A woman was left disabled after following a "detox" diet which involved drinking large quantities of water.
Although doctors stress the need to avoid dehydration by drinking enough fluids, drinking more than enough is a different matter. The human body may be mostly water, but you can have too much of a good thing. In the most serious cases, "water intoxication" can kill, and there is, say experts, scant evidence that drinking even slightly more water than usual can improve your health.
The current popularity of detox diets which recommend drinking many litres of water a day, and drinking even when not thirsty, could cause problems if taken to extremes, they say.
The claim is that drinking more than usual can do everything from improving your skin tone to "flushing out" toxins from your body. However, the amount of water actually needed in a day varies from person to person, and depends on other factors such as climate, and exercise, says the British Dietetic Association.
Showing posts with label diet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label diet. Show all posts
Friday, July 25, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Mediterranean diet cuts risk of diabetes, says study
The Mediterranean diet, with abundant quantities of virgin olive oil, provides strong protection against diabetes, a study has shown.
The diet, which includes high quantities of fruit, vegetables and wholegrain pulses and cereals is already known to protect against cardiovascular disease and, according to some research, against Alzheimer's.
Now scientists in Spain have found that it also offers a defence against the epidemic of diabetes associated with growing rates of obesity and the consumption of high-fat fast foods.
Researchers who monitored the eating habits of 13,000 graduates from the University of Navarra for eight years from 1999 to 2007 found those who stuck closely to a Mediterranean diet had an 83 per cent lower risk of developing diabetes. Those who followed the diet most rigorously had more risk factors for diabetes, such as being older, having a family history of the illness and a history of smoking. Yet they were less likely to develop the disease.
This suggests the protective effect of the diet might be "substantial", the authors report in the latest issue of the British Medical Journal. Professor Martinez-Gonzalez said: "Substantial protection against diabetes can be obtained with the traditional Mediterranean diet, rich in olive oil, vegetables, fruit, nuts, cereals, legumes and fish, but relatively low in meat and dairy products."
Source - Independent
The diet, which includes high quantities of fruit, vegetables and wholegrain pulses and cereals is already known to protect against cardiovascular disease and, according to some research, against Alzheimer's.
Now scientists in Spain have found that it also offers a defence against the epidemic of diabetes associated with growing rates of obesity and the consumption of high-fat fast foods.
Researchers who monitored the eating habits of 13,000 graduates from the University of Navarra for eight years from 1999 to 2007 found those who stuck closely to a Mediterranean diet had an 83 per cent lower risk of developing diabetes. Those who followed the diet most rigorously had more risk factors for diabetes, such as being older, having a family history of the illness and a history of smoking. Yet they were less likely to develop the disease.
This suggests the protective effect of the diet might be "substantial", the authors report in the latest issue of the British Medical Journal. Professor Martinez-Gonzalez said: "Substantial protection against diabetes can be obtained with the traditional Mediterranean diet, rich in olive oil, vegetables, fruit, nuts, cereals, legumes and fish, but relatively low in meat and dairy products."
Source - Independent
Fruit and veg keep cancer at bay
From protecting you against cancers to sunburn, scientists can now explain the value of fruit and vegetables in our diet.
Small red tomatoes nestling among green peppers, sliced carrots and spring onions not only brighten up a salad but also give some protection against a wide variety of cancers. They have other more mundane properties as well. Holidaymakers in France and Spain may be less likely to suffer sunburn and prematurely aged skin if they eat tomatoes, rich in lycopene, and other fruits and vegetables rich in carotenoids.
Carotenoids are the micronutrients, mainly dark yellow or red, that give some fruits and vegetables their colour and health-giving powers. Tomato juice or ketchup with the fish and salad won't in any way replace a high-factor sunscreen, but it offers some protective action against inflammation, premature skin ageing, photo-sensitivity disorders and some skin cancers.
The carotenoids in tomatoes, peppers and pomegranates once eaten are later widely distributed in the epidermal and dermal layers of the skin. In the skin they help to absorb the light, act as antioxidants and have an anti-inflammatory response to sunburn. They act by increasing the circulation of the blood to the skin and thus its nutrition. The better skin nutrition the less its scaliness and roughness, and more improved its thickness and hydration.
Scientists attending the First International Congress on Nutrition and Cancer in Turkey last week discussed the effect of nutrition on skin health as well as on malignancies. The study of nutrition is increasingly moving from a focus on diet to food science. It is now accepted that the diet enjoyed by those living in the Far East or the Mediterranean countries has advantages over typical Western fare and contributes to a longer life. Scientists can now explain the biochemical mechanism and demonstrate how the micronutrients in the diet can interfere with the body's cellular pathways to help to prevent cancer.
