Tag Archives: Diet

University of Nottingham study: You don’t have to go cold turkey on red meat to see health benefits

2 Oct

Joanne Marie wrote in the SF Gate article, Ways You Benefit by Eating Meat:

Meat refers to cuts of beef, pork, veal, lamb and poultry — and all but poultry are red meats. These foods provide you with protein, an important nutrient, along with some essential vitamins and minerals. Meat can be high in fat, a nutrient that you should consume in moderation. Choose low-fat meats and prepare them in the healthiest way to get the most benefit from these foods.
Protein
Protein is a nutrient that is critical to keep your body functioning normally. When you consume protein-containing food, your gastrointestinal tract digests it, breaking it down into its building blocks, amino acids. These molecules are absorbed into your blood and travel to all of your cells, which use them to construct many different new proteins. Examples include enzymes that fuel biochemical reactions, structural proteins in your muscles and proteins that control what molecules can enter your cells. Meat is a complete protein source that provides all the essential amino acids, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which also says you should consume about 50 grams of protein daily. In general, a 3-ounce piece of red meat — the serving size recommended by the Mayo Clinic — contains about 21 grams of protein, and poultry has about 15 grams.
Iron
Meat is an excellent source of iron, a mineral required to support human life. When your bone marrow makes new red blood cells, it incorporates iron into hemoglobin, the compound that carries oxygen to all your cells. Your body also adds iron to myoglobin, a compound that allows your muscle cells to use oxygen; other iron-containing compounds support DNA production, immune function and the manufacture of some neurotransmitters. The recommended dietary allowance for iron is 8 milligrams per day for men and 18 milligrams for women under 50; after menopause, the RDA for women is the same as for men. A 3-ounce serving of beef, pork or lamb provides between 1 and 3 milligrams of iron; a similar serving of chicken or turkey contains about 1 milligram of iron.
Other Nutrients
Red meat and poultry contain a number of vitamins. These include vitamin A, which is important for healthy bones, teeth, skin and eyes, and vitamin D, which is critical for calcium metabolism and strong bones. Meat also provides B-complex vitamins, including thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, folic acid and vitamins B-5, B-6 and B-12. Your body uses these vitamins to help produce energy from your food to support your nervous system and keep your heart healthy. In addition to iron, red meat and poultry also provide several other minerals, including magnesium, potassium, selenium and zinc, all of which are needed to help keep your organs functioning well…. https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/ways-benefit-eating-meat-4357.html

A University of Nottingham study finds that meat can be included in a balanced diet.

Science Daily reported the University of Nottingham study: You don’t have to go cold turkey on red meat to see health:

A new study has found that halving the amount red and processed (RPM) meat in the diet can have a significant impact on health, reducing the amount of LDL ‘bad’ cholesterol in the blood which cuts the risk of developing heart disease.
Red and processed meat (RPM) include fresh pork, beef, lamb and veal and meats that have been smoked, cured or preserved (other than freezing) in some way. These meats are typically high in saturated fatty acids which cause an increase in LDL cholesterol. This is the “bad” cholesterol that collects in the walls of blood vessels, where it can cause blockages and raise the chance of a heart attack.
Increasing awareness of the risks associated with eating red and processed meat has led to a growing number of people adopting vegetarian and vegan diets, which cut out meat completely. Researchers at the University of Nottingham wanted to find out if reducing the amount of red meat eaten, rather than cutting it out completely, would have a positive effect on the health of the subjects taking part.
Reducing cholesterol
The results, published today in the journal Food & Function showed that the most significant change was a drop in the amount of LDL cholesterol in the blood, and those with the highest levels in the beginning had the biggest drop. Overall there was an average drop in LDL cholesterol of approximately 10% with men (who tended to have the highest starting values) seeing the biggest change.
For this intervention trial, 46 people agreed to reduce their red meat intake over a period of 12 weeks by substituting it for white meat, fish or a meat substitutes, or by reducing the portion size of their red meat. They kept a food diary during the study and were given blood tests at the beginning and intervals throughout.
Professor Andrew Salter, from the University of Nottingham’s School of Biosciences led the study and says: “With a high saturated fatty acid, content red and processed meat has been linked to heart disease, and other chronic diseases, particularly colon cancer. Studies have shown that in people who eat the most meat, there is a 40% increased risk of them dying due to heart disease. The results of the present study showed that, even in relatively young and healthy individuals, making relatively small changes to RPM intake induced significant changes in LDL cholesterol which, if maintained over a period of time could potentially reduce the risk of developing heart disease.”
As well as reducing levels of LDL cholesterol, reseachers were surprised to also see a drop in white and red cells in the blood.
Dr Liz Simpson from the University of Nottingham’s School of Life Sciences is co-author on the study, she explains: “Meat is a rich source of the micronutrients (vitamins and minerals) required for the manufacture of blood cells, and although it is possible to obtain these nutrients in plant-based diets, our results suggest that those reducing their meat intake need to ensure that their new diet contains a wide variety of fruit, vegetables, pulses and whole grains to provide these nutrients…. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190930101521.htm

Citation:

You don’t have to go cold turkey on red meat to see health benefits
Date: September 30, 2019
Source: University of Nottingham
Summary:
A new study has found that halving the amount red and processed (RPM) meat in the diet can have a significant impact on health, reducing the amount of LDL ‘bad’ cholesterol in the blood which cuts the risk of developing heart disease.

Here is the press release from University of Nottingham:

NEWS RELEASE 30-SEP-2019

You don’t have to go cold turkey on red meat to see health benefits

UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM

A new study has found that halving the amount red and processed (RPM) meat in the diet can have a significant impact on health, reducing the amount of LDL ‘bad’ cholesterol in the blood which cuts the risk of developing heart disease.
Red and processed meat (RPM) include fresh pork, beef, lamb and veal and meats that have been smoked, cured or preserved (other than freezing) in some way. These meats are typically high in saturated fatty acids which cause an increase in LDL cholesterol. This is the “bad” cholesterol that collects in the walls of blood vessels, where it can cause blockages and raise the chance of a heart attack.
Increasing awareness of the risks associated with eating red and processed meat has led to a growing number of people adopting vegetarian and vegan diets, which cut out meat completely. Researchers at the University of Nottingham wanted to find out if reducing the amount of red meat eaten, rather than cutting it out completely, would have a positive effect on the health of the subjects taking part.
Reducing cholesterol
The results, published today in the journal Food & Function showed that the most significant change was a drop in the amount of LDL cholestorol in the blood, and those with the highest levels in the beginning had the biggest drop. Overall there was an average drop in LDL cholesterol of approximately 10% with men (who tended to have the highest starting values) seeing the biggest change.
For this intervention trial, 46 people agreed to reduce their red meat intake over a period of 12 weeks by substituting it for white meat, fish or a meat substitutes, or by reducing the portion size of their red meat. They kept a food diary during the study and were given blood tests at the beginning and intervals throughout.
Professor Andrew Salter, from the University of Nottingham’s School of Biosciences led the study and says: “With a high saturated fatty acid, content red and processed meat has been linked to heart disease, and other chronic diseases, particularly colon cancer. Studies have shown that in people who eat the most meat, there is a 40% increased risk of them dying due to heart disease. The results of the present study showed that, even in relatively young and healthy individuals, making relatively small changes to RPM intake induced significant changes in LDL cholesterol which, if maintained over a period of time could potentially reduce the risk of developing heart disease.”
As well as reducing levels of LDL cholestoral, reseachers were surprised to also see a drop in white and red cells in the blood.
Dr Liz Simpson from the University of Nottingham’s School of Life Sciences is co-author on the study, she explains: “Meat is a rich source of the micronutrients (vitamins and minerals) required for the manufacture of blood cells, and although it is possible to obtain these nutrients in plant-based diets, our results suggest that those reducing their meat intake need to ensure that their new diet contains a wide variety of fruit, vegetables, pulses and whole grains to provide these nutrients.
Professor Salter is also part of the Future Food Beacon at the University of Nottingham which is undertaking research to find more sustainable ways to feed a growing population in a changing climate. He explains: “As well as improving people’s health, reducing the amount of red meat we eat is also important from a food security and sustainability perspective, as livestock production utilizes a large proportion of our natural resources and is a major contributor to greenhouse gas production. Part of our research is centred on finding more sustainable, alternative sources of food that provide us with the protein and other nutrients supplied by meat, but without the negative health and environmental effects ”
###
This study was funded by BBSRC and MRC through the Innovate UK project.
Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

