Tag Archives: Diet

BMJ study: Dietary Guidelines are not compatible with global health and environmental targets

29 Jul

Michael Bastasch wrote in the Daily Caller article, The Green New Deal Isn’t Just About Energy, It’s Also About Controlling What Americans Eat:

  • The Green New Deal seems to embrace the anti-beef and dairy industry sentiment of the environmental left.

  • Green New Dealers want to remake American society, including how to produce and eat food. 

  • “I think it’s pretty clear they want to change people’s consumption habits,” said one economist.

The Green New Deal isn’t just a climate change manifesto targeting U.S. energy, it also looks to drastically change how food is produced and, ultimately, what Americans eat.

“I think it’s pretty clear they want to change people’s consumption habits,” Nic Loris, an energy economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey introduced highly anticipated Green New Deal bills in early February, calling for “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years through a radical transformation of America. The bills also call for a slew of new social justice and welfare programs totally unrelated to global warming.

The accompanying FAQ’s reference to eliminating “farty cows” sent ranchers into a panic, fearing Democrats were taking aim at their livelihoods. Environmentalists have targeted the beef industry for years, and concern over methane only gave activists more ammunition.

“Livestock will be banned,” Wyoming GOP Sen. John Barrasso, who represents lots of cattle ranchers, warned on the Senate floor after the Green New Deal was introduced. “Say goodbye to dairy, to beef, to family farms, to ranches.”

“Farty” was eventually deleted — in fact, most of the methane cows emit is from burping, not farting. The entire gaffe-riddled FAQ was eventually taken offline by Ocasio-Cortez’s staff amid the ridicule…

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey hold a news conference for their proposed “Green New Deal” to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 10 years, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S. Feb. 7, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst.

Even so, the legislation itself is no less radical than Ocasio-Cortez’s Kinsley gaffes. The bill calls for “working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers … to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible….”                                                                        https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/16/green-new-deal-energy-diet/

Resources:

Under the ‘Green New Deal,’ we’d all have to eat like Cory Booker                                            https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/under-the-green-new-deal-wed-all-have-to-eat-like-cory-booker

The Green New Deal Progressives Really Are Coming for Your Beef                                         https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-13/the-green-new-deal-progressives-really-are-coming-for-your-beef

Why the Green New Deal Is So Vague About Food and Farming                                           https://www.motherjones.com/food/2019/02/why-the-green-new-deal-is-so-vague-about-food-and-farming/

Science Daily reported the BMJ study: Dietary Guidelines are not compatible with global health and environmental targets:

Most dietary guidelines are not compatible with global health and environmental targets, finds an analysis published by The BMJ today.

The results show that reforming national dietary guidelines to become both healthier and more sustainable could prevent deaths from chronic diseases and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

National food based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) are government endorsed documents that provide recommendations and advice on healthy diets and lifestyles, but most do not address the social and environmental implications of dietary choices.

So an international research team set out to compare the health and environmental impacts of adopting global and national food based dietary guidelines with global targets, such as the Action Agenda on Non-Communicable Diseases and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

They collated and scored measurable recommendations, such as “eat five servings of fruits and vegetables a day” from 85 national guidelines along with global guidelines from the World Health Organization and the EAT-Lancet Commission.

They then used modelling to estimate how these recommendations could reduce early death from chronic diseases, such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer, and meet environmental targets related to greenhouse gas emissions, and use of land and fresh water resources.

They found that adoption of national guidelines was associated with an average 15% reduction in early death from chronic diseases and an average 13% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the food system, equivalent to 550 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.

However, most of the national guidelines analysed (83, 98%) were not compatible with at least one of the global health and environmental targets.

For example, about a third of the guidelines (29, 34%) were incompatible with the agenda on non-communicable diseases, and most (57 to 74, 67% to 87%) were incompatible with the Paris Climate Agreement and other environmental targets.

In comparison, adoption of the WHO recommendations was associated with similar health and environmental changes, whereas adoption of the EAT-Lancet recommendations was associated with 34% greater reductions in early death and more than three times greater reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

For example, if the UK, US, and China adopted national guidelines in line with the EAT-Lancet recommendation, this could increase the number of avoided deaths from 78,000 to 104,000 in the UK, from 480,000 to 585,000 in the USA, and from 1,149,000 to 1,802,000 in China, explain the researchers.

This study has several strengths, such as the large number of countries and rigorous assessment of guidelines. But the researchers point to several limitations that may have affected the accuracy of their results, such as the often qualitative nature of many national guidelines, and say there are many potential implications for improvement in future studies…..                                                                                                                                   https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200715190754.htm

Resources:

Most national dietary guidelines are not compatible with global environmental and health targets, and are in need of reform                                                                                     https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/most-national-dietary-guidelines-not-compatible-with-global-environmental-and-health-targets/

Dietary guidelines have a blind spot: Future generations                                                           https://grist.org/food/dietary-guidelines-have-a-blind-spot-future-generations/

Citation:

Dietary Guidelines are not compatible with global health and environmental targets

Reforming dietary guidelines could prevent deaths and cut greenhouse emissions

Date:         July 15, 2020

Source:     BMJ

Summary:

Most dietary guidelines are not compatible with global health and environmental targets, finds a new analysis.

Journal Reference:

Marco Springmann, Luke Spajic, Michael A Clark, Joseph Poore, Anna Herforth, Patrick Webb, Mike Rayner, Peter Scarborough. The healthiness and sustainability of national and global food based dietary guidelines: modelling study. BMJ, 2020; m2322 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m2322

Here is the press release from BMJ:

NEWS RELEASE 15-JUL-2020

Most dietary guidelines are not compatible with global health and environmental targets

Reforming dietary guidelines could prevent deaths and cut greenhouse emissions

BMJ

Most dietary guidelines are not compatible with global health and environmental targets, finds an analysis published by The BMJ today.

The results show that reforming national dietary guidelines to become both healthier and more sustainable could prevent deaths from chronic diseases and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

National food based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) are government endorsed documents that provide recommendations and advice on healthy diets and lifestyles, but most do not address the social and environmental implications of dietary choices.

So an international research team set out to compare the health and environmental impacts of adopting global and national food based dietary guidelines with global targets, such as the Action Agenda on Non-Communicable Diseases and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

They collated and scored measurable recommendations, such as “eat five servings of fruits and vegetables a day” from 85 national guidelines along with global guidelines from the World Health Organization and the EAT-Lancet Commission.

They then used modelling to estimate how these recommendations could reduce early death from chronic diseases, such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer, and meet environmental targets related to greenhouse gas emissions, and use of land and fresh water resources.

They found that adoption of national guidelines was associated with an average 15% reduction in early death from chronic diseases and an average 13% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the food system, equivalent to 550 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.

However, most of the national guidelines analysed (83, 98%) were not compatible with at least one of the global health and environmental targets.

For example, about a third of the guidelines (29, 34%) were incompatible with the agenda on non-communicable diseases, and most (57 to 74, 67% to 87%) were incompatible with the Paris Climate Agreement and other environmental targets.

In comparison, adoption of the WHO recommendations was associated with similar health and environmental changes, whereas adoption of the EAT-Lancet recommendations was associated with 34% greater reductions in early death and more than three times greater reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

For example, if the UK, US, and China adopted national guidelines in line with the EAT-Lancet recommendation, this could increase the number of avoided deaths from 78,000 to 104,000 in the UK, from 480,000 to 585,000 in the USA, and from 1,149,000 to 1,802,000 in China, explain the researchers.