Source - Times
Small red tomatoes nestling among green peppers, sliced carrots and spring onions not only brighten up a salad but also give some protection against a wide variety of cancers. They have other more mundane properties as well. Holidaymakers in France and Spain may be less likely to suffer sunburn and prematurely aged skin if they eat tomatoes, rich in lycopene, and other fruits and vegetables rich in carotenoids.
Carotenoids are the micronutrients, mainly dark yellow or red, that give some fruits and vegetables their colour and health-giving powers. Tomato juice or ketchup with the fish and salad won't in any way replace a high-factor sunscreen, but it offers some protective action against inflammation, premature skin ageing, photo-sensitivity disorders and some skin cancers.
The carotenoids in tomatoes, peppers and pomegranates once eaten are later widely distributed in the epidermal and dermal layers of the skin. In the skin they help to absorb the light, act as antioxidants and have an anti-inflammatory response to sunburn. They act by increasing the circulation of the blood to the skin and thus its nutrition. The better skin nutrition the less its scaliness and roughness, and more improved its thickness and hydration.
Scientists attending the First International Congress on Nutrition and Cancer in Turkey last week discussed the effect of nutrition on skin health as well as on malignancies. The study of nutrition is increasingly moving from a focus on diet to food science. It is now accepted that the diet enjoyed by those living in the Far East or the Mediterranean countries has advantages over typical Western fare and contributes to a longer life. Scientists can now explain the biochemical mechanism and demonstrate how the micronutrients in the diet can interfere with the body's cellular pathways to help to prevent cancer.
Source - Times
Monday, May 12, 2008
'Caveman diet' lowers the risk of heart disease, new research shows
Eating like a caveman could reduce the risk of heart disease, according to new research.
Just three weeks on a stone-age diet rich in lean meat, vegetables, berries and nuts was enough to lower the chances of suffering a heart attack or stroke.
Scientists at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden who tested the diet on a group of volunteers found they lost weight, lowered blood pressure and slashed levels of a blood-thickening agent known to cause deadly clots.
The results, published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, support earlier findings that the so-called paleolithic diet could protect against diabetes.
For centuries, our ancestors lived only on foods that could be speared or picked from trees and plants. Some scientists argue that the modern human body is still genetically programmed for this type of diet. That means no cereals, bread, milk, butter, cheese or sugar but plenty of lean meat, fish, fruits, vegetables and nuts.
To test its effect, the Swedish researchers recruited 20 healthy volunteers and put them on caveman rations for three weeks.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Diet foods weight gain puzzle
A study which showed that rats fed on artificial sweetener still put on weight has baffled researchers.
Scientists from Purdue University in the US now believe that a sweet taste followed by no calories may make the body crave extra food.
Their research, published in the journal Behavioral Neuroscience, found that rats fed sugar subsequently had lower appetites.
But nutritionists say that low-calorie sweeteners are still best for health.
Source: BBC News
Scientists from Purdue University in the US now believe that a sweet taste followed by no calories may make the body crave extra food.
Their research, published in the journal Behavioral Neuroscience, found that rats fed sugar subsequently had lower appetites.
But nutritionists say that low-calorie sweeteners are still best for health.
Source: BBC News
Vitamin deficiency may cause modern ills
A chronic shortage of vitamins and other "micronutrients" in the diet may be responsible for triggering many of the ills of modern life such as cancer, obesity and the degenerative diseases of ageing.
Professor Bruce Ames, of the University of California, Berkeley, who invented one of the standard tests for cancer-causing chemicals, said many people's diets were deficient in one or more of the 40 micronutrients essential for a healthy life.
Taking dietary supplements in the form of vitamin pills could help to counteract many of the disorders associated with ageing, Dr Ames told the American Association meeting.
He said many people on a high-calorie diet in the West or poor diet in developing countries were short of micronutrients and this caused the body to go into an emergency "triage" response in which it tried to keep its metabolism in balance by a process of compensation. This ensures immediate survival, but the consequences are an increase in DNA damage, which causes future cancers, a lowered immune defence, and a decay of the mitochondrial "power plants" of the cells, which causes accelerated ageing," he said.
He said a shortage of minerals, vitamins and other nutrients could also be partly responsible for obesity.
Source - Independent
Professor Bruce Ames, of the University of California, Berkeley, who invented one of the standard tests for cancer-causing chemicals, said many people's diets were deficient in one or more of the 40 micronutrients essential for a healthy life.