Cathy Fenster, M.Sc, RD wrote in 9 Reasons Why Eating Meat Is Good For Health:

I eat meat daily. I’m not Jewish. I’m not Arabic. What’s the kind of person that doesn’t eat meat? That’s right – I’m not a vegetarian.
Chuck Berry

Where information leads to Hope. © Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©
http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©
http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©
https://drwilda.com/

Lancet study: High intake of dietary fiber and whole grains associated with reduced risk of non-communicable diseases

16 Jan

The Mayo Clinic wrote in Dietary fiber: Essential for a healthy diet:

What is dietary fiber?
Dietary fiber, also known as roughage or bulk, includes the parts of plant foods your body can’t digest or absorb. Unlike other food components, such as fats, proteins or carbohydrates — which your body breaks down and absorbs — fiber isn’t digested by your body. Instead, it passes relatively intact through your stomach, small intestine and colon and out of your body.
Fiber is commonly classified as soluble, which dissolves in water, or insoluble, which doesn’t dissolve.
• Soluble fiber. This type of fiber dissolves in water to form a gel-like material. It can help lower blood cholesterol and glucose levels. Soluble fiber is found in oats, peas, beans, apples, citrus fruits, carrots, barley and psyllium.
• Insoluble fiber. This type of fiber promotes the movement of material through your digestive system and increases stool bulk, so it can be of benefit to those who struggle with constipation or irregular stools. Whole-wheat flour, wheat bran, nuts, beans and vegetables, such as cauliflower, green beans and potatoes, are good sources of insoluble fiber.
The amount of soluble and insoluble fiber varies in different plant foods. To receive the greatest health benefit, eat a wide variety of high-fiber foods.
Benefits of a high-fiber diet
A high-fiber diet:
• Normalizes bowel movements. Dietary fiber increases the weight and size of your stool and softens it. A bulky stool is easier to pass, decreasing your chance of constipation. If you have loose, watery stools, fiber may help to solidify the stool because it absorbs water and adds bulk to stool.
• Helps maintain bowel health. A high-fiber diet may lower your risk of developing hemorrhoids and small pouches in your colon (diverticular disease). Studies have also found that a high-fiber diet likely lowers the risk of colorectal cancer. Some fiber is fermented in the colon. Researchers are looking at how this may play a role in preventing diseases of the colon.
• Lowers cholesterol levels. Soluble fiber found in beans, oats, flaxseed and oat bran may help lower total blood cholesterol levels by lowering low-density lipoprotein, or “bad,” cholesterol levels. Studies also have shown that high-fiber foods may have other heart-health benefits, such as reducing blood pressure and inflammation.
• Helps control blood sugar levels. In people with diabetes, fiber — particularly soluble fiber — can slow the absorption of sugar and help improve blood sugar levels. A healthy diet that includes insoluble fiber may also reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
• Aids in achieving healthy weight. High-fiber foods tend to be more filling than low-fiber foods, so you’re likely to eat less and stay satisfied longer. And high-fiber foods tend to take longer to eat and to be less “energy dense,” which means they have fewer calories for the same volume of food.
• Helps you live longer. Studies suggest that increasing your dietary fiber intake — especially cereal fiber — is associated with a reduced risk of dying from cardiovascular disease and all cancers…. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/fiber/art-20043983

See, Dietary fiber: Why do we need it? https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/146935.php

Science Daily reported: High intake of dietary fiber and whole grains associated with reduced risk of non-communicable diseases

People who eat higher levels of dietary fibre and whole grains have lower rates of non-communicable diseases compared with people who eat lesser amounts, while links for low glycaemic load and low glycaemic index diets are less clear. Observational studies and clinical trials conducted over nearly 40 years reveal the health benefits of eating at least 25g to 29g or more of dietary fibre a day, according to a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in The Lancet.
The results suggest a 15-30% decrease in all-cause and cardiovascular related mortality when comparing people who eat the highest amount of fibre to those who eat the least. Eating fibre-rich foods also reduced incidence of coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer by 16-24%. Per 1,000 participants, the impact translates into 13 fewer deaths and six fewer cases of coronary heart disease.
In addition, a meta-analysis of clinical trials suggested that increasing fibre intakes was associated with lower bodyweight and cholesterol, compared with lower intakes.
The study was commissioned by the World Health Organization to inform the development of new recommendations for optimal daily fibre intake and to determine which types of carbohydrate provide the best protection against non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and weight gain.
Most people worldwide consume less than 20 g of dietary fibre per day. In 2015, the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition recommended an increase in dietary fibre intake to 30 g per day, but only 9% of UK adults manage to reach this target. In the US, fibre intake among adults averages 15 g a day. Rich sources of dietary fibre include whole grains, pulses, vegetables and fruit….
The researchers included 185 observational studies containing data that relate to 135 million person years and 58 clinical trials involving 4,635 adult participants. They focused on premature deaths from and incidence of coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease and stroke, as well as incidence of type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer and cancers associated with obesity: breast, endometrial, esophageal and prostate cancer. The authors only included studies with healthy participants, so the findings cannot be applied to people with existing chronic diseases.
For every 8g increase of dietary fibre eaten per day, total deaths and incidence of coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer decreased by 5-27%. Protection against stroke, and breast cancer also increased. Consuming 25g to 29g each day was adequate but the data suggest that higher intakes of dietary fibre could provide even greater protection.
For every 15g increase of whole grains eaten per day, total deaths and incidence of coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer decreased by 2-19%. Higher intakes of whole grains were associated with a 13-33% reduction in NCD risk — translating into 26 fewer deaths per 1,000 people from all-cause mortality and seven fewer cases of coronary heart disease per 1,000 people. The meta-analysis of clinical trials involving whole grains showed a reduction in bodyweight. Whole grains are high in dietary fibre, which could explain their beneficial effects.
The study also found that diets with a low glycaemic index and low glycaemic load provided limited support for protection against type 2 diabetes and stroke only. Foods with a low glycaemic index or low glycaemic load may also contain added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium. This may account for the links to health being less clear…. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190110184737.htm

Citation:

High intake of dietary fiber and whole grains associated with reduced risk of non-communicable diseases
Date: January 10, 2019
Source: The Lancet
Summary:
Observational studies and clinical trials conducted over nearly 40 years reveal the health benefits of eating at least 25g to 29g or more of dietary fiber a day, according to a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Andrew Reynolds et al, Carbohydrate quality and human health: a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, The Lancet (2019). DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31809-9

Here is the press release from the Lancet:

