Showing posts with label Nutrition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nutrition. Show all posts
Monday, June 01, 2009
Women Who Run May Benefit From Extra Folic Acid
(HealthDay News) -- High-dose folic acid supplementation improved vascular function in young female runners who stopped menstruating (amenorrhea) because their caloric intake was lower than their energy output, researchers say. Read more
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Bill Clinton, Health Groups to Tackle Childhood Obesity
(HealthDay News) -- In what they called a "landmark agreement," former President Bill Clinton and the American Heart Association announced Thursday the launch of a national initiative on childhood obesity, aimed at getting up to 6 million American kids covered for routine visits to both primary care physicians and dietitians."I think we want the children of America to know, No. 1, that we want them to be healthy, we want them to grow up healthy, and we want them to start now," Clinton told reporters at his foundation's headquarters in New York City.
The new collaboration, which Clinton called "a really big deal," links medical organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Dietetic Association with insurance companies such as Aetna, WellPoint, Blue Cross of North Carolina and of Massachusetts and private companies like PepsiCo, Owens Corning and Paychex. This, Clinton said, is "the first time our three stakeholders have come together to tackle childhood obesity in a comprehensive way."
The current initiative aims to address the obesity-related healthcare needs of almost 1 million children in the program's first year, by reimbursing doctors and registered dietitians for providing health care and in-depth nutritional counseling to kids on an ongoing basis. In addition, participating companies will offer their employees access to the initiative's benefits. The new alliance will also offer parents educational and nutritional information on tackling childhood obesity.
The planned coverage is set to ratchet up to approximately 6.2 million children (25 percent of all overweight American children) by the end of three years.
Observing that millions of American families simply don't know where to turn for help on their child's weight issues -- or just can't afford the help when they find it -- Clinton said he hoped that the new initiative would address what for many parents is "somewhere between a problem and a nightmare."
The new effort, called the "Alliance Healthcare Initiative," is the latest venture of The Alliance for a Healthier Generation, created in 2005 by the AHA and the William J. Clinton Foundation. In 2006, the Alliance helped shepherd an agreement among soft drink manufacturers that established sweetener, calorie and fat guidelines, and limited the sale of sodas in elementary, middle, and high schools attended by 35 million American students.
For his part, AHA president Dr. Tim Gardner described the new initiative as "a very historic moment" and one that is needed as the nation's medical system becomes increasingly burdened by obesity-related costs amid growing economic hardship.
He noted that the direct health care costs for the treatment of children who are already overweight or obese currently tops $14 billion annually, and, overall, obesity costs the nation an estimated $117 billion annually in both healthcare costs and lost productivity.
"We're here today because there is an obesity epidemic in this country," Gardner said. "One in three teens in this country are overweight or obese."
And, he added, "there's a risk that this generation will be the first in our history to have a shorter lifespan than their parents."
More information
For additional information on childhood nutrition, visit the American Heart Association.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
The Dangers of a High Soy Diet
In this excerpt from the Inner Circle Interview, Dr. Kaayla Daniel talks about how soy is really a dangerous food.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Is My Son’s Blue Tongue a Danger to His Health?
By Theresa TamkinsWe had a houseful of guests this weekend, and somewhere between multiple shopping trips with various relatives, we managed to come home with a box of Fruit Roll-Ups.
Heavy on the corn syrup and light on nutrition, kid-magnet products like this are usually banned at my house. Any food that turns your tongue bright blue seems just plain wrong—to me, but not to Jackson, who is 8 and thinks it’s a blast.
But do I have reason to worry, beyond the garish tongue and mostly empty calories? Last week the Center for Science in the Public Interest asked the Food and Drug Administration to ban eight artificial dyes, including three on the side of the box we bought at the grocery story (red 40, yellow 5, blue 1). You probably know CSPI: For more than 30 years they’ve been high-profile agitators against junk foods, bad nutrition labeling, additives, and more. Read More
Heavy on the corn syrup and light on nutrition, kid-magnet products like this are usually banned at my house. Any food that turns your tongue bright blue seems just plain wrong—to me, but not to Jackson, who is 8 and thinks it’s a blast.
But do I have reason to worry, beyond the garish tongue and mostly empty calories? Last week the Center for Science in the Public Interest asked the Food and Drug Administration to ban eight artificial dyes, including three on the side of the box we bought at the grocery story (red 40, yellow 5, blue 1). You probably know CSPI: For more than 30 years they’ve been high-profile agitators against junk foods, bad nutrition labeling, additives, and more. Read More
Friday, May 02, 2008
Health Tip: Maintain a Healthy Lifestyle
(HealthDay News) -- No one knows precisely why people get cancer, and there's no surefire cure.But if you maintain a healthy lifestyle, you can help reduce your risk. Here are some suggestions, courtesy of AARP:
- Eat a healthy diet, including plenty of whole grains, fruits and vegetables. Limit intake of red meat, saturated fats, smoked and salt-cured foods, and foods preserved with nitrates.
- Get regular exercise of 30 minutes or more at least five days a week.
- Maintain a healthy body weight.
- If you drink alcohol, do so in moderation.
- Wear sunscreen and avoid prolonged exposure to direct sun during the midday hours.
- Get screened for cancers for which you may be most susceptible.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Eating Less May Hinder Immune System
(HealthDay News) -- You may no longer need to remember whether it's "starve a cold, feed a fever" or vice versa. New research suggests you should just eat.A study of deer mice has found that reducing the amount of food the mice ate impaired their immune system. The findings are published in the May/June issue of Physiological and Biochemical Zoology.
The researchers found that decreasing the amount of food the mice ate by 30 percent significantly decreased the number of B cells in their systems. B cells produce antibodies and maintain immune memory, so an immune system lacking B cells must relearn how to fight infection and disease.
"A 30 percent restriction in food intake doesn't affect body mass and only minimally reduces activity in deer mice, but it eliminates the long-term immune protection provided by antibodies," study co-author Lynn Martin said in a prepared statement. "One wonders whether similar moderate food restriction has comparable immune effects in humans."
Martin and fellow researchers cited previous studies that had found that infections were "more frequent and tend to be chronic in malnourished children." Previous studies have also found that vaccines that provoke B cells to protect the body long-term, such as the vaccine for measles, are less effective among the malnourished.
The authors proposed that future research should be done to learn what specific features of diet (calories, protein, micronutrients) affect immune system function.
More information
The U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has more on how vaccines work.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Breast-Feeding Seems to Protect Against Some Allergies
(HealthDay News) -- Atopic disease -- which includes eczema, asthma and food allergies -- may be delayed or even prevented in high-risk infants if they are exclusively breast-fed for at least four months or fed infant formula without cow milk protein.
That's the conclusion of a new clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) that's published in the January issue of Pediatrics. The report replaces an earlier policy statement from the AAP.
"Basically, it probably does not matter what pregnant or lactating women eat," said Dr. Frank Greer, an author of the report, professor of pediatrics at the University of Wisconsin and chairman of the AAP Committee on Nutrition.
"The best prevention for atopic [allergic] disease is exclusive breast-feeding for four months," he added. "And if your infant comes from a family with significant atopic disease, then weaning from breast milk to a partially or extensively hydrolyzed [hypoallergenic] formula [without cow milk protein] may delay or prevent the onset of atopic disease, especially atopic dermatitis [eczema]."
Greer added that this recommendation would also apply to formula-fed infants who are at risk for atopic disease.
The timing and introduction of solid foods has no protective effect on the prevention of atopic disease, according to the new report.
"With the increase in asthma and food allergies that we've seen recently, we had hoped that maternal diet, breast-feeding and early childhood diet might all have some factor in decreasing incidence," said Dr. Jennifer Wu, an obstetrician/gynecologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. "Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to significantly impact, according to studies already done. The only one that seems to be impacted is the atopic dermatitis, which is decreased by about one third by breast-feeding. But the studies that have been done so far have not proven that breast-feeding will significantly impact childhood asthma or food allergies."
The incidence of allergic diseases such as asthma, food allergies and various skin conditions has exploded during the past few decades. In children 4 years of age and younger, the incidence of asthma has risen 160 percent, while the incidence of atopic dermatitis has almost tripled. And the incidence of peanut allergy has doubled just during the past decade, according to the report.
While genetics certainly plays a role in the development of these diseases, environmental factors such as diet are also strongly related.
The new report reviewed different evidence on nutrition during pregnancy, breast-feeding and the first year of life that might affect the development of allergic disease. Its major findings are as follows:
That's the conclusion of a new clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) that's published in the January issue of Pediatrics. The report replaces an earlier policy statement from the AAP.
"Basically, it probably does not matter what pregnant or lactating women eat," said Dr. Frank Greer, an author of the report, professor of pediatrics at the University of Wisconsin and chairman of the AAP Committee on Nutrition.
"The best prevention for atopic [allergic] disease is exclusive breast-feeding for four months," he added. "And if your infant comes from a family with significant atopic disease, then weaning from breast milk to a partially or extensively hydrolyzed [hypoallergenic] formula [without cow milk protein] may delay or prevent the onset of atopic disease, especially atopic dermatitis [eczema]."
Greer added that this recommendation would also apply to formula-fed infants who are at risk for atopic disease.
The timing and introduction of solid foods has no protective effect on the prevention of atopic disease, according to the new report.
"With the increase in asthma and food allergies that we've seen recently, we had hoped that maternal diet, breast-feeding and early childhood diet might all have some factor in decreasing incidence," said Dr. Jennifer Wu, an obstetrician/gynecologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. "Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to significantly impact, according to studies already done. The only one that seems to be impacted is the atopic dermatitis, which is decreased by about one third by breast-feeding. But the studies that have been done so far have not proven that breast-feeding will significantly impact childhood asthma or food allergies."
The incidence of allergic diseases such as asthma, food allergies and various skin conditions has exploded during the past few decades. In children 4 years of age and younger, the incidence of asthma has risen 160 percent, while the incidence of atopic dermatitis has almost tripled. And the incidence of peanut allergy has doubled just during the past decade, according to the report.
While genetics certainly plays a role in the development of these diseases, environmental factors such as diet are also strongly related.
The new report reviewed different evidence on nutrition during pregnancy, breast-feeding and the first year of life that might affect the development of allergic disease. Its major findings are as follows:
- Currently, there is no evidence that what a mother eats during pregnancy or breast-feeding plays a major role in preventing atopic disease in infants. There is some evidence, however, that avoiding certain foods during breast-feeding may help prevent atopic eczema.
- Exclusive breast-feeding for at least four months for infants at high-risk of developing atopic disease decreases the risk of developing eczema and cow milk allergy during the first two years of life.
