What is really in our food products and is FDA keeping an eye on it?

The FDA was established as a regulatory overseer to ensure implementation of the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act, a law a quarter-century in the making that prohibited interstate commerce in adulterated and misbranded food and drugs. Its official title 'Food and Drug Administration' was given in 1930.

Since then FDA has been entrusted with the task of " protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation" ( as defined on the FDA website)

But it is starting to become apparent that some food product manufacturers have found ways around the regulations that ensure public safety, most commonly used is a legal loophole, introduced in 1958, that allows use of additives in food products if deemed by them as 'generally recognized as safe' (GRAS). The most well known example of GRAS is partially hydrogenated fats.

As defined on the FDA site: "Under sections 201(s) and 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), any substance that is intentionally added to food is a food additive, that is subject to premarket review and approval by FDA, unless the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use, or unless the use of the substance is otherwise excluded from the definition of a food additive."

Thus these additives may not require FDA approval or oversight if declared as safe by industry experts. It is at the food companies' discretion whether to ask for FDA for approval or declare them harmless using the GRAS loophole. Such an evaluation by the food company is not required to be reviewed by the FDA, yet again the decision lies with the food companies.

What is worrisome is that in recent years several safety of such GRAS ingredients has been disputed by scientists and consumer groups. There have been documented cases where some GRAS additives have led to serious allergic reactions or other health issues.

The fact is that American consumers are ingesting food products with ingredients that have not be scrutinized and approved by the FDA. The long term effects of such ingredients on general health are not known or understood.

As pointed out in the NPR news article "Why The FDA Has Never Looked At Some Of The Additives In Our Food "
This is true of one of the most known — and vilified — GRAS additives: partially hydrogenated oil, a form of trans fat. Widely used in food products including fried foods and cake mixes, trans fats have been named by public health experts as a contributor to heart disease, stroke and Type 2 diabetes. Despite strong pushback from industry, the FDA in November 2013 made a tentative determination that artificial trans fats should not have GRAS status, and the agency is likely to make that determination final this summer.

The general assumption that these GRAS ingredients are safe is no longer being accepted by major consumer groups. These are now pushing for higher standards of review and scrutiny by FDA.
 
Researchers for the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Natural Resources Defense Council say that allowing companies to make safety determinations without telling the FDA makes it nearly impossible to identify whether there are health effects caused by long-term exposure to certain ingredients.
Their concerns are heightened because safety decisions often rest in the hands of a small group of scientific experts selected by companies or consulting firms with a financial incentive to get new ingredients on the market. Several of these scientists, a Center for Public Integrity investigation found, previously served as scientific consultants for tobacco companies during the 1980s and 1990s, when the tobacco industry fought vigorously to defend its products.

Unfortunately the steps being taken to control the increasing number of GRAS ingredients being used by food companies are lagging behind, as mentioned in the article;
In the past five decades, the number of food additives has skyrocketed — from about 800 to more than 10,000. They are added to everything from baked goods and breakfast cereals to energy bars and carbonated drinks.
Meanwhile, the FDA's food additive approval system has slowed to a crawl — the average review takes two years, but some drag on for decades.

Many industry experts feel these concerns are exaggerated, but as a consumer we need to take time to read food labels and try to make informed decisions of our own. After all the consequence of what we put in our bodies will primarily effects us and our families.

 


 
 

How much benefit do we really get from Organic food?

Most people myself included tend to think of organic foods as healthier and safer. But that may not always be the case, points out Tamar Haspel in her recent article in The Washington Post's Health and food section. To make it simple she simply gives the evidence on the nutrition and contamination of both organic and conventional foods such as milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish. Here is a short excerpt of the article;

Is organic better for your health? A look at milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish.

Organic or conventional? It’s a choice many grocery shoppers are faced with, over and over. The price difference is easy to see; it’s right there on the product. The quality difference is much harder. Is the organic milk better for your kids? Is the conventional lettuce more likely to carry pathogens?

Leave aside for the moment whether organic agriculture is better for the planet and whether organic livestock have better lives, although there’s a strong case for both of those arguments. Leave aside flavor, too, because it’s subjective and variable. What motivates many organic buyers, particularly the parents of small children, is health benefits, and there are two questions: Do organics do us more good (in the form of better nutrition), and do they do us less harm (in the form of fewer contaminants and pathogens)? 