Taking dietary supplements in the form of vitamin pills could help to counteract many of the disorders associated with ageing, Dr Ames told the American Association meeting.
He said many people on a high-calorie diet in the West or poor diet in developing countries were short of micronutrients and this caused the body to go into an emergency "triage" response in which it tried to keep its metabolism in balance by a process of compensation. This ensures immediate survival, but the consequences are an increase in DNA damage, which causes future cancers, a lowered immune defence, and a decay of the mitochondrial "power plants" of the cells, which causes accelerated ageing," he said.
He said a shortage of minerals, vitamins and other nutrients could also be partly responsible for obesity.
Source - Independent
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Could a secret ingredient in junk food help the fight against obesity?
Scientists have found a way to make snacks keep hunger at bay for longer.
They are working on a plant extract which could be added to fatty foods, such as ready meals and burgers, to suppress the appetite. It is hoped it will help dieters stick to smaller portions and combat obesity. The ingredient, found naturally in most plants, seeds and cereals, could be added to fast food to ward off hunger for up to 12 hours.
The compound works by coating fat before it is digested, stopping the enzymes that naturally break it down from working as fast as usual. This sends a signal to the brain that a person has had enough to eat, even though their stomach may only be half full.
Experts at the Institute of Food Research in Norwich, who are yet to start tests in humans, hope to work with food manufactures in a couple of years to develop the supplement.
They are focusing on lipids found in chloroplasts the parts of plant cells used in photosynthesis. Oats, wheat and common seeds are also a good source of the substance. But researchers concede that manufacturers may be reluctant to add an ingredient that actually puts people off from buying more of their products.
Head of the project Dr Peter Wilde said: "Tests show that in the lab when we isolate the lipids, they can suppress appetite. In theory they could be added to any food with fat in it. We are still at a laboratory stage, but in two to three years we will be looking for volunteers."
There are already several food products on the market which claim to beat hunger and make you feel full. But many are based on the fibre found in whole grain. This would be the first time that foods that do not contain fibre could be artificially engineered to induce the same feeling of being full.
Source - Daily Mail
They are working on a plant extract which could be added to fatty foods, such as ready meals and burgers, to suppress the appetite. It is hoped it will help dieters stick to smaller portions and combat obesity. The ingredient, found naturally in most plants, seeds and cereals, could be added to fast food to ward off hunger for up to 12 hours.
The compound works by coating fat before it is digested, stopping the enzymes that naturally break it down from working as fast as usual. This sends a signal to the brain that a person has had enough to eat, even though their stomach may only be half full.
Experts at the Institute of Food Research in Norwich, who are yet to start tests in humans, hope to work with food manufactures in a couple of years to develop the supplement.
They are focusing on lipids found in chloroplasts the parts of plant cells used in photosynthesis. Oats, wheat and common seeds are also a good source of the substance. But researchers concede that manufacturers may be reluctant to add an ingredient that actually puts people off from buying more of their products.
Head of the project Dr Peter Wilde said: "Tests show that in the lab when we isolate the lipids, they can suppress appetite. In theory they could be added to any food with fat in it. We are still at a laboratory stage, but in two to three years we will be looking for volunteers."
There are already several food products on the market which claim to beat hunger and make you feel full. But many are based on the fibre found in whole grain. This would be the first time that foods that do not contain fibre could be artificially engineered to induce the same feeling of being full.
Source - Daily Mail
Thursday, January 31, 2008
The death-defying diet
Calorie restriction claims to help you live longer and avoid old-age - But does it work?
My last supper as a mortal took place on Hallowe’en at Florent, a French diner in New York’s meat-packing district. The parade was in full swing and waiters in drag served tables of clowns. Olivia Newton-John (emphasis on John) circa Physical in leggings and an off-the-shoulder T-shirt recommended the steak frites with green beans followed by cheesecake and ice cream. It all sounded good to me.
I love food and have never really taken much interest in the calories it contains. I vaguely remember that Tic Tacs have two calories (Tic Tac two) but I could be wrong and, until recently, I haven’t given a monkey’s. For the past 10 years, I have weighed 12 stone 5lb, give or take a few pounds. I’m 41, 5ft 11in and neither thin nor fat. I’m a small large. I eat an average amount for my size – about 2,500 calories a day.
My body mass index (BMI), the calculation many doctors use to assess weight, is 24.4, the high end of normal. Add a few pounds and I would be overweight but I’d have to slap on well over a stone to be “obese”. Most importantly, I weigh less than most of my male friends. Now, this laissez-faire attitude to food is going to stop. From the stroke of midnight I am going to retrain my body to live on 1,800 calories a day on a diet that, a growing body of evidence is showing, will increase my life span, reduce my chances of serious diseases like cancer and may even give me a shot at cheating death.
