Health Points: Friday

Posted on July 25, 2008 by Gerald Pugliese

Roughly 19 percent of U.S. energy consumption goes toward producing and supplying food, David Pimentel and his colleagues at Cornell University write in the current issue of the journal Human Ecology. Considering that the average American consumes an estimated 3,747 calories a day, — at least 1,200 more than health experts advise — the researchers suggest everyone cut back.

Animal products and junk food, in particular, use more energy and other resources for their production than staples such as potatoes, rice, fruits and vegetables.

Producing all the stuff that goes into a single hamburger, for example, requires some 1,300 gallons of water, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. A study in 2006 by University of Chicago researchers Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin found that a vegetarian diet is the most energy-efficient, followed by one that includes poultry. Diets with red meat or fish are the least efficient.

"By just reducing junk food intake and converting to diets lower in meat, the average American could have a massive impact on fuel consumption as well as improving his or her health," Pimentel and his team write in a statement released today.
Researchers at the University of Colorado Hospital recruited 80 seniors, age 65 to 89, and found that three-quarters of them had insufficient levels of Vitamin D.


That's probably because they thought the old levels were sufficient, said Sunny Linnebur, associate professor at the CU-Denver School of Pharmacy.

"It was a surprise because in Denver we have so much sun," she said. "And these were ambulatory elderly, people who can walk around and go outside. We were expecting more of them to have normal levels of Vitamin D."

Sara Jane Barru of Denver said she had assumed she was taking plenty of Vitamin D, but when a test found her levels were low she eagerly jumped into the study.

She said she started taking a lot more Vitamin D while in the study "and I'm continuing to keep it up there.

More risk assessment studies are needed to understand what exactly defines toxicity due to nanoparticles, and what kind of regulations the sector needs, said Hermann Stamm, head of nanotechnology and molecular imaging at the Institute for Health and Consumer Protection in the European Commission's Joint Research Council.


Speaking at the Euroscience Open Forum in Barcelona this week (20 July), Stamm said concern over possible health risks due to nano-sized particles arises from several studies that found a link between ultra-fine particles from exhaust engines and air pollution to lung cancers and heart disease.

Nanotechnology — the use of particles as small as one-billionth of a metre — holds tremendous potential for the health sector, particularly in drug delivery.

Developing countries are keen to use nanotechnology in healthcare and agriculture. India, for example, in 2007 launched a US$225 million programme for nanoscience and technology.
In June 2007, the Government of Canada called on industry to voluntarily reduce the levels of trans fat in the Canadian food supply to the levels recommended by the Trans Fat Task Force, and announced that the Government would monitor the progress.


The Trans Fat Task Force recommended a trans fat limit of 2% of the total fat content for all vegetable oils and soft, spreadable margarines, and a limit of 5% of the total fat content for all other foods, including ingredients sold to restaurants.

"I am very pleased to see that industry is continuing to make progress to reduce the levels of trans fat," said Parliamentary Secretary Fletcher. "This second set of data, which focused on popular fast food chains and family restaurants in Canada, further illustrates the commitment of industry to achieve the limits recommended by the Trans Fat Task Force. The fact that we're seeing reductions in the levels of trans fat in so many areas is great news for all Canadians."

Armstrong, a seven-time winner of the Tour de France, said the United States needs to make more progress against the various types of cancer.


"As a survivor, I think I can say this -- we have taken our eye off the ball," Armstrong told a news conference along with former surgeons general Richard Carmona, David Satcher, Joycelyn Elders and Antonia Novello.

Cancer is the No. 2 cause of death in the United States, and is expected to kill about 566,000 this year. Only heart disease kills more.

At Armstrong's request, the four doctors developed a national "call to action" against cancer that emphasizes prevention efforts such as not smoking, eating more fruit and vegetables, getting less fat in the diet, getting more exercise, using sunscreen and avoiding indoor tanning beds.
Dawn Page, 52, has been awarded £810,000 in damages from her nutritionist, although the practitioner denies fault.


Mother of two Mrs Page, who weighed 12st, became ill within days of taking up the Amazing Hydration Diet.

She had been told by the nutritionist to drink four extra pints of water a day and drastically reduce her salt intake.

The first stage of the regime left her suffering from severe vomiting and stomach cramps, but she was told these were just part of the detoxification process.