Milk 
 
Nutrition: Compared with conventional milk, organic milk has higher levels of omega-3 fats, which protect against heart disease and may decrease the risk of depression, stroke, cancer and other diseases, but the quantities are too small to be very meaningful. (It takes 11 quarts of organic milk to equal the omega-3s in four ounces of salmon.) Milk’s omega-3 content is a function of the cow’s diet, and higher levels reflect more grass. (A few other nutritional differences between organic and conventional milk have been studied, but there isn’t enough research to draw conclusions.)
Contamination: Neither organic nor conventional milk contains antibiotics. By law, every truckload of milk, organic and conventional, is tested for veterinary drugs, including antibiotics, by trained dairy workers. Any load that tests positive is pulled out of the food supply.
Hormones: The issue with milk is that many conventionally raised dairy cows, unlike organic ones, are injected with bovine growth hormone (BGH, the synthetic version of which is called either recombinant bovine growth hormone, rBGH, or recombinant bovine somatotropin, rBST) to increase their milk production.Both organic and conventional cows have IGF-I in their milk, but cows that get hormone treatment may have more of it.
The use of rBGH has fueled concerns among some parents about giving milk to children, but the FDA report concluded that “consumption by infants and children of milk and edible products from rBGH-treated cows is safe.”
Bottom line: Organic milk has higher omega-3 fat levels, but probably not enough to make a difference. Exposure to pesticides, contaminants or hormones is not a significant risk in either organic or conventional milk.
 
Produce

Nutrition: Many studies have compared the vitamins, minerals, macronutrients and other compounds in organic and conventional produce, and a 2012 review concluded that the results were all over the map. The one exception was that the phosphorus content of organic produce is higher, although the review, done by Stanford University scientists, calls that finding “not clinically significant.”
Contamination: There are two issues for foods that grow in the ground: pesticides and pathogens. There is widespread agreement that organic produce, while not pesticide-free, has lower residue levels and fewer pesticides.
Carl Winter, a toxicologist at the University of California at Davis, says that the Environmental Protection Agency, working from animal research and factoring in the special sensitivities of human subgroups such as babies and children, has found that lifetime risk of adverse health effects due to low-level exposure to pesticide residue through consumption of produce is “far below even minimal health concerns, even over a lifetime.” 
As for pathogens, the 2012 Stanford review found that E. coli contamination is slightly more likely in organic than conventional produce.
The best strategy to reduce risk from produce isn’t to buy either organic or conventional. Rather, it’s to cook your food.
Bottom line: While there may be no significant nutritional difference between organic and conventional produce, organic does have lower levels of pesticide residue. However, there isn’t universal agreement on the risk those residues pose.
 
Meat
 
Nutrition: As with milk, the main issue here is omega-3 fats. Some organic meat and poultry have more of them than conventional products do. The reason is diet: Animals that eat more grass have lower fat levels overall and higher omega-3 levels than animals fed more grain.
Although measurements of omega-3 fats in beef vary, the numbers are low and substantially below what can be found in a serving of salmon.
Contaminants: The USDA randomly tests carcasses for residues of pesticides, contaminants and veterinary drugs including antibiotics. In 2011, it screened for 128 chemicals, and 99 percent of the tested carcasses were free of all of them.
It found a few with residue violations and a similar small number with residue within legal limits (mostly of arsenic and antibiotics). Although the USDA doesn’t report organic and conventional separately, contaminant risk overall is extremely low.
The bigger concern is pathogens. Studies of bacterial contamination levels of organic and conventional meat show widely varying results. These findings suggest that organic meat may be slightly more likely to be contaminated, possibly because no antibiotics are used. But conventional meat is more likely to be contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. But the risk in meat overall was essentially the same. And whether meat is conventional or organic, the solution is adequate cooking.
Bottom line: Grass-fed beef has a slight edge over grain-fed because of higher omega-3 levels, but the amounts are probably too small to affect human health.

Eggs
 
Nutrition: As with milk and meat, the omega-3 levels of eggs are affected by the hens’ diet and can be increased by pasturing or diet supplementation for either organic or conventional hens. Eggs high in omega-3s are generally labeled.
Contaminants: There’s very little research on contaminants in eggs. The 2012 Stanford review concluded that there is “no difference” in contamination risk between conventional and organic eggs.
Bottom line: There are no significant differences affecting health between organic and conventional eggs.  

Fish
 
The USDA has not issued any organic standards for farmed fish or shellfish, but several overseas organizations have. (Because there’s no way to control the diet of wild fish, “organic” doesn’t apply.) Canadian standards prohibit antibiotics and hormones, restrict pesticides and set criteria for acceptable feed. There’s not enough research comparing organic and conventional fish to draw any conclusions about their health benefits.


Reference:
Is organic better for your health? A look at milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish.


(The Washington Post- Health, Science and Environment 07/04/14)

Fats are not the enemy

Allison Aubrey presented a case for adding some fat to our diets on  NPR's Morning Edition as few weeks back.