In 1991, Dr Roy Walford, an expert on ageing and a Korean-war veteran, was sealed inside Biosphere 2 with seven other “crew” members. Among other delights, the 3.14-acre site contained a rainforest, an 850-square-metre ocean with a coral reef, and mangrove wetlands.
For two years, they were supposed to support themselves on food they would grow themselves, to test the feasibility of setting up such sites on distant planets. The crew found they could not grow enough food and the experiment almost had to be cancelled. Solving the food dilemma led to an experiment that convinced Walford he had found a way to extend human life.
Walford convinced the crew to follow a nutrient-rich diet of between 1,400 and 2,000 calories a day. Within six months the crew’s weight had, unsurprisingly, fallen 14% – but they also showed dramatic falls in blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar and insulin. Did the Biosphere contain the fountain of youth? diseases.
Source - Times
My last supper as a mortal took place on Hallowe’en at Florent, a French diner in New York’s meat-packing district. The parade was in full swing and waiters in drag served tables of clowns. Olivia Newton-John (emphasis on John) circa Physical in leggings and an off-the-shoulder T-shirt recommended the steak frites with green beans followed by cheesecake and ice cream. It all sounded good to me.
I love food and have never really taken much interest in the calories it contains. I vaguely remember that Tic Tacs have two calories (Tic Tac two) but I could be wrong and, until recently, I haven’t given a monkey’s. For the past 10 years, I have weighed 12 stone 5lb, give or take a few pounds. I’m 41, 5ft 11in and neither thin nor fat. I’m a small large. I eat an average amount for my size – about 2,500 calories a day.
My body mass index (BMI), the calculation many doctors use to assess weight, is 24.4, the high end of normal. Add a few pounds and I would be overweight but I’d have to slap on well over a stone to be “obese”. Most importantly, I weigh less than most of my male friends. Now, this laissez-faire attitude to food is going to stop. From the stroke of midnight I am going to retrain my body to live on 1,800 calories a day on a diet that, a growing body of evidence is showing, will increase my life span, reduce my chances of serious diseases like cancer and may even give me a shot at cheating death.
In 1991, Dr Roy Walford, an expert on ageing and a Korean-war veteran, was sealed inside Biosphere 2 with seven other “crew” members. Among other delights, the 3.14-acre site contained a rainforest, an 850-square-metre ocean with a coral reef, and mangrove wetlands.
For two years, they were supposed to support themselves on food they would grow themselves, to test the feasibility of setting up such sites on distant planets. The crew found they could not grow enough food and the experiment almost had to be cancelled. Solving the food dilemma led to an experiment that convinced Walford he had found a way to extend human life.
Walford convinced the crew to follow a nutrient-rich diet of between 1,400 and 2,000 calories a day. Within six months the crew’s weight had, unsurprisingly, fallen 14% – but they also showed dramatic falls in blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar and insulin. Did the Biosphere contain the fountain of youth? diseases.
Source - Times
Monday, December 31, 2007
Scientist dismisses detox diets
Adopting a detox diet - often popular in January - is a waste of time and money, a leading scientist has said.
Dr Andrew Wadge, of the Food Standards Agency (FSA), said regimes purporting to cleanse the body were "nonsense". The detox market - which can include diets, tablets and drinks said to flush out toxins - is thought to be worth tens of millions of pounds. In his blog, Dr Wadge said water and exercise were enough to help the body rid itself of harmful chemicals.
The chief scientist of the government's food watchdog wrote: "There's a lot of nonsense talked about 'detoxing' and most people seem to forget that we are born with a built-in detox mechanism. "It's called the liver. So my advice would be to ditch the detox diets and supplements and buy yourself something nice with the money you've saved."
Detox-based diets, which are sometimes endorsed by celebrities, can include the use of tablets, socks, body wraps, diets, eating nettle root extract or drinking herbal infusions or "oxygenated" water in a bid to make natural procedures more effective. Some products claim to enhance the immune system, relieve pain, flush out toxins and stimulate circulation.
But, urging people to save time and money, Dr Wadge advised: "First, drink a glass or two of water (tap is fine, cheaper and more sustainable than bottled); second, get a little exercise - maybe a walk in the park - and third, enjoy some nice home-cooked food."