This study has several strengths, such as the large number of countries and rigorous assessment of guidelines. But the researchers point to several limitations that may have affected the accuracy of their results, such as the often qualitative nature of many national guidelines, and say there are many potential implications for improvement in future studies.

Nevertheless, they conclude that reforming national food based dietary guidelines, as well as WHO guidelines, “could be not only beneficial from a health perspective but also necessary for meeting global sustainability goals and staying within the environmental limits of the food system.”

In a linked editorial, researchers in Germany agree that these findings should be interpreted with caution, saying perhaps the most important finding from this study is the uncertainty that it highlights, not least about plant based foods.

In overall terms the EAT-Lancet Commission proposals seem superior in terms of reducing mortality from non-communicable diseases, they write.

However, they point out that adopting the EAT-Lancet recommendations globally “would not be affordable for many in low income countries without concomitant economic growth, improved local food production and supply, and expansion of the range of lower cost animal products, fruits, and vegetables.”

“We still have some way to go before diets can become healthier and more sustainable worldwide” they conclude.

###

Peer reviewed? Yes (research), No (linked editorial)

Evidence type: Modelling study, Opinion

Subject: Dietary guidelines

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.

 

Media Contact

BMJ Media Relations
mediarelations@bmj.com
44-020-365-55021

 @bmj_company

http://www.bmj.com 

David Harsanyi  wrote in The 10 Most Insane Requirements Of The Green New Deal:

While some of the specifics need to be ironed out, the plan’s authors assure us that this “massive transformation of our society” needs some “clear goals and a timeline.” The timeline is ten years. Here are some of the goals:

  • Ban affordable energy.GND calls for the elimination of all fossil fuel energy production, the lifeblood of American industry and life, which includes not only all oil but also natural gas — one of the cheapest sources of American energy, and one of the reasons the United States has been able to lead the world in carbon-emissions reduction.
  • Eliminate nuclear energy.The GND also calls for eliminating all nuclear power, one of the only productive and somewhat affordable “clean” energy sources available to us, in 11 years. This move would purge around 20 percent of American energy generation so you can rely on intermittent wind for your energy needs.
  • Eliminate 99 percent of cars.To be fair, under the GND, everyone will need to retrofit their cars with Flintstones-style foot holes or pedals for cycling. The authors state that the GND would like to replace every “combustion-engine vehicle” — trucks, airplanes, boats, and 99 percent of cars — within ten years. Charging stations for electric vehicles will be built “everywhere,” though how power plants will provide the energy needed to charge them is a mystery.
  • Gut and rebuild every building in America.Markey and Cortez want to “retrofit every building in America” with “state of the art energy efficiency.” I repeat, “every building in America.” That includes every home, factory, and apartment building, which will all need, for starters, to have their entire working heating and cooling systems ripped out and replaced with…well, with whatever technology Democrats are going invent in their committee hearings, I guess.
  • Eliminate air travel.GND calls for building out “highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Good luck Hawaii! California’s high-speed boondoggle is already in $100 billion dollars of debt, and looks to be one of the state’s biggest fiscal disasters ever. Amtrak runs billions of dollars in the red (though, as we’ll see, trains that run on fossil fuels will also be phased out). Imagine growing that business model out to every state in America?
  • A government-guaranteed job.The bill promises the United States government will provide every single American with a job that includes a “family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and a pension.” You can imagine that those left in the private sector would be funding these through some unspecified “massive” taxation. On the bright side, when you’re foraging for food, your savings will be worthless.
  • Free education for life.GND promises free college or trade schools for every American.
  • A salubrious diet.The GND promises the government will provide “healthy food” to every American (because there are no beans or lettuce in your local supermarket, I guess).
  • A house. The GND promises that the government will provide, “safe, affordable, adequate housing” for every American citizen. I call dibs on an affordable Adams Morgan townhouse. Thank you, Ocasio-Cortez.
  • Free money.The GND aims to provide, and I am not making this up, “economic security” for all who are “unable or unwilling” to work. Just to reiterate: if you’re unwilling to work, the rest of us will have your back.
  • Bonus insanity: Ban meat.Ocasio-Cortez admits that we can’t get zero emissions in 10 years “because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.” The only way to get rid of farting cows is to get rid of beef.

The GND uses the word “massive” to explain the size “investments” (formerly known as “taxes”) 13 times. How will we pay for this plan? “The same way we did the New Deal, the 2008 bank bailouts and extend quantitative easing,” say Markey and Cortez, who earned her degree in economics at an institution of higher learning that should be immediately decertified. The plan itself seems to insinuate that billionaires can pay for the whole thing. Of course, best case scenario, it is estimated that instituting a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent would raise a little more than $700 billion over that decade. She does not explain how we’re going to raise the other 20 bazillion dollars it will cost to tear down modernity….                                                                                                               https://thefederalist.com/2019/02/07/ten-most-insane-requirements-green-new-deal/

There’s a sucker born every minute.

 

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/

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

American Academy of Neurology study: Does eating fish protect our brains from air pollution?

26 Jul

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment wrote in Benefits and Risks of Eating Fish:

Benefits of eating fish

Fish are an important part of a healthy, well-balanced diet. They provide a good source of protein and vitamins, and are a primary dietary source of heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids.

  • Omega-3 fatty acids can:
    • lower risk of heart disease
    • lower triglyceride levels
    • slow the growth of plaque in your arteries
    • and slightly lower blood pressure
  • Omega-3 fatty acids may also provide health benefits to developing babies.
  • Pregnant and breastfeeding women can pass this nutrient to their baby by eating the right kind of fish.
  • Fish species that have higher levels of omega-3s are shown with a heart icon () when OEHHA recommends that they can be eaten at least once a week.

Risks of eating fish

While eating fish has nutritional benefits, it also has potential risks. Fish can take in harmful chemicals from the water and the food they eat. Chemicals like mercury and PCBs can build up in their bodies over time.

  • High levels of mercury and PCBs can harm the brain and nervous system.
  • Mercury can be especially harmful to fetuses, infants, and children because their bodies are still developing.
  • PCBs can cause cancer and other harmful health effects.

Reduce your risk

There is no way to tell the level of chemicals in a fish by simply looking at it or tasting it.  Fortunately, there are easy things you can do to reduce your risk, and enjoy the health benefits of eating fish:

  • Check if there are advisories for water bodies where you fish.
  • Follow our advisories (Watch our video to learn how) by picking species that are lower in mercury and other harmful chemicals.
  • Follow our general tips for catching and preparing fish.

While there are potential risks to consider, there are many health benefits of eating fish. If you avoid eating fish entirely, you won’t benefit from the nutrients that fish can provide. By following our fish advisories and properly cleaning, preparing, and cooking fish, you can safely enjoy the health benefits of eating fish.

Benefits and Risks of Eating Fish                                                                                                            https://oehha.ca.gov/fish/benefits-risks

Resources:

11 Evidence-Based Health Benefits of Eating Fish                                                          https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/11-health-benefits-of-fish#section11

The benefits of eating fish                                                                                                 http://seafood.edf.org/benefits-eating-fish

Health Benefits of Fish                                                                                                                           https://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/Food/Fish/HealthBenefits

Science Daily reported in Does eating fish protect our brains from air pollution?