The Lancet: High intake of dietary fiber and whole grains associated with reduced risk of non-communicable diseases
People who eat higher levels of dietary fiber and whole grains have lower rates of non-communicable diseases compared with people who eat lesser amounts, while links for low glycemic load and low glycemic index diets are less clear
THE LANCET
People who eat higher levels of dietary fibre and whole grains have lower rates of non-communicable diseases compared with people who eat lesser amounts, while links for low glycaemic load and low glycaemic index diets are less clear. Observational studies and clinical trials conducted over nearly 40 years reveal the health benefits of eating at least 25g to 29g or more of dietary fibre a day, according to a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in The Lancet.
The results suggest a 15-30% decrease in all-cause and cardiovascular related mortality when comparing people who eat the highest amount of fibre to those who eat the least. Eating fibre-rich foods also reduced incidence of coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer by 16-24%. Per 1,000 participants, the impact translates into 13 fewer deaths and six fewer cases of coronary heart disease.
In addition, a meta-analysis of clinical trials suggested that increasing fibre intakes was associated with lower bodyweight and cholesterol, compared with lower intakes.
The study was commissioned by the World Health Organization to inform the development of new recommendations for optimal daily fibre intake and to determine which types of carbohydrate provide the best protection against non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and weight gain.
Most people worldwide consume less than 20 g of dietary fibre per day. In 2015, the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition recommended an increase in dietary fibre intake to 30 g per day [1], but only 9% of UK adults manage to reach this target. In the US, fibre intake among adults averages 15 g a day [2]. Rich sources of dietary fibre include whole grains, pulses, vegetables and fruit.
“Previous reviews and meta-analyses have usually examined a single indicator of carbohydrate quality and a limited number of diseases so it has not been possible to establish which foods to recommend for protecting against a range of conditions,” says corresponding author Professor Jim Mann, the University of Otago, New Zealand.
“Our findings provide convincing evidence for nutrition guidelines to focus on increasing dietary fibre and on replacing refined grains with whole grains. This reduces incidence risk and mortality from a broad range of important diseases.” [3]
The researchers included 185 observational studies containing data that relate to 135 million person years and 58 clinical trials involving 4,635 adult participants. They focused on premature deaths from and incidence of coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease and stroke, as well as incidence of type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer and cancers associated with obesity: breast, endometrial, oesophageal and prostate cancer. The authors only included studies with healthy participants, so the findings cannot be applied to people with existing chronic diseases.
For every 8g increase of dietary fibre eaten per day, total deaths and incidences of coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer decreased by 5-27%. Protection against stroke, and breast cancer also increased. Consuming 25g to 29g each day was adequate but the data suggest that higher intakes of dietary fibre could provide even greater protection.
For every 15g increase of whole grains eaten per day, total deaths and incidences of coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer decreased by 2-19%. Higher intakes of whole grains were associated with a 13-33% reduction in NCD risk – translating into 26 fewer deaths per 1,000 people from all-cause mortality and seven fewer cases of coronary heart disease per 1,000 people. The meta-analysis of clinical trials involving whole grains showed a reduction in bodyweight. Whole grains are high in dietary fibre, which could explain their beneficial effects.
The study also found that diets with a low glycaemic index and low glycaemic load provided limited support for protection against type 2 diabetes and stroke only. Foods with a low glycaemic index or low glycaemic load may also contain added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium. This may account for the links to health being less clear.
“The health benefits of fibre are supported by over 100 years of research into its chemistry, physical properties, physiology and effects on metabolism. Fibre-rich whole foods that require chewing and retain much of their structure in the gut increase satiety and help weight control and can favourably influence lipid and glucose levels. The breakdown of fibre in the large bowel by the resident bacteria has additional wide-ranging effects including protection from colorectal cancer.” says Professor Jim Mann. [3]
While their study did not show any risks associated with dietary fibre, the authors note that high intakes might have ill-effects for people with low iron or mineral levels, for whom high levels of whole grains can further reduce iron levels. They also note that the study mainly relates to naturally-occurring fibre rich foods rather than synthetic and extracted fibre, such as powders, that can be added to foods.
Commenting on the implications and limitations of the study, Professor Gary Frost, Imperial College London, UK, says, “[The authors] report findings from both prospective cohort studies and randomised controlled trials in tandem. This method enables us to understand how altering the quality of carbohydrate intake in randomised controlled trials affects non-communicable disease risk factors and how these changes in diet quality align with disease incidence in prospective cohort studies. This alignment is seen beautifully for dietary fibre intake, in which observational studies reveal a reduction in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, which is associated with a reduction in bodyweight, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure reported in randomised controlled trials… There are some important considerations that arise from this Article. First, total carbohydrate intake was not considered in the systematic review and meta-analysis… Second, although the absence of association between glycaemic index and load with non-communicable disease and risk factors is consistent with another recent systematic review, caution is needed when interpreting these data, as the number of studies is small and findings are heterogeneous. Third, the absence of quantifiable and objective biomarkers for assessing carbohydrate intake means dietary research relies on self-reported intake, which is prone to error and misreporting. Improving the accuracy of dietary assessment is a priority area for nutrition research. The analyses presented by Reynolds and colleagues provides compelling evidence that dietary fibre and whole grain are major determinants of numerous health outcomes and should form part of public health policy.”
###
NOTES TO EDITORS
Peer-reviewed / Meta-analysis and systematic review / People
This study was funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand, the WHO, the Riddet Centre of Research Excellence, the Healthier Lives National Science Challenge, the University of Otago, and the Otago Southland Diabetes Research Trust. It was conducted by researchers from the University of Otago, the Riddet Centre of Research Excellence, and the University of Dundee.
The labels have been added to this press release as part of a project run by the Academy of Medical Sciences seeking to improve the communication of evidence. For more information, please see: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/AMS-press-release-labelling-system-GUIDANCE.pdf if you have any questions or feedback, please contact The Lancet press office pressoffice@lancet.com
[1] Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445503/SACN_Carbohydrates_and_Health.pdf
[2] https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/increasing_fiber_intake/
[3] Quote direct from author and cannot be found in the text of the Article.
Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

Although, there are minimum suggested daily minimum requirements, one should not overdue the daily intake of fiber.

Lauretta Claussen wrote in the SFGATE article, What Is Maximum Fiber Intake Per Day?

Too Much Fiber
Though fiber is beneficial, there is some risk of negative side effects from eating too much. Excessive amounts of fiber can bind with certain minerals such as calcium, iron, zinc and magnesium, interfering with absorption, warns the University of Maryland Medical Center. However, there is no upper limit set for how much fiber one can safely consume daily. Achieving dangerous levels from food intake alone would be difficult, and would most likely come as a result of excessive fiber supplement use.
Intestinal Problems
Though it is difficult to eat too much fiber, there is a risk of intestinal side effects from eating too much fiber at one sitting. Stomach cramps, gas and bloating can all occur when a dramatic fiber intake occurs suddenly. Once the natural bacteria in the digestive system gets accustomed to a high-fiber diet, these symptoms will likely subside.
Recommended Levels
The average American diet contains far too little fiber. Older children and adults should consume 20 to 35 grams of fiber daily, though most only get approximately 10 to 15. If you find you need to increase your daily fiber, do so slowly– over six to eight weeks– in order to avoid side effects. Drinking at least eight glasses of water daily will also help reduce the risk of negative side effects…. https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/maximum-fiber-intake-per-day-7061.html

The key concept is moderation.

Resources:

Minimum Daily Fiber Requirements                               https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/minimum-daily-fiber-requirements-4436.html

Fiber: How Much Is Too Much?                                   https://www.everydayhealth.com/hs/guide-to-daily-fiber/too-much-fiber/

Where information leads to Hope. © Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©
http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©
http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©
https://drwilda.com/

Tufts University study: Little to no association between butter consumption, chronic disease or total mortality

10 Jul

People are concerned about the effects of fat consumption on overall health. Rochelle Bilow wrote in the Bon Appétit article Is Butter Good for You? Or Bad? What Does Science Say?

It’s time we got to the bottom of things. It’s time to finally, once and for all (sorta), answer the question: What does science say about butter? We combed through a century and a half of scientific studies to find every claim, counter-claim, and counter-counter-claim made about this delicious fat—and its slightly less delicious cousin, margarine.

1855 Americans should use oil instead of butter—because butter may be obsolete. In fact, butter is purely “respiratory,” a food that, like “sugar, starch, and alcohol, goes merely to form fat.” But wait: Maybe butter’s okay if it’s, um, fermented? Storing your butter in a “strong brine” could help it to keep for up to a year.

1884 Margarine can cause your teeth to loosen, your skin to crack, and your hair to fall out. Also, the adulteration of butter (by adding other fat solids) is a damn shame, and because it’s being tampered with, nobody wants to eat it anymore.

1886 Margarine is manufactured under no restrictions; it’s bad for dairymen, and bad for your health.

1901 There’s a lot of bacteria in butter; salted varieties keep better, so you should eat those instead of unsalted varieties.

1913 Butter’s so bad for you that it gets banned from Vassar College (along with cotton mattresses). Also, butter could carry disease. You should eat margarine.

1928 Americans eating margarine instead of butter (and also eating “five times more” potatoes) will reduce the U.S. mortality rate.

1948 Butter and margarine are equally healthy (or equally unhealthy).

1979 Butter is probably better for you than margarine, because butter hasn’t been “chemically tampered with.”

1984 Cholesterol is BAD and butter is the cause.

1990 Butter is worse for men’s cholesterol levels than vegetable oils. Also, margarine is a better choice than butter, so long as its fat levels are under 30 percent trans. Butter is the MOST DANGEROUS fat.

