Archive for the ‘Healthy eating’ Category

Water, water everywhere and how much should we drink?

Monday, November 29th, 2010

My wife was really looking out for me yesterday. She read and clipped out an article from USA Weekend's HealthSmart section with the title "4 crucial tips for managing

A standard eight-ounce glass of water

your weight." They came from THE DOCTORS, a daytime TV show I've never seen (I don't watch much TV anyway).  The show apparently has four physicians, a pediatrician, an Ob-Gyn doc, an ER doc and a plastic surgeon.

The tips seemed reasonable: drink water; stay consistent; get good sleep and log on to keep pounds off. I've written a post on sleep and weight, believe in consistency (but it's my one sore spot, especially on vacations ), keep a record of my weight on a regular basis (but not online) and drink lots of water.

Now that one caught my eye; I drink three very large glasses (30 oz each) of lime water a day and often drink water before starting to eat. I've read that some think that even the standard recommendation of eight glasses a day is excessive, but my habit started when I had vocal cord issues and a senor speech therapist suggested I drink a large quantity lime-flavored water every day.

my 30-ounce glass next to the standard one

Now there's some data to support my idiosyncrasy of having some water at the start of a meal. A study done by researchers at Virginia Tech and reported at a recent national meeting compared two groups of subjects aged 55 to 70. Both groups were on a low-fat, low calorie diet. The research subjects in one group drank two cups of water before each meal; those in the other group didn't.

This was a twelve week study and the water drinkers lost more weight. Then the scientists followed their progress for a year. Not only did they keep weight off, they even lost a little more.

There's a catch; this doesn't work for young dieters. The speculation is that older people's stomachs empty slower and I'd tie that in with feeling full and choosing not to eat more.

Several other university groups commented on the subject. One said that those who drink water don't drink sugar-filled beverages and, on the average, consume 75 to 90 calories less a day. That adds up over the course of a year; 100 calories less a day would equal a little over ten pounds of weight loss. The other wondered if people who aren't on an actual diet would keep up their water-drinking pattern longterm.

So far I have, for twelve years, but for different reasons. I think I'll be more deliberate in my pre-meal water drinking and see how that helps.

Don't overdo this if you try the idea; too much water intake can be dangerous. Two cups before meals sounds reasonable, but my large water intake isn't for everyone.

Miscellaneous ramblings, centered on portion size and vacations

Tuesday, November 16th, 2010

Today I read a book on "Mindless Eating" and eventually I'll write more about it. But first off it rang a cord for me with a section from a Harvard Health Publication on cutting down on salt. We eat too much salt, too much sugar and too much fat. One of the simplest ways to cut down on those is to diminish your portion sizes.

I don't weigh in on any of the fad diets except to say they won't solve the long-term problem that two out of every three of us have in the United States. I think eliminating something you like won't work very well over the years. So instead, I diet by cutting off a portion of everything on my plate. I can still have a small amount of almost anything; I just don't overeat..except on vacations.

We spend six days on a trip to Texas recently. Our surrogate dad had turned 90 and we wanted to visit him. So part of that trip was with an elderly couple living in a retirement community. Part of it was visiting other friends. Everyone wanted to make sure we were well fed.

We went to restaurants, clubs and dining facilities in the retirement village. There were abundant choices and generally quite good food (though I did miss our fresh fruits and vegetables from our CSA). The problem was my lack of the ability to say NO.

I left home at 150.6 pounds, well within my comfort zone. I returned at 157 pounds and have had to play catch up ever since. I'm almost back to where I started at. I do fine at home; I even mamage local parties and restaurants without a problem. So what happens with a trip?

Ah, I think I have figured out some of the issue; we were with good friends who wanted to treat us to their favorites places to eat. Or, in the case of our older friends, we were eating buffet style. Both situations are diet traps. They require some extra punch in my diet resolve.

So one of my coping mechanisms, one that I have to strengthen for vacations, is portion control. I really didn't eat anything on this trip that I wouldn't otherwise; I just ate more. I have a four by six card that says "Don't overeat." It may appear a little silly, but it's saved me countless times at home or in our area. Even that simple device makes me pause, eliminate the extra scoop of frozen yogurt or the second piece of bread with butter and jam. it's time for the card to be on my packlist.

The pause is the real necessity. In the book I was reading today, just moving a dish of food a distance away, or as we do serving everything in the kitchen so seconds require a trip back from the dining room can help.

Dieting or, in my case, maintaining a weight you've worked to get at, requires some thinking. The pause can let you move away from the mindless eating trap.