Older women who eat more than one to two servings a week of baked or broiled fish or shellfish may consume enough omega-3 fatty acids to counteract the effects of air pollution on the brain, according to a new study published in the July 15, 2020, online issue of Neurology®, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

Researchers found that among older women who lived in areas with high levels of air pollution, those who had the lowest levels of omega-3 fatty acids in their blood had more brain shrinkage than women who had the highest levels.

“Fish are an excellent source of omega-3 fatty acids and easy to add to the diet,” said study author Ka He, M.D., Sc.D., of Columbia University in New York. “Omega-3 fatty acids have been shown to fight inflammation and maintain brain structure in aging brains. They have also been found to reduce brain damage caused by neurotoxins like lead and mercury. So we explored if omega-3 fatty acids have a protective effect against another neurotoxin, the fine particulate matter found in air pollution.”

The study involved 1,315 women with an average age of 70 who did not have dementia at the start of the study. The women completed questionnaires about diet, physical activity, and medical history.

Researchers used the diet questionnaire to calculate the average amount of fish each woman consumed each week, including broiled or baked fish, canned tuna, tuna salad, tuna casserole and non-fried shellfish. Fried fish was not included because research has shown deep frying damages omega-3 fatty acids.

Participants were given blood tests. Researchers measured the amount of omega-3 fatty acids in their red blood cells and then divided the women into four groups based on the amount of omega-3 fatty acids in their blood.

Researchers used the women’s home addresses to determine their three-year average exposure to air pollution. Participants then had brain scans with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to measure various areas of the brain including white matter, which is composed of nerve fibers that send signals throughout the brain, and the hippocampus, the part of the brain associated with memory.

After adjusting for age, education, smoking and other factors that could affect brain shrinkage, researchers found that women who had the highest levels of omega-3 fatty acids in the blood had greater volumes of white matter than those with the lowest levels. Those in the highest group had 410 cubic centimeters (cm3) white matter, compared to 403 cm3 for those in the lowest group. The researchers found that for each quartile increase in air pollution levels, the average white matter volume was 11.52 cm3 smaller among people with lower levels of omega-3 fatty acids and 0.12 cm3 smaller among those with higher levels.

Women with the highest levels of omega-3 fatty acids in the blood also had greater volumes of the hippocampus…                                                                                                                                        https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200715163555.htm

Citation:

Does eating fish protect our brains from air pollution?

Date:     July 15, 2020

Source:  American Academy of Neurology

Summary:

Older women who eat more than one to two servings a week of baked or broiled fish or shellfish may consume enough omega-3 fatty acids to counteract the effects of air pollution on the brain, according to a new study.

Journal Reference:

Cheng Chen, View ORCID ProfilePengcheng Xun, View ORCID ProfileJoel D. Kaufman, Kathleen M. Hayden, Mark A. Espeland, Eric A. Whitsel, Marc L. Serre, William Vizuete, Tonya Orchard, William S. Harris, Xinhui Wang, Helena C. Chui, Jiu-Chiuan Chen, Ka He. Erythrocyte omega-3 index, ambient fine particle exposure and brain aging. Neurology, 2020 DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000010074

Here is the press release from the American Academy of Neurology:

NEWS RELEASE 15-JUL-2020

Does eating fish protect our brains from air pollution?

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF NEUROLOGY

MINNEAPOLIS – Older women who eat more than one to two servings a week of baked or broiled fish or shellfish may consume enough omega-3 fatty acids to counteract the effects of air pollution on the brain, according to a new study published in the July 15, 2020, online issue of Neurology®, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

Researchers found that among older women who lived in areas with high levels of air pollution, those who had the lowest levels of omega-3 fatty acids in their blood had more brain shrinkage than women who had the highest levels.

“Fish are an excellent source of omega-3 fatty acids and easy to add to the diet,” said study author Ka He, M.D., Sc.D., of Columbia University in New York. “Omega-3 fatty acids have been shown to fight inflammation and maintain brain structure in aging brains. They have also been found to reduce brain damage caused by neurotoxins like lead and mercury. So we explored if omega-3 fatty acids have a protective effect against another neurotoxin, the fine particulate matter found in air pollution.”

The study involved 1,315 women with an average age of 70 who did not have dementia at the start of the study. The women completed questionnaires about diet, physical activity, and medical history.

Researchers used the diet questionnaire to calculate the average amount of fish each woman consumed each week, including broiled or baked fish, canned tuna, tuna salad, tuna casserole and non-fried shellfish. Fried fish was not included because research has shown deep frying damages omega-3 fatty acids.

Participants were given blood tests. Researchers measured the amount of omega-3 fatty acids in their red blood cells and then divided the women into four groups based on the amount of omega-3 fatty acids in their blood.

Researchers used the women’s home addresses to determine their three-year average exposure to air pollution. Participants then had brain scans with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to measure various areas of the brain including white matter, which is composed of nerve fibers that send signals throughout the brain, and the hippocampus, the part of the brain associated with memory.

After adjusting for age, education, smoking and other factors that could affect brain shrinkage, researchers found that women who had the highest levels of omega-3 fatty acids in the blood had greater volumes of white matter than those with the lowest levels. Those in the highest group had 410 cubic centimeters (cm3) white matter, compared to 403 cm3 for those in the lowest group. The researchers found that for each quartile increase in air pollution levels, the average white matter volume was 11.52 cm3 smaller among people with lower levels of omega-3 fatty acids and 0.12 cm3 smaller among those with higher levels.

Women with the highest levels of omega-3 fatty acids in the blood also had greater volumes of the hippocampus.

“Our findings suggest that higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids in the blood from fish consumption may preserve brain volume as women age and possibly protect against the potential toxic effects of air pollution,” said He. “It’s important to note that our study only found an association between brain volume and eating fish. It does not prove that eating fish preserves brain volume. And since separate studies have found some species of fish may contain environmental toxins, it’s important to talk to a doctor about what types of fish to eat before adding more fish to your diet.”

A limitation of the study was that most participants were older white women, so the results cannot be generalized to others. Also, researchers were only able to examine exposures to later-life air pollution, not early or mid-life exposures, so future studies should look at exposures to air pollution across a person’s lifespan.

###

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Learn more about the brain at BrainandLife.org, home of the American Academy of Neurology’s free patient and caregiver magazine focused on the intersection of neurologic disease and brain health. Follow Brain & Life® on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

When posting to social media channels about this research, we encourage you to use the hashtags #Neurology and #AANscience.

The American Academy of Neurology is the world’s largest association of neurologists and neuroscience professionals, with over 36,000 members. The AAN is dedicated to promoting the highest quality patient-centered neurologic care. A neurologist is a doctor with specialized training in diagnosing, treating and managing disorders of the brain and nervous system such as Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, migraine, multiple sclerosis, concussion, Parkinson’s disease and epilepsy.

For more information about the American Academy of Neurology, visit AAN.com or find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn and YouTube.

Media Contacts:

Renee Tessman, rtessman@aan.com, (612) 928-6137
M.A. Rosko, mrosko@aan.com, (612) 928-6169

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.

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics wrote in Healthy Eating for Older Adults which was reviewed by Esther Ellis, MS, RDN, LDN:

Eating a variety of foods from all food groups can help supply the nutrients a person needs as they age. A healthy eating plan emphasizes fruit, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat or fat-free dairy; includes lean meat, poultry, fish, beans, eggs and nuts; and is low in saturated fats, trans fats, salt (sodium) and added sugars.

