encourage everyone to abandon such eating habits.
James J Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN
04/26/2010 01:33 pm
Epidemiological studies show the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease is increasing in the USA and other countries that are adopting a modern Western diet high in saturated fat, cholesterol, salt, and low in vegetables and fruits.
Alzheimer's disease appears to have much the same risk factors as cardiovascular disease including higher cholesterol levels, obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, elevated homocysteine levels. However, most clinical trials have looked at the impact of individual nutrients on the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease risk and have been disappointing. People eat diets with complex combinations of nutrients and other substances that may have synergistic effects on risk factors promoting or inhibiting the development of Alzheimer's disease.
A recent study found that individuals whose diet includes more salads, nuts, fish, poultry and certain fruits and vegetables and fewer high-fat dairy products, red meats, organ meats and butter were significantly less likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease The lead author of this study Yian Gu, Ph.D., of Colum bia University Medical Center studied 2,148 adults (age 65 and older) without dementia living in New York. Participants provided information about their diets and were assessed for the development of dementia every 1.5 years for an average of 4 years. Several dietary patterns were identified with varying levels of 7 nutrients previously shown to be associated with Alzheimer’s disease risk: saturated fatty acids, monounsaturated fatty acids, omega-3 fatty acids, omega-6 fatty acids, vitamin E, vitamin B12 and folate. Over the next 4 years 253 individuals developed Alzheimer’s disease. A dietary pattern associated with higher intakes of salads nuts, fish, tomatoes, poultry, fruits and cruciferous and dark and green leafy vegetables but low intakes of high-fat dairy, red meat, organ meat and butter.
The combination of nutrients in the low-risk dietary pattern reflected a variety of metabolic pathways suspected to play a role in the development of Alzheimer’s disease. Lower levels of vitamin B12 and folate are associated with higher homocysteine levels that appear to promote Alzheimer’s disease. Dietary factors that promote atherosclerosis, thrombosis or inflammation may alter brain metabolism and membrane functioning leading to the accumulation of beta-amyloid proteins seen in large amounts in the brain's of patients with Alzheimer's disease. “Our findings provide support for further exploration of food combination–based dietary behavior for the prevention of this important public health problem,” concludes Dr. Gu and his colleagues.
Bottom Line: There is already plenty of research proving that a diet low in refined carbohydrates, fatty meats and dairy products and higher in minimally processed plant foods will reduce cardiovascular disease and many other ills so this study linking the modern diet to Alzheimer's disease as well provides yet one more reason to encourage everyone to abandon such eating habits.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Breakfast Beware
Breakfast: Beware of Calories
If someone asked you, “what is a better
choice, a bran muffin or a jelly donut?”
you would likely be tempted to guess the
bran muffin. That is, until you look at the
list above. We were surprised to find that the
jelly donut is lower in calories than many
popular breakfast choices. We were also surprised
at how many choices that seem good
or don’t sound too bad, actually ring in a
LOT of calories and fat, never to mention,
little fiber.
Even if you are running out the door with
no time, you are so much better off to grab a
piece of fruit to go. Fruit will supply you
with more nutrients and fiber, and fewer
calories and fat, than bakery and fast food
items that become tempting mid morning.
Food Calories, Fat, Fiber
Jelly Donut 210 8 1
Croissant 360 17 0
Multigrain Bagel 380 6 5
Glazed Donut 350 8 1
Bran muffin 430 18 3
Bacon, Egg & Cheese Biscuit 440 25 1
Fresh Apple Pastry 440 24 2
Bear Claw 460 27 2
No Sugar Banana Nut Coffee Cake 490 27 3
Lemon Poppy Seed Mini Bundt 460 20 0
Cinnamon Roll 490 14 1
Caffè Vanilla Frappuccino 490 14 0
Blueberry muffin 520 28 1
Bacon Egg Cheese Croissant 520 33 0
Cinnamon Chip Scone 530 27 2
Pecan Roll 590 32 4
Hotcakes 610 18 3
Cheese Danish 640 34 0
McDonalds Big Breakfast 780 50 4
Hotcakes and Sausage 780 33 3
McDonalds Deluxe Breakfast 1320 63 5
Source: McDonalds, Starbucks, Panera Bread, Dunkin Donuts, Einstein Bagels.