The Fifth Taste

Friday, November 12th, 2010

Glutamic acid

I was reading an article in the Harvard's HEALTHbeat, one titled "An assault on salt?" and saw a reference to something I knew next to nothing about, umami--"the so-called fifth taste." That lead me to an April, 2010 publication crafted jointly by Harvard's Department of Nutrition and the other CIA, the Culinary Institute of America. That latter publication, "Strategies for cutting back on salt" is something I'll write about another time. In the meantime I decided to look up  more about umami.

I knew about the other four tastes: sweet, sour, salty and bitter, but had only heard the term umami used in context, not what it meant or how long it's been around. Apparently sweet, sour and salty were the original three recognized tastes, then a Greek philospher, Democritus deduced, probably after eating something he didn't like, that some foods are bitter. And things stayed that way, with four basic tastes (some would add spicy and astringent) until the late ninetenth centurywhen the famous French chef Escoffier invented veal stock.

About the same time a Japanese chemist, Kikunae Ikeda, while trying a seawees soup called dashi, sensed there was another taste. He wrote that it was the component that produced the flavor of meat, seaweed and tomatoes. Eventually, in 1908, he isolated a single chemical, a glutamate and later patented MSG. He used the Japanese word for delicious as the name for this new flavor and synthesized it; perhaps adversely affecting the seaweed industry in doing so. I got some of this from an online extract I found from a book titled Bozo Sapiens: why to err is human by Michael and Ellen Kaplan. I really enjoyed the short piece I read and ordered a copy of the book.

Subsequently scientists have found a receptor for umami; these cells don't have nerve synapses to other nerves, but instead secrete a neurotransmitter, ATP, that excites the sensory fibers which convey taste stimuli to the brain.

So like salt and sugars, food chemists can add umami to fats and induce us to want more and more. David Kessler, MD, JD, the former FDA head, is quoted as saying the standard joke in the restaurant chain business is, "When in doubt, throw cheese and bacon on it." Aged cheese has umami and bacon is said to have six different kinds of umami.

We just ate daikon and beets for dinner, both from our CSA, Grant Family Farms; we'll have grapes for dessert. If umami is a road to obesity and staying away from prepared foods the road to weight control, we were on the mark tonight.

Dietary therapy in hypertension

Friday, November 5th, 2010

High blood pressure, commonly called hypertension by physicians and other medical professionals, is a major problem in the united Sates, Canada and Europe. The numbers are staggering; roughly 30% of the adult population in the US and Canada, over 405 in a survey done in six European countries.

Why is this connected to diet? The incidence figures have gone up over the past twenty years and are most likely closely tied to the increased weight in members of our Western civilization. The consequences of poorly controlled hypertension are dire: strokes, kidney disease, cognitive impairment and heart problems are all more likely in the hypertensive group.

So what came first, the high blood pressure or the increased weight? And what can we do about hypertension?

I read an article in thew June 3rd, 2010 edition of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM 362:2102-2112) and then read a host of comments to the editor that were published in October 2010.

The article itself was something I saw mentioned in the "Harvard heart letter." It seemed fairly straight-forward at first. The two authors, Dr. Frank M. Sacks and Hannia Campos have published lots of research articles together; one is a physician and a senior Harvard professor; the other a PhD and a member of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard. This time they focused on hypertension, beginning with a breif case study, then telling us the astounding figures about high blood pressure and it's consequences.

It isn't just a BP of 140 over 90 and above; any blood pressure over 115 is associated with all those medical problems. Worldwide, according to Sacks and Campos, that level of blood pressure, 115 and above, is the most important determinant of the risk of death. In the cardiovascular arena alone it's a major factor in over seven and a half million deaths a year.

So Sacks and Campos looked at three major factors in this problem: eating a healthy diet, cutting body fat and decreasing salt intake. Once again a diet rich in fruits and veggies, along with low-fat dairy, fish, nuts and poultry were their answer. They looked at the DASH study (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension)  and subsequent diet-therpay studies, mostly those with reduced salt being a major component.

Their conclusions were along the lines I had suspected: people with high blood pressure should reduce their salt intake, eat fish, nuts and legumes instead of red meat, consume more fruits and veggies insated of desserts, eat whole grain products, use healthy oils (olive, canola, soybean etc.) and stay away from juices as substitues for whole friuts.

Well, we do that now, I thought. Then I read the letters to the editor. I've already written a post on iodized salt, but another letter wanted Sacks and Campos to mention the benefits of more potassium in the diet, quoting a study that showed a 50% reduction in the need for BP meds with increased dietary potassium. That one I'd leave up to your own doc; I agree with the general premise...as long as you don't have significant kidney disease.