She was told by her dietician to increase the amount of water to six pints and consume still less salt.

Days later she suffered a massive epileptic fit and brain damage caused by severe sodium deficiency.

A Los Angeles city council planning committee unanimously approved a 1-year ban, which could be extended for a further year, on new fast food outlets in a 32-square-mile (82-sq-km) area of Los Angeles.


The measure, the latest in efforts by U.S. cities to promote healthier eating, will go to the full council for a vote next month.

If passed, it would affect about half a million Angelenos living in an area that supporters say already has about 400 fast-food eateries and few grocery stores.

The proposed moratorium follows a report last year which found that about 30 percent of children living in the South Los Angeles, West Adams, Baldwin Hills and Leimert Park areas are obese compared to about 21 percent in the rest of the city.
"For cattle and pigs, food safety concerns are considered unlikely. But we must acknowledge that the evidence base is still small. We would like to have a broader data base and we need further clarification."


In its initial response to the issue of cloning -- which many consumer and religious groups strongly oppose -- EFSA said in January that cloned animals could be safe to eat.

It also said it saw "no environmental impact" from animal cloning, which takes cells from an adult and fuses them with others before implanting them in a surrogate mother.

But when asked if cloned products such as meat and dairy would be safe for people to buy in European supermarkets, Dr. Dan Collins of EFSA said: "There are possible concerns ... there is an impact of animal health and welfare on food safety. We need more data."
Tags: , , , , , ,

Low-Carb: No Fiber, No Poop...

Posted on July 24, 2008 by Gerald Pugliese

Here’s another reason why low-carb diets aren’t healthy. One dietician calls them digestive nightmares. Via I’m Not Obsessed:

The myth: Give up bread and pasta and the pounds will melt away

The truth: Low-carb eating plans are a digestive nightmare, because they don't provide enough fiber, which frequently results in severe constipation, says Maye Musk, R.D., a New York City-based dietician. Healthy carbs are also crucial for energy. Stop eating them and you're likely to feel tired and grumpy all the time.

The fix: Eat good-for-you carbs. To make sure you get the nutrients you need, add four servings to your daily diet, suggests Musk. Try a slice of whole-grain bread, one-half cup cooked oatmeal, one-third cup brown rice and one-half cup whole-wheat pasta. Piling your plate with fiber-rich veggies such as spinach, broccoli, peas and asparagus can also help get things moving.

Kind of the opposite of eating a vegetable-based diet—not to be gross, but I always keep a plunger handy.

Tags: , , ,

Low-Carb, Anti-Fitness

Posted on July 22, 2008 by Gerald Pugliese

Milo F. Bryant, a personal trainer and Gazette columnist, scoffs at new research—funded by The Dr. Robert C. and Veronica Atkins Foundation—claiming “vindication” for low-carb diets. He contends low-carb diets sap people’s energy. Via The Colorado Springs Gazette:

Which brings me to the results of a study released last week. It lasted two years and determined that the low-carbohydrate Atkins diet produced greater weight loss than the fish-rich Mediterranean diet and the low-fat guidelines suggested by the American Heart Association.

I have a huge problem with this study: The Atkins Foundation helped finance it. It doesn't matter where the researchers are from. It doesn't matter how much integrity they have. They are doing a study with money from a company that can and will gain financially based on the results. This study would have had much more credence if a group unaffiliated with Atkins had paid for it, orchestrated it and found the same results.

Several nutritionists and dietitians I know have almost convinced me that mutations of the Atkins Diet are great for those who aren't as active as others.

But that leads to my next point. Many of us want to be active but find it difficult to gather the energy to do so. Still, we want the weight loss. So we seek out diets such as Atkins. And it works. We lose weight. But we're not active. And Atkins doesn't provide the fuel to get there.

Granted, Milo’s article is an opinion piece, but he’s onto something. According to Dr. Fuhrman our bodies need carbohydrates more than any other substance. He explains in Unrefined Carbohydrates Encourage Weight Loss. Here’s an excerpt:

Our muscle cells and brains are designed to run on carbohydrates. Carbohydrate-rich foods, when consumed in their natural state, are low in calories and high in fiber compared with fatty foods, processed foods, or animal products.