If someone asked you, “what is a better
choice, a bran muffin or a jelly donut?”
you would likely be tempted to guess the
bran muffin. That is, until you look at the
list above. We were surprised to find that the
jelly donut is lower in calories than many
popular breakfast choices. We were also surprised
at how many choices that seem good
or don’t sound too bad, actually ring in a
LOT of calories and fat, never to mention,
little fiber.
Even if you are running out the door with
no time, you are so much better off to grab a
piece of fruit to go. Fruit will supply you
with more nutrients and fiber, and fewer
calories and fat, than bakery and fast food
items that become tempting mid morning.
Food Calories, Fat, Fiber
Jelly Donut 210 8 1
Croissant 360 17 0
Multigrain Bagel 380 6 5
Glazed Donut 350 8 1
Bran muffin 430 18 3
Bacon, Egg & Cheese Biscuit 440 25 1
Fresh Apple Pastry 440 24 2
Bear Claw 460 27 2
No Sugar Banana Nut Coffee Cake 490 27 3
Lemon Poppy Seed Mini Bundt 460 20 0
Cinnamon Roll 490 14 1
Caffè Vanilla Frappuccino 490 14 0
Blueberry muffin 520 28 1
Bacon Egg Cheese Croissant 520 33 0
Cinnamon Chip Scone 530 27 2
Pecan Roll 590 32 4
Hotcakes 610 18 3
Cheese Danish 640 34 0
McDonalds Big Breakfast 780 50 4
Hotcakes and Sausage 780 33 3
McDonalds Deluxe Breakfast 1320 63 5
Source: McDonalds, Starbucks, Panera Bread, Dunkin Donuts, Einstein Bagels.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
HFCS
Dump the Most Evil Sweetener of All
In the late seventies, less than 15 percent of Americans were obese. Thirty years later, 32 percent of us are obese. What happened between then and now? First, the idea became popular that fat was evil and "low fat" diets were best. Whenever possible, fat was removed from processed foods and replaced with sugars and other carbs. At the same time, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) got really cheap and became food manufacturers' go-to sweetener.
Since the days of the low-fat diet craze, we've learned not only that fat doesn't make you fat but that refined carbohydrates like sugar and HFCS do. Oops! A lot of damage has been done, but we can work with our hormones to teach our bodies to react to food the way they did before we overwhelmed our insulin response systems.
A good place to start is to get rid of HFCS. This evil sweetener is incredibly damaging to your metabolism, and it's everywhere. Researchers at Tufts University report that Americans consume more calories from soda and other sweet drinks (which invariably contain tons of HFCS) than from any other source.
You may have seen a commercial run by the Corn Refiners Association that tries to convince you that people who think HFCS is bad for you are paranoid; it suggests that most people can't even say why HFCS is bad for you. Well, here's your answer (tell your friends!): HFCS boosts your fat-storing hormones and makes you fat. Glucose (what table sugar is turned into in your body) is metabolized by all your cells, but fructose (the "F" in HFCS) must be metabolized in the liver. Because of this, HFCS somehow tricks the body into not releasing insulin and leptin, two essential hormones that are usually released after you eat. Without insulin, your body can't use those HFCS calories for energy, and without leptin, your body doesn't know it's full. Plus, unlike table sugar, HFCS doesn't stop levels of ghrelin, your hunger hormone, from rising. If you eat or drink HFCS, you'll actually continue to consume more calories, even 24 hours later, than you would had you just eaten plain table sugar. HFCS also increases triglycerides (a type of blood lipid), which prevent leptin from signaling the brain to stop eating.
I have zero tolerance for HFCS. For me, it's a code word for poison, so toss it!