One of the other letters focused on dietary sugar and sugar-sweetened beverages, with a recent, but not randomized and controlled study, saying that cutting sugar intake lowers blood pressure. And one group of docs didn't seem to have the time for all that; they'd just start the patient on BP meds.

Whew! That was a bit of information overload. I think what I carried away was a lesson learned over and over; we're too fat as a civilization and eat the wrong things. That's unhealthy in many ways. It's time to make a change in both spheres.

Healthy School Snacks

Friday, October 22nd, 2010

I read an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday and then perused lots of background information on the Web. The article itself described the challenges of designing a vending machine that could dispense healthier snacks, especially for schools. I had heard that many school districts and even some states were concerned about the obesity epidemic and wanted to quit offering candy bars and sugared sodas. It's not that easy.

One company now offers a vending machine with two major compartments, one for bananas and the other for fresh-cut fruits and veggies. The banana compartment is kept at 57 degrees and the other area at 34 degrees.  They're working on the issue of keeping the fruit, especially the bananas, from getting bruised when it's selected and falls to the delivery area.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has a website which I found by Googling "Healthy School Snacks." They noted that over a nineteen-year period (1977 to 1996), our kids' calorie consumption from snacks had increased by 120 calories per day. That's roughly equivalent to a ten pound a year weight gain.

They estimated that cost of serving fresh, frozen or canned fruits and veggies would be about 25 cents a day. That's a lot less than their estimates for single-serving bags of potato chips at 69 cents or candy bars at 80 cents.

They gave some suggestions for kid-friendly snacks, including a clever recipe for "Ants on a Log." made by spreading peanut butter on celery sticks and adding raisins.

Then I found the December 2009 Massachusetts Food and Beverage Standards to Promote a Healthier School Environment. They mention the national Action for Healthy Kids (AFHK) initiative (http://www.ActionForHealthyKids.org). That website is well worth looking at, but I concentrated on the Massachusetts plan itself.

A survey done in Massachusetts in 2005 showed over a quarter of students at risk for overweight or already overweight. So state officials and a bevy of advisors were concerned about so-called "competitive foods," which often are high in fats and sugars.  These are sold in vending machines, in school stores or in fundraisers and compete with the well-regulated school lunch and breakfast programs.

Now the state has published a set of well-reasoned guideline for various foods and beverages that might be offered in the schools. The John Stalker Institute website has links for the information.

Take a look, whether you have kids or grandkids in school or not. We need to get behind efforts like this. Adults may be set in their eating habits and reject sound advice; school kids are a captive audience in a sense and their lifetime eating habits can be influenced for their good.

Walmart weighs in on local produce

Friday, October 15th, 2010

Let me start with a disclaimer. I don't have any personal connection with Walmart and I'm aware of the issues that unions, small locally-owned stores and others have had with the corporation. We rarely even set foot in our local Walmart mega-store.  We do have a Sam's Club card and occasionally buy something there, but do most of our non-CSA grocery shopping at another chain entirely.

We've continued to get the majority of our veggies and fruits from our CSA, Grant Family Farms. The organic produce, mostly grown locally, or in the case of apples, regionally has been wonderful. On the other hand, I've been fully aware we're in a minority. There are lots of people who could afford the extra price, but have never tried farmers' markets. Others don't have access to a CSA organization. Many more wouldn't be able to afford the prices even if they wanted to purchase these kinds of groceries. I've seen articles implying governmental support would be needed before this happened.

I doubted that was likely to occur, but wondered if one of the huge grocery chains could start the process of giving making healthier choices available for almost anyone. Now that seems to have started.

A article in the October 14, 2010 edition of the New York Times gave me some measure of optimism in this arena  and some background information that I was unaware of.

Walmart is the world's largest grocer. What it does can influence markets and manufacturers across the  globe. That being said, up until now I hadn't heard much that linked the chain with sustainable agriculture.

Apparently Walmart has been edging toward sustainability goals for five years and set a series of these targets. Now they're turning their sights toward food with a goal of doubling the percentage of produce grown in a given area, actaully the same state a given store is located in.

Still they are only aiming at a 9% local foods goal in the United States. That's a sliver, a nice sliver to be sure, but they're already set much higher targets in Canada (30% by the end of 2013 according to the article).