- In high-risk infants who aren't breast-fed exclusively for four to six months, the use of hydrolyzed infant formula (as opposed to formula containing cow milk) may delay or prevent the onset of atopic dermatitis.
- Exclusive breast-feeding for at least three months protects an infant against wheezing in early life.
- There is no good evidence to support the use of soy-based infant formula to prevent allergies.
- There is no evidence to suggest that delaying the introduction of solid foods before the recommended 4 to 6 months of age will have an effect on the development of atopic disease.
- There is no convincing evidence to suggest that any dietary intervention will prevent atopic disease after 4 to 6 months of age.
- "It's a mixed picture," Wu said. "We don't have proven efficacy for breast-feeding. It may mean that we need more robust studies and a longer-term follow-up for kids."
The new report is titled "Effects of Early Nutritional Interventions on the Development of Atopic Disease in Infants and Children: The Role of Maternal Dietary Restriction, Breastfeeding, Timing of Introduction of Complementary Foods, and Hydrolyzed Formulas."
More information
There's more on infant nutrition at the National Institutes of Health.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Good Physical Function Halves Stroke Risk
(HealthDay News) -- Being in good physical form appears to protect middle-aged and older men and women from stroke, a new British study suggests.
The finding highlights an apparent association -- rather than a direct cause-and-effect -- between the physical ability to function well and a reduced risk for stroke.
After sifting through thousands of quality-of-life reports provided by patients themselves, the research team found that those functioning at the higher end of the physical capacity spectrum appear to have half the risk for stroke as their poorest functioning compatriots, independent of other risk factors.
"We were surprised at the magnitude of the relationship, as this is comparable to established stroke risk factors such as smoking," noted study author Dr. Phyo Kyaw Myint, who works with the Clinical Gerontology Unit at Addenbrooke's University Hospital in Cambridge.
The findings are published in the Dec. 11 issue of Neurology.
Myint and his colleagues uncovered an apparent stroke-physical function connection by analyzing data concerning more than 13,600 British men and women between the ages of 40 and 79.
All the participants first completed a health examination and questionnaire between 1993 and 1997. At that time, patient blood pressure, body-mass index, respiratory capacity, and cholesterol levels were assessed. Researchers also noted any history of diabetes, smoking and alcohol consumption.
None of the patients had experienced any incidence of cancer, stroke or heart attack before their initial exam.
Eighteen months after the initial exam, patients completed a follow-up questionnaire by mail, in which patients were asked to indicate their degree of physical and social functioning; their mental health status; any physical and/or emotional limitations on carrying out routines; energy levels; experiences of pain; and self-perceptions regarding their overall health.
All participants were followed until 2005, by which point 244 strokes were recorded.
The researchers found that those men and women who reported better physical function had a considerably lower risk for stroke.
After adjusting for all other observed characteristics -- including gender and age -- Myint and his team found that patients in the top quarter of physical function capacity had half the risk of stroke when compared with patients in the lowest quarter of physical function.
The authors concluded that poor physical function could indicate a high risk for stroke, thereby highlighting a specific segment of the general population that could derive particular benefit from some form of intervention.
Myint stressed, however, that to date his team has simply conducted a hands-off review of patient self-reports regarding their physical capacity and lined those reports up against stroke incidence records. At no time were patients assessed for their ability to follow a prescribed physical activity routine of varying intensities and durations.
He cautioned against leaping to the notion that greater physical function or activity directly causes a drop in the risk for stroke.
"We don't know whether physical function per se is causally related to stroke or simply a good marker for other factors that influence stroke risk," Myint noted. "These findings need confirmation from other studies. However, there is already a substantial body of evidence for public health recommendations to increase physical activity."
In the meantime, Alice H. Lichtenstein, director of the Cardiovascular Nutrition Lab at Tufts University in Boston, said that people should not sit idly by while investigators continue to unravel the complex web of factors related to stroke risk.
"This study does not show causation, but clearly, individuals who follow current guidelines for decreasing risk for stroke and general cardiovascular risk -- including keeping physically active -- have better outcomes," she said. "So, in terms of both physical function and activity, what people need to try to do is go from where they are to more."
"For some people, doing more may literally mean just walking around the block once, or picking up the pace, or adding extra time moving," said Lichtenstein. "For others, it can even be something like doing the housecleaning. And it can be cumulative: 10 minutes at one point, 10 minutes at another. Because although we'd like everyone to set aside special time just for physical activity every day, we know that for a lot of people, it's just not going to happen. So, any increase is going in the right direction, and that should be the goal."
This week, the American Society for Nutrition is poised to issue a new set of national recommendations regarding both physical activity and nutrition.
The recommendations are described as "comprehensive, scientific guidelines on physical activity for all Americans." According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the guidelines will gather together the latest knowledge on both healthy eating and regular physical activity.
More information
To learn about stroke risk, visit the American Heart Association.
The finding highlights an apparent association -- rather than a direct cause-and-effect -- between the physical ability to function well and a reduced risk for stroke.
After sifting through thousands of quality-of-life reports provided by patients themselves, the research team found that those functioning at the higher end of the physical capacity spectrum appear to have half the risk for stroke as their poorest functioning compatriots, independent of other risk factors.
"We were surprised at the magnitude of the relationship, as this is comparable to established stroke risk factors such as smoking," noted study author Dr. Phyo Kyaw Myint, who works with the Clinical Gerontology Unit at Addenbrooke's University Hospital in Cambridge.
The findings are published in the Dec. 11 issue of Neurology.
Myint and his colleagues uncovered an apparent stroke-physical function connection by analyzing data concerning more than 13,600 British men and women between the ages of 40 and 79.
All the participants first completed a health examination and questionnaire between 1993 and 1997. At that time, patient blood pressure, body-mass index, respiratory capacity, and cholesterol levels were assessed. Researchers also noted any history of diabetes, smoking and alcohol consumption.
None of the patients had experienced any incidence of cancer, stroke or heart attack before their initial exam.
Eighteen months after the initial exam, patients completed a follow-up questionnaire by mail, in which patients were asked to indicate their degree of physical and social functioning; their mental health status; any physical and/or emotional limitations on carrying out routines; energy levels; experiences of pain; and self-perceptions regarding their overall health.
All participants were followed until 2005, by which point 244 strokes were recorded.
The researchers found that those men and women who reported better physical function had a considerably lower risk for stroke.
After adjusting for all other observed characteristics -- including gender and age -- Myint and his team found that patients in the top quarter of physical function capacity had half the risk of stroke when compared with patients in the lowest quarter of physical function.
The authors concluded that poor physical function could indicate a high risk for stroke, thereby highlighting a specific segment of the general population that could derive particular benefit from some form of intervention.
Myint stressed, however, that to date his team has simply conducted a hands-off review of patient self-reports regarding their physical capacity and lined those reports up against stroke incidence records. At no time were patients assessed for their ability to follow a prescribed physical activity routine of varying intensities and durations.
He cautioned against leaping to the notion that greater physical function or activity directly causes a drop in the risk for stroke.
"We don't know whether physical function per se is causally related to stroke or simply a good marker for other factors that influence stroke risk," Myint noted. "These findings need confirmation from other studies. However, there is already a substantial body of evidence for public health recommendations to increase physical activity."
In the meantime, Alice H. Lichtenstein, director of the Cardiovascular Nutrition Lab at Tufts University in Boston, said that people should not sit idly by while investigators continue to unravel the complex web of factors related to stroke risk.
"This study does not show causation, but clearly, individuals who follow current guidelines for decreasing risk for stroke and general cardiovascular risk -- including keeping physically active -- have better outcomes," she said. "So, in terms of both physical function and activity, what people need to try to do is go from where they are to more."
"For some people, doing more may literally mean just walking around the block once, or picking up the pace, or adding extra time moving," said Lichtenstein. "For others, it can even be something like doing the housecleaning. And it can be cumulative: 10 minutes at one point, 10 minutes at another. Because although we'd like everyone to set aside special time just for physical activity every day, we know that for a lot of people, it's just not going to happen. So, any increase is going in the right direction, and that should be the goal."
This week, the American Society for Nutrition is poised to issue a new set of national recommendations regarding both physical activity and nutrition.
The recommendations are described as "comprehensive, scientific guidelines on physical activity for all Americans." According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the guidelines will gather together the latest knowledge on both healthy eating and regular physical activity.
More information
To learn about stroke risk, visit the American Heart Association.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
FDA Report Says Nation's Health at Risk
(HealthDay News) -- A new report by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration subcommittee says the agency can no longer adequately protect the nation's food and drug supply.
The Subcommittee on Science and Technology lays the blame squarely on inadequate funding, which it says has not kept pace with increasing demands on the agency.
"This imbalance is imposing a significant risk to the integrity of the food, drug, cosmetic and device regulatory system, and hence the safety of the public," the report states.
And things could get worse, the report stresses: "...the Agency suffers from serious scientific deficiencies and is not positioned to meet current or emerging regulatory responsibilities."
William Hubbard, a former FDA associate commissioner and an advisor to the Coalition for a Stronger FDA, a group that lobbies on behalf of the agency, called the report "one of the most remarkable reports I've ever seen. They are basically saying the FDA can't protect the public, and they are saying that our future competitiveness in new technology, emerging science and pharmaceuticals and devices is seriously threatened."
Hubbard also thinks that more money is needed for the FDA to do its job. "The number doesn't matter -- it just needs to be a lot," he said. "You would need a steady increase over five years to fix the FDA."
The report started as a review of the science at the FDA, Hubbard said, and mushroomed into something more.
"The committee was horrified that the science wasn't there, then they were horrified that the capabilities weren't there -- and the only way to fix that is funding," he said.
The FDA budget request for 2008 is $1.74 billion, plus another $444 million in user fees. These fees are paid by drug makers and medical device makers to underwrite the approval process of their products.
Another expert thinks that the FDA needs more money, but to really protect the public the agency's culture also needs changing.
"You need not only an overhaul of resources but an overhaul of philosophy on what safety and efficacy really means," said Dr. A. Mark Fendrick, a professor of internal medicine and professor of health management and policy at the University of Michigan.
"While a substantial increase in resources will enhance the scientific capabilities and capacity of the FDA, funding alone will not address the inherent tension between America's insatiable demand for immediate access for innovative products and an unwillingness to tolerate products that are anything but perfectly safe," Fendrick explained.
Another FDA supporter also thinks that improving the FDA starts with money.
"There are a lot of problems in the FDA that can't be solved without more resources," said Steven Grossman, a spokesman for the FDA Alliance, which lobbies on behalf of the agency. "All the problems don't go away if you have more money, but there are a whole lot of problems you can't confront without money."