Source - BBC
Dr Andrew Wadge, of the Food Standards Agency (FSA), said regimes purporting to cleanse the body were "nonsense". The detox market - which can include diets, tablets and drinks said to flush out toxins - is thought to be worth tens of millions of pounds. In his blog, Dr Wadge said water and exercise were enough to help the body rid itself of harmful chemicals.
The chief scientist of the government's food watchdog wrote: "There's a lot of nonsense talked about 'detoxing' and most people seem to forget that we are born with a built-in detox mechanism. "It's called the liver. So my advice would be to ditch the detox diets and supplements and buy yourself something nice with the money you've saved."
Detox-based diets, which are sometimes endorsed by celebrities, can include the use of tablets, socks, body wraps, diets, eating nettle root extract or drinking herbal infusions or "oxygenated" water in a bid to make natural procedures more effective. Some products claim to enhance the immune system, relieve pain, flush out toxins and stimulate circulation.
But, urging people to save time and money, Dr Wadge advised: "First, drink a glass or two of water (tap is fine, cheaper and more sustainable than bottled); second, get a little exercise - maybe a walk in the park - and third, enjoy some nice home-cooked food."
Source - BBC
How the Mediterranean diet could help you live longer
More evidence of the benefits of a Mediterranean-style diet has emerged in a study involving almost 400,000 patients.
The research suggested that eating lots of fresh fish, fruit, vegetables and whole grains extends life expectancy. Over five years, scientists rated the volunteers on how closely they kept to the Mediterranean regime.
Those with higher scores were shown to be less likely to die in that time period of any cause, including cancer and heart disease.
The Mediterranean diet is high in healthy fats such as those in olive oil and low in red meat and dairy products. Alcohol, particularly red wine, is encouraged in moderation.
Research has suggested that the diet may improve the flexibility of cells lining the walls of blood vessels, keeping arteries and lungs healthy.
The study - carried out by the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland - was published yesterday in the journal, Archives of Internal Medicine.
Source - Daily Mail
The research suggested that eating lots of fresh fish, fruit, vegetables and whole grains extends life expectancy. Over five years, scientists rated the volunteers on how closely they kept to the Mediterranean regime.
Those with higher scores were shown to be less likely to die in that time period of any cause, including cancer and heart disease.
The Mediterranean diet is high in healthy fats such as those in olive oil and low in red meat and dairy products. Alcohol, particularly red wine, is encouraged in moderation.
Research has suggested that the diet may improve the flexibility of cells lining the walls of blood vessels, keeping arteries and lungs healthy.
The study - carried out by the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland - was published yesterday in the journal, Archives of Internal Medicine.
Source - Daily Mail
Hilary Swank swallows 45 food supplements every day
... but dieticians say most of us can get all the nutrients we need from eating a balanced diet, and large doses of some vitamins can be harmful.
It is something of a mystery how Hilary Swank has managed to find the time to forge a Hollywood career and win two Oscars, not to mention fitting in the more everyday business of popping out to the shops or taking her dog for a walk, given the amount of time she must devote to her extensive pill-taking regime.
In a recent cover interview with American style bible, W magazine, the actor breathily regaled the journalist (who was possibly wondering how you steer a Hollywood heavyweight away from the subject of capsules and onto more meaty tell-all celebrity interview fodder) with the finer details of all the brilliant nutritional supplements she relies upon.
"This is my Aloe C," she began (Aloe C, as the name suggests, is a combination of Aloe Vera and vitamin C). "Here's my flax. This one's for my immune system. And this one is my BrainWave." BrainWave is designed to enhance mental function through a balance of "smart nutrients". It hasn't been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration in the US, but Swank is already convinced. "It's great, like if I have a lot of lines to memorise." Or a lot of pills to memorise, since she continues to rattle off a list of the 45 supplements she takes every day.
Source - Guardian
It is something of a mystery how Hilary Swank has managed to find the time to forge a Hollywood career and win two Oscars, not to mention fitting in the more everyday business of popping out to the shops or taking her dog for a walk, given the amount of time she must devote to her extensive pill-taking regime.
In a recent cover interview with American style bible, W magazine, the actor breathily regaled the journalist (who was possibly wondering how you steer a Hollywood heavyweight away from the subject of capsules and onto more meaty tell-all celebrity interview fodder) with the finer details of all the brilliant nutritional supplements she relies upon.
"This is my Aloe C," she began (Aloe C, as the name suggests, is a combination of Aloe Vera and vitamin C). "Here's my flax. This one's for my immune system. And this one is my BrainWave." BrainWave is designed to enhance mental function through a balance of "smart nutrients". It hasn't been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration in the US, but Swank is already convinced. "It's great, like if I have a lot of lines to memorise." Or a lot of pills to memorise, since she continues to rattle off a list of the 45 supplements she takes every day.