Fats have been the target of most of the popular dietary plans. They are looked upon as the enemy to any healthy lifestyle. But is that justifiable and right?

It is well documented that saturated fats can raise the LDL ( Low-density lipoprotein)in the blood, which is the so-called bad cholesterol. Whereas on the other end, plant-based fats such as those found in nuts and olive oil are actually beneficial to our heart health and can help reduce the risk of heart disease. Yet it seems the risks might be more then the benefits, leading most of us to minimize fats intake whenever trying to eat healthy.

Thus the task of  convincing most of us to bring some ats back into our diets is a tough one.
Here is an excerpts of what experts had to say to Allison Aubrey on the subject;

"Fat was really the villain," says , who is chairman of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. And, by default, people "had to load up on carbohydrates."
But, by the mid-1990s, Willett says, there were already signs that the high-carb, low-fat approach might not lead to fewer heart attacks and strokes. He had a long-term study underway that was aimed at evaluating the effects of diet and lifestyle on health.
"We were finding that if people seemed to replace saturated fat — the kind of fat found in cheese, eggs, meat, butter — with carbohydrate, there was no reduction in heart disease," Willett says.
Willett submitted his data to a top medical journal, but he says the editors would not publish his findings. His paper was turned down.
"There was a lot of resistance to anything that would question the low-fat guidelines," Willett says, especially the guidelines on saturated fat.
Willett's was eventually published by a British medical journal, the BMJ, in 1996.

But here's where it gets interesting: "We've learned that carbohydrates aren't neutral," explains , an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School.
"[Carbs] were the base of the pyramid," says Mozaffarian. The message was "eat all carbohydrates you want."
Americans took this as a green light to eat more refined grains such as breads, processed snack foods and white pasta.
"But carbohydrates worsen glucose and insulin — they have negative effects on blood cholesterol levels," he says. The thinking that it's OK to swap saturated fats for these refined carbs "has not been useful advice."
He says it's clear that saturated fats can raise LDL cholesterol, the bad cholesterol. But that's only one risk factor for heart disease.
There's now evidence that — compared with carbs — saturated fat can raise HDL cholesterol (the good cholesterol) and lower trigylcerides in the blood, which are both countering effects to heart disease, he says.
"When you put all of this together," says Mozaffarian, what you see is that saturated fat has a relatively neutral effect compared with carbs. He says it's "not a beneficial effect but not a harmful effect. And I think that's what the recent studies show." He points to a of studies published in 2010.
He also points to a highly publicized that concludes there's no convincing evidence to support the dietary recommendations to limit saturated fat.
The in that paper have created quite a bit of controversy. For instance, the American Heart Association it stands by its recommendations to limit saturated fat.


Although these new points of view don't say 'Go ahead and load up on fats' they do make it clear that fats should not be excluded from our diets completely. Maybe moderation is a good way to go with all diets. 

 
References:
Rethinking Fat: The Case For Adding Some Into Your Diet (NPR)

 

Reduce all animal proteins in our diet to live longer

It has been well documented that consumption of too much red meat as an adult can lead increased risk for type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke and certain cancers.

Now researchers in the US and Italy have gathered enough data, over a period of two decades, to conclude that individuals who have diets high in animal proteins during their middle age are four times more likely to die of cancer then their counterparts who had diets low in animal proteins. A risk some have compared with smoking. An increased risk of developing Diabetes Type 2 was also observed.

Valter Longo, a University of Southern California gerontology professor and director of the school’s Longevity Institute, who co-authored the study pointed out "The great majority of Americans could reduce their protein intake," and added "The best change would be to lower the daily intake of all proteins, but especially animal-derived proteins."

The interesting finding though was the fact that if you started eating more animal proteins after the age of 66 years, it is actually good for your health.


Here are two articles on the subject:

Too much animal-based proteins could lead to early death, study says ( Brady Dennis for The Washington Post)

It's time to kick the high-protein diet habit – before it kills you (Holly Baxter for The Guardian)


Reference:

Low Protein Intake Is Associated with a Major Reduction in IGF-1, Cancer, and Overall Mortality in the 65 and Younger but Not Older Population

Vitamin E and Selenium supplements may increase risk of cancer

With this increasing obsession with fitness and health the use of supplements such as vitamins, minerals, and herbal has increased exponentially. The increased efforts to stay healthy are good news but the fact that a huge majority of individuals do not even know what supplement to take or not to take, many end up losing any benefit and incur more damage to their health then advantage.