Grossman thinks there is need for another $450 million in unrestricted spending to start bringing the agency up to snuff. That request is currently winding its way through Congress. "We hope to get at least a third of that," he said. It's going to take several years of increased funding to get the FDA to where it should be, he added.
According to the report, the FDA's "inability to keep up with scientific advances means that American lives are at risk." The committee noted that while science had undergone radical changes, the agency' evaluation methods haven't hanged in more than 50 years.
In addition, the food supply is at risk, the report said: "Crisis management in [the] FDA's two food safety centers, [the] Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) and [the] Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), has drawn attention and resources away from FDA's ability to develop the science base and infrastructure needed to efficiently support innovation in the food industry, provide effective routine surveillance, and conduct emergency outbreak investigation activities to protect the food supply."
The report also calls for better-trained FDA scientists and improvements in the agency's computer technology. The full report will be presented at a meeting of the FDA's Science Board on Monday.
In recent years, numerous food recalls and the withdrawal from the market of popular medications -- the removal of the painkiller Vioxx in 2004 was one of the most high-profile examples -- have eroded public confidence in the FDA. A recent survey found that 47 percent of Americans rated its performance as fair or poor.
And a study published in September found the number of serious adverse drug events more than doubled between 1998 and 2005 in the United States, as did the number of related deaths. From 1998 to 2005, the number of reported serious adverse drug events increased from 34,966 to 89,842. The number of fatal adverse drug events almost tripled during the same time period, from 5,519 in 1998 to 15,107 in 2005.
The number of adverse events increased four times faster than the total number of outpatient prescriptions, which rose from 2.7 billion to 3.8 billion during that time frame, according to the study, which was published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
Dr. Sidney M. Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, called the new FDA report a "partial and simplistic view of what is wrong with the FDA."
"There seems to be more importance placed on satisfying industry [at the FDA]. It's not an atmosphere where people are free to express their differing opinions," he said.
Wolfe thinks the agency needs to be changed substantially, including new legislation that would strengthen its ability to regulate food additives, drugs and dietary supplements. He also thinks user fees should be abolished, because the fees make the relationship between the agency and drug companies too close.
More information
For more on what the FDA is doing about drug safety, visit the Food and Drug Administration.
more discussion: Forum
· Addiction Forum · Ask the Doctors Forum · Ayurveda Forum · Ayurvedic & Thai Herbs Forum · Colon Cleansing Forum · Dental Forum · Diabetes Forum · Diet Forum · General Cleansing Forum · Hepatitis A, B. C Forum · Integrated Medicine Forum · Live Blood Analysis Forum · Ozone-Oxygen-Forum · pH - Alkaline - Acidity Forum · Weight Loss Forum
The Subcommittee on Science and Technology lays the blame squarely on inadequate funding, which it says has not kept pace with increasing demands on the agency.
"This imbalance is imposing a significant risk to the integrity of the food, drug, cosmetic and device regulatory system, and hence the safety of the public," the report states.
And things could get worse, the report stresses: "...the Agency suffers from serious scientific deficiencies and is not positioned to meet current or emerging regulatory responsibilities."
William Hubbard, a former FDA associate commissioner and an advisor to the Coalition for a Stronger FDA, a group that lobbies on behalf of the agency, called the report "one of the most remarkable reports I've ever seen. They are basically saying the FDA can't protect the public, and they are saying that our future competitiveness in new technology, emerging science and pharmaceuticals and devices is seriously threatened."
Hubbard also thinks that more money is needed for the FDA to do its job. "The number doesn't matter -- it just needs to be a lot," he said. "You would need a steady increase over five years to fix the FDA."
The report started as a review of the science at the FDA, Hubbard said, and mushroomed into something more.
"The committee was horrified that the science wasn't there, then they were horrified that the capabilities weren't there -- and the only way to fix that is funding," he said.
The FDA budget request for 2008 is $1.74 billion, plus another $444 million in user fees. These fees are paid by drug makers and medical device makers to underwrite the approval process of their products.
Another expert thinks that the FDA needs more money, but to really protect the public the agency's culture also needs changing.
"You need not only an overhaul of resources but an overhaul of philosophy on what safety and efficacy really means," said Dr. A. Mark Fendrick, a professor of internal medicine and professor of health management and policy at the University of Michigan.
"While a substantial increase in resources will enhance the scientific capabilities and capacity of the FDA, funding alone will not address the inherent tension between America's insatiable demand for immediate access for innovative products and an unwillingness to tolerate products that are anything but perfectly safe," Fendrick explained.
Another FDA supporter also thinks that improving the FDA starts with money.
"There are a lot of problems in the FDA that can't be solved without more resources," said Steven Grossman, a spokesman for the FDA Alliance, which lobbies on behalf of the agency. "All the problems don't go away if you have more money, but there are a whole lot of problems you can't confront without money."
Grossman thinks there is need for another $450 million in unrestricted spending to start bringing the agency up to snuff. That request is currently winding its way through Congress. "We hope to get at least a third of that," he said. It's going to take several years of increased funding to get the FDA to where it should be, he added.
According to the report, the FDA's "inability to keep up with scientific advances means that American lives are at risk." The committee noted that while science had undergone radical changes, the agency' evaluation methods haven't hanged in more than 50 years.
In addition, the food supply is at risk, the report said: "Crisis management in [the] FDA's two food safety centers, [the] Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) and [the] Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), has drawn attention and resources away from FDA's ability to develop the science base and infrastructure needed to efficiently support innovation in the food industry, provide effective routine surveillance, and conduct emergency outbreak investigation activities to protect the food supply."
The report also calls for better-trained FDA scientists and improvements in the agency's computer technology. The full report will be presented at a meeting of the FDA's Science Board on Monday.
In recent years, numerous food recalls and the withdrawal from the market of popular medications -- the removal of the painkiller Vioxx in 2004 was one of the most high-profile examples -- have eroded public confidence in the FDA. A recent survey found that 47 percent of Americans rated its performance as fair or poor.
And a study published in September found the number of serious adverse drug events more than doubled between 1998 and 2005 in the United States, as did the number of related deaths. From 1998 to 2005, the number of reported serious adverse drug events increased from 34,966 to 89,842. The number of fatal adverse drug events almost tripled during the same time period, from 5,519 in 1998 to 15,107 in 2005.
The number of adverse events increased four times faster than the total number of outpatient prescriptions, which rose from 2.7 billion to 3.8 billion during that time frame, according to the study, which was published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
Dr. Sidney M. Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, called the new FDA report a "partial and simplistic view of what is wrong with the FDA."
"There seems to be more importance placed on satisfying industry [at the FDA]. It's not an atmosphere where people are free to express their differing opinions," he said.
Wolfe thinks the agency needs to be changed substantially, including new legislation that would strengthen its ability to regulate food additives, drugs and dietary supplements. He also thinks user fees should be abolished, because the fees make the relationship between the agency and drug companies too close.
More information
For more on what the FDA is doing about drug safety, visit the Food and Drug Administration.
more discussion: Forum
· Addiction Forum · Ask the Doctors Forum · Ayurveda Forum · Ayurvedic & Thai Herbs Forum · Colon Cleansing Forum · Dental Forum · Diabetes Forum · Diet Forum · General Cleansing Forum · Hepatitis A, B. C Forum · Integrated Medicine Forum · Live Blood Analysis Forum · Ozone-Oxygen-Forum · pH - Alkaline - Acidity Forum · Weight Loss Forum
Monday, November 26, 2007
Diet Drug Rimonabant Tied to Depression, Anxiety
(HealthDay News) -- People who take the weight-loss drug rimonabant may face heightened risks for severe depression and anxiety, Danish researchers report.
The finding follows a recommendation by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel in June that the agency not approve the diet drug because of continuing concerns about increased risks for suicidal thoughts among some users. Previously, the FDA rejected the drug as an aid to help people quit smoking.
"Up to this point in time, there has been controversy over the rates and severity of psychiatric adverse effects with rimonabant," noted Dr. Philip Mitchell, head of the School of Psychiatry at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and co-author of an editorial that accompanies the study.
This is the first review to examine rates of severe psychiatric symptoms with rimonabant (Acomplia), symptoms severe enough that patients discontinue treatment, Mitchell said.
The report is published in the Nov. 17 edition of The Lancet.
In the meta-analysis, Dr. Arne Astrup, from the department of human nutrition at the University of Copenhagen, collected data on more than 4,100 patients enrolled in four clinical trials. Those trials compared taking rimonabant (20 milligrams a day) against a placebo.
The researchers found that people taking rimonabant did lose weight -- about 15 pounds in a year -- compared to those receiving a placebo.
However, those taking rimonabant were also 40 percent more likely to have an adverse reaction than people not taking it. In fact, those taking rimonabant were 2.5 times more likely to stop taking the drug because of depression and three times more likely to stop the drug because of anxiety, compared to people on placebo.
"Our findings suggest that 20 milligrams per day of rimonabant increases the risk of psychiatric events -- i.e., depressed mood disorders and anxiety -- despite depressed mood being an exclusion criterion in these trials," Astrup's team said. "Taken together with the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration finding of increased risk of suicide during treatment with rimonabant, we recommend increased alertness by physicians to these potentially severe psychiatric adverse reactions."
Mitchell noted that depression is common in overweight and obese people, and is something that doctors need to take into account when prescribing weight-loss drugs.
"This increased risk of depression and anxiety is a major safety issue in the treatment of obesity, as obese patients already have an increased risk of depression even prior to treatment," Mitchell said.
As far as rimonabant is concerned, Mitchell believes doctors should consider alternate weight-loss drugs for people who are depressed. "If one is using rimonabant, patients should be monitored carefully for the emergence of depressive symptoms and/or suicidal thoughts," he added.
In June, rimonabant's maker, French pharmaceutical giant Sanofi-Aventis, said in a statement that despite the FDA's decision, the company "is confident in the positive benefit-risk ratio of rimonabant 20 milligrams when used in the appropriate population."
Another expert said more data on the safety of rimonabant is needed.
"Rimonabant is potentially beneficial in some patients, but we really need long-term data demonstrating reductions in major obesity-related comorbidities such as heart attack, stroke and sleep apnea and/or mortality, to be completely certain," said Dr. Raj Padwal, an assistant professor of general internal medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada.
The drug needs to be avoided in anyone who has a mood disorder, Padwal added. "Since many patients with weight issues have depression, this means that the drug cannot be used in a large number of people. In the remaining individuals in whom the drug is used, the patient and physician must be cognizant of the risk of a mood disorder and monitor accordingly," he said.