Eating right doesn’t have to be complicated. Start with these recommendations from the Dietary Guidelines for Americans:

·         Eat fruits and vegetables. They can be fresh, frozen or canned. Eat more dark green vegetables such as leafy greens or broccoli, and orange vegetables such as carrots and sweet potatoes.
·         Vary protein choices with more fish, beans and peas.
·         Eat at least three ounces of whole-grain cereals, breads, crackers, rice or pasta every day. Choose whole grains whenever possible.
·         Have three servings of low-fat or fat-free dairy (milk, yogurt or cheese) that are fortified with vitamin D to help keep your bones healthy.
·         Make the fats you eat polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats. Switch from solid fats to oils when preparing food.
Add Physical Activity
Balancing physical activity and a healthful diet is the best recipe for health and fitness. Set a goal to be physically active at least 30 minutes every day — this even can be broken into three 10-minute sessions throughout the day.
For someone who is currently inactive, it’s a good idea to start with a few minutes of activity, such as walking, and gradually increase this time as they become stronger. And always check with a health-care provider before beginning a new physical activity program.                                                                                       https://www.eatright.org/food/nutrition/dietary-guidelines-and-myplate/healthy-eating-for-older-adults

 

The bottom line is, I’m blessed with good health. On top of that, I don’t go around thinking ‘Oh, I’m 90, I better do this or I better do that.’ I’m just Betty. I’m the same Betty that I’ve always been. Take it or leave it.

Betty White

 

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/

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

University of Edinburgh study: Blood iron levels could be key to slowing aging, gene study shows

25 Jul

Stephanie Watson wrote in the WebMD article which was reviewed by Brunilda Nazario, MD on July 12, 2020, , What You Need to Know About Iron Supplements:

How Much Iron Do You Need?

How much iron you need each day depends on your age, gender, and overall health.

Infants and toddlers need more iron than adults, in general, because their bodies are growing so quickly. In childhood, boys and girls need the same amount of iron — 10 milligrams daily from ages 4 to 8, and 8 mg daily from ages 9 to 13.

Starting at adolescence, a woman’s daily iron needs increase. Women need more iron because they lose blood each month during their period. That’s why women from ages 19 to 50 need to get 18 mg of iron each day, while men the same age can get away with just 8 mg.

After menopause, a woman’s iron needs drop as her menstrual cycle ends. After a woman begins menopause, both men and women need the same amount of iron — 8 mg each day.

You might need more iron, either from dietary sources or from an iron supplement, if you:

If you are a vegetarian or vegan, you may also need to take an iron supplement, because the body doesn’t absorb the type of iron found in plants as well as it absorbs the iron from meat.

How Do You Know If You’re Iron Deficient?

“People often don’t know they have anemia until they have signs or symptoms — they appear pale or ‘sallow,’ are fatigued, or have difficulty exercising,” Chottiner says.

If you’re low in iron, you may also:

  • Feel short of breath
  • Have a fast heartbeat
  • Have cold hands and feet
  • Crave strange substances such as dirt or clay
  • Have brittle and spoon shaped nails or hair loss
  • Sores at the corner of the mouth
  • A sore tongue
  • Severe iron deficiency can cause difficulty in swallowing

If you’re tired and dragging, see your doctor. “It’s fairly easy to detect and diagnose the different stages of iron deficiency with a simple blood test,” Thomas says. Women who are pregnant and people with a gastrointestinal disorder such as Crohn’s, ulcerative colitis, or celiac disease should have their iron tested on a regular basis.

Do You Need to Take an Iron Supplement?

If your iron is low, eating a diet that is high in iron-rich foods such as fortified cereals, red meat, dried fruit, and beans may not be enough to give you what you need. Your doctor might recommend that you take an iron supplement.

Prenatal vitamins usually include iron, but not all prenatal vitamins contain the recommended amount. Check with your doctor before taking any supplement.

While you are taking iron supplements, your doctor should test your blood to see if your iron levels have improved.

Can Iron Supplements Cause Side Effects?

Iron supplements can cause side effects, usually stomach upset such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dark stools, or constipation. Pregnant women are especially susceptible to constipation. Adding extra fiber to your diet can help relieve this symptom. A stool softener may also make you feel better.

Starting with a low dose of iron and then gradually increasing the dose to the daily recommended amount may help minimize side effects. If your iron supplements are bothering your stomach, your doctor can adjust the dose or form of iron you use. You can also try taking the supplements with food.

Can You Take Too Much Iron?

Unlike some supplements, when the subject is iron, more is definitely not better. Adults shouldn’t take any more than 45 mg of iron a day unless they are being treated with iron under close medical supervision.

For children, iron overdose can be especially toxic. “Iron supplements have killed young children because their needs for iron compared to an adult’s are relatively low,” Thomas says. If you take iron supplements, it is very important to keep them in a high, locked cabinet, far out of your children’s reach. Symptoms of iron poisoning include severe vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, dehydration, and bloody stool in children.

It’s difficult for adults to overdose on iron just from food and supplements, because an adult body has systems in place to regulate the amount of iron it absorbs. However, people with the inherited condition hemochromatosis have trouble regulating their iron absorption.

Although most people only absorb about 10% of the iron they consume, people with hemochromatosis absorb up to 30%. As a result, the iron in their body can build up to dangerous levels. That excess iron can deposit in organs such as the liver, heart, and pancreas, which can lead to conditions like cirrhosis, heart failure, and diabetes. For that reason, people with hemochromatosis should not take iron supplements.                      webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/features/iron-supplements#1

Resources:

Too Much Iron in Your Blood?                                                                                                    https://www.webmd.com/men/features/too-much-iron-in-your-blood#1

Iron-rich Foods and Anemia                                                                                                             https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/14621-iron-rich-foods-and-anemia

Hemochromatosis                                                                                                                       https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hemochromatosis/symptoms-causes/syc-20351443

Mayo Clinic Family Health Book

The ultimate home medical resource — completely revised and updated!                              https://order.store.mayoclinic.com/books/gnweb43?utm_source=MC-DotOrg-PS&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=FamilyHealth-Book&utm_content=FHB

Science Daily reported in Blood iron levels could be key to slowing aging, gene study shows

Genes linked to ageing that could help explain why some people age at different rates to others have been identified by scientists.

The international study using genetic data from more than a million people suggests that maintaining healthy levels of iron in the blood could be a key to ageing better and living longer.

The findings could accelerate the development of drugs to reduce age-related diseases, extend healthy years of life and increase the chances of living to old age free of disease, the researchers say.

Scientists from the University of Edinburgh and the Max Planck Institute for Biology of Ageing in Germany focused on three measures linked to biological ageing — lifespan, years of life lived free of disease (healthspan), and being extremely long-lived (longevity).

Biological ageing — the rate at which our bodies decline over time — varies between people and drives the world’s most fatal diseases, including heart disease, dementia and cancers.

The researchers pooled information from three public datasets to enable an analysis in unprecedented detail. The combined dataset was equivalent to studying 1.75 million lifespans or more than 60,000 extremely long-lived people.

The team pinpointed ten regions of the genome linked to long lifespan, healthspan and longevity. They also found that gene sets linked to iron were overrepresented in their analysis of all three measures of ageing.

The researchers confirmed this using a statistical method — known as Mendelian randomisation — that suggested that genes involved in metabolising iron in the blood are partly responsible for a healthy long life.

Blood iron is affected by diet and abnormally high or low levels are linked to age-related conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, liver disease and a decline in the body’s ability to fight infection in older age.