Source - Guardian
Red meat 'can raise the risk of cancer by 25 per cent'
Eating large amounts of red and processed meat leaves you at greater risk of cancer, a major report has warned.
One in ten cases of both lung and bowel cancer could be prevented if people cut down on beef, lamb, pork, sausages, ham and bacon, scientists say. Red meat also increases the risk of cancers of the liver and oesophagus, the study found. The research, involving nearly 500,000 people, adds to growing evidence that too much meat in the diet can be deadly. Health experts are increasingly concerned at the role of diet - particularly meat - in cancers.
Last month, a report from the World Cancer Research Fund warned that red meat was a major contributor to the disease. Its scientists urged people to stop eating processed bacon, ham and sausages and consume no more than the equivalent of three 6oz steaks a week.
The latest findings, published today in the science journal PLoS Medicine, reach a similar conclusion.
Researchers at the U.S. National Cancer Institute looked at the records of 494,000 people aged 50 to 71 taking part in an extensive diet and health study. Volunteers filled in detailed questionnaires about their dietary habits over the previous year. That allowed the scientists to work out what proportion of their calories came from red and processed meat.
The researchers then looked at the medical histories of the 20 per cent of volunteers eating the most meat, with the 20 per cent eating the least.
The biggest red meat eaters were 25 per cent more likely to be diagnosed with bowel cancer during the eight-year study, and 20 per cent more likely to develop lung cancer. For processed meat, the increased risk was 20 per cent and 16 per cent respectively.
Source - Daily Mail
One in ten cases of both lung and bowel cancer could be prevented if people cut down on beef, lamb, pork, sausages, ham and bacon, scientists say. Red meat also increases the risk of cancers of the liver and oesophagus, the study found. The research, involving nearly 500,000 people, adds to growing evidence that too much meat in the diet can be deadly. Health experts are increasingly concerned at the role of diet - particularly meat - in cancers.
Last month, a report from the World Cancer Research Fund warned that red meat was a major contributor to the disease. Its scientists urged people to stop eating processed bacon, ham and sausages and consume no more than the equivalent of three 6oz steaks a week.
The latest findings, published today in the science journal PLoS Medicine, reach a similar conclusion.
Researchers at the U.S. National Cancer Institute looked at the records of 494,000 people aged 50 to 71 taking part in an extensive diet and health study. Volunteers filled in detailed questionnaires about their dietary habits over the previous year. That allowed the scientists to work out what proportion of their calories came from red and processed meat.
The researchers then looked at the medical histories of the 20 per cent of volunteers eating the most meat, with the 20 per cent eating the least.
The biggest red meat eaters were 25 per cent more likely to be diagnosed with bowel cancer during the eight-year study, and 20 per cent more likely to develop lung cancer. For processed meat, the increased risk was 20 per cent and 16 per cent respectively.
Source - Daily Mail
Eat yourself healthy
The right diet can help to protect us from colds and bugs. Find out how to eat to boost your immunity.
Midwinter is traditionally the time for feasting; enjoyed, all too often, to a counterpoint of coughs and sneezes. And seasonal flu often peaks in the final week of the year.
Might there be a connection, then, between the feasts of the winter solstice and the desire to protect against the infections it brings? In the days before antibiotics and flu vaccines, avoiding infections could have been life-preserving. And it is certainly true that the immune system can be fortified by diet.
Serious malnutrition depresses immune function, says Professor Philip Calder, of Southampton University, one of Britain’s leading experts on diet and immunity. “It’s clear that people who are malnourished or suffer nutrient deficiencies have impaired immunity and increased suceptibility to infection,” he says. “If the malnutrition is reversed, the immune system returns to more like normal.”
Last month Professor Calder was awarded the prestigious Nutricia International Award, by the charity the Nutricia Research Foundation, for his pioneering research into nutritional immunology or, put more simply, how diet affects our immune system.
So how much does what we eat affect our response to winter bugs? Quite a lot, according to Professor Calder. “Vitamins and minerals are essential for the immune system, which is particularly sensitive to deficiencies,” he says. In the past few years his work has revealed that the key dietary ingredients for boosting the immune system are zinc, selenium, vitamin D, and the long-chain fatty acids known as omega3s and 6s.
Source - Times
Midwinter is traditionally the time for feasting; enjoyed, all too often, to a counterpoint of coughs and sneezes. And seasonal flu often peaks in the final week of the year.
