May Russian River Times Publication

I am contributing to the Russian River Times, a local small town newspaper in my community. The following is May's publication
Enjoy!

Promoting Health One Bite At A Time
You are what you eat right? Well, sort of. More accurately, you are what you absorb and assimilate.

What does nutrition mean to you? Do you understand the importance of a healthy diet? Does this mean count your calories, count your points, restrict your fat and exercise more? That’s the story that your Dr. will give you but is it accurate? No, not really. It’s a much larger more complex picture than that and the previous recommendations just aren’t working.

Because of the confusing USDA dietary recommendations, the average American now consumes approximately 150lbs. of sugar per year in various forms. Sugar is inflammatory, and degrading to the immune system. In order to assimilate the sugar, the body pulls valuable vitamins and minerals from bones and tissue of the human frame thereby sacrificing healthy immune response.

As a nutrition educator, I am saddened by our current state of health in this country. How did the “richest country in the world” become the sickest and the fattest? 2/3 of the American people are obese and of those 2/3, most have diabetes one of the deadliest preventable diseases of our time. Deadly and preventable? Stop for a moment and say it…..deadly and preventable. Actually, many of our modern diseases are preventable. In 2003 the surgeon general reported that 68% of the deaths in this country could have been prevented through lifestyle change. If you knew that, in one to five years you could be hospitalized or dead if you didn’t change your eating habits, would you? Well, you know now. I just informed you that our current Standard American Diet, or just use the acronym SAD, is responsible for disease and death. Yes, the acronym for our current state of nutrition is referred to as SAD.

Let’s take a look back to my opening statement “You are what you absorb and assimilate”. This, my friends and neighbors should be thought provoking to you. If the majority of your food choices are based on nutrient density rather than taste, you are a unique and rare individual. Eating strictly for taste is one of two things. Either the individual lacks knowledge and is receiving their nutrition information through what I like to call 30 second media sound bites or the individual lacks nutritional maturity. That is, knowing the right choices yet making the wrong choices because “donuts taste good”. I ask you, do donuts carry Vitamins A, D, E, K, B or C? You know the answer, and so do I.

It is my goal to contribute to this paper monthly with information that will help you make the choices that will create an atmosphere for healthy cellular regeneration, immune support, well being and vitality. If after you’ve read my contributing columns and you still eat based strictly on taste, you are being immature and should prepare yourself for the inevitable illness and disease that is sure to follow. We have alarming rates of cancer, more heart disease than ever before, thyroid disruption, cold, flu and now we must worry about pandemics! Is your immune system ready to take on a pandemic flu? Not if you’re practicing the SAD way of life.

Dust off the fruit bowl, fill it up and begin with Mother Nature’s original 100 calorie snack pack, the apple!

The most important wealth is health. Remember, you have choices, choose foods that provide you with life, not death.

I leave you with these thoughts and I look forward to contributing each month and hope that I can help you or someone you know gain greater health, lose un-wanted pounds, boost the immune system, ease child behavioral complications and increase wellness through healthy cellular regeneration. You have a whole new body every 8 years. Let’s make it count. You’re going to be surprised at some of the old myths that I will dispel for you so you can begin eating satiating nourishing foods, and start living..

Restless Leg linked to Obesity?

ScienceDaily (Apr. 9, 2009) — A new study shows both obesity and a large belly appear to increase the risk of developing restless legs syndrome (RLS), a common sleep disorder characterized by an irresistible urge to move your legs. The research is published in the April 7, 2009, print issue of Neurology.

It is estimated that 5-10 percent of adults in the United States have RLS and the disorder often has a substantial impact on sleep, daily activities and quality of life.

For the study, researchers questioned 65,554 women and 23,119 men, all of whom were health professionals who took part in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study or the Nurses' Health Study II. None of the participants had diabetes, arthritis or were pregnant. Of the groups, 6.4 percent of the women and 4.1 percent of the men were identified as having RLS.