1993 Whether it’s butter or margarine, solid and semi-solid fats are worse for you than are natural oils.

1998 Low-trans-fat margarine is totally better for you than butter. Actually, no. Butter is better, because it’s a fresh, real food. Gah—what to believe!? Margarine apparently improves your “blood lipid profiles” better than butter. Well, that’s something, we guess.

2000 Butter can actually protect you against pretty much every ill, including heart disease, cancer, arthritis, and osteoporosis; butter—or actually the vitamins it contains—is essential for your health.

2002 If you’re overweight (and a rat), eating butter will make you fatter. If you’re thin (and a rat), it’ll make you skinnier.

2004 Eating butter most likely won’t increase your chances for getting breast cancer—but it may increase your ovarian cancer risk.

2006 Butter’s a little bit unhealthy (saturated fats), but so is margarine (trans fats). You should probably just use olive oil instead.

2007 To raise your good cholesterol and lower your bad cholesterol, replace carbohydrates with fat. But this only works with unsaturated fat—so limit that butter.

2008 Artificial butter is harmful to your lungs—if inhaled.

2009 Eating butter may reduce your risk of heart attack.

2010 Margarine is a smarter choice than butter, but butter is a better choice than olive and canola oils, which raise the fats in your blood stream significantly more after eating.

2011 Butter (and cod liver oil) can help halt and reverse tooth decay.

2012 The saturated fat in butter can slow down your cognitive ability.

2013 The removal of saturated fat—that’d be butter—from our diet has made cardiovascular disease more prevalent. Although! People who eat more vegetable fats than animal fats have higher death rates.

2014 Butter—and other full-fat foods—may help us lose weight. In other good news, a new study says there is definitely no link between the saturated fat in butter and heart disease. But wait: Some big flaws with that study prove that there may be a thread of connection between butter and disease after all. No. Wait again. Butter really is okay. Just in moderation, and as a part of a balanced diet….                         http://www.bonappetit.com/entertaining-style/trends-news/article/butter-studies-roundup

Tufts University researched the association between butter consumption and disease.

Science Daily reported in Little to no association between butter consumption, chronic disease or total mortality:

Butter consumption was only weakly associated with total mortality, not associated with cardiovascular disease, and slightly inversely associated (protective) with diabetes, according to a new epidemiological study which analyzed the association of butter consumption with chronic disease and all-cause mortality. This systematic review and meta-analysis, published in PLOS ONE, was led by Tufts scientists including Laura Pimpin, Ph.D., former postdoctoral fellow at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts in Boston, and senior author Dariush Mozaffarian, M.D., Dr.P.H., dean of the School.

Based on a systematic review and search of multiple online academic and medical databases, the researchers identified nine eligible research studies including 15 country-specific cohorts representing 636,151 unique individuals with a total of 6.5 million person-years of follow-up. Over the total follow-up period, the combined group of studies included 28,271 deaths, 9,783 cases of cardiovascular disease, and 23,954 cases of new-onset type 2 diabetes. The researchers combined the nine studies into a meta-analysis of relative risk.

Butter consumption was standardized across all nine studies to 14 grams/day, which corresponds to one U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated serving of butter (or roughly one tablespoon). Overall, the average butter consumption across the nine studies ranged from roughly one-third of a serving per day to 3.2 servings per day. The study found mostly small or insignificant associations of each daily serving of butter with total mortality, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.

“Even though people who eat more butter generally have worse diets and lifestyles, it seemed to be pretty neutral overall,” said Pimpin, now a data analyst in public health modelling for the UK Health Forum. “This suggests that butter may be a “middle-of-the-road” food: a more healthful choice than sugar or starch, such as the white bread or potato on which butter is commonly spread and which have been linked to higher risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease; and a worse choice than many margarines and cooking oils — those rich in healthy fats such as soybean, canola, flaxseed, and extra virgin olive oils — which would likely lower risk compared with either butter or refined grains, starches, and sugars….”                                                                     https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160629145200.htm

Citation:

Little to no association between butter consumption, chronic disease or total mortality

Date:               June 29, 2016

Source:           Tufts University, Health Sciences Campus

Summary:

An epidemiological study analyzing the association of butter consumption with chronic disease and mortality finds that butter was only weakly associated with total mortality, not associated with heart disease, and slightly inversely associated (protective) with diabetes.

Journal Reference:

  1. Pimpin L, Wu JHY, Haskelberg H, Del Gobbo L, Mozaffarian D. Is Butter Back? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Butter Consumption and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, and Total Mortality. PLOS ONE, June 2016 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158118

PLoS One. 2016 Jun 29;11(6):e0158118. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158118. eCollection 2016.

Is Butter Back? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Butter Consumption and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, and Total Mortality.

Pimpin L1, Wu JH2, Haskelberg H2, Del Gobbo L1,3, Mozaffarian D1.

Author information

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Dietary guidelines recommend avoiding foods high in saturated fat. Yet, emerging evidence suggests cardiometabolic benefits of dairy products and dairy fat. Evidence on the role of butter, with high saturated dairy fat content, for total mortality, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes remains unclear. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the association of butter consumption with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes in general populations.

METHODS AND FINDINGS:

We searched 9 databases from inception to May 2015 without restriction on setting, or language, using keywords related to butter consumption and cardiometabolic outcomes. Prospective cohorts or randomized clinical trials providing estimates of effects of butter intake on mortality, cardiovascular disease including coronary heart disease and stroke, or diabetes in adult populations were included. One investigator screened titles and abstracts; and two reviewed full-text articles independently in duplicate, and extracted study and participant characteristics, exposure and outcome definitions and assessment methods, analysis methods, and adjusted effects and associated uncertainty, all independently in duplicate. Study quality was evaluated by a modified Newcastle-Ottawa score. Random and fixed effects meta-analysis pooled findings, with heterogeneity assessed using the I2 statistic and publication bias by Egger’s test and visual inspection of funnel plots. We identified 9 publications including 15 country-specific cohorts, together reporting on 636,151 unique participants with 6.5 million person-years of follow-up and including 28,271 total deaths, 9,783 cases of incident cardiovascular disease, and 23,954 cases of incident diabetes. No RCTs were identified. Butter consumption was weakly associated with all-cause mortality (N = 9 country-specific cohorts; per 14g(1 tablespoon)/day: RR = 1.01, 95%CI = 1.00, 1.03, P = 0.045); was not significantly associated with any cardiovascular disease (N = 4; RR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.98, 1.02; P = 0.704), coronary heart disease (N = 3; RR = 0.99, 95%CI = 0.96, 1.03; P = 0.537), or stroke (N = 3; RR = 1.01, 95%CI = 0.98, 1.03; P = 0.737), and was inversely associated with incidence of diabetes (N = 11; RR = 0.96, 95%CI = 0.93, 0.99; P = 0.021). We did not identify evidence for heterogeneity nor publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS:

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests relatively small or neutral overall associations of butter with mortality, CVD, and diabetes. These findings do not support a need for major emphasis in dietary guidelines on either increasing or decreasing butter consumption, in comparison to other better established dietary priorities; while also highlighting the need for additional investigation of health and metabolic effects of butter and dairy fat.

PMID:

27355649

DOI:

10.1371/journal.pone.0158118

Here is the press release from Tufts University:

Little to no association between butter consumption and chronic disease or total mortality

For More Information or to Request a Photo from this News Release, Contact:

Siobhan Gallagher

siobhan.gallagher@tufts.edu

617.636.6586

BOSTON—Butter consumption was only weakly associated with total mortality, not associated with cardiovascular disease, and slightly inversely associated (protective) with diabetes, according to a new epidemiological study which analyzed the association of butter consumption with chronic disease and all-cause mortality. This systematic review and meta-analysis, published in PLOS ONE, was led by Tufts scientists including Laura Pimpin, Ph.D., former postdoctoral fellow at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts in Boston, and senior author Dariush Mozaffarian, M.D., Dr.P.H., dean of the School.

Based on a systematic review and search of multiple online academic and medical databases, the researchers identified 9 eligible research studies including 15 country-specific cohorts representing 636,151 unique individuals with a total of 6.5 million person-years of follow-up. Over the total follow-up period, the combined group of studies included 28,271 deaths, 9,783 cases of cardiovascular disease, and 23,954 cases of new-onset type 2 diabetes. The researchers combined the nine studies into a meta-analysis of relative risk.