Recent clinical trials have shown that the unnecessary use of certain dietary supplements can lead to far more serious problems then known before. Such a study conducted in the US has shown that the high levels of the mineral Selenium can lead to a 91% increased risk for high grade cancer.
According to the the study leader Dr. Alan Kristal (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre, Seattle)"These supplements are popular – especially vitamin E – although so far no large, well-designed and well-conducted study has shown any benefits for preventing major chronic disease.
"Men using these supplements should stop, period. Neither selenium nor vitamin E supplementation confers any known benefits, only risks."

This adverse effect appeared only when men with already high levels took the selenium supplement and not in men who originally had low levels. It was also noted that Vitamin E also increased the risk of cancer almost doubling it in men who had low level of selenium.

This study was a follow-up of Select (selenium and vitamin E cancer prevention trial), which originally recruited more than 35,000 men to see if the supplements could help prevent prostate cancer. The main goal of the trial was to prove whether selenium and vitamin E supplements actually prevented prostrate cancer. It was concluded "SELECT was initially planned for a minimum of seven years and a maximum of 12 years of participants taking supplements, plus follow-up observation after the men finished taking their supplements. However, the independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) for the trial met on September 15, 2008, to review SELECT study data and found that selenium and vitamin E, taken alone or together did not prevent prostate cancer. The committee also determined that it was unlikely selenium and vitamin E supplementation would ever produce a 25 percent reduction in prostate cancer incidence, as the study was designed to show. Based on their recommendation, with SWOG and NCI agreement, SELECT participants were told in October 2008 to stop taking their study supplements." (National Cancer Institute)

The Select trial suggested that Vitamin E intake may have more detrimental effects then initially thought, whereas the outcome of overuse of selenium was still disputed hence the follow up study.     "In 2011, data showed that men taking vitamin E alone had a significantly increased risk of prostate cancer, but men taking vitamin E plus selenium did not.  If men had low selenium levels at the start of the trial, the selenium supplement may have counteracted a negative effect of the vitamin E supplement." (Select study - NCI)

The results of this follow-up study have shown a clear relation between selenium and vitamin E supplements and the increased risk of prostrate cancer.
"In an analysis published in 2014, men who had high levels of selenium at the start of the trial, as assessed by measures of selenium in their toenail clippings, had almost double the chance of developing a high-grade prostate cancer if they took the selenium supplement compared to men with low levels of selenium at the start of the trial.  This finding was unexpected, as previous studies had shown that men with low levels of selenium had an increased risk of prostate cancer that was reduced with supplements (11, 12).  Additionally, men with low levels of selenium at the start of the trial had double the chance of developing a high-grade prostate cancer if they took the vitamin E supplement."
(National Cancer Institute)

A detailed article on the latest results was published on February 21st 2014 in The Guardian, titled

Some vitamin supplements raise risk of cancer in men, research shows.

P.S:

References:

Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) (National Cancer Institute)
Some vitamin supplements raise risk of cancer in men, research shows. (The Guardian)

Cancer on the rise in the world

Since the release of the  World Cancer Report 2014 by the WHO, we have been seeing headlines like 'Cancer 'tidal wave' on horizon, warns WHO' (BBC World) and for good reason.

The stats in the report have gotten everyone's attention. It suggests that the number of cancer cases might reach 24 million by 2035. It also points out that world health issues such as smoking, drinking, and obesity must be effectively dealt with to reduce that number. 

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO) press release states:

Global battle against cancer won’t be won with treatment alone.

Effective prevention measures urgently needed to prevent cancer crisis.

Based on the latest statistics on trends in cancer incidence and mortality worldwide, this new book reveals how the cancer burden is growing at an alarming pace and emphasizes the need for urgent implementation of efficient prevention strategies to curb the disease.
Despite exciting advances, this Report shows that we cannot treat our way out of the cancer  problem,” states Dr Christopher Wild, Director of IARC and co-editor of the book. “More commitment to prevention and early detection is desperately needed in order to complement improved treatments and address the alarming rise in cancer burden globally.”

In 2012, the worldwide burden of cancer rose to an estimated 14 million newcases per year, a figure

expected to rise to 22 million annually within the next two decades. Over the same period, cancer deaths are predicted to rise from an estimated 8.2 million annually to 13 million per year.

According to the report globally the highest number of diagnosed cancers were lung cancer, breast cancer and cancer of the large bowel. The highest number of cancer deaths were caused by cancer of the lungs, followed by cancers of the liver and stomach.

This World Cancer Report 2014 highlights the presence of a cancer divide.

As a consequence of growing and ageing populations, developing countries are disproportionately affected by the increasing numbers of cancers. More than 60% of the world’s total cases occur in Africa, Asia, and Central and South America, and these regions account for about 70% of the world’s cancer deaths, a situation that is made worse by the lack of early detection and access to treatment.