The researchers say that designing a drug that could mimic the influence of genetic variation on iron metabolism could be a future step to overcome some of the effects of ageing, but caution that more work is required.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council and is published in the journal Nature Communications.

Anonymised datasets linking genetic variation to healthspan, lifespan, and longevity were downloaded from the publically available Zenodo, Edinburgh DataShare and Longevity Genomics servers.

Dr Paul Timmers from the Usher Institute at the University of Edinburgh, said: “We are very excited by these findings as they strongly suggest that high levels of iron in the blood reduces our healthy years of life, and keeping these levels in check could prevent age-related damage. We speculate that our findings on iron metabolism might also start to explain why very high levels of iron-rich red meat in the diet has been linked to age-related conditions such as heart disease….”                                                                                                                  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200716101548.htm

Citation:

Blood iron levels could be key to slowing aging, gene study shows

Date:      July 16, 2020

Source:   University of Edinburgh

Summary:

Genes linked to aging that could help explain why some people age at different rates to others have been identified by scientists.

Journal Reference:

Paul R. H. J. Timmers, James F. Wilson, Peter K. Joshi, Joris Deelen. Multivariate genomic scan implicates novel loci and haem metabolism in human ageing. Nature Communications, 2020; 11 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-17312-3

Here is the press release from the University of Edinburgh:

Blood iron levels could be key to slowing ageing

Genes that could help explain why some people age at different rates to others have been identified by scientists.

The international study using genetic data from more than a million people suggests that maintaining healthy levels of iron in the blood could be a key to ageing better and living longer.

The findings could accelerate the development of drugs to reduce age-related diseases, extend healthy years of life and increase the chances of living to old age free of disease, the researchers say.

Biological ageing

Scientists from the University of Edinburgh and the Max Planck Institute for Biology of Ageing in Germany focused on three measures linked to biological ageing – lifespan, years of life lived free of disease (healthspan), and being extremely long–lived (longevity).

Biological ageing – the rate at which our bodies decline over time – varies between people and drives the world’s most fatal diseases, including heart disease, dementia and cancers.

Data analysis

The researchers pooled information from three public datasets to enable an analysis in unprecedented detail. The combined dataset was equivalent to studying 1.75 million lifespans or more than 60,000 extremely long-lived people.

The team pinpointed ten regions of the genome linked to long lifespan, healthspan and longevity. They also found that gene sets linked to iron were overrepresented in their analysis of all three measures of ageing.

Iron’s role

The researchers confirmed this using a statistical method – known as Mendelian randomisation – that suggested that genes involved in metabolising iron in the blood are partly responsible for a healthy long life.

Blood iron is affected by diet and abnormally high or low levels are linked to age-related conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, liver disease and a decline in the body’s ability to fight infection in older age.

The researchers say that designing a drug that could mimic the influence of genetic variation on iron metabolism could be a future step to overcome some of the effects of ageing, but caution that more work is required.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council and is published in the journal Nature Communications.

Anonymised datasets linking genetic variation to healthspan, lifespan, and longevity were downloaded from the publicly available Zenodo, Edinburgh DataShare and Longevity Genomics servers.

We are very excited by these findings as they strongly suggest that high levels of iron in the blood reduces our healthy years of life, and keeping these levels in check could prevent age-related damage. We speculate that our findings on iron metabolism might also start to explain why very high levels of iron-rich red meat in the diet has been linked to age-related conditions such as heart disease.

Dr Paul TimmersUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh

Our ultimate aim is to discover how ageing is regulated and find ways to increase health during ageing. The ten regions of the genome we have discovered that are linked to lifespan, healthspan and longevity are all exciting candidates for further studies.

Dr Joris DeelenMax Planck Institute for Biology of Ageing

Realted links

Journal article in Nature Communications

Usher Insitute

Daniel Pendick, Former Executive Editor, Harvard Men’s Health Watch wrote in A healthy diet is the key to getting the iron you need:

Keeping the reservoir full

Most of us get the iron we need from food. Proponents of the Paleo or “cave man” diet should be cheered to know that red meat, poultry, and fish contain the most easily absorbed form of dietary iron—called heme iron. This is iron attached to the hemoglobin protein. The body absorbs heme iron more easily than the iron found in plants.

“In the typical American diet, the main sources of iron tend to be animal products,” Sesso says. “Typical meat consumption in the United States is usually more than adequate to meet one’s iron requirements.”

In plant foods, iron is not attached to such a protein. The body doesn’t absorb non-heme iron from fruits, vegetables, beans, and other plant foods as easily as it absorbs heme iron. That means those who eat little or no meat must take in more iron from leafy greens, legumes, whole grains, mushrooms, and other iron-rich plant foods. They also need to get enough vitamin C, which helps the body absorb iron from food.

The USDA recommends that women between the ages of 19 and 50 get 18 mg of iron a day, while women ages 51 and older and men 19 years and beyond need 8 mg a day. Moderate amounts of meat plus fruits and vegetables can provide that amount, helped along by the many foods fortified with iron and other vitamins and minerals, like milk, flour, and breakfast cereals. And half of all Americans get some iron from a daily multivitamin.

One caution about iron: If you don’ think you are getting enough iron, or feel pooped out and assume it’s your “tired blood,” you may be tempted to pop an iron supplement as insurance. But beware. The body does not excrete iron rapidly. That means it can build up over time and, in some people, becomes toxic. The genetic disorder hemochromatosis causes iron to build up in organs, causing heart failure and diabetes.

So don’t just prescribe yourself an iron supplement on a whim; ask your doctor if you need it.

Good sources of iron

Food Portion Iron content (milligrams)
Fortified cold breakfast cereal 3 ounces 30 to 60
Spirulina seaweed 3 ounces 28
Oysters 3 ounces 9
Soybeans, cooked 1 cup 9
Cream of Wheat 1 serving 9
Pumpkin seeds 3 ounces 8
Spinach, boiled and drained 1 cup 7
Lentils, cooked 1 cup 7
Soybeans, cooked 1 cup 5
Kidney beans, cooked 1 cup 4
Beef, ground 4 ounces 3
Turkey, ground 4 ounces 3
Source: USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/healthy-diet-key-getting-iron-need-201502127710

Resources:

Iron-Rich Foods                                                                                                                            https://www.webmd.com/diet/iron-rich-foods#1

21 Foods that are High in Iron and Why You Need Them                                                              https://stayhealthy.fit/21-foods-that-are-high-in-iron-and-why-you-need-them/?utm_source=%2Biron%20%2Bdiet&utm_medium=21FoodsthatareHighinIronandWhyYouNeedThem&utm_campaign=adw_us

BEFORE BEGINNING ANY PROGRAM OF DIET, EXERCISE OR NUTRITION SUPPLEMENT CONSULT A COMPETANT MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL

 

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/

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

University of California Riverside study: America’s most widely consumed oil causes genetic changes in the brain

26 Jan

Michael Joseph gave the basics about soy bean oil in Soybean Oil: Healthy or Harmful? August 9, 2018 Last Updated on May 6, 2019:

Final Thoughts
Overall, there is a lack of direct evidence from human trials to claim that soybean oil is harmful with any certainty.
However, in my view, many studies justify being wary about the potentially detrimental effects soybean oil can have.
Especially when we consider just how much of this oil many people consume.
To summarize; soybean oil is prone to oxidation, offers predominantly omega-6 fatty acids, and has links to adverse health effects in animal studies.
With all this being said, it is probably a better idea to opt for cooking oil that does not have these concerns…. https://www.nutritionadvance.com/harmful-effects-of-soybean-oil/