Butter consumption was standardized across all nine studies to 14grams/day, which corresponds to one U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated serving of butter (or roughly one tablespoon). Overall, the average butter consumption across the nine studies ranged from roughly one-third of a serving per day to 3.2 servings per day. The study found mostly small or insignificant associations of each daily serving of butter with total mortality, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.

“Even though people who eat more butter generally have worse diets and lifestyles, it seemed to be pretty neutral overall,” said Pimpin, now a data analyst in public health modelling for the UK Health Forum. “This suggests that butter may be a “middle-of-the-road” food: a more healthful choice than sugar or starch, such as the white bread or potato on which butter is commonly spread and which have been linked to higher risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease; and a worse choice than many margarines and cooking oils – those rich in healthy fats such as soybean, canola, flaxseed, and extra virgin olive oils – which would likely lower risk compared with either butter or refined grains, starches, and sugars.”

“Overall, our results suggest that butter should neither be demonized nor considered “back” as a route to good health,” said Mozaffarian. “More research is needed to better understand the observed potential lower risk of diabetes, which has also been suggested in some other studies of dairy fat. This could be real, or due to other factors linked to eating butter – our study does not prove cause-and-effect.”

Additional authors of this study are Jason HY Wu, M.Sc., Ph.D., and Hila Haskelberg, Ph.D., both of The George Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney, Australia; and Liana Del Gobbo, Ph.D., formerly a postdoctoral fellow at the Friedman School and currently a research fellow in cardiovascular medicine at Stanford School of Medicine.

This work was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health, under award number 5R01HL085710. For conflicts of interest disclosure, please see the study.

Pimpin L, Wu JHY, Haskelberg H, Del Gobbo L, Mozaffarian D (2016) Is Butter Back? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Butter Consumption and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, and Total Mortality. PLoS ONE 11(6): e0158118. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158118

About the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University

The Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University is the only independent school of nutrition in the United States. The school’s eight degree programs – which focus on questions relating to nutrition and chronic diseases, molecular nutrition, agriculture and sustainability, food security, humanitarian assistance, public health nutrition, and food policy and economics – are renowned for the application of scientific research to national and international policy.

# # #

Related Links

https://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/little-no-association-between-butter-consumption-and-chronic-disease-or-total

Reactions to study:

Prof Tom Sanders, Professor emeritus of Nutrition and Dietetics, King’s College London, said:

“A significant limitation of this review is that some of the prospective studies adjusted for difference in serum cholesterol at baseline as well as other aspects of diet, including a healthy eating index and the intake of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids.

“However, the finding is not surprising as 14g butter per day would only be expected to change blood cholesterol level by 1% and this alone would have an imperceptible effect on risk of CVD.

“The studies were also unable to make any allowance for butter in processed foods such as cake and biscuits.

“There is some speculation in the discussion that butter may provide extra vitamin D. However, this is mistaken as butter is a poor source of vitamin D and it is margarine that is fortified with vitamin D.

“Generally, I agree with the review that it is the overall dietary pattern that matters rather than the intake of specific food items.”

 

Prof Pete Wilde, Research Leader, Food and Health Programme, Institute of Food Research, said:

“This study appears to add to the evidence that whilst many dairy products can be beneficial to health when consumed in moderation, higher fat products can mitigate this beneficial effect, so this certainly isn’t carte blanche to consume large amounts of butter. This study was normalised to a 14g per day intake (which is roughly an average intake) but other studies show a dose response indicating an increased risk with increased intake of high fat dairy products.

“As mentioned in the article, the consumption of many dairy products has been linked with a range of positive health benefits. The biggest effects are seen with lower fat dairy products, but some positive effects are also seen with cheese consumption. These products have a much lower fat content than butter, and it is thought that the positive health effects are linked to the water soluble compounds such as the vitamin, mineral and protein content. Butter on the other hand consists of about 80% milk fat, with only 20% water, so a lot of the protein, minerals etc. are lost. The fat is also high in saturated fat but does contain a fair amount of the fat soluble vitamins, especially vitamin A.

“Other studies have also shown that high fat dairy products give a small increase in risk of CVD, and are neutral in terms of total mortality, but lower fat content dairy products are linked to reduced risk overall. Other analyses also show some U shaped curves, with moderate consumption reducing risk, but higher levels of consumption could lead to an increased risk.

“Also, it is not clear how associated lifestyle affects this relationship. It could be that consumers of butter also consume a range of other dairy products.”

 

Tracy Parker, Heart Health Dietitian at the British Heart Foundation, said:

“Understanding the true relationship between diet and our health is difficult, but we know that replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fats seems to have a positive impact on our heart health and this is recognised by the authors of this study.

“Whilst the findings of this review indicate a small or neutral association between butter consumption and increased cardiovascular risk, it does not give us the green light to start eating more butter. More investigations are needed into the effects of saturated fat.

“What we do know is fat is just one element of our diet. There are many factors which cause cardiovascular disease and no single food or nutrient is solely responsible for this. To protect your heart health we would recommend a balanced Mediterranean style diet rich in fruit, vegetables and pulses.”

* ‘Is butter back? A systematic review and meta-analysis of butter consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and total mortality’ by Laura Pimpin et al. will be published in PLOS ONE  on Wednesday 29 June 2016.

 

Declared interests

Prof Tom Sanders: “Prof Tom Sanders is a Scientific Governor of the charity British Nutrition Foundation, member of the scientific advisory committee of the Natural Hydration Council (which promotes the drinking of water), and honorary Nutritional Director of the charity HEART UK. Prof. Tom Sanders is now emeritus but when he was doing research at King’s College London, the following applied: Tom does not hold any grants or have any consultancies with companies involved in the production or marketing of sugar-sweetened drinks. In reference to previous funding to Tom’s institution: £4.5 million was donated to King’s College London by Tate & Lyle in 2006; this funding finished in 2011. This money was given to the College and was in recognition of the discovery of the artificial sweetener sucralose by Prof. Hough at the Queen Elizabeth College (QEC), which merged with King’s College London. The Tate & Lyle grant paid for the Clinical Research Centre at St Thomas’ that is run by the Guy’s & St Thomas’ Trust, it was not used to fund research on sugar. Tate & Lyle sold their sugar interests to American Sugar so the brand Tate & Lyle still exists but it is no longer linked to the company Tate & Lyle PLC, which gave the money to King’s College London in 2006. Tom also used to work for Ajinomoto on aspartame about 8 years ago.  Tom was a member of the FAO/WHO Joint Expert Committee that recommended that trans fatty acids be removed from the human food chain. Tom has previously acted as a member of the Global Dairy Platform Scientific Advisory Panel and Tom is a member of the Programme Advisory Committee of the Malaysian Palm Oil Board. In the past Tom has acted as a consultant to Archer Daniel Midland Company and received honoraria for meetings sponsored by Unilever PLC. Tom’s research on fats was funded by Public Health England/Food Standards Agency.”

Prof Pete Wilde: “I don’t think I have any relevant interests to declare.  I am employed by the Institute of Food Research, member of the Royal Society of Chemistry, and treasurer of its Food Group committee.  My funding comes mainly from the BBSRC, and other governmental sources. I do have a small amount of industry funding, but nothing to do with dairy products, and concerns sensory aspects of food structures and not with nutrition and health. I have no position outside of the IFR with any decision making or policy changing powers. I am an honorary Professor at the University of East Anglia (School of Pharmacy).”

Tracy Parker: “No interests to declare.”

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-paper-looking-at-butter-consumption-and-cardiovascular-disease-diabetes-and-mortality/

Obviously, the Tufts University study is a piece in answering the questions about the health effects of butter consumption.

Kris Gunnars, BSc wrote in 7 Reasons Why Butter is Healthy in Moderation:

Despite having been demonized in the past, butter (especially from grass-fed cows) is actually pretty healthy.

That being said, there is no reason to go out of your way to eat more of it.

Butter in small amounts is fine, but it may cause problems if you eat way too much (for example, by adding a few tablespoons to your morning coffee).

Plus, it is not as healthy as extra virgin olive oil, which is the world’s healthiest fat.                 https://authoritynutrition.com/7-reasons-why-butter-is-good-for-you/

The key concept is moderation.