 Many of the cancers seen in developing countries are high infection related cancers (cancer of liver, cervix and stomach) or are cancer known to be associated with the industrialized lifestyles (cancer of lungs, breast and large bowel). Therefore high mortality from cancer in these countries could be significantly reduced if they have access to effective and affordable cancer treatments but also by implementation of vaccination programs (Hep B and HPV) and preventive efforts towards the spread of tobacco.
The rising number of cancer cases is proving to be detrimental to the economy of even the richest countries. According to the report 'In 2010, the total annual economic cost of cancer was estimated to reach approximately US$ 1.16 trillion. Yet about half of all cancers could be avoided if current knowledge was adequately implemented.'

Last but not least the report stresses on the need for widespread efforts towards early detection and treatment and the promotion of adequate legislation to reduce exposure and risk behaviours.



P.S:

Cancer 'tidal wave' on horizon, warns WHO (BBC World February 4th 2014)
International Agency for Research Cancer  
World Cancer Research Fund International 

Easy way to lose weight... just turn the heat down

Obesity and the struggle to lose weight is starting to become the plight of our time. Much research  is being done to find effective ways to understand the causes and finding effective ways to win this losing battle. Right now, more than one third of adults in the US are obese or overweight and a little more then a quarter of the adults in UK is obese or overweight.
Amongst all that research work a recent study published in Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism Journal, suggests that central heating might be another contributing factor to rising number of overweight individuals. As the temperature in homes, offices, hospitals and most places is being kept high our bodies are no longer burning that many calories to keep the body warm. Normally our metabolism rate (BMR) rise in cold weather to produce body heat. About 80% of the energy produced from our food intake is used up by our BMR.

According to the researchers at Maastricht University, a temperature of 66F would suffice to maintain a normal balance. The report also points out that about 90% of people remain mostly indoors while keeping the temperature at maximum comfort levels in turn minimizing caloric use by our bodies to maintain normal body temperature, shifting the balance towards weight gain.

Although lowering the thermostat alone may not lead to weight loss but it will definitely help along with exercise and diet. The report also mentions a study from  Japan in which volunteers showed a decrease in body fat after spending two hours a day in 17C over a period of six weeks.According to BBC World reporter James Gallagher;

Dr Wouter van Marken Lichtenbelt told the BBC: "19C is enough - and not for the whole day.
"Energy increases were in the order of 6% in mild cold, and in the long term that could really make a difference.
"It could be a substantial influence and help in combination with food changes and exercise." 
He said people could "try turning the thermostat down" at home or "go outside".


P.S: 
Central heating may make you fat, say researchers (BBC World) 
Want to lose weight? Try turning your heating down: Being cold is a 'cheap way to get slim' (Daily Mail UK)





 

Obesity spreads to developing countries

A UK think tank The Overseas Development Institute  report concludes that number of obese and overweight adults in the developing world has  almost quadrupled to about one billion since 1980.
According to the report, there are almost as many overweight or obese adults in North Africa, Middle East and Latin America as there are in Europe. It also highlights the fact that one in three adults in the world (1.46 billion) were overweight or obese in 2008, up by 23% since 1980.
 If these figure are not enough to make us realize that obesity is no longer a rich countries' problem instead is more of a worldwide health issue, then I do not know what is going to!
A major change seen in worldwide diets is the increasing consumption of sugar and sweeteners, which has risen by over 20% per person between 1961 and 2009. One big culprit for that is the increased consumption and marketing of processed foods everywhere.
In countries with emerging economies, people are making bigger incomes and hence now can chose more varied foods and change diets. A huge majority of these individuals in developing countries live in highly congested urban settings and get very little exercise.

South Korea's Health Wellness efforts at a national level have resulted in a 300% increase in fruit and 10% increase in vegetable consumption.  Major campaigns by the government and nutrition specialists to advertise and teach the public that the traditional diet which is low fat is a healthy diet. The most common ingredients in Korean traditional cuisine are vegetables along with use of ginger, garlic, herbs, and various condiments, the health benefits of which are well-known.  The educational and campaigning efforts also focused on providing new approaches to maintaining a traditional yet contemporary Korean diet. These efforts to improve the national diet has helped South Korea keep its obesity rate at 4%. This is the lowest in the OECD (The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developmen) but unfortunately it too is rising gradually and is expected to increase by about 5% in ten years.

I am sure that reasons and solutions as well, are far more complex and numerous then the ones I list, but it is clear that if we do not take major steps to change these dangerous dietary and lifestyle trends for the better, we are heading for a disastrous worldwide health catastrophe.