Resources:

SOYBEAN OIL                                               https://www.webmd.com/vitamins/ai/ingredientmono-196/soybean-oil

Is Soybean Oil Bad for Your Health? 21 Good Reasons to Avoid https://www.authoritydiet.com/soybean-oil-bad-health-good-reasons-avoid/

Soybean Oil: One of the Most Harmful Ingredients in Processed Foods https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/01/27/soybean-oil.aspx

Science Daily reported in America’s most widely consumed oil causes genetic changes in the brain:

New UC Riverside research shows soybean oil not only leads to obesity and diabetes, but could also affect neurological conditions like autism, Alzheimer’s disease, anxiety, and depression.
Used for fast food frying, added to packaged foods, and fed to livestock, soybean oil is by far the most widely produced and consumed edible oil in the U.S., according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In all likelihood, it is not healthy for humans.
It certainly is not good for mice. The new study, published this month in the journal Endocrinology, compared mice fed three different diets high in fat: soybean oil, soybean oil modified to be low in linoleic acid, and coconut oil.
The same UCR research team found in 2015 that soybean oil induces obesity, diabetes, insulin resistance, and fatty liver in mice. Then in a 2017 study, the same group learned that if soybean oil is engineered to be low in linoleic acid, it induces less obesity and insulin resistance.
However, in the study released this month, researchers did not find any difference between the modified and unmodified soybean oil’s effects on the brain. Specifically, the scientists found pronounced effects of the oil on the hypothalamus, where a number of critical processes take place.
“The hypothalamus regulates body weight via your metabolism, maintains body temperature, is critical for reproduction and physical growth as well as your response to stress,” said Margarita Curras-Collazo, a UCR associate professor of neuroscience and lead author on the study.
The team determined a number of genes in mice fed soybean oil were not functioning correctly. One such gene produces the “love” hormone, oxytocin. In soybean oil-fed mice, levels of oxytocin in the hypothalamus went down.
The research team discovered roughly 100 other genes also affected by the soybean oil diet. They believe this discovery could have ramifications not just for energy metabolism, but also for proper brain function and diseases such as autism or Parkinson’s disease. However, it is important to note there is no proof the oil causes these diseases.
Additionally, the team notes the findings only apply to soybean oil — not to other soy products or to other vegetable oils.
“Do not throw out your tofu, soymilk, edamame, or soy sauce,” said Frances Sladek, a UCR toxicologist and professor of cell biology. “Many soy products only contain small amounts of the oil, and large amounts of healthful compounds such as essential fatty acids and proteins….” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200117080827.htm

Citation:

America’s most widely consumed oil causes genetic changes in the brain
Soybean oil linked to metabolic and neurological changes in mice
Date: January 17, 2020
Source: University of California – Riverside
Summary:
New research shows soybean oil not only leads to obesity and diabetes, but could also affect neurological conditions like autism, Alzheimer’s disease, anxiety, and depression.

Journal Reference:
Poonamjot Deol, Elena Kozlova, Matthew Valdez, Catherine Ho, Ei-Wen Yang, Holly Richardson, Gwendolyn Gonzalez, Edward Truong, Jack Reid, Joseph Valdez, Jonathan R Deans, Jose Martinez-Lomeli, Jane R Evans, Tao Jiang, Frances M Sladek, Margarita C Curras-Collazo. Dysregulation of Hypothalamic Gene Expression and the Oxytocinergic System by Soybean Oil Diets in Male Mice. Endocrinology, 2020; DOI: 10.1210/endocr/bqz044

Here is the press release from UC Riverside:

AUTHOR: JULES BERNSTEIN

January 17, 2020

New UC Riverside research shows soybean oil not only leads to obesity and diabetes, but could also affect neurological conditions like autism, Alzheimer’s disease, anxiety, and depression.
Used for fast food frying, added to packaged foods, and fed to livestock, soybean oil is by far the most widely produced and consumed edible oil in the U.S., according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In all likelihood, it is not healthy for humans.
It certainly is not good for mice. The new study, published this month in the journal Endocrinology, compared mice fed three different diets high in fat: soybean oil, soybean oil modified to be low in linoleic acid, and coconut oil.
The same UCR research team found in 2015 that soybean oil induces obesity, diabetes, insulin resistance, and fatty liver in mice. Then in a 2017 study, the same group learned that if soybean oil is engineered to be low in linoleic acid, it induces less obesity and insulin resistance.
However, in the study released this month, researchers did not find any difference between the modified and unmodified soybean oil’s effects on the brain. Specifically, the scientists found pronounced effects of the oil on the hypothalamus, where a number of critical processes take place.
“The hypothalamus regulates body weight via your metabolism, maintains body temperature, is critical for reproduction and physical growth as well as your response to stress,” said Margarita Curras-Collazo, a UCR associate professor of neuroscience and lead author on the study.
The team determined a number of genes in mice fed soybean oil were not functioning correctly. One such gene produces the “love” hormone, oxytocin. In soybean oil-fed mice, levels of oxytocin in the hypothalamus went down.
The research team discovered roughly 100 other genes also affected by the soybean oil diet. They believe this discovery could have ramifications not just for energy metabolism, but also for proper brain function and diseases such as autism or Parkinson’s disease. However, it is important to note there is no proof the oil causes these diseases.
Additionally, the team notes the findings only apply to soybean oil — not to other soy products or to other vegetable oils.
“Do not throw out your tofu, soymilk, edamame, or soy sauce,” said Frances Sladek, a UCR toxicologist and professor of cell biology. “Many soy products only contain small amounts of the oil, and large amounts of healthful compounds such as essential fatty acids and proteins.”
A caveat for readers concerned about their most recent meal is that this study was conducted on mice, and mouse studies do not always translate to the same results in humans.
Also, this study utilized male mice. Because oxytocin is so important for maternal health and promotes mother-child bonding, similar studies need to be performed using female mice.
One additional note on this study — the research team has not yet isolated which chemicals in the oil are responsible for the changes they found in the hypothalamus. But they have ruled out two candidates. It is not linoleic acid, since the modified oil also produced genetic disruptions; nor is it stigmasterol, a cholesterol-like chemical found naturally in soybean oil.
Identifying the compounds responsible for the negative effects is an important area for the team’s future research.
“This could help design healthier dietary oils in the future,” said Poonamjot Deol, an assistant project scientist in Sladek’s laboratory and first author on the study.
“The dogma is that saturated fat is bad and unsaturated fat is good. Soybean oil is a polyunsaturated fat, but the idea that it’s good for you is just not proven,” Sladek said.
Indeed, coconut oil, which contains saturated fats, produced very few changes in the hypothalamic genes.
“If there’s one message I want people to take away, it’s this: reduce consumption of soybean oil,” Deol said about the most recent study.