Fat contains about nine calories per gram, but protein and carbohydrates contain approximately four calories per gram. So when you eat high-carbohydrate foods, such as fresh fruits and beans, you eat more food and still keep your caloric intake relatively low. The high fiber content of (unrefined) carbohydrate-rich food is another crucial reason you will feel more satisfied and not crave more food when you make unrefined carbohydrates the main source of calories in your diet.

There are a lot of people at my gym on protein-heavy anti-carb diets, but these people are notoriously flaky. For weeks they’re thin and working hard, but then they disappear for months and when they come back they’re considerably fatter—anyone else notice this?

Tags: , ,

Atkins Study: Mediocre Diets Offer Mediocre Benefits

Posted on July 18, 2008 by Joel Fuhrman, M.D.

A recent study, published in the July 17, 2008 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, has generated headlines that may lead the casual reader to believe that a low-carbohydrate (animal-food based) diet is the healthiest and most effective way to lose weight and lower cholesterol. The Atkins Research Foundation funded the study. They also promoted the results to the media and slanted the interpretation to suggest the Atkins diet was vindicated. Most of the media bought this nonsense.

The study compared people who were counseled to follow three mediocre diets with little difference between the three. All the study did show was that all three of these diets failed to generate significant weight loss or cholesterol lowering. After two years of carefully monitored effort, the average weight loss was less than 8 pounds. Two years on the modified Atkins diet, where they instructed the participants to eat more plant sources of protein (such as beans and nuts) and less trans-fat, still did not lower LDL (bad) cholesterol significantly. And, this was from an improved version of the Atkins’ diet which had less than 40 percent of calories from fat. Most Atkins’ menu’s have 60–80 percent of calories from fat. On the other hand, some of Atkins’ recommendations have value; it’s of course true that white flour and sugar and other high glycemic foods (bread, pasta and white rice) are not health foods; people need to avoid that empty-calorie junk. But even with the avoidance of all the junk food and high glycemic, low nutrient foods, the Atkins-styled diet offered only minimal weight loss. The average weight loss after two years was 11 pounds for men and 5 pounds for women, so they are claiming an average of 4 pounds a year as a success. This was after, supplying meals and intensive monitoring and counseling to assure excellent dietary compliance.

In this study the women eating the Mediterranean diet lost an average of 14 pounds, almost three times the amount compared to this improved Atkins plan. Yet for some reason the media comes up with the conclusion that Atkins is vindicated. To me this says, even an improved version of the Atkins diet falls on its face, it is almost as bad as the American Heart Association’s (worthless) dietary advice, which came out even worse in this study. Women are always tougher to get to lose weight and a 5 pound loss in two years after extensive counseling and supplying meals to assure compliance; that says big failure to me.

Compare these results, to the patients that were followed in the USC study on my HND (high micronutrient density) or nutritarian diet where the average weight loss for patients that completed two years of the study was 53 pounds and the Journal of Metabolism study where the average LDL following the HND diet dropped 33 percent. My patients typically drop their cholesterol levels 100 mg/dl, on two years, not 2-3 points, and they come off their medications for diabetes, high blood pressure and cholesterol-lowering because they simply don’t need them anymore.

It is a shame that the most popular diets as well as the American Heart Association recommended diet (which is the worst of the three) are such failures and that most people are so in the dark about nutrition and the ideal diet to follow. What a waste of more than 2 million dollars in research funding. Some vegan diet proponents will undoubtedly be criticizing this study too, complaining that all three diets were not really low in fat, so they merely compared three high fat diets. That still misleads the public in two ways. One it ignores the reality that that high glycemic sugars and high glycemic (low-nutrient) plant starches, such as white potatoes, white rice and bread are not great diet foods. So Atkins’ advice is not all bad. And two, it does not respect the value of beneficial fatty acids and healthy, high fat foods like sunflower seeds and walnuts and the health advantages to including these foods in one’s diet. The fat content of a diet is not the critical factor that determines its quality.

Maybe someday soon, somebody will give me a measly half a million (tax deductable) to fund a larger scale, weight loss study that really shows the public what is possible with nutritional excellence, that addresses and removes food addictions with high nutrient eating. Hopefully, in the future, the public will understand these concepts in nutrition much better, but for now, most of these diet camps have significant room for improvement.
Tags: ,