P.S:

• Obesity quadruples to nearly one billion in the developing world(BBC World)
• Overseas Development Institute(Website)
•  The unique aspects of the nutrition transition in South Korea: the retention of healthful elements in their traditional diet (Public Health Nutrition Publication)

Reduce risk of diabetes by making small lifestyle changes...

A recent trial by researchers at University of Edinburgh specifically focusing on individuals of South Asian descent, has shown that even small changes in lifestyle can lead to weight loss and significantly reduce the risk of type 2 Diabetes. It has been seen that men of Pakistani and Indian descent are three times more likely to develop diabetes as compared to men from the general population with similar body mass indexes.

This trial titled "Culturally adapting the prevention of diabetes and obesity in South Asians (PODOSA) trial", included 171 individuals of Pakistani and Indian descent living in Scotland with impaired glycemia thus at high risk of developing Type 2 diabetes.

As most South Asian cultural activities and traditions revolve around family and food. Participants were given detailed dietary advice by dieticians and provided culturally relevant lifestyle change plans and resources. The trials made use of professional translators and multilingual professionals for communicating instructions to participants. Also many of the manual and pamphlets were translated into participants' preferred languages, such as Urdu, Hindi, and Punjabi. In contrast, the control group was given basic instructions on weight control and management, it was not culturally specific.

According to Professor Raj Bhopal of Edinburgh University's Population Health Sciences Center 'These differing approaches show us that a more family-centred strategy, with culturally tailored lifestyle advice, can produce significant benefits to people's health through weight loss.'

 Although trials in Europe and North America have not so far reported on the impact on South Asian populations separately or provided the details of their cross-cultural adaptation processes. But there might be a more positive outcome of such efforts when instructions and advice are culture specific.



P.S: Small Lifestyle changes 'lower type 2 diabetes risk' (BBC World: Health)

Heart Attacks, Strokes and Apples

We all heard our parents encouraging us to eat fresh fruit and vegetable, specially apples, and all of them used the old Victorian saying " An Apple a Day Keeps the Doctor Away" to further motivate us. Well, more then a century later it still holds true, especially for the above 50 population.
According to an article published in the christmas edition of the British Medical Journal, a research study led by Dr Adam Briggs of the BHF Health Promotion Research Group at Oxford University came to the conclusion that about 8500 deaths from heart attacks and strokes could be averted if all adults of 50 years and above were prescribed an a apple a day. The significance of this outcome is more apparent when compared to another recent study that showed that if adults 50 and above not already on it, were prescribed statins, it could prevent about 9400 deaths from heart diseases. 
Dr. Adam Briggs says 'It just shows how effective small changes in diet can be, and that both drugs and healthier living can make a real difference in preventing heart disease and stroke.' But the researchers stress that this does not encourage individuals already on statins to stop taking them, just try adding apples to your daily diet.
Although apples appear to be exceptionally good for maintaining a healthy heart, it is clearly essential to eat a variety of fresh fruits and vegetable on a daily basis to stay healthy.





P.S:
An Apple A Day Keeps The Heart Doctor Away (University of Oxford)
Apple Nutrition and Composition Facts(USDA Database)

When should I discard these condiments?

It can be tricky to decide when to discard those condiments in our fridge. All items have expiry dates for when to throw them unused and unopened. The confusion is when they are opened, being used and being refrigerated, how long can we keep them and use them then?
Click on the following link to find a very simple list on the WebMD site of how long common condiments and other items in our refrigerators can be safely used;
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/healthtool-condiments-table

Time to regulate energy drinks with high caffeine content.

This fad and hype of energy drinks has made everyone including responsible adults overlook what really these energy drink really have in them. Most of them have caffeine in them and some have extremely high amounts of it. These are sold without any regulation to both adults and kids.
But now a major supermarket chain Morrisons has taken notice and decided to take steps the UK's govt. hasn't. They have announced that they will not sell highly caffeinated drinks such as Monster, Relentless and Red Bull to children under 16 years of age. Bravo!! I just hope someone in the US will also wake up and follow suit. Here is the news piece about it on BCC World News by Emma Brant;

Supermarket energy drink ban for under 16s

Morrisons supermarket has banned children under the age of 16 from buying high caffeine energy drinks.

The staff at some of the supermarket branches will challenge customers to prove their age.

The ban has been brought in because of health fears about extreme-caffeine intake by children with energy drinks.

The restrictions apply to certain brands with more than 150mg of caffeine per litre.

It will affect Red Bull which has 320mg, Monster (338mg) and Relentless (320mg).

Morrisons is the first major UK retailer to ban the drinks.

Spokeswoman Claire Johnson said: "We understand the concern over the potential impact of high-caffeine energy drinks on young people and are taking steps to address this."