Where HFCS Hides
HFCS is one of the cheapest ingredients in our food supply, so companies that make processed food have managed to put it in practically everything we eat! Even something like lunch meat can have HFCS in it, so check your labels. Here are just a few other examples of foods that can contain HFCS: breakfast cereal, canned baked beans, cereal bars, crackers, cookies, English muffins, hot dog and hamburger buns, jams and jellies, peanut butter, pickles, protein bars, and salad dressings. Even some organic foods have it (using organic corn), so you can never really be safe unless you look at the ingredients list. Buying whole, unprocessed foods will help you eliminate the problem!
In the late seventies, less than 15 percent of Americans were obese. Thirty years later, 32 percent of us are obese. What happened between then and now? First, the idea became popular that fat was evil and "low fat" diets were best. Whenever possible, fat was removed from processed foods and replaced with sugars and other carbs. At the same time, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) got really cheap and became food manufacturers' go-to sweetener.
Since the days of the low-fat diet craze, we've learned not only that fat doesn't make you fat but that refined carbohydrates like sugar and HFCS do. Oops! A lot of damage has been done, but we can work with our hormones to teach our bodies to react to food the way they did before we overwhelmed our insulin response systems.
A good place to start is to get rid of HFCS. This evil sweetener is incredibly damaging to your metabolism, and it's everywhere. Researchers at Tufts University report that Americans consume more calories from soda and other sweet drinks (which invariably contain tons of HFCS) than from any other source.
You may have seen a commercial run by the Corn Refiners Association that tries to convince you that people who think HFCS is bad for you are paranoid; it suggests that most people can't even say why HFCS is bad for you. Well, here's your answer (tell your friends!): HFCS boosts your fat-storing hormones and makes you fat. Glucose (what table sugar is turned into in your body) is metabolized by all your cells, but fructose (the "F" in HFCS) must be metabolized in the liver. Because of this, HFCS somehow tricks the body into not releasing insulin and leptin, two essential hormones that are usually released after you eat. Without insulin, your body can't use those HFCS calories for energy, and without leptin, your body doesn't know it's full. Plus, unlike table sugar, HFCS doesn't stop levels of ghrelin, your hunger hormone, from rising. If you eat or drink HFCS, you'll actually continue to consume more calories, even 24 hours later, than you would had you just eaten plain table sugar. HFCS also increases triglycerides (a type of blood lipid), which prevent leptin from signaling the brain to stop eating.
I have zero tolerance for HFCS. For me, it's a code word for poison, so toss it!
Where HFCS Hides
HFCS is one of the cheapest ingredients in our food supply, so companies that make processed food have managed to put it in practically everything we eat! Even something like lunch meat can have HFCS in it, so check your labels. Here are just a few other examples of foods that can contain HFCS: breakfast cereal, canned baked beans, cereal bars, crackers, cookies, English muffins, hot dog and hamburger buns, jams and jellies, peanut butter, pickles, protein bars, and salad dressings. Even some organic foods have it (using organic corn), so you can never really be safe unless you look at the ingredients list. Buying whole, unprocessed foods will help you eliminate the problem!
Monday, May 3, 2010
Try This for Dinner
Chicken Tenders
8 chicken tenderloins
2 cups mushrooms
1 tsp olive oil
1 fresh lemon (the juice)
garlic and black pepper to taste
Preheat oven to 350F. Place frozen
chicken tenders in oven and
cover - bake for 50 minutes
along with the other side dishes
on this page.
Saute mushrooms in olive oil
and add lemon and seasonings.
Serve over top of chicken.
Yukon Gold Wedges
4 yukon gold potatoes
4 cups broccoli
Place potatoes in oven and bake
50 minutes or until done in center.
Cut the potatoes in quarters and
stand them on their end.
Sprinkle with a little bit of fresh
lemon and black pepper.
Steam broccoli and serve on the
side.
This whole dinner serves 4 people
and the analysis includes the
beets below.