The research found men and women with a body mass index (BMI) score over 30 were nearly one-and-a-half times more likely to have RLS than people who were not obese.

In addition, people who were in the top 20 percent of the group for highest waist circumference were more than one-and-a-half times more likely to have RLS than the bottom 20 percent of the group with the lowest belly size. The results were the same regardless of age, smoking, use of antidepressants or anxiety.

"These results may be important since obesity is a modifiable risk factor that is becoming increasingly common in the U.S.," said study author Xiang Gao, MD, PhD, with the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston. "More research is needed to confirm whether obesity causes RLS and whether keeping a low BMI score and small waist size could help prevent RLS."

Gao says some studies suggest that obese people have lower dopamine receptor levels in the brain. "Since decreased dopamine function is believed to play a critical role in RLS as well, this could be the link between the two." Dopamine is a chemical naturally produced by the body that transmits signals between nerve cells.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

The Studies

Obesity in middle age and future risk of dementia
Rachel A Whitmer, Erica P Gunderson, Elizabeth Barrett-Connor, et al. : a 27 year longitudinal population based study. BMJ 2005;330:1360
Abstract

Objective
To evaluate any association between obesity in middle age, measured by body mass index and skinfold thickness, and risk of dementia later in life.

Design
Analysis of prospective data from a multiethnic population based cohort.

Setting
Kaiser Permanente Northern California Medical Group, a healthcare delivery organisation.

Participants
10 276 men and women who underwent detailed health evaluations from 1964 to 1973 when they were aged 40-45 and who were still members of the health plan in 1994.

Main outcome measures
Diagnosis of dementia from January 1994 to April 2003. Time to diagnosis was analysed with Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age, sex, race, education, smoking, alcohol use, marital status, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, stroke, and ischaemic heart disease.

Results
Dementia was diagnosed in 713 (6.9%) participants. Obese people (body mass index >30) had a 74% increased risk of dementia (hazard ratio 1.74, 95% confidence interval 1.34 to 2.26), while overweight people (body mass index 25.0-29.9) had a 35% greater risk of dementia (1.35, 1.14 to 1.60) compared with those of normal weight (body mass index 18.6-24.9). Compared with those in the lowest fifth, men and women in the highest fifth of the distribution of subscapular or tricep skinfold thickness had a 72% and 59% greater risk of dementia, respectively (1.72, 1.36 to 2.18, and 1.59, 1.24 to 2.04).

Conclusions
Obesity in middle age increases the risk of future dementia independently of comorbid conditions


Increasing fat intake reduces deaths in Swedish study


Leosdottir M, Nilsson PM, Nilsson J-A, Mansson H, Berglund G (Lund University, Malmo, Sweden). Dietary fat intake and early mortality patterns — data from The Malmo Diet and Cancer Study. J Intern Med 2005; 258: 153-165.

Abstract.
Objectives. Most current dietary guidelines encourage limiting relative fat intake to <30%>

The Malmo Diet and Cancer Study was set in the city of Malmo, southern Sweden. A total of 28 098 middle-aged individuals participated in the study 1991-1996.

Main outcome measures. Subjects were categorized by quartiles of relative fat intake, with the first quartile used as a reference point in estimating multivariate relative risks (RR; 95% CI, Cox's regression model). Adjustments were made for confounding by age and various lifestyle factors.Results.

Women in the fourth quartile of total fat intake had a significantly higher RR of cancer mortality (RR 1.46; CI 1.04-2.04).[but see below] A significant downwards trend was observed for cardiovascular mortality amongst men from the first to the fourth quartile (P = 0.028). No deteriorating effects of high saturated fat intake were observed for either sex for any cause of death. Beneficial effects of a relatively high intake of unsaturated fats were not uniform.

Conclusions
With the exception of cancer mortality for women, individuals receiving more than 30% of their total daily energy from fat and more than 10% from saturated fat, did not have increased mortality. Current dietary guidelines concerning fat intake are thus generally not supported by our observational results.