In a related study in the Nov. 16 issue of the British Medical Journal, Padwal's team found that long-term users of weight-loss drugs such as orlistat (Xenical), sibutramine (Meridia) and rimonabant experienced only modest weight loss -- less than 11 pounds, which was less than 5 percent of their total body weight.
Padwal's team also noted that the U.S. National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommends stopping the use of weight-loss drugs if 5 percent of total body weight is not lost after three months.
Commenting on Padwal's study, Dr. Gareth Williams, dean of the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry at the University of Bristol in the U.K., wrote in an accompanying editorial: "Selling anti-obesity drugs over the counter will perpetuate the myth that obesity can be fixed simply by popping a pill and could further undermine the efforts to promote healthy living, which is the only long-term escape from obesity."
More information
For more information on obesity, visit the U.S. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
The finding follows a recommendation by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel in June that the agency not approve the diet drug because of continuing concerns about increased risks for suicidal thoughts among some users. Previously, the FDA rejected the drug as an aid to help people quit smoking.
"Up to this point in time, there has been controversy over the rates and severity of psychiatric adverse effects with rimonabant," noted Dr. Philip Mitchell, head of the School of Psychiatry at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and co-author of an editorial that accompanies the study.
This is the first review to examine rates of severe psychiatric symptoms with rimonabant (Acomplia), symptoms severe enough that patients discontinue treatment, Mitchell said.
The report is published in the Nov. 17 edition of The Lancet.
In the meta-analysis, Dr. Arne Astrup, from the department of human nutrition at the University of Copenhagen, collected data on more than 4,100 patients enrolled in four clinical trials. Those trials compared taking rimonabant (20 milligrams a day) against a placebo.
The researchers found that people taking rimonabant did lose weight -- about 15 pounds in a year -- compared to those receiving a placebo.
However, those taking rimonabant were also 40 percent more likely to have an adverse reaction than people not taking it. In fact, those taking rimonabant were 2.5 times more likely to stop taking the drug because of depression and three times more likely to stop the drug because of anxiety, compared to people on placebo.
"Our findings suggest that 20 milligrams per day of rimonabant increases the risk of psychiatric events -- i.e., depressed mood disorders and anxiety -- despite depressed mood being an exclusion criterion in these trials," Astrup's team said. "Taken together with the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration finding of increased risk of suicide during treatment with rimonabant, we recommend increased alertness by physicians to these potentially severe psychiatric adverse reactions."
Mitchell noted that depression is common in overweight and obese people, and is something that doctors need to take into account when prescribing weight-loss drugs.
"This increased risk of depression and anxiety is a major safety issue in the treatment of obesity, as obese patients already have an increased risk of depression even prior to treatment," Mitchell said.
As far as rimonabant is concerned, Mitchell believes doctors should consider alternate weight-loss drugs for people who are depressed. "If one is using rimonabant, patients should be monitored carefully for the emergence of depressive symptoms and/or suicidal thoughts," he added.
In June, rimonabant's maker, French pharmaceutical giant Sanofi-Aventis, said in a statement that despite the FDA's decision, the company "is confident in the positive benefit-risk ratio of rimonabant 20 milligrams when used in the appropriate population."
Another expert said more data on the safety of rimonabant is needed.
"Rimonabant is potentially beneficial in some patients, but we really need long-term data demonstrating reductions in major obesity-related comorbidities such as heart attack, stroke and sleep apnea and/or mortality, to be completely certain," said Dr. Raj Padwal, an assistant professor of general internal medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada.
The drug needs to be avoided in anyone who has a mood disorder, Padwal added. "Since many patients with weight issues have depression, this means that the drug cannot be used in a large number of people. In the remaining individuals in whom the drug is used, the patient and physician must be cognizant of the risk of a mood disorder and monitor accordingly," he said.
In a related study in the Nov. 16 issue of the British Medical Journal, Padwal's team found that long-term users of weight-loss drugs such as orlistat (Xenical), sibutramine (Meridia) and rimonabant experienced only modest weight loss -- less than 11 pounds, which was less than 5 percent of their total body weight.
Padwal's team also noted that the U.S. National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommends stopping the use of weight-loss drugs if 5 percent of total body weight is not lost after three months.
Commenting on Padwal's study, Dr. Gareth Williams, dean of the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry at the University of Bristol in the U.K., wrote in an accompanying editorial: "Selling anti-obesity drugs over the counter will perpetuate the myth that obesity can be fixed simply by popping a pill and could further undermine the efforts to promote healthy living, which is the only long-term escape from obesity."
More information
For more information on obesity, visit the U.S. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Make Thanksgiving a Feast of Health
(HealthDay News) -- If the pilgrims could do without marshmallows atop their sweet potatoes, so can you.
Especially if your sweet potato casserole is topped instead with a pecan streusel that's just as tasty as marshmallow but healthier and lower in fat, nutritionists say.
By tweaking traditional Thanksgiving dinner recipes, you can avoid as much as 60 grams of fat, ensuring a healthier meal and a good beginning to the diet-busting holiday season.
"Thanksgiving dinner provides one of the healthiest food options of any holiday, because turkey is a low-fat meat, and sweet potatoes, pumpkin pie and cranberries are healthy foods and excellent sources of antioxidants," said Kathy Goldberg, a dietitian and cooking teacher at the University of Michigan Health System's health promotion program, called MFit.
But many traditional recipes -- think creamed onions, sausage stuffing, potato casseroles -- rely on lots of fat, cream, butter and sugar, both white and brown, resulting in a dinner that can range from 2,000 to 3,000 calories, an amount that should suffice an average person for a whole day, she said.
"By cleaning it up a bit," Goldberg said, which means making some simple recipe substitutions, you can provide equally delicious dishes that are nutritious as well.
"Nobody will feel like they're being cheated. Your guests won't even know, as long as you don't talk about it," she added.
Alice Lichtenstein, the Gershoff Professor of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University in Boston, agreed. "No one wants to take the fun out of Thanksgiving. You just want to provide good choices that will set the stage for the next month as people face the holidays, which I call 'the license-to-eat season,'" she said.
Lichtenstein said people tend to eat more when they are sitting at a table for long stretches of time, and when there's a wide variety of foods to choose from -- both of which occur at Thanksgiving.
"You want to create an environment at the Thanksgiving table that makes it easier for people not to overdo it," she said.
The more you can replace calorie-dense foods such as buttery mashed potatoes with lower-calorie dishes like salads and vegetables that are well-prepared and tasty, the better your guests will feel, Lichtenstein said.
Goldberg, who teaches a healthy holiday cooking class at MFit, offers the following suggestions to "lighten up" your Thanksgiving dinner without sacrificing taste:
Especially if your sweet potato casserole is topped instead with a pecan streusel that's just as tasty as marshmallow but healthier and lower in fat, nutritionists say.
By tweaking traditional Thanksgiving dinner recipes, you can avoid as much as 60 grams of fat, ensuring a healthier meal and a good beginning to the diet-busting holiday season.
"Thanksgiving dinner provides one of the healthiest food options of any holiday, because turkey is a low-fat meat, and sweet potatoes, pumpkin pie and cranberries are healthy foods and excellent sources of antioxidants," said Kathy Goldberg, a dietitian and cooking teacher at the University of Michigan Health System's health promotion program, called MFit.
But many traditional recipes -- think creamed onions, sausage stuffing, potato casseroles -- rely on lots of fat, cream, butter and sugar, both white and brown, resulting in a dinner that can range from 2,000 to 3,000 calories, an amount that should suffice an average person for a whole day, she said.
"By cleaning it up a bit," Goldberg said, which means making some simple recipe substitutions, you can provide equally delicious dishes that are nutritious as well.
"Nobody will feel like they're being cheated. Your guests won't even know, as long as you don't talk about it," she added.
Alice Lichtenstein, the Gershoff Professor of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University in Boston, agreed. "No one wants to take the fun out of Thanksgiving. You just want to provide good choices that will set the stage for the next month as people face the holidays, which I call 'the license-to-eat season,'" she said.
Lichtenstein said people tend to eat more when they are sitting at a table for long stretches of time, and when there's a wide variety of foods to choose from -- both of which occur at Thanksgiving.
"You want to create an environment at the Thanksgiving table that makes it easier for people not to overdo it," she said.
The more you can replace calorie-dense foods such as buttery mashed potatoes with lower-calorie dishes like salads and vegetables that are well-prepared and tasty, the better your guests will feel, Lichtenstein said.
Goldberg, who teaches a healthy holiday cooking class at MFit, offers the following suggestions to "lighten up" your Thanksgiving dinner without sacrificing taste:
- Instead of buying a self-basting turkey, baste your own bird with low-fat, low-sodium chicken stock. Rubbing herbs and olive oil under the skin of the meat will give it more flavor.
- When the turkey is done, use the drippings -- "de-fatted" -- to make gravy. "De-fat" by pouring the drippings into a baggie that you've set in a large measuring cup. The fat will rise to the top of the baggie. Then lift the bag out of the measuring cup, prick the bottom and pour the de-fatted drippings back into a pan before thickening with flour or cornstarch.
- Whole wheat English muffins cut up into cubes are a great base for stuffing, Goldberg said, increasing nutrients, adding more fiber to the stuffing and tasting good. And don't be shy about adding vegetables and fruits like chopped apples or cranberries to the traditional celery and onions in your recipe.
- Steam or roast vegetables, and serve lots of them. Instead of butter and cream sauces, try low-fat products and/or flavor the dishes with shallots, carmelized onions, lemon zest, herbs and spices.
- Make it easy on yourself by using frozen vegetables and the bags of prewashed and cut-up vegetables now available in most supermarkets. For only a slight extra cost, you can save time and provide healthful choices.
- Vary rich pie desserts with an apple crisp or crumble.
"Your food will taste like the traditional recipes. Only the cook has to know the secrets," Goldberg said.
Looking for other nutritious treats? How about kiwis?
"In a recent study, kiwi was found to be one of the most nutritionally dense fruits out of 27 fruits," Stephanie Dean, a dietitian with Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas, said in a prepared statement.
Kiwis are full of antioxidants, vitamin E and lutein, and they ward off vision problems, blood clots and even lower cholesterol, Dean said.
Dean's also high on cranberries. "The crimson color of cranberries signal that they are full of flavonoids," she explained, adding that flavonoids are high in antioxidants and help prevent everything from infections to strokes and cancer.
And, for a final recommendation, Dean likes broccoli sprouts, which, she said, are sold by the package and can be thrown on top of salads or be an addition to sandwiches.