JULES L BERNSTEIN
Senior Public Information Officer
Email
(951) 827-4580
https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2020/01/17/americas-most-widely-consumed-oil-causes-genetic-changes-brain?_ga=2.132429064.703507897.1580080903-425658103.1580080903

Rachael Link, MS, RD wrote in Is Soybean Oil Bad for You? Benefits vs. Risks:

Benefits/Uses

1. Good Source of Vitamin K
One of the biggest soybean oil benefits is its content of vitamin K, an important micronutrient that is involved in several aspects of health. In particular, vitamin K is well-known for its ability to maintain healthy blood clotting, which can help stop excess bleeding in response to injury.
Vitamin K is also closely involved in bone health and regulating calcium stores in the bone. In fact, according to a study published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, lower intakes of vitamin K were associated with decreased bone mineral density in women. Plus, other studies have even found that supplementing with vitamin K could be linked to a reduced risk of bone fractures as well.
2. Promotes Heart Health
The soybean oil nutrition profile is comprised mostly of polyunsaturated fats, which are a heart-healthy type of fat found in a variety of foods such as fish, nuts and seeds.
Several studies have found that swapping out other types of fat in your diet for polyunsaturated fats could help enhance heart health. For instance, one study in PLoS Medicine showed that trading saturated fats for polyunsaturated fats in the diet significantly reduced the risk of heart disease. Other studies show that replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats could also lower levels of bad LDL cholesterol, which is a major risk factor for heart disease.
Soybean oil also contains omega-3 fatty acids, which can help reduce inflammation and promote heart health as well.
3. Has a High Smoke Point
Many people prefer using soybean oil for cooking because of its high smoke point, meaning that it can withstand high temperatures without breaking down and oxidizing. In fact, the soybean oil smoke point is around 450 degrees Fahrenheit, which is significantly higher than other oils like unrefined olive, canola or flaxseed oil.
Not only can its high smoke point help optimize the flavor foods during high-heat cooking methods like baking, roasting and frying, but it can also protect against the formation of free radicals, which are harmful compounds that can contribute to chronic disease.
4. Keeps Skin Healthy
Some companies have started using soybean oil for skin care products, thanks to its ability to moisturize and soothe the skin. Interestingly enough, one small study out of Berlin showed that applying soybean oil to the skin was effective at promoting moisture retention.
Other research has found that applying it topically could protect the skin against redness and inflammation caused by UVB radiation.
5. Helps Nourish Hair
Promoting hair health is another one of the most popular soybean oil uses. In addition to helping the hair retain moisture, it can also help smooth the cuticles of the hair to keep it looking shiny. Some also use soybean oil for hair to increase the effectiveness of other products, such as hair masks and treatments.
For a simple DIY deep conditioner, try heating a few tablespoons, applying to your hair and letting it soak for 30–40 minutes before washing it out and proceeding with your normal hair care routine.

Risks and Side Effects

Although there are plenty of benefits associated with this common cooking oil, there are some soybean oil side effects and dangers that should be considered as well.
For starters, many vegetable oils on the market, including other oils like canola oil and grapeseed oil, are highly processed and refined. Opting for unrefined, minimally processed soybean oil is a better option to help maximize the potential health benefits.
Additionally, the majority of soybeans in the United States are genetically modified. Many people choose to avoid genetically modified organisms due to concerns about the long-term health effects as well as issues like antibiotic resistance and increased allergenicity. Selecting soybean oil sourced from non-GMO, organic soybeans is a good way to reduce your exposure to genetically modified organisms.
Soybean oil — like many other vegetable oils — is also high in omega-6 fatty acids. While these fatty acids are very important, the modern diet is typically very high in omega-6 fatty acids and lacking in heart-healthy omega-3s. Consuming a high amount of omega-6 fatty acids can contribute to inflammation and chronic disease over time.
Finally, keep in mind that hydrogenated soybean oil should also be avoided altogether as part of a healthy diet. These fats contain trans fats, which may be linked to a higher risk of chronic conditions such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes and more. Hydrogenated fats are often found in processed foods, such as fast food, baked goods, cookies, chips and crackers…. https://draxe.com/nutrition/soybean-oil/

For a good discussion of cooking oil, See What’s the Healthiest Oil? The Winner Is… https://universityhealthnews.com/daily/nutrition/whats-the-healthiest-oil/

Before making any dietary decisions consult a competent physician or healthcare provider.

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/

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

University of Virginia study: Study finds dopamine, biological clock link to snacking, overeating and obesity

16 Jan

Lisa Simonson wrote in the Livestrong article, What Are Good & Bad Healthy Lifestyle Choices?

Everyone makes both good and bad lifestyle choices. You may make the choices you do because of learned habits, stress, exhaustion and even timeliness. To live a healthy lifestyle you need to have a nutrient-rich diet, moderate exercise each week, get enough rest and avoid products that can lead to unhealthy habits…. https://www.livestrong.com/article/381713-what-are-good-bad-healthy-lifestyle-choices/
See, Why Digital Overload Is Now Central to the Human Condition https://singularityhub.com/2016/01/15/why-grappling-with-digital-overload-is-now-part-of-the-human-condition/#sm.0001du9uyrj9zefstyx14vmmdlhp8
Science Daily reported in Digital device overload linked to obesity risk:
If your attention gets diverted in different directions by smartphones and other digital devices, take note: Media multitasking has now been linked to obesity.
New research from Rice University indicates that mindless switching between digital devices is associated with increased susceptibility to food temptations and lack of self-control, which may result in weight gain.
“Increased exposure to phones, tablets and other portable devices has been one of the most significant changes to our environments in the past few decades, and this occurred during a period in which obesity rates also climbed in many places,” said Richard Lopez, a postdoctoral research fellow at Rice and the study’s lead author. “So, we wanted to conduct this research to determine whether links exists between obesity and abuse of digital devices — as captured by people’s tendency to engage in media multitasking….”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190402164520.htm

Citation:

Digital device overload linked to obesity risk
Date: April 2, 2019
Source: Rice University
Summary:
If your attention gets diverted in different directions by smartphones and other digital devices, take note: Media multitasking has now been linked to obesity.

Journal Reference:
Richard B. Lopez, Todd F. Heatherton, Dylan D. Wagner. Media multitasking is associated with higher risk for obesity and increased responsiveness to rewarding food stimuli. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 2019; DOI: 10.1007/s11682-019-00056-0

See, https://drwilda.com/tag/obesity/

Science Daily reported in Study finds dopamine, biological clock link to snacking, overeating and obesity:

During the years 1976 through 1980, 15% of U.S. adults were obese. Today, about 40% of adults are obese. Another 33% are overweight.
Coinciding with this increase in weight are ever-rising rates of heart disease, diabetes, cancer and health complications caused by obesity, such as hypertension. Even Alzheimer’s disease may be partly attributable to obesity and physical inactivity.
“The diet in the U.S. and other nations has changed dramatically in the last 50 years or so, with highly processed foods readily and cheaply available at any time of the day or night,” Ali Güler, a professor of biology at the University of Virginia, said. “Many of these foods are high in sugars, carbohydrates and calories, which makes for an unhealthy diet when consumed regularly over many years.”
In a study published Thursday in the journal Current Biology, Güler and his colleagues demonstrate that the pleasure center of the brain that produces the chemical dopamine, and the brain’s separate biological clock that regulates daily physiological rhythms, are linked, and that high-calorie foods — which bring pleasure — disrupt normal feeding schedules, resulting in overconsumption. Using mice as study models, the researchers mimicked the 24/7 availability of a high-fat diet, and showed that anytime snacking eventually results in obesity and related health problems.
Güler’s team found that mice fed a diet comparable to a wild diet in calories and fats maintained normal eating and exercise schedules and proper weight. But mice fed high-calorie diets laden with fats and sugars began “snacking” at all hours and became obese.
Additionally, so-called “knockout” mice that had their dopamine signaling disrupted — meaning they didn’t seek the rewarding pleasure of the high-fat diet — maintained a normal eating schedule and did not become obese, even when presented with the 24/7 availability of high-calorie feeds.
“We’ve shown that dopamine signaling in the brain governs circadian biology and leads to consumption of energy-dense foods between meals and during odd hours,” Güler said.
Other studies have shown, Güler said, that when mice feed on high-fat foods between meals or during what should be normal resting hours, the excess calories are stored as fat much more readily than the same number of calories consumed only during normal feeding periods. This eventually results in obesity and obesity-related diseases, such as diabetes.
Speaking of the modern human diet, Güler said, “The calories of a full meal may now be packed into a small volume, such as a brownie or a super-size soda. It is very easy for people to over-consume calories and gain excessive weight, often resulting in obesity and a lifetime of related health problems.
“Half of the diseases that affect humans are worsened by obesity. And this results in the need for more medical care and higher health care costs for individuals, and society.”
Güler said the human body, through thousands of years of evolution, is hard-wired to consume as much food as possible as long as it’s available. He said this comes from a long earlier history when people hunted or gathered food and had brief periods of plenty, such as after a kill, and then potentially lengthy periods of famine. Humans also were potential prey to large animals and so actively sought food during the day, and sheltered and rested at night.
“We evolved under pressures we no longer have,” Güler said. “It is natural for our bodies as organisms to want to consume as much as possible, to store fat, because the body doesn’t know when the next meal is coming…. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200103111717.htm