Might there be a connection, then, between the feasts of the winter solstice and the desire to protect against the infections it brings? In the days before antibiotics and flu vaccines, avoiding infections could have been life-preserving. And it is certainly true that the immune system can be fortified by diet.
Serious malnutrition depresses immune function, says Professor Philip Calder, of Southampton University, one of Britain’s leading experts on diet and immunity. “It’s clear that people who are malnourished or suffer nutrient deficiencies have impaired immunity and increased suceptibility to infection,” he says. “If the malnutrition is reversed, the immune system returns to more like normal.”
Last month Professor Calder was awarded the prestigious Nutricia International Award, by the charity the Nutricia Research Foundation, for his pioneering research into nutritional immunology or, put more simply, how diet affects our immune system.
So how much does what we eat affect our response to winter bugs? Quite a lot, according to Professor Calder. “Vitamins and minerals are essential for the immune system, which is particularly sensitive to deficiencies,” he says. In the past few years his work has revealed that the key dietary ingredients for boosting the immune system are zinc, selenium, vitamin D, and the long-chain fatty acids known as omega3s and 6s.
Source - Times
Friday, November 30, 2007
Warning: scientists' advice about diet can be a recipe for confusion
Everyone tires, sooner or later, of being told what to do, especially when the advice is confusing, conflicting or plain contradictory. Nowhere is that more evident than in the area of diet.
The response to this week's report from the World Cancer Research Fund, the largest review of the link between diet and cancer which distilled the findings of more than 7,000 studies, was predictable. It concluded that a third of cancers were attributable to diet – something scientists have been saying for the past 25 years – and warned of the dangers of being overweight, where evidence of its role in at least six cancers is stronger than ever.
But what really stirred the passions of red-blooded Englishmen was its verdict on meat.
Consumption of red meat – beef, lamb, pork – should be cut to 500g a week and processed meats – bacon, sausage, salami, ham and other staples from the delicatessen – should be avoided altogether, it ruled.
"Save our bacon" trumpeted one front page the next day while others asked querulously "So what is safe to eat?" It was an understandable response. We have come to accept the idea that smoking causes lung cancer and that cigarettes kill. But who has ever suggested that a favourite uncle died because of his love of roast beef?
This is the crux of the problem. The link between smoking and lung cancer is crystal clear – cigarettes account for almost 90 per cent of deaths from lung cancer. If there were no smoking there would be almost no lung cancer.
Nothing in our diets has anywhere near this impact on our health. With lesser causes such as red and processed meats, other mitigating factors play a greater role – genetic inheritance, exercise, other elements in the diet. And while cigarettes have only negative effects, most foods have a mix of positive and negative effects – sugar, for example, is good for energy but rots the teeth. The message on diet is therefore necessarily complex – there is no magic bullet as there is with lung cancer (stop smoking).
Take the world's most widely used superfood, tea. It is drunk by millions, not because it is healthy but because it is soothing, thirst quenching and delicious.Recent research has shown that it is high in antioxidants and may protect against heart disease and cancer.
But adding milk and, worse, sugar, may negate its health-giving benefits. For people who drink a lot of tea the dash of milk in each cup adds up and can contribute significantly to the amount of fat in the diet, increasing the risk of heart disease and cancelling the protective effect of the antioxidants. Tea can be good or bad for you, depending on how it is drunk.
Source - Independent
The response to this week's report from the World Cancer Research Fund, the largest review of the link between diet and cancer which distilled the findings of more than 7,000 studies, was predictable. It concluded that a third of cancers were attributable to diet – something scientists have been saying for the past 25 years – and warned of the dangers of being overweight, where evidence of its role in at least six cancers is stronger than ever.
But what really stirred the passions of red-blooded Englishmen was its verdict on meat.
Consumption of red meat – beef, lamb, pork – should be cut to 500g a week and processed meats – bacon, sausage, salami, ham and other staples from the delicatessen – should be avoided altogether, it ruled.
"Save our bacon" trumpeted one front page the next day while others asked querulously "So what is safe to eat?" It was an understandable response. We have come to accept the idea that smoking causes lung cancer and that cigarettes kill. But who has ever suggested that a favourite uncle died because of his love of roast beef?
This is the crux of the problem. The link between smoking and lung cancer is crystal clear – cigarettes account for almost 90 per cent of deaths from lung cancer. If there were no smoking there would be almost no lung cancer.
Nothing in our diets has anywhere near this impact on our health. With lesser causes such as red and processed meats, other mitigating factors play a greater role – genetic inheritance, exercise, other elements in the diet. And while cigarettes have only negative effects, most foods have a mix of positive and negative effects – sugar, for example, is good for energy but rots the teeth. The message on diet is therefore necessarily complex – there is no magic bullet as there is with lung cancer (stop smoking).