The supermarket is trialling the ban in stores in Glasgow, Dorset, Leeds, Cheshire, Staffordshire and Suffolk with a view to rolling it out further.

Earlier this month, a campaign to encourage major retailers to crack down on the sales of energy drinks to children was launched in Edinburgh.

The sale and promotion of high caffeine drinks such as Red Bull is already banned in schools there, under the Schools: Health Promotion and ­Nutrition Act Scotland 2007.

But children can still ­easily purchase them from retailers despite warnings on the cans stating that they are not advised for children. (Complete News Report)

P.S: Want to know how much Caffeine is in your drink? Check here

There is more to fiber then you would know..

All physicians as a matter of habit suggest eating high fiber diets, whether to lose weight, lower cholesterol, improve digestion, have a healthy heart, name it and high fiber diet will be recommended. So what is so special about fiber?

Lisa Collier Cool has written a very informative piece on Yahoo Health on the subject and discusses a recent study on the link between fiber in the diet and heart disease.. Here are excerpts;

' If a miracle ingredient found in many tasty, inexpensive foods helped you lose weight, live longer, and avoid dangerous diseases, wouldn’t you eat it every day?

Actually, there is such a food ingredient—dietary fiber—and most of us eat too little of it, putting ourselves at increased risk for heart problems and other health woes, according to a new study published in the December issue of The American Journal of Medicine (AJM).

What’s the link between fiber and heart disease risk?

The researchers reported that previous studies suggest that dietary fiber protects against heart disease by reducing blood pressure, cholesterol, and biomarkers of inflammation, all of which play a major role in the development of heart disease, the leading killer of Americans. 

What are the other health benefits of fiber?

In a 2011 study of nearly 400,000 older adults, conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and American Association of Retired People (AARP), those who ate a fiber-rich diet had the lowest death rates during the 9-year study.

The study found that men ages 50 or older who ate the most fiber had an up to 56 percent lower risk for dying from cardiovascular disease, respiratory illnesses, or infectious diseases, compared to men who ate the least fiber. In women ages 50 and up, a high-fiber diet reduced fatalities from those conditions by up to 59 percent. ' (Complete Article)

P.S: Here are links to studies mentioned above;

Dietary Fiber Intake and Mortality in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study

Dietary Fiber Intake and Cardiometabolic Risks among US Adults, NHANES 1999-2010

To be overweight or not to be overweight should not even be a question!

After reading the conflicting news on Obesity in 2013 alone, I am mystified and dumbfounded. Why are we even asking if obesity is healthy or not? If you have ever seen a real human heart or a real human liver or spleen, you would know they were never meant to support gigantic amounts of fat. It is is clearly another attempt by the processed food industry and the GMO industry to avoid being looked at as a potential source of all the weight woes.

On January 2, 2013 CNN actually reported that if you are overweight you will live longer, the headline was 'Being overweight linked to lower risk of mortality' Then the next day read another shocking CNN headline  'Big deal: You can be fat and fit'. Really??!!

If we start justifying being fat and deceive ourselves into believing we can be fat and fit, then we probably will end up like the morbidly obese people from that animated movie "Wall-E (2008)", who are shown to be totally dependent on automated systems from feeding themselves to washing themselves, they actually never get off their high-tech seats that not only take them everywhere but also convert into beds at night. As a result the individuals never do much muscular movement, and hence don't develop the muscle strength to even walk.

The scary part is we already have people in the US who are so morbidly obese that they can't carry their own weight anymore and need motorized chairs to move around a grocery store or a mall. Some might have valid medical reasons for the weight gain but a huge majority do not. The major reason for them being overweight is poor food choices and too big portions. The fact that every American restaurant and specially fast food restaurant serves unhealthily large servings of unhealthy foods does not help.

There is also a huge lobby promoting the use of synthetic ingredients in our foods, such as trans fats, high fructose corn syrup, etc.... Whereas the Agriculture industry is pushing the use on GMOs on farmers everywhere and growing more and more bioengineered foods. Unfortunately very little legislation controls or oversees the use of these genetically manufactured seeds. And then the media furthers the public ignorance of what is really making them obese and sick by spreading news such as "Fat is fun and healthy".

Amongst this media madness it was a relief to see reports of the latest study on obesity that dispelled the myth that you can be fat and healthy. Here is an excerpt from the story on BBC World (Dec.3rd, 2013);

The idea of "healthy obesity" is a myth, research suggests.

Excess fat still carries health risks even when cholesterol, blood pressure and sugar levels are normal, according to a study of more than 60,000 people.

It has been argued that being overweight does not necessarily imply health risks if individuals remain healthy in other ways.

The research, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, contradicts this idea.

The study looked at findings from published studies tracking heart health and weight in more than 60,000 adults.