Citation:

Study finds dopamine, biological clock link to snacking, overeating and obesity
Date: January 3, 2020
Source: University of Virginia
Summary:
A new study finds that the pleasure center of the brain and the brain’s biological clock are linked, and that high-calorie foods — which bring pleasure — disrupt normal feeding schedules, resulting in overconsumption.

Journal Reference:
Ryan M. Grippo, Qijun Tang, Qi Zhang, Sean R. Chadwick, Yingnan Gao, Everett B. Altherr, Laura Sipe, Aarti M. Purohit, Nidhi M. Purohit, Meghana D. Sunkara, Krystyna J. Cios, Michael Sidikpramana, Anthony J. Spano, John N. Campbell, Andrew D. Steele, Jay Hirsh, Christopher D. Deppmann, Martin Wu, Michael M. Scott, Ali D. Güler. Dopamine Signaling in the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus Enables Weight Gain Associated with Hedonic Feeding. Current Biology, 2020; DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.11.029

Here is the press release from the University of Virginia:

Study finds dopamine, biological clock link to snacking, overeating and obesity
by University of Virginia
Coinciding with this increase in weight are ever-rising rates of heart disease, diabetes, cancer and health complications caused by obesity, such as hypertension. Even Alzheimer’s disease may be partly attributable to obesity and physical inactivity.
“The diet in the U.S. and other nations has changed dramatically in the last 50 years or so, with highly processed foods readily and cheaply available at any time of the day or night,” Ali Güler, a professor of biology at the University of Virginia, said. “Many of these foods are high in sugars, carbohydrates and calories, which makes for an unhealthy diet when consumed regularly over many years.”
In a study published Thursday in the journal Current Biology, Güler and his colleagues demonstrate that the pleasure center of the brain that produces the chemical dopamine, and the brain’s separate biological clock that regulates daily physiological rhythms, are linked, and that high-calorie foods—which bring pleasure—disrupt normal feeding schedules, resulting in overconsumption. Using mice as study models, the researchers mimicked the 24/7 availability of a high-fat diet, and showed that anytime snacking eventually results in obesity and related health problems.
Güler’s team found that mice fed a diet comparable to a wild diet in calories and fats maintained normal eating and exercise schedules and proper weight. But mice fed high-calorie diets laden with fats and sugars began “snacking” at all hours and became obese.
Additionally, so-called “knockout” mice that had their dopamine signaling disrupted—meaning they didn’t seek the rewarding pleasure of the high-fat diet—maintained a normal eating schedule and did not become obese, even when presented with the 24/7 availability of high-calorie feeds.
“We’ve shown that dopamine signaling in the brain governs circadian biology and leads to consumption of energy-dense foods between meals and during odd hours,” Güler said.
Other studies have shown, Güler said, that when mice feed on high-fat foods between meals or during what should be normal resting hours, the excess calories are stored as fat much more readily than the same number of calories consumed only during normal feeding periods. This eventually results in obesity and obesity-related diseases, such as diabetes.
Speaking of the modern human diet, Güler said, “The calories of a full meal may now be packed into a small volume, such as a brownie or a super-size soda. It is very easy for people to over-consume calories and gain excessive weight, often resulting in obesity and a lifetime of related health problems.
“Half of the diseases that affect humans are worsened by obesity. And this results in the need for more medical care and higher health care costs for individuals, and society.”
Güler said the human body, through thousands of years of evolution, is hard-wired to consume as much food as possible as long as it’s available. He said this comes from a long earlier history when people hunted or gathered food and had brief periods of plenty, such as after a kill, and then potentially lengthy periods of famine. Humans also were potential prey to large animals and so actively sought food during the day, and sheltered and rested at night.
“We evolved under pressures we no longer have,” Güler said. “It is natural for our bodies as organisms to want to consume as much as possible, to store fat, because the body doesn’t know when the next meal is coming.
“But, of course, food is now abundant, and our next meal is as close as the kitchen, or the nearest fast-food drive-through, or right here on our desk. Often, these foods are high in fats, sugars, and therefore calories, and that’s why they taste good. It’s easy to overconsume, and, over time, this takes a toll on our health.”
Additionally, Güler said, prior to the advent of our electricity-powered society, people started the day at dawn, worked all day, often doing manual labor, and then went to sleep with the setting of the sun. Human activity, therefore, was synchronized to day and night. Today, we are working, playing, staying connected—and eating—day and night. This, Guler said, affects our body clocks, which were evolved to operate on a sleep-wake cycle timed to daytime activity, moderate eating and nighttime rest.
“This lights-on-all-the-time, eat-at-any-time lifestyle recasts eating patterns and affects how the body utilizes energy,” he said. “It alters metabolism—as our study shows—and leads to obesity, which causes disease. We’re learning that when we eat is just as important as how much we eat. A calorie is not just a calorie. Calories consumed between meals or at odd hours become stored as fat, and that is the recipe for poor health.”
________________________________________
Explore further
Researchers identify neurons that control brain’s body clock
________________________________________
More information: Ryan M. Grippo et al, Dopamine Signaling in the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus Enables Weight Gain Associated with Hedonic Feeding, Current Biology (2020). DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.11.029
Journal information: Current Biology
Provided by University of Virginia

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.

Personal Responsibility:

There is only one person responsible for your life and the vocation you have chosen. That person is the one you see in the mirror in the morning when you wake up. Don’t blame God, your boss, your parents, your former teachers, your coach, your co-workers or your dog. You and only you are responsible for your work life and what you have achieved. The sooner you accept this notion, the sooner you will begin to make changes that lead to a happier and more productive life and career. http://www.corethemes.com/coreconcepts/

It’s all about ME unless I have to take responsibility for ME. The same brilliant minds who think the government can substitute for family have fostered a single parenthood rate of 70% in the African-American community and about 50% for the population as a whole. Given the child abuse and foster care numbers, this plan hasn’t worked well. Sometimes folks have to be responsible for their choices.

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/

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

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/

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

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/

Tags: , , , , , ,

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/

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

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/

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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/

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older Entries