COMMENT: In this study, deaths from heart disease, cancer and total deaths in both sexes went down as fat intake rose. This was particularly noticeable with saturated fats.The one glitch was that cancers increased in women (not men) with the highest intake of fat — but significantly, this was confined entirely to intakes of monounsaturated fats (from 'healthy' oils such as olive oil and flaxseed oil).Strangely, monounsaturated fats had the opposite effect in men by reducing the overall death rate.The effects on heart disease are also interesting: In men, increasing total fat and saturated fat reduced their death rates; in women increasing or reducing fats didn't make any difference.

The researchers write:
"With the exception of cancer mortality for women in the highest quartile of relative fat intake, individuals receiving more than 30% of their total daily energy from fat did not have increased mortality. Men in the fourth quartile of total fat intake, receiving almost 50% of their total energy intake from fat, had the lowest cardiovascular mortality. Receiving more than 10% of total energy intake from saturated fat did not have a significant effect on all-cause, cardiovascular or cancer mortality for men or women.

Beneficial effects of relatively high intakes of unsaturated fats were not uniform, and having a high index of unsaturated fat compared with saturated fat intake did not have any detectable effect on mortality.""With our results added to the pool of evidence from large-scale prospective cohort studies on dietary fat, disease and mortality, traditional dietary guidelines concerning fat intake are thus generally not strongly supported."
Barry Groves, Second Opinions UK



How Low-Carb Diets Help Overweight Diabetic Persons

Jørgen Vesti Nielsen, Eva Jönsson, Anna-Karin Nilsson. Lasting Improvement of Hyperglycaemia and Bodyweight: Low-carbohydrate Diet in Type 2 Diabetes. ? A Brief Report. Upsala J Med Sci 109: 179?184, 2005Dept of Medicine, Blekingesjukhuset, Karlshamn, Sweden

ABSTRACT
In two groups of obese patients with type 2 diabetes the effects of 2 different diet compositions were tested with regard to glycaemic control and bodyweight.

A group of 16 obese patients with type 2 diabetes was advised on a low-carbohydrate diet, 1800 kcal for men and 1600 kcal for women, distributed as 20 % carbohydrates, 30 % protein and 50 % fat. Fifteen obese diabetes patients on a high-carbohydrate diet were control group.

Their diet, 1600-1800 kcal for men and 1400-1600 kcal for women, consisted of approximately 60 % carbohydrates, 15 % protein and 25 % fat.Positive effects on the glucose levels were seen very soon. After 6 months a marked reduction in bodyweight of patients in the low-carbohydrate diet group was observed, and this remained one year later.

After 6 months the mean changes in the low-carbohydrate group and the control group respectively were (±SD):
fasting blood glucose (f-BG): -3.4 ± 2.9 and -0.6 ± 2.9 mmol/l;
HBA1c: -1.4 ± 1.1 % and -0.6 ± 1.4 %;
Body Weight: -11.4 ± 4 kg and -1.8 ± 3.8 kg;
BMI: -4.1 ± 1.3 kg/m2 and -0.7 ± 1.3 kg/m2. Large changes in blood glucose levels were seen immediately.

Conclusion:
A low-carbohydrate diet is an effective tool in the treatment of obese patients with type 2 diabetes. A free full-text copy of this article can be found at the web page of Upsala J Med Sci: http://www.ujms.se

Programmed for Obesity

We take for granted the ease and convenience of the industrial revolution. The price we pay for convenience is at the health of our future generations. The story below is an example of our dependence on convenience and in the future could be disastrous to this society. Imagine a world where conceivably the entire population could be obese. Imagine the implication on our future health care costs. Choose consciously and please, choose for health.

ScienceDaily (Mar. 1, 2007) — Obesity is generally discussed in terms of caloric intake (how much a person eats) and energy output (how much a person exercises). However, according to a University of Missouri-Columbia scientist, environmental chemicals found in everyday plastics and pesticides also may influence obesity. Frederick vom Saal, professor of biological sciences in MU's College of Arts and Science, has found that when fetuses are exposed to these chemicals, the way their genes function may be altered to make them more prone to obesity and disease.