They're also planning to spend a billion dollars on food from farms much smaller than the enormous ones most of their groceries come from now, cut down on food waste by improving their farm to market shipping patterns, and query their large-scale producers on their use of water, fertilizer and chemicals. There's even a beef-purchase clause in their new plan that is aimed at prevention of further loss of the Amazon forest.

All this will result in more money in the Walmart coffers, but I don't care. They have such incredible clout, on such a wide scale that their new goals will influence agricultural and marketing practices in a major fashion.

It's a good start.

Food Stamps and Obesity

Thursday, October 7th, 2010

In 2004 the state of Minnesota tried, unsuccessfully, to ban the purchase of "junk food" with food stamps. The request was eventually denied by the USDA on rather strange grounds, that it would "perpetuate the myth" that food-stamp users made bad choices in their grocery shopping.

In the meantime the obesity epidemic in the United States rolled on and now, in an article in today's New York Times, I read that the mayor of New York City has asked the federal government for permission to stop food-stamp recipients from purchasing sugared drinks, sodas, of course, being the major culprit in this case.

I'm waiting for the answer, but my bet is the request is denied, although we already, according to the article, ban the use of food stamps to purchase other items that can be health-detrimental, especially cigarettes and alcoholic beverages. The beverage industry will obviously lobby against the plan.  Even the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a non-profit consumer advocacy group with a focus on nutrition and health, food safety, and alcohol policy, suggested we should instead use educational programs to teach food-stamp recipients about the dangers of sugared drinks.

So is Mayor Blomberg in favor of a Big Brother era? He already has lobbied for a state tax on sugared drinks (unsuccessfully), tightened rules on food advertising and brought the city's schools a tougher policy on which food items they can sell.

Yet almost 40% of the kids in NYC's public schools at the K-8th grade level are overweight or obese, with rates still higher in poorer areas of the city. In those same neighborhoods, studies are said to show sugared beverages are consumed at higher rates than in leaner sections of the metro area. Diabetes is twice as prevalent in poor areas of NYC as it is in more affluent ones.

So where do we stop? I totally agree that we're at a crisis point as a society, one fueled by the food industry. I personally deplore the use of food stamps to purchase sugared beverages as much as I do their being used to procure cigarettes and alcohol-containing drinks.  But who gets to decide what our choices are in a free society?

Tough questions without easy answers.

Don't let your burger bug you

Sunday, October 3rd, 2010

Holstein cowThere was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. I read it, decided it good material for my blog and then hunted for background information. The title was "Beef Safety Tests aren't Being Used." It said there were a number of dangerous strains of E. coli in addition to the O157:H7 variety that thousands of people get sick from each year.

That one is well known, causes over 36,000 illness, 1,100 hospitalizations and 30 deaths a year. Our government agencies do test for that strain, but not all possible measures to reduce it are being used.

beef hamburgerFor instance at the huge Cargill plant at Fort Morgan, Colorado, every lot of ground beef has been tested for E. coli O157:H7 before it leaves the plant. Workers take 60 to 75 samples per 2,000-pound to 10,000-pound lot. The meat isn't shipped until it gets the all-clear, a process that takes about 18 hours.

That's pasted in from an article I found on beef testing; I'm amazed at the size of the lots and not overly impressed by the sampling. Cargill is also vaccinating cows for that E. coli strain, but giving two shots instead of the three that testing showed reduced the prevalence of the bacteria by  86% (two shots are cheaper than three, but only 50-60% effective).

They're also trying out some newer methods to cut the prevalence of that E. coli strain.

Then there is Kevin's law.

In 2005, Representative Anna Eshoo of California proposed this regulation nicknamed after a Colorado boy who died in 2001 after eating a hamburger contaminated with O157:H7. It was formally titled the Meat and Poultry Pathogen Reduction and Enforcement Act of 2003.

Kevin's Law would strengthen the U.S. government's ability to prevent contaminated meat and poultry from entering the food supply by:- Requiring the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to identify the pathogens that threaten human health (e.g. Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes).

- Requiring the USDA to establish performance standards to reduce the presence of these pathogens in meat and poultry.

- Confirming that the USDA has the authority to enforce its own standards by shutting down plants that continually breach basic health standards. Courts have held that the USDA does not have this authority in the absence of explicit authorizing legislation.

Corporate meat processors have lobbied against Kevin's Law, arguing that it would increase the cost of food and is unnecessary.

Versions of the bill have been introduced in each subsequent Congress, but as of April 2010 have never been reported out of committee.

Now government officials say there are six E. coli strains that can be just as dangerous. One of those is E. coli O26 and there is a test for that and three of the others, but the USDA doesn't routinely use them. They did recall 8,500 pounds of raw ground beef that was found to be contiminated with E. coli O26 this year.