"Broccoli sprouts have been shown to actually contain 20 percent more anti-cancer agents than regular broccoli," Dean said.
More information
For a selection of tasty and nutritious Thanksgiving recipes, including Goldberg's sweet potato casserole, visit the University of Michigan.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Education Linked to Cancer Death Rates
(HealthDay News) -- If you have a college degree, you have up to a 76 percent reduced risk of dying from cancer, a new study found.
Higher education lowers the risk for black and white women and men, according to the report in the Sept. 11 online edition of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
"Cancer mortality varies a great deal for all cancers by individual level of education," said study co-author Elizabeth Ward, the American Cancer Society's director of cancer surveillance. "If we could get everyone's cancer mortality to the level we see among the best educated, it would make a huge impact on cancer in the United States."
Education is tied to socioeconomic status and access to medical care, Ward noted. The new study finding makes it clear that many of the factors that influence cancer mortality are preventable, she said.
"They are preventable by social policies -- things we can change, such as smoking prevention, access to cancer screening and opportunities to good nutrition and physical activity," Ward said.
In the study, Ward and her colleagues used data from death certificates and the U.S. Census Bureau to look at the associations between education level and death rates from lung, breast, prostate and colorectal cancer. The researchers collected data on 137,708 cancer deaths from 2001 involving black and white men and women between the ages of 25 and 64.
The researchers found that more education was associated with lower death rates from cancer among all race and gender groups. The greatest difference was found between people with 12 or fewer years of education and those with more than 12 years of schooling, Ward's team found.
Compared with those with the lowest levels of education, those with the highest levels of education cut their risk of dying from cancer. For the highest educated white men, the risk was cut by 48 percent, for white women it was cut by 76 percent as it was for black men, and the most educated black women had a 43 percent lower risk of dying from cancer, the researchers reported.
This difference in cancer deaths is most likely due to a relationship between education and other factors directly associated with risks of developing and dying from cancer, such as smoking, cancer screening, and access to health care, the researchers speculated.
Although cancer death rates were higher among blacks than whites with the same level of education, they were almost the same for black and white men with zero to eight years of education, the researchers said.
"The difference between blacks and whites is most certainly due to socioeconomic conditions and access to care," Ward said.
Sholom Wacholder, an epidemiologist with the National Cancer Institute and author of an accompanying editorial in the journal, thinks the study findings account for some -- but not all -- cancer disparity rates between blacks and whites.
"I asked myself if I could use this data to figure out the difference between blacks and whites in cancer mortality," said Wacholder. "And the answer is that it is probably not possible."
The problem is that there are too many unanswered questions, Wacholder said. "We can't answer the question whether additional education by itself is the explanation or whether people with access to education have lower cancer mortality beyond the effect of education," he said.
More information
For more on cancer, visit the American Cancer Society.
Higher education lowers the risk for black and white women and men, according to the report in the Sept. 11 online edition of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
"Cancer mortality varies a great deal for all cancers by individual level of education," said study co-author Elizabeth Ward, the American Cancer Society's director of cancer surveillance. "If we could get everyone's cancer mortality to the level we see among the best educated, it would make a huge impact on cancer in the United States."
Education is tied to socioeconomic status and access to medical care, Ward noted. The new study finding makes it clear that many of the factors that influence cancer mortality are preventable, she said.
"They are preventable by social policies -- things we can change, such as smoking prevention, access to cancer screening and opportunities to good nutrition and physical activity," Ward said.
In the study, Ward and her colleagues used data from death certificates and the U.S. Census Bureau to look at the associations between education level and death rates from lung, breast, prostate and colorectal cancer. The researchers collected data on 137,708 cancer deaths from 2001 involving black and white men and women between the ages of 25 and 64.
The researchers found that more education was associated with lower death rates from cancer among all race and gender groups. The greatest difference was found between people with 12 or fewer years of education and those with more than 12 years of schooling, Ward's team found.
Compared with those with the lowest levels of education, those with the highest levels of education cut their risk of dying from cancer. For the highest educated white men, the risk was cut by 48 percent, for white women it was cut by 76 percent as it was for black men, and the most educated black women had a 43 percent lower risk of dying from cancer, the researchers reported.
This difference in cancer deaths is most likely due to a relationship between education and other factors directly associated with risks of developing and dying from cancer, such as smoking, cancer screening, and access to health care, the researchers speculated.
Although cancer death rates were higher among blacks than whites with the same level of education, they were almost the same for black and white men with zero to eight years of education, the researchers said.
"The difference between blacks and whites is most certainly due to socioeconomic conditions and access to care," Ward said.
Sholom Wacholder, an epidemiologist with the National Cancer Institute and author of an accompanying editorial in the journal, thinks the study findings account for some -- but not all -- cancer disparity rates between blacks and whites.
"I asked myself if I could use this data to figure out the difference between blacks and whites in cancer mortality," said Wacholder. "And the answer is that it is probably not possible."
The problem is that there are too many unanswered questions, Wacholder said. "We can't answer the question whether additional education by itself is the explanation or whether people with access to education have lower cancer mortality beyond the effect of education," he said.
More information
For more on cancer, visit the American Cancer Society.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
No Evidence Tomatoes, Lycopene Cut Cancer: FDA
(HealthDay News) -- There's little hard evidence that a diet rich in tomatoes and the tomato antioxidant lycopene can ward off cancer, according to research from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Reporting in the July 10 issue of the Journal of the American Cancer Institute, FDA experts lay out in great detail the evidence -- or mostly lack of it -- behind their November 2005 statement that tomato consumption is not linked to any reduction risk of tumors of the prostate, ovary, stomach and pancreas.
The agency had previously found no evidence that tomatoes could cut risks for lung, colorectal, breast, cervical or endometrial tumors, either.
The November 2005 statement contended that, "there is no credible evidence to support qualified health claims for lycopene, as a food ingredient, component or food, or as a dietary supplement, and reduced risk of any of the cancers in the petition."
The petition for approval of the claims was submitted by a supplement maker, American Longevity.
The FDA has now put the evidence behind its decision in print, said Paul Coates, director of the office of dietary supplements at the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the author of a related journal editorial.
The new data review "gives people some idea of what the process is," Coates said. That's important, he said, because "one of the things that people are concerned about is how are these decisions arrived at. Making the process transparent and open will be helpful."
As part of its review, the FDA pored over data from 107 observational studies comparing the level of consumption of either tomatoes or lycopene with people's general cancer risk.
They also looked at 23 studies that focused on blood levels of lycopene, although most of those trials were deemed unreliable, either because there were too many confounding factors or because most focused on cancer patients, not healthy people.
The agency also included dozens of studies comparing lycopene or tomato intake against the risk of individual cancers such as prostate, colon and breast malignancies.
The bottom line, according to the FDA: There's just not enough evidence to recommend that Americans boost their tomato intake to ward off cancer.
However, the new report is certainly not the last word on cancer-preventing claims for lycopene, Coates added.
"It just codifies the fact that the information about lycopene and cancer is not very robust," he said. "It may well be that if more studies are done, a greater effect might be found. But now, when you look at similar studies done by different people, they come to the same conclusion."
For its part, the American Cancer Society prefers to stay away from recommending any one food as a cancer preventive agent, said Marji McCullough, director of nutritional epidemiology for the organization.
"In our guidelines, we encourage people to eat a variety of foods, especially fruits and vegetables," she said. "Several studies have suggested a lower risk of cancer with some kinds of foods, including tomatoes, but we encourage variety."
The society encourages consumption of "dark deep-colored vegetables, because some studies have found an association between them and lower cancer risk," McCullough said.
The society also encourages fruit and vegetable consumption, because it helps prevent weight gain, she said.
But endorsement of specific foods won't come until research shows that they clearly are associated with lower cancer risk, McCullough said. As for supplements, "most of the evidence comes from studies of foods," she said.
More information
There's more on lycopene at the American Cancer Society.
Reporting in the July 10 issue of the Journal of the American Cancer Institute, FDA experts lay out in great detail the evidence -- or mostly lack of it -- behind their November 2005 statement that tomato consumption is not linked to any reduction risk of tumors of the prostate, ovary, stomach and pancreas.
The agency had previously found no evidence that tomatoes could cut risks for lung, colorectal, breast, cervical or endometrial tumors, either.
The November 2005 statement contended that, "there is no credible evidence to support qualified health claims for lycopene, as a food ingredient, component or food, or as a dietary supplement, and reduced risk of any of the cancers in the petition."
The petition for approval of the claims was submitted by a supplement maker, American Longevity.
The FDA has now put the evidence behind its decision in print, said Paul Coates, director of the office of dietary supplements at the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the author of a related journal editorial.
The new data review "gives people some idea of what the process is," Coates said. That's important, he said, because "one of the things that people are concerned about is how are these decisions arrived at. Making the process transparent and open will be helpful."
As part of its review, the FDA pored over data from 107 observational studies comparing the level of consumption of either tomatoes or lycopene with people's general cancer risk.
They also looked at 23 studies that focused on blood levels of lycopene, although most of those trials were deemed unreliable, either because there were too many confounding factors or because most focused on cancer patients, not healthy people.
The agency also included dozens of studies comparing lycopene or tomato intake against the risk of individual cancers such as prostate, colon and breast malignancies.
The bottom line, according to the FDA: There's just not enough evidence to recommend that Americans boost their tomato intake to ward off cancer.
However, the new report is certainly not the last word on cancer-preventing claims for lycopene, Coates added.
"It just codifies the fact that the information about lycopene and cancer is not very robust," he said. "It may well be that if more studies are done, a greater effect might be found. But now, when you look at similar studies done by different people, they come to the same conclusion."
For its part, the American Cancer Society prefers to stay away from recommending any one food as a cancer preventive agent, said Marji McCullough, director of nutritional epidemiology for the organization.
"In our guidelines, we encourage people to eat a variety of foods, especially fruits and vegetables," she said. "Several studies have suggested a lower risk of cancer with some kinds of foods, including tomatoes, but we encourage variety."
The society encourages consumption of "dark deep-colored vegetables, because some studies have found an association between them and lower cancer risk," McCullough said.
The society also encourages fruit and vegetable consumption, because it helps prevent weight gain, she said.
But endorsement of specific foods won't come until research shows that they clearly are associated with lower cancer risk, McCullough said. As for supplements, "most of the evidence comes from studies of foods," she said.