"Certain environmental substances called endocrine-disrupting chemicals can change the functioning of a fetus's genes, altering a baby's metabolic system and predisposing him or her to obesity. This individual could eat the same thing and exercise the same amount as someone with a normal metabolic system, but he or she would become obese, while the other person remained thin. This is a serious problem because obesity puts people at risk for other problems, including cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and hypertension," vom Saal said.

Using lab mice, vom Saal has studied the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including bisphenol-A, which recently made news in San Francisco, where controversy has ensued over an ordinance that seeks to ban its use in children's products. In vom Saal's recent study, which he will present at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), he found that endocrine-disrupting chemicals cause mice to be born at very low birth weights and then gain abnormally large amounts of weight in a short period of time, more than doubling their body weight in just seven days. Vom Saal followed the mice as they got older and found that these mice were obese throughout their lives. He said studies of low-birth-weight children have shown a similar overcompensation after birth, resulting in lifelong obesity.

"The babies are born with a low body weight and a metabolic system that's been programmed for starvation. This is called a 'thrifty phenotype,' a system designed to maximize the use of all food taken into the body. The problem comes when the baby isn't born into a world of starvation, but into a world of fast food restaurants and fatty foods," vom Saal said.

More research must be done to determine which chemicals cause this effect. According to vom Saal, there are approximately 55,000 manmade chemicals in the world, and 1,000 of those might fall into the category of endocrine disrupting. These chemicals are found in common products, from plastic bottles and containers to pesticides and electronics.

"You inherit genes, but how those genes develop during your very early life also plays an important role in your propensity for obesity and disease. People who have abnormal metabolic systems have to live extremely different lifestyles in order to not be obese because their systems are malfunctioning," vom Saal said. "We need to figure out what we can do to understand and prevent this."

"Perinatal Programming of Obesity: Interaction of Nutrition and Environmental Exposures" is the title of vom Saal's AAAS presentation. Also presenting with vom Saal at the AAAS symposium are Reth Newbold of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Bruce Blumberg of the University of California-Irvine, George Corcoran of Wayne State University and James O'Callaghan of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Why Economics Drives Most Food Options You Have

Why Economics Drives Most Food Options You Have
Being overweight is not just a disease; it’s a symptom of many other things that are wrong with your diet. And much of the blame for the current American diet comes down to economics.In a $10 trillion economy, $1 trillion goes to food companies and $2.5 trillion goes to health care. Food companies, like any good businesses, are always seeking to increase the consumption of their product. But in food, there’s an unwritten law of marketing called potato chip marketing equations.That means that 10 percent of your customers buy 90 percent of the product.

You may go out and buy one or two bags of potato chips a month. But somebody else is buying one bag a day -- 30 bags every month. When you add that extra 20 percent extra to your weight, you don’t increase your food consumption 20 percent a day. You double it to 200 percent a day. Your caloric intake to maintain 180 pounds is almost twice the caloric intake you need to maintain 150 pounds.Think of that from the standpoint a food company.

Food companies, as a result, market to people to make everyone part of their potato chip marketing equation. They spend their marketing dollars getting existing customers to buy more of their product.At what point after two, three, four, 10, 12 bags of potato chips do they no longer taste good? How about McDonald’s French fries? All processed foods never get tiring -- they have chemically altered the food substances in that food to make sure you’re never tired of it.The problem with obesity, which is ultimately caused by poor diet, is really an economic problem. And when people consume this terrible diet, they end up with all types of medical problems, and they go to the doctors for treatment.

But the medical companies are in effect in a conspiracy of sorts with the food companies. They’ve almost said to the food companies, “We’ll treat the symptoms of this bad diet. We will never treat the cause, your bad food.”
Source:
AdvanEdge Newsletter