Where information leads to Hope. © Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©

http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©

http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©

https://drwilda.com/

 

Touro University and University of San Francisco study: Cutting sugar improves obese children’s health in 10 days

31 Oct

Patti Neighmond reported in the NPR story, It Takes More Than A Produce Aisle To Refresh A Food Desert http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/02/10/273046077/takes-more-than-a-produce-aisle-to-refresh-a-food-desert In other words, much of the obesity problem is due to personal life style choices and the question is whether government can or should regulate those choices. The issue is helping folk to want to make healthier food choices even on a food stamp budget. See, Cheap Eats: Cookbook Shows How To Eat Well On A Food Stamp Budget http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/08/01/337141837/cheap-eats-cookbook-shows-how-to-eat-well-on-a-food-stamp-budget A University of Buffalo study reported that what a baby eats depends on the social class of the mother.

Roberto A. Ferdman of the Washington Post wrote in the article, The stark difference between what poor babies and rich babies eat:

The difference between what the rich and poor eat in America begins long before a baby can walk, or even crawl.
A team of researchers at the University at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences found considerable differences in the solid foods babies from different socioeconomic classes were being fed. Specifically, diets high in sugar and fat were found to be associated with less educated mothers and poorer households, while diets that more closely followed infant feeding guidelines were linked to higher education and bigger bank accounts.

“We found that differences in dietary habits start very early,” said Xiaozhong Wen, the study’s lead author.
The researchers used data from the Infant Feeding Practices study, an in depth look at baby eating habits, which tracked the diets of more than 1,500 infants up until age one, and documented which of 18 different food types—including breast milk, formula, cow’s milk, other milk (like soy milk), other dairy foods (like yogurt), other soy foods (like tofu), 100 percent fruit or vegetable juice, and sweet drinks, among others – their mothers fed them. Wen’s team at the University at Buffalo focused on what the infants ate over the course of a week at both 6- and 12-months old.

In many cases, infants were fed foods that would surprise even the least stringent of mothers. Candy, ice cream, soda, and french fries, for instance, were among the foods some of the babies were being fed. Researchers divided the 18 different food types into four distinct categories, two of which were ideal for infant consumption—”formula” and “infant guideline solids”—two of which were not—”high/sugar/fat/protein” and “high/regular cereal.” It became clear which babies tended to be fed appropriately, and which did not….
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/04/the-stark-difference-between-what-poor-babies-and-rich-babies-eat/

Science Daily reported in What do American babies eat? A lot depends on Mom’s socioeconomic background:

Dietary patterns of babies vary according to the racial, ethnic and educational backgrounds of their mothers, pediatrics researchers have found. For example, babies whose diet included more breastfeeding and solid foods that adhere to infant guidelines from international and pediatric organizations were associated with higher household income — generally above $60,000 per year — and mothers with higher educational levels ranging from some college to post-graduate education. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141030133532.htm

Cutting sugar in a child’s diet is important to improving the child’s health.

Stephen Feller reported in Cutting sugar improves obese children’s health in 10 days:

Decreasing the amount of sugar in obese children’s diets reduced several metabolic diseases in a recent study in as little as 10 days, suggesting parents pay more attention to sugar intake than calories when making changes to their kids’ diets.
Metabolic syndrome is a group of diseases that occur together, including high blood pressure, high glucose, excess fat around the waist, and abnormal cholesterol levels, that can lead to heart disease, stroke and diabetes.

Fatty liver disease and type 2 diabetes, diseases associated with metabolic syndrome, are now also being found in children, researchers said, because of obesity and other conditions potentially caused by poor diets.
Researchers sought to find whether the cumulative results of metabolic disease could be blamed on obesity, calories or something else in the diet, finding that restricting sugar among children but maintaining their normal daily caloric intake reduced symptoms of metabolic disease and even resulted in weight loss….

The researchers worked with 44 children between the ages of 9 and 18, 27 were Hispanic and 16 were black, and all were obese and showed symptoms of metabolic syndrome. Participants were asked to consume a specific diet for nine days that maintained protein, fat, and carbohydrates but reduced dietary sugar from 28 percent of their diet to 10 percent.

The sugar taken out of the children’s diets was replaced with starches such as bagels, cereal and pasta, though they were still permitted to eat fruit. The researchers also note the diets were intentionally dominated with “kid food” — turkey hot dogs, potato chips and pizza — bought at local supermarkets.

Throughout the nine-day study, participants weighed themselves and underwent testing on day 0 and day 10, or before and after started the diet. Following the diet, researchers reported decreases in blood pressure, triglycerides, bad cholesterol, fasting glucose and insulin levels, and improvement in liver function.

Although some children also exhibited weight loss, on average 1 percent of body weight throughout the study, researchers increased caloric intake to maintain weight during the study….http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2015/10/27/Cutting-sugar-improves-obese-childrens-health-in-10-days/5161445946897/

Citation:

Isocaloric fructose restriction and metabolic improvement in children with obesity and metabolic syndrome

1. Robert H. Lustig1,*,
2. Kathleen Mulligan2,3,
3. Susan M. Noworolski4,
4. Viva W. Tai2,
5. Michael J. Wen2,
6. Ayca Erkin-Cakmak1,
7. Alejandro Gugliucci3 and
8. Jean-Marc Schwarz5

Article first published online: 26 OCT 2015
DOI: 10.1002/oby.21371
© 2015 The Obesity Society

Obesity

Early View (Online Version of Record published before inclusion in an issue)
How to CiteAuthor InformationPublication HistoryFunding Information
1. Funding agencies: NIH (R01DK089216), UCSF CTSI (NCATS-UL1-TR00004), and Touro University.
2. Disclosure: The authors declared no conflict of interest.
3. Author contributions: All authors had access to the study data and are responsible for the conclusions. Study concept and design: Lustig, Schwarz, Mulligan; acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: all authors; drafting of the manuscript: Lustig; critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: all authors; statistical analysis: Erkin-Cakmak, Mulligan; obtained funding: Lustig, Schwarz, Noworolski, Gugliucci, Mulligan; administrative, technical, or material support: Lustig, Schwarz, Mulligan, Gugliucci, Tai, Wen; study supervision: Lustig, Schwarz, Mulligan.

Here is the press release from Touro University:

For Immediate Release

Contact: Andrea E. Garcia:
W: (707) 638-5272
C: (707) 704-6101
Contact: Jennifer O’Brien, Asst. Vice Chancellor/Public Affairs
W: (415) 502-6397
UC San Francisco

RELEASED JOINTLY BY UC SAN FRANCISCO AND TOURO UNIVERSITY

Obese Children’s Health Rapidly Improves with Sugar Reduction Unrelated to Calories
Study indicates that calories are not created equal; sugar and fructose are dangerous

(Vallejo, CA – October 27, 2015) – Reducing consumption of added sugar, even without reducing calories or losing weight, has the power to reverse a cluster of chronic metabolic diseases, including high cholesterol and blood pressure, in children in as little as 10 days, according to a study by researchers at Touro University California and UC San Francisco.
“I have never seen results as striking or significant in our human studies; after only nine days of fructose restriction, the results are dramatic and consistent from subject to subject,” said Jean-Marc Schwarz, PhD of the College of Osteopathic Medicine at Touro University California and senior author of the paper. “These findings support the idea that it is essential for parents to evaluate sugar intake and to be mindful of the health effects of what their children are consuming.”

Lead author Robert Lustig, MD, MSL, pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital San Francisco added, “This study definitively shows that sugar is metabolically harmful not because of its calories or its effects on weight; rather sugar is metabolically harmful because it’s sugar,” he said. “This internally controlled intervention study is a solid indication that sugar contributes to metabolic syndrome, and is the strongest evidence to date that the negative effects of sugar are not because of calories or obesity.”

The paper will appear online on October 27, and in the February 2016 issue of the journal Obesity.

Restricting Sugar Intake
Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of conditions — increased blood pressure, high blood glucose level, excess body fat around the waist, and abnormal cholesterol levels — that occur together and increase risk of heart disease, stroke, and diabetes.

Other diseases associated with metabolic syndrome, such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and type 2 diabetes, now occur in children — disorders previously unknown in the pediatric population.