More information
There's more on lycopene at the American Cancer Society.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Love Salty Foods? You May Have Been Born With Low Blood Sodium
(HealthDay News) -- If you crave salty foods, you may have been born prematurely and lacking in sodium. And this might leave you vulnerable to weight gain, a new study suggests.Israeli researchers analyzed 41 children born prematurely in Israel and found that the lower the level of sodium in the bloodstream at birth, the more sodium the children consumed at ages 8 to 15.
Those with low sodium levels at birth also weighed about 30 percent more than their peers by early childhood or the early teen years. The finding suggests that very low blood levels of sodium in premature and newborn infants seems to be a contributing factor for long-term sodium intake, a key risk factor for obesity, the researchers said.
The study, published in the current issue of the American Journal of Physiology -- Regulatory, Integrative, and Comparative Physiology, isn't the first to suggest such a link, said Micah Leshem, a study co-author and a researcher at the University of Haifa's psychology department.
"There are about eight studies now that show that some form of sodium loss or deficiency [before or after birth] is associated with increased salt appetite in later childhood or adulthood," he said.
"These findings are consistent with laboratory rat studies that have produced the phenomenon experimentally -- that is, sodium-deficit before birth, as well as after it, causes greater intake of salt in adulthood."
The study participants with the lowest blood sodium at birth ate about 1,700 milligrams more sodium a day than those who didn't have low blood sodium when they were born.
The researchers analyzed each child's sodium appetite at ages 8 to 15 and gave each a physical exam. The children were tested whether they preferred a lot of salt in soup and sugar in tea. And they were invited to eat freely from a table of salty and sugary snacks.
The children with the lowest sodium levels at birth ate double the number of salty snacks years later than those who did not have low blood levels of sodium at birth.
The link may be due to self-protection, Leshem speculated. "Researchers have proposed that evolution has provided us with the ability to respond to sodium loss by increasing our avidity for it," he said.
Connie Diekman, director of university nutrition at Washington University in St Louis, called the study interesting but said it has limitations.
"The assessment of food intake was based on food frequency questionnaires as opposed to food records or food collection, leaving the accuracy of intake to recall, which is not a good tool for scientific accuracy," Diekman said.
The study also looked only at premature infants, not normal-weight babies, she said, adding that more research is needed.
Until that research is performed, parents can simply be aware of the link, according to Leshem. "In guiding the development of their child's dietary habits and preferences, our findings, together with those of others, now show that there is a cause for their child's preferences for sodium or sodium-rich foods," he said.
Your child's pediatrician can advise you on how much salt your child should be consuming daily.
More information
To learn more about how much sodium is ideal, visit the American Society for Nutrition.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Hangover Helpers
(HealthDay News) -- Don't look to Khursheed Navder for sympathy if you drink too much on New Year's Eve and wake up with a wicked hangover.
Navder, a registered dietitian and associate professor in the nutrition and food science program at Hunter College in New York City, is willing to offer you some advice on how to deal with the party-fueled problem, however.
But first, it may help to understand the science behind that throbbing, queasy, mouth-full-of-cotton malaise. According to Dr. Christine Lay, a neurologist at The Headache Institute at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York City and co-author of an upcoming article on hangovers in the journal Headache, the culprits are:
Navder, a registered dietitian and associate professor in the nutrition and food science program at Hunter College in New York City, is willing to offer you some advice on how to deal with the party-fueled problem, however.
But first, it may help to understand the science behind that throbbing, queasy, mouth-full-of-cotton malaise. According to Dr. Christine Lay, a neurologist at The Headache Institute at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York City and co-author of an upcoming article on hangovers in the journal Headache, the culprits are:
- Dilation of blood vessels. This may contribute to the throbbing headache.
- Low blood sugar. Alcohol can interfere with the liver's ability to produce glucose, which leaves you feeling weak and tired, clouds your thinking and makes you moody.
- Poor sleep. While alcohol is sedating and promotes sleep initially, the sleep is often of poor quality with frequent awakenings due to factors such as decreased rapid eye movement (REM) sleep.
- The accumulation of toxins. The main byproduct of metabolized alcohol, acetaldehyde, is a toxin that can make your heart race and lead to headache, sweatiness, flushed skin, nausea and vomiting.
- Dehydration and electrolyte imbalance. Alcohol promotes urination by inhibiting the release of the brain hormone that normally protects against dehydration. When dehydration is accompanied by sweating, vomiting or diarrhea, there is additional fluid and mineral loss leading to electrolyte imbalances The result? Excessive thirst, lethargy, dizziness and light-headedness.
So, if you do consume too much alcohol, drinking plenty of water is essential because dehydration is perhaps the most common cause of hangover symptoms.
"Those pounding headaches and everything else are related to the shriveling of the cells because they lose so much water," Navder said. "Before sleeping, force yourself to drink water. If you throw up, very good, because you're going to get some of the alcohol out that way."
If you forget to drink water before going to bed, then do it first thing in the morning. The sooner you replenish your fluid loss, the quicker you'll bounce back, Navder said.
If you don't feel like drinking water, then sports drinks are a good option because they replace essential salts and minerals that were flushed out of your body during frequent urination. Non-acidic fruit juices are another good choice because the sugar in them helps prevent hypoglycemia and feeling weak and lightheaded.
Also, avoid coffee and other caffeinated beverages. Caffeine does not speed up the body's metabolism of alcohol. All it does is irritate the stomach lining and prevent you from falling asleep, which is one of the best ways to escape a hangover, she said.
Navder's next bit of advice involves a bit of tough-love: exercise. While being active is the last thing you may want to do when you have a pounding head, it increases blood flow to the brain and the rest of the body and induces sweating, which helps the body purge alcohol, she said.
Other tips, courtesy of Navder and the U.S. National Institutes of Health:
- Try to eat because food will reduce the irritation to your stomach lining. Soups are good for replacing salt and potassium depleted by alcohol, and fruits and vegetables can help replenish lost nutrients.
- You can take pain relief medications such as ibuprofen and naproxen sodium to reduce your headache and muscle aches as long as your stomach isn't upset and you have no history of ulcers or bleeding problems. Antacids can help ease nausea and gastritis.
- Drink a glass of water in between drinks containing alcohol. This will help you drink less alcohol, and will also decrease the dehydration associated with drinking alcohol.
Navder also has some hangover-prevention advice. Drinking lighter-colored alcohol and higher brands of alcohol may reduce the severity of a hangover. That's because lighter-colored drinks, such as vodka, gin and white wine, have fewer congeners -- a toxic byproduct of fermentation and aging -- than darker-colored drinks such as whisky, brandy and red wine.
And more expensive alcohol generally contains fewer congeners because it goes through a more rigorous distillation process that filters out more congeners.
She also suggests that you eat while you drink, because food in your stomach slows the absorption of alcohol. But don't munch on salty snacks because they'll just make you thirsty and likely to drink more.
Or, Navder said, you could just avoid booze altogether. "With a hangover, I think prevention is definitely better than the cure," she said.
More information
The U.S. National Library of Medicine has more about hangover prevention and treatment.
What you should know about FATS?
By Grace Wei Ern Quek, RDExcellence Healthcare Pte Ltd
For many who are managing their weight, fats seems like a taboo word. Yes, we always hear "Too much fat can kill". But what do you know? Certain fats are actually good for our body!
Besides cushioning our vital organs, giving us extra padding for shock and impact from falls/injuries, and keeping us warm during the cold weather, some fats known as essential fatty acids are vital for brain development, skin integrity and also for reduction of heart disease and stroke risks.
Types and sources
There are mainly two distinct types of fat: Saturated fats and Unsaturated fats.
Saturated fats mainly come from animal and animal products, such as meat, milk, eggs etc. There are however, a few exceptions. Saturated fats can also be found in coconut milk and palm oil. Besides cholesterol, saturated fat is notoriously known for the fat that clogs up arteries.
Additionally, it has also been shown that excessive consumption of saturated fats can also increase risk of certain cancers, especially colon, rectum, endometrial, breast and prostate cancers. Many nutrition experts and authorities recommend keeping saturated fat consumption to less than 10% of daily calories.
Unsaturated fats mainly come from fish and plant sources. Unsaturated fats are divided into: polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs) and monounsaturated fats (MUFAs). PUFAs are further categorized into Omega-3 and Omega-6 fatty acids. Omega-3 and Omega-6 fatty acids are known as "Essential fatty acids" (EFAs) as they are critical for good health and the body does not have the ability to manufacture such fats on its own.
Omega-6 fatty acids can be converted into arachidonic acids (ARA), one type of fat used to build the brain. Other benefits from consuming Omega-6 fatty acids include: lowering of blood pressure, reduction of inflammation and joint pains, regulation of nerve functions and skin support. Omega-6 fatty acids sources include seeds and oils, such as pumpkin, sunflower, safflower, sesame, corn, walnut and soybean.
Omega-3 fatty acids can manufacture other important fats for the brain as well, EPA (Eicosapentanoic acid) and DHA (Docohexanoic acid). Studies have shown that increased consumption of EPA and DHA sources can boost a few more IQ points! Omega-3 fatty acids have also been found to have a cholesterol-lowering effect, particularly on LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol, also known as "bad cholesterol". Unfortunately, it lowers the HDL (high-density lipoprotein) or "good cholesterol" as well.
Omega-3 fatty acids are also needed for the formation of new tissues, and hence play an important role in growth and development. Such fats also improve immune function, decrease inflammation and help maintain water balance. Sources of Omega-3 fatty acids include fish (e.g. salmon, tuna, mackerel, herring, and cod), walnuts, flaxseeds and pumpkin seeds.
Monounsaturated fats (MUFAs) are known to lower LDL cholesterol, without affecting HDL cholesterol. Some studies even indicate that increased consumption of MUFAs can help improve HDL cholesterol. In fact, researchers have found that the Mediterranean diet, a diet rich in monounsaturated fats, gives lower incidences of coronary heart disease. It is also believed that MUFAs can offer protection against certain cancers, such as breast and colon cancers. MUFAs are also abundant in Vitamin E, an antioxidant that protects against free radical damage. Free radicals are often associated with aging, development of cancers and heart disease. Rich sources of MUFAs include: avocado, olive oil, canola oil, hazelnuts, brazil nuts, almonds, walnuts, cashews, sesame seeds and pumpkin seeds.
Trans-fat
What is trans-fat? Trans-fat actually originates from healthier oils like vegetable oils (e.g. olive or canola) and fish oils, but through a process called hydrogenation where hydrogen bonds are added, the fat's configuration is altered to a "trans" state. Trans-fat is generally added to foods to extend shelf life and enhance flavor.