Researchers from the Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, found there was no healthy pattern of increased weight when heart health was monitored for more than 10 years.

They argue that people who are metabolically healthy but overweight probably have underlying risk factors that worsen over time.

Study leader Dr Ravi Retnakaran told BBC News: "This really casts doubt on the existence of healthy obesity.

"This data is suggesting that both patients who are obese who are metabolically unhealthy and patients who are obese who are metabolically healthy are both at increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease, such that benign obesity may indeed be a myth."

(Complete Story)

I do realize some individuals will find my point of view mean and unsympathetic, but often the truth hurts and isn't well received even if coming from our well-wishers. I write about this only to remind us that our bodies are not meant to be obese, and expecting them to keep functioning normally when overworked and overburdened is unreasonable. Most of the reasons besides actual medical and physiological causes of being morbidly overweight, have a solution. Trying to make being fat fun isn't one of them!

We need to address this problem head on as a nation and refuse to feed ourselves and our children these man made artificial items they like to sell as food. We have to look at what we eat and how much we eat. We need to regulate what the Food and Beverage Industry can put into our foods and drinks. We need to regulate the unnecessary use of GMOs, bioengineering and chemical fertilizers by the Agriculture Industry.
And last but not least we need to stop finding excuses for our own neglect. We alone are guilty of reckless behavior when it comes to benign obesity and therefore we need to accept responsibility for our own health.

The relationship between cholesterol treatment and muscle aches

I know many people who take medications for lowering their cholesterol. Some of them complain of a non specific muscle aches. Now there seems to be a definite proof that these muscle pains may be caused by the interaction of Statins (a class of cholesterol lowering drugs) with other medications a person might be taking. Here is an article on that subject published in a New York Times' Well blog recently;

 People who use statin drugs to lower their cholesterol sometimes complain of muscle pain and soreness. But a new study suggests that in some cases these side effects may be a result of combining statins with other medications.
The research found that people taking statins had double the risk of muscle pain when they were prescribed various other drugs, and often these side effects were what prompted people to stop taking statins. People in the study who quit using statins because they could not tolerate them were, on average, taking as many as three other drugs that could increase the risk of side effects.
Statins are among the most widely prescribed drugs in the world and used by roughly 20 million Americans to reduce the risk of heart attacks and stroke. But the new research suggests that doctors and pharmacists may need to do a better job of managing the medications that are prescribed in combination with them. (Complete Article)

Finally FDA admits to the detrimental effects of Partially Hydrogenated Oils!!

About five years after I wrote about the dangers of using trans fats it was great to finally see this headline on BBC World News' home page;

US moves to ban trans fats in foods

US food safety officials have taken steps to ban the use of trans fats, saying they are a threat to health.
Partially hydrogenated oils, the source of most trans fat, are no longer "generally recognised as safe", said the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The regulator said a ban could prevent 7,000 deaths and 20,000 heart attacks in the US each year.
The FDA is opening a 60-day consultation period on the plan, which would gradually phase out trans fats.
 "While consumption of potentially harmful artificial trans fat has declined over the last two decades in the United States, current intake remains a significant public health concern," FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said in a statement. Read on....

We must rid our food of trans fats!!!!

Click edit above to add content to this empty capsule.

What exactly are trans fats? These are basically highly processed vegetable oils like soy or sunflower oils. Processing is the heating of these oils to very high temperatures and then reacting them with hydrogen, leading to the formation of partially hydrogenated fats.
Why are they used? Firstly hydrogenated fats are easily solidified most common use of that property is in the manufacture of margerine. Secondly they have a much longer shelf life then natural unprocessed oils, that makes it most attractive to all companies producing processed foods, bakery goods and of course all fast food restaurants.
Why are they harmful? The list of their crimes is endless but I'll jot down some major ones! First of all as they are absorbed they interact with the normal fat metabolism interfering with its function in a damaging way. Thus leading to raised blood cholesterol and triglycerides. Both these can result in clogged arteries and increasing the risk of heart disease. Secondly Trans fats also disturb the balance between good and bad prostaglandins in our bodies. Which leads to increase in blood pressure, increased blood clotting, increased inflammatory activity in our bodies and also decrease in natural killer cells which normally help the body fight cnacerous cells.
How to stop their use? The answer to that is the easiest, refuse to buy anything that list hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated fats. If it's not profitable it won't be used!!! It is always driven by money! These huge corporations don't worry about our health but about their budgets, and they won't stop poisoning us and our kids unless we decide not to fill their pockets!
After all the recent hue and cry about Trans fats has forced some fast food companies to change the fats they use. If we refuse to poison ourselves while making them rich we will force them to stop this madness!!!