Participants were identified through the Weight Assessment for Teen and Child Health Clinic (WATCH) at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital San Francisco, an interdisciplinary obesity clinic dedicated to targeting metabolic dysfunction rather than weight loss. Recruitment was limited to Latino and African-American youth because of their higher risk for certain conditions associated with metabolic syndrome, such as high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes.

In the study, 43 children between the ages of 9 and 18 who were obese and had at least one other chronic metabolic disorder, such as hypertension, high triglyceride levels or a marker of fatty liver, were given nine days of food, including all snacks and beverages, that restricted sugar but substituted starch to maintain the same fat, protein, carbohydrate, and calorie levels as their previously reported home diets. Baseline fasting blood levels, blood pressure, and glucose tolerance were assessed before the new menu plan was adopted. The study menu restricted added sugar (while allowing fruit), but substituted it by adding other carbohydrates such as bagels, cereal and pasta so that the children still consumed the same number of calories from carbohydrate as before, but total dietary sugar was reduced from 28 to 10 percent, and fructose from 12 to 4 percent of total calories, respectively. The food choices were designed to be “kid food” – turkey hot dogs, potato chips, and pizza all purchased at local supermarkets, instead of high sugar cereals, pastries, and sweetened yogurt.

Children were given a scale and told to weigh themselves every day, with the goal of weight stability, not weight loss. When weight loss did occur (a decrease of an average of 1 percent over the 10-day period but without change in body fat), they were given more of the low-sugar foods.

“When we took the sugar out, the kids started responding to their satiety cues,” said Schwarz. “They told us it felt like so much more food, even though they were consuming the same number of calories as before, just with significantly less sugar. Some said we were overwhelming them with food.”

Reducing Harmful Metabolic Effects of Obesity

After just 9 days on the sugar-restricted diet, virtually every aspect of the participants’ metabolic health improved, without change in weight. Diastolic blood pressure decreased by 5mm, triglycerides by 33 points, LDL-cholesterol (known as the “bad” cholesterol) by 10 points, and liver function tests improved. Fasting blood glucose went down by 5 points, and insulin levels were cut by one-third.

“All of the surrogate measures of metabolic health got better, just by substituting starch for sugar in their processed food — all without changing calories or weight or exercise,” said Lustig. “This study demonstrates that ‘a calorie is not a calorie.’ Where those calories come from determines where in the body they go. Sugar calories are the worst, because they turn to fat in the liver, driving insulin resistance, and driving risk for diabetes, heart, and liver disease. This has enormous implications for the food industry, chronic disease, and health care costs.”

Other authors of the study include Susan Noworolski, PhD, Viva Tai, RD, MPH, Michael Wen, MS and Ayca Erkin-Cakmak, MD, MPH of UCSF, Alejandro Gugliucci MD, PhD of Touro University and Kathleen Mulligan, PhD of UCSF and Touro University.

Funding was provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), UCSF Clinical Translational Science Institute (CTSI) and Touro University. None of the authors report any conflicts of interest.

About the Touro College and University System:
Touro University California is a Jewish nonprofit, independent graduate institution of higher learning founded in 1997 on three Judaic values: social justice, the pursuit of knowledge and service to humanity. The university, home to 1,400 students, has professional programs in osteopathic medicine, pharmacy, physician assistant studies, public health, nursing, and education. Faculty, staff and students have a powerful commitment to academic excellence, evidence-based professional practice, inter-professional collaboration, and active engagement with a global community. To learn more, visit http://www.tu.edu or call 707-638-5200.

About UCSF:
UC San Francisco (UCSF) is a leading university dedicated to promoting health worldwide through advanced biomedical research, graduate-level education in the life sciences and health professions, and excellence in patient care. It includes top-ranked graduate schools of dentistry, medicine, nursing and pharmacy, a graduate division with nationally renowned programs in basic, biomedical, translational and population sciences, as well as a preeminent biomedical research enterprise and two top-ranked hospitals, UCSF Medical Center and UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital San Francisco. Please visit http://www.ucsf.edu/news. http://tu.edu/aboutus/media/pressrelease/151027_sugarreduction.html

Video: Study finds child’s health dramatically improves by cutting out sugar
KRON-4
By Vince Cestone and Dan Kerman | October 27, 2015

Physicians agree that good eating habits are something that should start at an early age. But still, some people become obese while they are still children. But now, a new study finds a child’s health can dramatically improve simply by cutting out one type of food. Researchers at UCSF and Touro University put 43 obese kids on a diet for nine days. They didn’t cut calories or carbs….. http://kron4.com/2015/10/27/video-study-finds-childs-health-dramatically-improves-by-cutting-out-sugar/

Moi blogs about education issues so the reader could be perplexed sometimes because moi often writes about other things like nutrition, families, and personal responsibility issues. Why? The reader might ask? Children will have the most success in school if they are ready to learn. Ready to learn includes proper nutrition for a healthy body and the optimum situation for children is a healthy family. Many of society’s problems would be lessened if the goal was a healthy child in a healthy family.

Related:

Dr. Wilda Reviews Book: ‘Super Baby Food’ http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/dr-wilda-reviews-book-super-baby-food/

A healthy child in a healthy family who attends a healthy school in a healthy neighborhood ©

Where information leads to Hope. © Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©
http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©
http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©
https://drwilda.com/

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health study: More time for school lunches equals healthier choices for kids

1 Oct

Moi wrote about the limited amount of time some students get to eat lunch in Do kids get enough time to eat lunch? Given the amount that must be packed into the school day, it is no surprise that the lunch period often get short shrift. https://drwilda.com/2012/08/28/do-kids-get-enough-time-to-eat-lunch/
Eric Westervelt of NPR reported in the story, These Days, School Lunch Hours Are More Like 15 Minutes:

The school lunch hour in America is a long-gone relic. At many public schools today, kids are lucky to get more than 15 minutes to eat. Some get even less time.
And parents and administrators are concerned that a lack of time to eat is unhealthful, especially given that about one-third of American kids are overweight or obese…
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/12/04/248511038/these-days-school-lunch-hours-are-more-like-15-minutes

A T.H. Chan School of Public Health confirms kids are not getting enough time to eat lunch.

Science Daily reported in More time for school lunches equals healthier choices for kids: Children are more likely to eat fruits and vegetables when given at least 25 minutes for lunch, according to a new study the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics:

Elementary and middle school students who are given at least 25 minutes to eat lunch are more likely to choose fruits and consume more of their entrees, milk, and vegetables according to a new study released in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

Each day, over 30 million U.S. students receive a free or discounted meal thanks to the National School Lunch Program. For children from low-income households, these meals can account for almost half of their daily caloric intake, so it is vitally important for schools to find ways to improve student selections and consumption and limit food waste.

This new study examined the association between the length of the lunch period and the food choices and intake of students. Data for the study were collected on six nonconsecutive days throughout the 2011 to 2012 school year as part of the MEALS study, a large, school-based randomized controlled trial. The MEALS study was a collaboration between the nonprofit organization Project Bread and the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health to improve the selection and consumption of healthier school foods. Researchers conducted a plate waste study, which is the gold standard for assessing children’s diets.

Investigators found that when kids have less than 20 minutes of seated time in the cafeteria to eat lunch, they were significantly less likely to select a fruit when compared to peers who had at least 25 minutes to eat lunch (44% vs 57%, respectively). Furthermore, the study found that children with less than 20 minutes to eat lunch consumed 13% less of their entrees, 10% less of their milk, and 12% less of their veggies when compared to students who had at least 25 minutes to eat their lunch. This indicates that kids who were given less time at lunch may be missing out on key components of a healthy diet such as fiber-rich whole grains and calcium.

“Policies that improve the school food environment can have important public health implications in addressing the growing socioeconomic disparities in the prevalence of obesity and in improving the overall nutrient quality of children’s diets,” explained lead investigator Juliana F. W. Cohen, ScD, ScM, Assistant Professor, Department of Health Sciences, Merrimack College, North Andover, MA, and Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Nutrition, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA. “This research suggests that enabling students to have sufficient time to eat their meals can help address this important issue.”