Besides saturated fat and cholesterol, there is scientific evidence to show that trans-fat also raises LDL cholesterol, thus increasing the risk of coronary heart disease. Essentially, it is best to avoid food products that are labeled with ingredients containing "partially hydrogenated or hydrogenated vegetable oils". Where can trans-fat be found? Virtually almost all processed foods, such as margarine, shortening, french fries, snack foods such as potato chips, and cookies contain high amounts of trans-fat.
Food preparation
Frying should be avoided as much as possible as it damages healthier oils like PUFAs and MUFAs. The high heat oxidizes the oil and generates free radicals that are harmful to the body. But if you do fry, which types of cooking oils on the market are then best suited for the job? Polyunsaturated fat sources, e.g. corn, sunflower, safflower and soybean oils, are not recommended for frying as they are chemically unstable, especially when exposed to heat.
Never fry at high heats with corn oil for it has a high tendency to produce foam and smoke.
But the use of tropical oils is the preferred choice when frying, e.g. palm oil, which is a major component in common vegetable oils. Even though palm oil is high in saturated fat, it has a good oxidative stability during frying, owing to its fat composition and vitamin E content. In terms of daily sautéing or stir-frying, canola and olive oils top the list.
Thus, it is recommended to have at least two different oils at home for different cooking methods. However, the answer does not lie in choosing the best oil among cooking oils that offer health benefits, but in using them sparingly. All cooking oils are still 100% fat and pack approximately 126 calories per tablespoon.
Natural fats or supplements?
Having listed the many benefits of certain fats such as Omega-3 fatty acids, some consumers may choose to obtain such fats in the form of supplements. However, studies indicate that extracted and artificially isolated nutrients may not exert the same benefits as wholesome foods. In fact, most nutrients work in synergy with other nutrients. By consuming a single nutrient, you may be missing out on other beneficial nutrients that are included in wholesome foods as well. Whole foods also offer lower risk of toxicity than supplements.
References:
"The intake of fried virgin olive or sunflower oils differentially induces oxidative stress in rat liver microsomes". British Journal of Nutrition. February 2002.
Holford, P. "New Optimum Nutrition Bible". Piatkus Books Ltd. 2004.
Mackay, S. "Techniques and Types of Fat used in Deep-Fat Frying - A policy statement and background paper prepared by the Heart Foundation of New Zealand". July 2000. http://www.nhf.org.nz/files/Food_Industry/deep_fat_frying_exec_summary.pdf
For many who are managing their weight, fats seems like a taboo word. Yes, we always hear "Too much fat can kill". But what do you know? Certain fats are actually good for our body!
Besides cushioning our vital organs, giving us extra padding for shock and impact from falls/injuries, and keeping us warm during the cold weather, some fats known as essential fatty acids are vital for brain development, skin integrity and also for reduction of heart disease and stroke risks.
Types and sources
There are mainly two distinct types of fat: Saturated fats and Unsaturated fats.
Saturated fats mainly come from animal and animal products, such as meat, milk, eggs etc. There are however, a few exceptions. Saturated fats can also be found in coconut milk and palm oil. Besides cholesterol, saturated fat is notoriously known for the fat that clogs up arteries.
Additionally, it has also been shown that excessive consumption of saturated fats can also increase risk of certain cancers, especially colon, rectum, endometrial, breast and prostate cancers. Many nutrition experts and authorities recommend keeping saturated fat consumption to less than 10% of daily calories.
Unsaturated fats mainly come from fish and plant sources. Unsaturated fats are divided into: polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs) and monounsaturated fats (MUFAs). PUFAs are further categorized into Omega-3 and Omega-6 fatty acids. Omega-3 and Omega-6 fatty acids are known as "Essential fatty acids" (EFAs) as they are critical for good health and the body does not have the ability to manufacture such fats on its own.
Omega-6 fatty acids can be converted into arachidonic acids (ARA), one type of fat used to build the brain. Other benefits from consuming Omega-6 fatty acids include: lowering of blood pressure, reduction of inflammation and joint pains, regulation of nerve functions and skin support. Omega-6 fatty acids sources include seeds and oils, such as pumpkin, sunflower, safflower, sesame, corn, walnut and soybean.
Omega-3 fatty acids can manufacture other important fats for the brain as well, EPA (Eicosapentanoic acid) and DHA (Docohexanoic acid). Studies have shown that increased consumption of EPA and DHA sources can boost a few more IQ points! Omega-3 fatty acids have also been found to have a cholesterol-lowering effect, particularly on LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol, also known as "bad cholesterol". Unfortunately, it lowers the HDL (high-density lipoprotein) or "good cholesterol" as well.
Omega-3 fatty acids are also needed for the formation of new tissues, and hence play an important role in growth and development. Such fats also improve immune function, decrease inflammation and help maintain water balance. Sources of Omega-3 fatty acids include fish (e.g. salmon, tuna, mackerel, herring, and cod), walnuts, flaxseeds and pumpkin seeds.
Monounsaturated fats (MUFAs) are known to lower LDL cholesterol, without affecting HDL cholesterol. Some studies even indicate that increased consumption of MUFAs can help improve HDL cholesterol. In fact, researchers have found that the Mediterranean diet, a diet rich in monounsaturated fats, gives lower incidences of coronary heart disease. It is also believed that MUFAs can offer protection against certain cancers, such as breast and colon cancers. MUFAs are also abundant in Vitamin E, an antioxidant that protects against free radical damage. Free radicals are often associated with aging, development of cancers and heart disease. Rich sources of MUFAs include: avocado, olive oil, canola oil, hazelnuts, brazil nuts, almonds, walnuts, cashews, sesame seeds and pumpkin seeds.
Trans-fat
What is trans-fat? Trans-fat actually originates from healthier oils like vegetable oils (e.g. olive or canola) and fish oils, but through a process called hydrogenation where hydrogen bonds are added, the fat's configuration is altered to a "trans" state. Trans-fat is generally added to foods to extend shelf life and enhance flavor.
Besides saturated fat and cholesterol, there is scientific evidence to show that trans-fat also raises LDL cholesterol, thus increasing the risk of coronary heart disease. Essentially, it is best to avoid food products that are labeled with ingredients containing "partially hydrogenated or hydrogenated vegetable oils". Where can trans-fat be found? Virtually almost all processed foods, such as margarine, shortening, french fries, snack foods such as potato chips, and cookies contain high amounts of trans-fat.
Food preparation
Frying should be avoided as much as possible as it damages healthier oils like PUFAs and MUFAs. The high heat oxidizes the oil and generates free radicals that are harmful to the body. But if you do fry, which types of cooking oils on the market are then best suited for the job? Polyunsaturated fat sources, e.g. corn, sunflower, safflower and soybean oils, are not recommended for frying as they are chemically unstable, especially when exposed to heat.
Never fry at high heats with corn oil for it has a high tendency to produce foam and smoke.
But the use of tropical oils is the preferred choice when frying, e.g. palm oil, which is a major component in common vegetable oils. Even though palm oil is high in saturated fat, it has a good oxidative stability during frying, owing to its fat composition and vitamin E content. In terms of daily sautéing or stir-frying, canola and olive oils top the list.
Thus, it is recommended to have at least two different oils at home for different cooking methods. However, the answer does not lie in choosing the best oil among cooking oils that offer health benefits, but in using them sparingly. All cooking oils are still 100% fat and pack approximately 126 calories per tablespoon.
Natural fats or supplements?
Having listed the many benefits of certain fats such as Omega-3 fatty acids, some consumers may choose to obtain such fats in the form of supplements. However, studies indicate that extracted and artificially isolated nutrients may not exert the same benefits as wholesome foods. In fact, most nutrients work in synergy with other nutrients. By consuming a single nutrient, you may be missing out on other beneficial nutrients that are included in wholesome foods as well. Whole foods also offer lower risk of toxicity than supplements.
References:
"The intake of fried virgin olive or sunflower oils differentially induces oxidative stress in rat liver microsomes". British Journal of Nutrition. February 2002.
Holford, P. "New Optimum Nutrition Bible". Piatkus Books Ltd. 2004.
Mackay, S. "Techniques and Types of Fat used in Deep-Fat Frying - A policy statement and background paper prepared by the Heart Foundation of New Zealand". July 2000. http://www.nhf.org.nz/files/Food_Industry/deep_fat_frying_exec_summary.pdf
Monday, December 18, 2006
Make the Holiday Buffet Your Friend This Season
(HealthDay News) -- Dieting got you playing Scrooge with all those holiday treats?
One expert nutritionist says you don't have to deprive yourself of favorite yuletide goodies -- just enjoy them in moderation.
Connie Diekman, director of university nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis, offered up some tricks to avoid overindulging.
"The first rule of thumb for eating at holiday gatherings is never go to the party hungry," said Diekman in a prepared statement. "Have a little something healthy before you go -- a piece of fruit, half a sandwich or a glass of milk. Be sure when you arrive that you aren't overly hungry."
When you get to the party, survey the buffet table and think about how you're going to approach it.
"Plan on getting your food off the buffet table and then moving away from the table to eat. Use a plate, and don't stand at the table and pick at the food. Seeing what is on the plate begins the process of realizing how much food is enough for you," Diekman said.
Two-thirds of your plate should be filed with fruits, vegetables and whole-grains. The remaining third can be meats, sauces, and high-fat, high-calorie foods.
If you find it hard to resist everything on the table, try to limit yourself to just small portions of each item.
"It's perfectly fine to do that, as long as you don't gorge yourself. Try some of everything if you have to, but do it in moderation," Diekman said.
"In truth, the [holiday] period is not all that long when taken in the context of an entire year. What people shouldn't do is worry too much and start limiting lots of foods, especially if it's a once-a-year food. If you cut out those things entirely, you'll just end up eating more. Don't cut out those foods, just shift to smaller portions," she said.
It's also important to limit alcohol intake and get exercise, she added.
"Exercise is a great way to combat holiday stress, and it gives you some balance if the eating is a little out of hand. After you've eaten a big meal, let your food digest, and then get out and move around. Take a walk. Try not to sit on the couch all day long," Diekman said.
More information
The U.S. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases has more about portions.
One expert nutritionist says you don't have to deprive yourself of favorite yuletide goodies -- just enjoy them in moderation.
Connie Diekman, director of university nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis, offered up some tricks to avoid overindulging.
"The first rule of thumb for eating at holiday gatherings is never go to the party hungry," said Diekman in a prepared statement. "Have a little something healthy before you go -- a piece of fruit, half a sandwich or a glass of milk. Be sure when you arrive that you aren't overly hungry."
When you get to the party, survey the buffet table and think about how you're going to approach it.