There's lots more to say on this subject, but I'll do so in a later post. For now it's suggested that you really cook your hamburgers; they shouldn't be at all pink inside. I used to eat rare hamburgers; I sure don't now.

Even the experts don't agree

Friday, September 17th, 2010

Reading the September issue of the scholarly journal, Annals of Internal Medicine, a monthly publication of the American College of Physicians, I came across a marvelously detailed article on low-carb diets. It was a joint effort by the Harvard School of Public Health and the National University of Singapore and examined the results of two huge, long-term projects. It was followed by an editorial review as major articles frequently are in the Annals; the groups reviewing the article were from Duke and the Durham VA Medical Center (staffed by Duke professors in my day there).

The Nurses Health Study prospectively followed 85,168 women, aged from mid-30s to just under 60 initially, for twenty-six years. The Health Porfessional's Follow-up Study did the same for a group of 44,548 men (podiatrists, optometrists, pharmacists, dentists and veterinarians, but not physicians), aged 40 to 75 years initially, for twenty years.

The researchers conclusions were that eating a low carb diet from animal sources led to a higher mortality risk whereas the opposite was true for eating a low carb diet based on vegetable sources.

So far, things seemed reasonable to me, but then the reviewers analyzed the article and tore it apart in many respects. It was the best of times; it was the worst of times, or to paraphrase, it wasn't the best of studies; it wasn't the worst of studies.

The first problem was this wasn't a controlled clinical trial, but just an enormous observational study. Then there were caveats about extra risk factors: sure the men who ate the most animal-based fat were at greater risk for heart-disease deaths, but they also smoked more and exercised less. And low-carb wasn't exactly really low carb; the group eating the least carbs per day really ate a fair amount (nearly 40% of their calories as carbs). And the participants in these studies aren't exactly representative of the broader (no pun intended) US population and weren't put on specific diets at all.

So what did I end up with? Just what I've been saying all along. Eating more veggies and less red meat, exercising more, not smoking...all those make sense. Moderate carb, low carb, this diet, that diet...none of those ideas has been convincingly proven. Actually low-fat hasn't been shown to reduce health outcomes either.

So eat sensibly, try cutting back on red meats and processed meats and be sure to eat your veggies (and fruits). Didn't Mom always say that?

Freeze or puncture your fat cells?

Wednesday, September 15th, 2010

I read a fascinating article in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago, but ended up with several caveats.  The FDA has recently approved two new gadgets that physicians can now use in office-based procedures to get rid of fat.

I had to read that several times before I fully understood what was and what was not going on. Let's talk about the devices themselves first. One freezes fat cells, leading them to shut down over a few months. The other is laser-based and basically punctures fat cells; they then empty out mch of their fat, but don't die.

Wow, that sounds wonderful, but is it? These new therapeutic tools can be used without anesthesia or any major pain, on outpatients and remove fat deposits. The problems are you don't actually lose any weight, the treatments are relatively expensive ($1,500 to $3,000) and they release fat into the blood stream, so it ends up elsewhere.

So let's go back to why someone would want to have such devices used on them in the first place. Fat deposits in our bodies may end up in subcutaneous areas, one such area, fondly named "love handles" by many, would be an example.  They are unsightly and lots of us would like to get rid of them.

Pinch an inch...or more?

Pinch an inch...or more?

On the other hand, fat can be deposited in visceral areas, for instance in and around your heart and liver, and that's much more of a problem.

The "subQ" fat cells can actually be helpful in some senses. They take in fat that's in the bloodstream, package it nicely in large globs and act as storage tanks, releasing the fat when your body needs energy. These are "healthy" fat cells, as opposed to the potentially deadly ones affecting your vital organs.

We've still got a lot to learn about fat cells, but there have been some relatively new discoveries concerning their natural history. Lean folk have perhaps a third the number of fat cells as do the very obese; fat cells die and we get new ones on a regular basis; the distribution of our fat cells changes as we age (less subQ, more visceral). And they produce a number of chemical agents, including estrogen and leptin (the latter influences your appetite).

The issue many experts have with the new tools is serious and would make me want to think twice about having these procedures. One real problem is the what happens to the fat that's released after either device is used; another is what happens to your leptin levels (if they go down, you may want to increase your calorie intake.

All in all I'm not real impressed by either of these brand new modalities. Remember they can remove localized fat deposits, but they don't cause people to lose weight. But I'll bet they get used a lot. Let's look back at this issue in a few years.