According to the study, another challenge kids face is the minutes they must use during their school lunchtime period for activities besides eating or sitting. Many students spend a considerable amount of time traveling to the cafeteria and then waiting in line to get their lunch. After taking this into account, some children in the study had as little as 10 minutes to eat their lunch….. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150911094910.htm

Citation:

Ellen Parker, MBA, MSW
,
Eric B. Rimm, ScD
Received: April 16, 2015; Accepted: July 24, 2015; Published Online: September 11, 2015
Publication stage: In Press Corrected Proof

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2015.07.019
Article Info
Purchase access to this article (PDF Included)
$31.50 USD (24 hour online access)
Subscribe to this title
• Abstract
• Full Text
• References
Abstract
Background

There are currently no national standards for school lunch period length and little is known about the association between the amount of time students have to eat and school food selection and consumption.
Objective

Our aim was to examine plate-waste measurements from students in the control arm of the Modifying Eating and Lifestyles at School study (2011 to 2012 school year) to determine the association between amount of time to eat and school meal selection and consumption.

Design
We used a prospective study design using up to six repeated measures among students during the school year.
Participants/setting
One thousand and one students in grades 3 to 8 attending six participating elementary and middle schools in an urban, low-income school district where lunch period lengths varied from 20 to 30 minutes were included.
Main outcome measures
School food selection and consumption were collected using plate-waste methodology.
Statistical analyses performed
Logistic regression and mixed-model analysis of variance was used to examine food selection and consumption.

Results
Compared with meal-component selection when students had at least 25 minutes to eat, students were significantly less likely to select a fruit (44% vs 57%; P<0.0001) when they had <20 minutes to eat. There were no significant differences in entrée, milk, or vegetable selections. Among those who selected a meal component, students with <20 minutes to eat consumed 13% less of their entrée (P<0.0001), 10% less of their milk (P<0.0001), and 12% less of their vegetable (P<0.0001) compared with students who had at least 25 minutes to eat.

Conclusions
During the school year, a substantial number of students had insufficient time to eat, which was associated with significantly decreased entrée, milk, and vegetable consumption compared with students who had more time to eat. School policies that encourage lunches with at least 25 minutes of seated time might reduce food waste and improve dietary intake.

Keywords:
School lunch, Lunch period length, Fruit intake, Vegetable intake, Milk intake

More time for school lunches equals healthier choices for kids
Children are more likely to eat fruits and vegetables when given at least 25 minutes for lunch, according to a new study the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

Date: September 11, 2015

Source: Elsevier Health Sciences

Summary:
Elementary and middle school students who are given at least 25 minutes to eat lunch are more likely to choose fruits and consume more of their entrees, milk, and vegetables according to a new study.

Journal Reference:
1. Juliana F.W. Cohen, Jaquelyn L. Jahn, Scott Richardson, Sarah A. Cluggish, Ellen Parker, Eric B. Rimm. Amount of Time to Eat Lunch Is Associated with Children’s Selection and Consumption of School Meal Entrée, Fruits, Vegetables, and Milk. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2015; DOI: 10.1016/j.jand.2015.07.019

Here is the press release from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health:

Short lunch periods in schools linked with less healthy eating

For immediate release: September 11, 2015

Boston, MA ─ Students with less than 20 minutes to eat school lunches consume significantly less of their entrées, milk, and vegetables than those who aren’t as rushed, according to a new study from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
The study will appear online Friday, September 11, 2015 in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
“Many children, especially those from low-income families, rely on school meals for up to half their daily energy intake so it is essential that we give students a sufficient amount of time to eat their lunches,” said Juliana Cohen, adjunct assistant professor in the Department of Nutrition at Harvard Chan School, assistant professor in the Department of Health Sciences at Merrimack College, and lead author of the study.
“Every school day the National School Lunch Program helps to feed over 30 million children in 100,000 schools across the U.S., yet little research has been done in this field,” said Eric Rimm, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard Chan School and the study’s senior author. (Watch Rimm discuss the study on CBS Boston.)
While recent federal guidelines enhanced the nutritional quality of school lunches, there are no standards regarding lunch period length. Many students have lunch periods that are 20 minutes or less, which can be an insufficient amount of time to eat, according to the authors.
The researchers wanted to examine the effect of lunch period length on students’ food choices and intake. They looked at 1,001 students in six elementary and middle schools, with lunch periods ranging from 20-30 minutes, in a low-income urban school district in Massachusetts, as part of the Modifying Eating and Lifestyles at School (MEALS) study, a collaboration between Project Bread and Harvard Chan School. They analyzed the students’ food selection and consumption by monitoring what was left on their plates at the end of the lunch period.
The researchers found that students with less than 20 minutes to eat lunch consumed 13% less of their entrées, 12% less of their vegetables, and 10% less of their milk than students who had at least 25 minutes to eat. While there were no notable differences between the groups in terms of entrée, milk, or vegetable selections, those with less time to eat were significantly less likely to select a fruit (44% vs. 57%). Also, there was more food waste among groups with less time to eat.
Waiting in serving lines or arriving late to lunch sometimes left children in the study with as little as 10 minutes to actually sit and eat. The researchers acknowledged that while not all schools may be able to lengthen their lunch periods, they could develop strategies to move kids more quickly through lunch lines, such as by adding more serving lines or setting up automated checkout systems.
“We were surprised by some of the results because I expected that with less time children may quickly eat their entrée and drink their milk but throw away all of their fruits and vegetables,” said Rimm. “Not so—we found they got a start on everything, but couldn’t come close to finishing with less time to eat.”
Jaquelyn Jahn, a master’s student in the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences at Harvard Chan School, was a co-author.
The study was funded by a grant from Project Bread and Arbella Insurance. Cohen was supported by the Nutritional Epidemiology of Cancer Education and Career Development Program (R25 CA 098566).
“Amount of Time to Eat Lunch Is Associated with Children’s Selection and Consumption of School Meal Entrée, Fruits, Vegetables, and Milk,” Juliana F. W. Cohen, Jaquelyn L. Jahn, Scott Richardson, Sarah A. Cluggish, Ellen Parker, Eric B. Rimm, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, online September 11, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2015.07.019
Visit the Harvard Chan website for the latest news, press releases, and multimedia offerings.
For more information:
Todd Datz
tdatz@hsph.harvard.edu
617-432-8413
Photo: iStockphoto.com
###
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health brings together dedicated experts from many disciplines to educate new generations of global health leaders and produce powerful ideas that improve the lives and health of people everywhere. As a community of leading scientists, educators, and students, we work together to take innovative ideas from the laboratory to people’s lives—not only making scientific breakthroughs, but also working to change individual behaviors, public policies, and health care practices. Each year, more than 400 faculty members at Harvard Chan School teach 1,000-plus full-time students from around the world and train thousands more through online and executive education courses. Founded in 1913 as the Harvard-MIT School of Health Officers, the School is recognized as America’s oldest professional training program in public health.

In order to ensure that ALL children have a basic education, we must take a comprehensive approach to learning.
A healthy child in a healthy family who attends a healthy school in a healthy neighborhood ©

Related:

School dinner programs: Trying to reduce the number of hungry children

https://drwilda.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/school-dinner-programs-trying-to-reduce-the-number-of-hungry-children/

School lunches: The political hot potato

https://drwilda.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/school-lunches-the-political-hot-potato/

The government that money buys: School lunch cave in by Congress

https://drwilda.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/the-government-that-money-buys-school-lunch-cave-in-by-congress/

Where information leads to Hope. ©

Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©
http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©
http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©
https://drwilda.com/

The 03/18/13 Joy Jar

17 Mar

Moi is lucky that she loves leafy green vegetables like kale and spinach. Moi loves cabbage as well. Tonight, moi had spinach with fresh mushrooms. Today’s deposit into the ‘Joy Jar’ is spinach.

I don’t like spinach, and I’m glad I don’t, because if I liked it I’d eat it, and I just hate it.
Clarence Darrow

 

One man’s poison ivy is another man’s spinach.
George Ade

I was a really picky eater as a child. Because I was obsessed by Popeye, my mum and aunts would put my food in a can to represent spinach and we’d hum the Popeye tune and then I’d happily eat it.
Paul O’Grady

 

Foods I forced myself to try in adulthood that I now love include blue cheese, beets and pickles. And spinach. And kale. And rye bread.

Gillian Jacobs

 

 

Wouldn’t it be awful if spinach hain’t really healthful after all the th’ trouble it takes t’git the sand out of it?

Kin Hubbard in Abe Martin’s Wisecracks (1930)