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.
Monday, May 17, 2010
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)