Serves 4: Each serving (400
grams): 295 calories, 6.5 g fat, 1 g
saturated fat, 0 g trans fat, 51 mg
cholesterol, 16 mg sodium, 25 g
protein, 6 g fiber.
8 chicken tenderloins
2 cups mushrooms
1 tsp olive oil
1 fresh lemon (the juice)
garlic and black pepper to taste
Preheat oven to 350F. Place frozen
chicken tenders in oven and
cover - bake for 50 minutes
along with the other side dishes
on this page.
Saute mushrooms in olive oil
and add lemon and seasonings.
Serve over top of chicken.
Yukon Gold Wedges
4 yukon gold potatoes
4 cups broccoli
Place potatoes in oven and bake
50 minutes or until done in center.
Cut the potatoes in quarters and
stand them on their end.
Sprinkle with a little bit of fresh
lemon and black pepper.
Steam broccoli and serve on the
side.
This whole dinner serves 4 people
and the analysis includes the
beets below.
Serves 4: Each serving (400
grams): 295 calories, 6.5 g fat, 1 g
saturated fat, 0 g trans fat, 51 mg
cholesterol, 16 mg sodium, 25 g
protein, 6 g fiber.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Greens
Collard greens and cabbage
are two of the best bargains in
the grocery store for both nutrition
and cost.
Ounce for ounce they are
both nutritional powerhouses.
They are high in nutrients and
phytochemicals, plant chemicals
that may be beneficial to
your health. But they are also
low in sugar, fat and sodium.
As we picked them up and
took them to our favorite
farmer’s market counter, one
woman remarked, “those are
interesting, what do you do
with them?” Good question!
And to that we say, “buy them
and then use them all week.”
If you have them on hand,
that is half the battle.
Cabbage is more easy to find
uses - you cal slice it and use it
in salads, slaws, tacos and stir
fry dishes during the week.
For those who like to cook
more you can steam it and use
it as a wrap for rice stuffings
or asian stir fry dishes.
Collard greens have a variety
of recipes found on the internet.
Our favorite dish doesn’t
really need a recipe - we sauteed
sweet onions and peppers
and added on sliced collard
greens and steamed them all
lightly in a pan. Some classic
recipes call for extended
cooking to make them very
tender. It is a matter of personal
preference.
Other uses for collard greens
involve adding them to
steamed veggie mixes, shredding
to add more color to salads,
adding to soups, stir fry
dishes, pasta, rice and steamed
spinach (we like to use that as
a base for fish or chicken).
Collards go well with Southern
style dishes like oven fried
chicken, Ham Baked Chicken,
baked sweet potatoes
and corn bread.
are two of the best bargains in
the grocery store for both nutrition
and cost.
Ounce for ounce they are
both nutritional powerhouses.
They are high in nutrients and
phytochemicals, plant chemicals
that may be beneficial to
your health. But they are also
low in sugar, fat and sodium.
As we picked them up and
took them to our favorite
farmer’s market counter, one
woman remarked, “those are
interesting, what do you do
with them?” Good question!
And to that we say, “buy them
and then use them all week.”
If you have them on hand,
that is half the battle.
Cabbage is more easy to find
uses - you cal slice it and use it
in salads, slaws, tacos and stir
fry dishes during the week.
For those who like to cook
more you can steam it and use
it as a wrap for rice stuffings
or asian stir fry dishes.
Collard greens have a variety
of recipes found on the internet.
Our favorite dish doesn’t
really need a recipe - we sauteed
sweet onions and peppers
and added on sliced collard
greens and steamed them all
lightly in a pan. Some classic
recipes call for extended
cooking to make them very
tender. It is a matter of personal
preference.
Other uses for collard greens
involve adding them to
steamed veggie mixes, shredding
to add more color to salads,
adding to soups, stir fry
dishes, pasta, rice and steamed
spinach (we like to use that as
a base for fish or chicken).
Collards go well with Southern
style dishes like oven fried
chicken, Ham Baked Chicken,
baked sweet potatoes
and corn bread.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)