"Plan on getting your food off the buffet table and then moving away from the table to eat. Use a plate, and don't stand at the table and pick at the food. Seeing what is on the plate begins the process of realizing how much food is enough for you," Diekman said.
Two-thirds of your plate should be filed with fruits, vegetables and whole-grains. The remaining third can be meats, sauces, and high-fat, high-calorie foods.
If you find it hard to resist everything on the table, try to limit yourself to just small portions of each item.
"It's perfectly fine to do that, as long as you don't gorge yourself. Try some of everything if you have to, but do it in moderation," Diekman said.
"In truth, the [holiday] period is not all that long when taken in the context of an entire year. What people shouldn't do is worry too much and start limiting lots of foods, especially if it's a once-a-year food. If you cut out those things entirely, you'll just end up eating more. Don't cut out those foods, just shift to smaller portions," she said.
It's also important to limit alcohol intake and get exercise, she added.
"Exercise is a great way to combat holiday stress, and it gives you some balance if the eating is a little out of hand. After you've eaten a big meal, let your food digest, and then get out and move around. Take a walk. Try not to sit on the couch all day long," Diekman said.
More information
The U.S. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases has more about portions.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Workouts Help Ward Off Cancer's Return
(HealthDay News) -- For cancer survivors, exercising and maintaining a healthy weight are important factors in preventing malignancy's return, at least for some forms of the disease.
That's the conclusion of an American Cancer Society report that updates nutrition and physical activity recommendations for cancer survivors during and after treatment.
Among the points contained in the report:
For some kinds of cancer, just 1 to 3 hours a week of exercise can lower the risk of cancer recurrence and death, as well as death from all causes. Exercise has also been shown to improve fitness, fatigue, and several other quality of life aspects in cancer survivors.
While a vegetarian diet can help health in some ways, there's no direct evidence that this kind of diet can prevent cancer recurrence. Survivors who eat a vegetarian diet should ensure that they're getting an adequate intake of nutrients.
A standard multivitamin and mineral supplement in amounts equivalent to 100 percent of the Daily Value can help cancer survivors meet their nutrient needs when it's difficult for them to eat a healthy diet. However, some supplements -- such as those with high levels of folic acid or antioxidants -- may be harmful during cancer treatment.
Food safety is especially important for cancer survivors, particularly during treatment that involves immunosuppression.
Alcohol can affect the risk for new primary cancers in certain areas of the body.
The report is published in the November/December issue of CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.
Currently, nearly two out of three cancer patients in the United States live more than five years after their diagnosis. There are more than 10 million Americans who have been diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives.
More information
The U.S. National Cancer Institute has more about life after cancer treatment.
That's the conclusion of an American Cancer Society report that updates nutrition and physical activity recommendations for cancer survivors during and after treatment.
Among the points contained in the report:
For some kinds of cancer, just 1 to 3 hours a week of exercise can lower the risk of cancer recurrence and death, as well as death from all causes. Exercise has also been shown to improve fitness, fatigue, and several other quality of life aspects in cancer survivors.
While a vegetarian diet can help health in some ways, there's no direct evidence that this kind of diet can prevent cancer recurrence. Survivors who eat a vegetarian diet should ensure that they're getting an adequate intake of nutrients.
A standard multivitamin and mineral supplement in amounts equivalent to 100 percent of the Daily Value can help cancer survivors meet their nutrient needs when it's difficult for them to eat a healthy diet. However, some supplements -- such as those with high levels of folic acid or antioxidants -- may be harmful during cancer treatment.
Food safety is especially important for cancer survivors, particularly during treatment that involves immunosuppression.
Alcohol can affect the risk for new primary cancers in certain areas of the body.
The report is published in the November/December issue of CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.
Currently, nearly two out of three cancer patients in the United States live more than five years after their diagnosis. There are more than 10 million Americans who have been diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives.
More information
The U.S. National Cancer Institute has more about life after cancer treatment.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Certain Fatty Acid May Cut Dementia Risk
(HealthDay News) -- Adding further weight to the theory that fish may be brain food, new research found that people with diets rich in fish have a significantly lower risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease.
The key appears to be docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), an omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid that appears to affect dementia risk and to be important for the proper functioning of the central nervous system.
"If you have a high level of DHA, a fatty acid found in fish, it reduced your risk of dementia by about half," said study lead researcher Dr. Ernst J. Schaefer, senior scientist and director of the Lipid Metabolism Laboratory at the Jean Mayer U.S. Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston.
It's known that omega-3 fatty acids protect the heart and the circulatory system. "Just as fish is good for your heart, it's probably good for your brain as well," Schaefer said.
Fatty fish like mackerel, lake trout, herring, sardines, albacore tuna and salmon are high in DHA.
The study findings are published in the November issue of the Archives of Neurology.
In the study, Schaefer and his colleagues collected data on DHA levels and dementia in 899 men and women who were part of the Framingham Heart Study. Over nine years of follow-up, 99 people developed dementia, including 71 with Alzheimer's disease.
The researchers found that people with the highest blood levels of DHA had a 47 percent lower risk of developing dementia and a 39 percent lower risk of developing Alzheimer's, compared with those with lower DHA levels.
Levels of DHA in the blood vary by how much the liver converts alpha-linolenic acid, an essential fatty acid, to DHA and also by the amount of DHA in the diet, the researchers noted.
People with the highest blood levels of DHA said they ate an average of two to three servings of fish a week. People with lower DHA levels ate substantially less fish, the researchers reported.
Schaefer thinks the same benefit can be realized by taking fish-oil supplements. "Everything that we know suggests that supplements would be as effective as eating fish," he said. "Since low fish intake appears to be a risk factor for developing dementia, either eat more fish or use one or two fish oil capsules a day."
However, Schaefer added that a randomized clinical trial is still needed to see if DHA really protects the brain from dementia.
Martha Clare Morris is an epidemiologist at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago and author of an accompanying editorial in the journal. "This is the first study to link blood levels of DHA to protection against Alzheimer's disease," she said, adding that recent animal studies have shown that DHA reduces amyloid plaques -- a hallmark of Alzheimer's -- in the brain and also improves memory.
"There is a lot of animal and biochemical evidence to support what this new study shows," Morris said.
But, she said, she's not sure there is enough data to suggest the value of fish oil supplements. "It looks like the protective benefits from omega-3 fatty acids are at a very low level. There is very little evidence that you get better protection from higher intake," she said. "Whether fish oil supplements are protective is yet to be seen."
Another expert thinks clinical trials are needed to see if DHA really protects against Alzheimer's.
"This shows in a prospective study that DHA is the only plasma lipid to cut the risk for developing dementia a decade or more later," said Greg M. Cole, a neuroscientist at the Greater Los Angeles VA Healthcare System and associate director of the Alzheimer's Disease Research Center at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine.
This apparent protection is associated with eating fish, Cole said. "Other studies have pointed to fish intake as protective but have been far less clear that the omega-3 fatty acids in fish were the factor associated with risk reduction," he said. "This matters because if it is the fat, you could take fish oil supplements and avoid mercury contamination issues."
More information
The Alzheimer's Association can tell you more about Alzheimer's disease.
The key appears to be docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), an omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid that appears to affect dementia risk and to be important for the proper functioning of the central nervous system.
"If you have a high level of DHA, a fatty acid found in fish, it reduced your risk of dementia by about half," said study lead researcher Dr. Ernst J. Schaefer, senior scientist and director of the Lipid Metabolism Laboratory at the Jean Mayer U.S. Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston.
It's known that omega-3 fatty acids protect the heart and the circulatory system. "Just as fish is good for your heart, it's probably good for your brain as well," Schaefer said.
Fatty fish like mackerel, lake trout, herring, sardines, albacore tuna and salmon are high in DHA.
The study findings are published in the November issue of the Archives of Neurology.
In the study, Schaefer and his colleagues collected data on DHA levels and dementia in 899 men and women who were part of the Framingham Heart Study. Over nine years of follow-up, 99 people developed dementia, including 71 with Alzheimer's disease.
The researchers found that people with the highest blood levels of DHA had a 47 percent lower risk of developing dementia and a 39 percent lower risk of developing Alzheimer's, compared with those with lower DHA levels.
Levels of DHA in the blood vary by how much the liver converts alpha-linolenic acid, an essential fatty acid, to DHA and also by the amount of DHA in the diet, the researchers noted.
People with the highest blood levels of DHA said they ate an average of two to three servings of fish a week. People with lower DHA levels ate substantially less fish, the researchers reported.
Schaefer thinks the same benefit can be realized by taking fish-oil supplements. "Everything that we know suggests that supplements would be as effective as eating fish," he said. "Since low fish intake appears to be a risk factor for developing dementia, either eat more fish or use one or two fish oil capsules a day."
However, Schaefer added that a randomized clinical trial is still needed to see if DHA really protects the brain from dementia.
Martha Clare Morris is an epidemiologist at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago and author of an accompanying editorial in the journal. "This is the first study to link blood levels of DHA to protection against Alzheimer's disease," she said, adding that recent animal studies have shown that DHA reduces amyloid plaques -- a hallmark of Alzheimer's -- in the brain and also improves memory.
"There is a lot of animal and biochemical evidence to support what this new study shows," Morris said.
But, she said, she's not sure there is enough data to suggest the value of fish oil supplements. "It looks like the protective benefits from omega-3 fatty acids are at a very low level. There is very little evidence that you get better protection from higher intake," she said. "Whether fish oil supplements are protective is yet to be seen."
Another expert thinks clinical trials are needed to see if DHA really protects against Alzheimer's.
"This shows in a prospective study that DHA is the only plasma lipid to cut the risk for developing dementia a decade or more later," said Greg M. Cole, a neuroscientist at the Greater Los Angeles VA Healthcare System and associate director of the Alzheimer's Disease Research Center at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine.
This apparent protection is associated with eating fish, Cole said. "Other studies have pointed to fish intake as protective but have been far less clear that the omega-3 fatty acids in fish were the factor associated with risk reduction," he said. "This matters because if it is the fat, you could take fish oil supplements and avoid mercury contamination issues."
More information
The Alzheimer's Association can tell you more about Alzheimer's disease.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Starter Body Cleansing Kit $87.85  Kit Includes: 1 Bottle of Oxy Powder®, 1 bottle of Livatrex™ and 1 bottle of Latero-Flora™. Cleanses: One 7-Day Oxygen Colon Cleanse and One Liver & Gallbladder Cleanse. Takes 12 days to complete both cleanses. Dr. Group's Opinion: Easy to Perform, Minimum Dietary Changes, Cost Effective. |
Oxy-Powder® $42.95 Top Quality Colon Cleansing |