Take the world's most widely used superfood, tea. It is drunk by millions, not because it is healthy but because it is soothing, thirst quenching and delicious.Recent research has shown that it is high in antioxidants and may protect against heart disease and cancer.
But adding milk and, worse, sugar, may negate its health-giving benefits. For people who drink a lot of tea the dash of milk in each cup adds up and can contribute significantly to the amount of fat in the diet, increasing the risk of heart disease and cancelling the protective effect of the antioxidants. Tea can be good or bad for you, depending on how it is drunk.
Source - Independent
How eating a burger and chips can make your baby a boy (and chocolate will produce a girl)
Folklore holds that what mothers eat is the key to the sex of their child.
Red meat and salty snacks are said to lead to boys while chocolate is thought to help to produce girls.
Now science suggests the stories may be true: mice with low blood-sugar levels - a good indicator of a sugar-rich diet - produce more female than male offspring.
Researchers gave 20 female mice a steroid, dexamethasone, which kept their blood-sugar levels low. The sex of their litters was then compared with that of 20 mice on a regular diet. Those eating normally produced offspring that were 53 per cent male. But those on the steroid produced litters that were only 41 per cent male.
The results showed that, in mice at least, a diet that is high in sugar can lead to more female offspring.
The scientists who carried out the research at the University of Pretoria in South Africa say the same could be true in humans.
But Elissa Cameron, who led the project, said it was unclear how blood-sugar levels affect the
sex of the offspring. Sex is determined by a chromosome contained in the sperm - X for a girl and Y for a boy. Women have two X chromosones.
But diet, in men, can have an impact by altering the proportion of sperm carrying X and Y chromosomes.
The latest research suggests food may affect the environment in the womb, creating conditions which are more favourable to male or female sperm.
Professor Cameron said her work raised the possibility that diet can influence the proportion of males and females in a population.
She said it also offered a possible answer to a key question in evolutionary theory - understanding the mechanisms through which animals 'select' the sex off their offspring.
Source - Daily Mail
Red meat and salty snacks are said to lead to boys while chocolate is thought to help to produce girls.
Now science suggests the stories may be true: mice with low blood-sugar levels - a good indicator of a sugar-rich diet - produce more female than male offspring.
Researchers gave 20 female mice a steroid, dexamethasone, which kept their blood-sugar levels low. The sex of their litters was then compared with that of 20 mice on a regular diet. Those eating normally produced offspring that were 53 per cent male. But those on the steroid produced litters that were only 41 per cent male.
The results showed that, in mice at least, a diet that is high in sugar can lead to more female offspring.
The scientists who carried out the research at the University of Pretoria in South Africa say the same could be true in humans.
But Elissa Cameron, who led the project, said it was unclear how blood-sugar levels affect the
sex of the offspring. Sex is determined by a chromosome contained in the sperm - X for a girl and Y for a boy. Women have two X chromosones.
But diet, in men, can have an impact by altering the proportion of sperm carrying X and Y chromosomes.
The latest research suggests food may affect the environment in the womb, creating conditions which are more favourable to male or female sperm.
Professor Cameron said her work raised the possibility that diet can influence the proportion of males and females in a population.
She said it also offered a possible answer to a key question in evolutionary theory - understanding the mechanisms through which animals 'select' the sex off their offspring.
Source - Daily Mail
Healthy diet 'cuts dementia risk'
More evidence that a diet rich in oily fish and vegetables can reduce the chances of dementia later in life has been uncovered by scientists.
Studies published in US journals suggested that a "Mediterranean diet" or long-term beta-carotene supplements could ward off the illness. Both contain anti-oxidants, which could protect the brain from damage.
The Alzheimer's Society said that most people could cut their risk by eating a healthy diet. The first study, in the journal Neurology, looked at the diets of more than 8,000 healthy men and women aged over 65.
They found that those who regularly ate omega-3 oils, found in some cooking oils and certain types of fish, were far less likely to develop dementia over the following four year period. People who ate fish at least once a week had a 40% lower risk of dementia, while eating fruit and vegetables once a day reduced the risk by 35%.
However, eating other types of cooking oils containing omega-6 - such as sunflower oil - rather than omega-3 doubled the risk.
Dr Pascale Barberger-Gateau, from the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research in Bordeaux, said: "These results could have considerable implications for public health."
The second study looked at the effects of beta-carotene supplements over an average of 18 years.
Source - BBC
Studies published in US journals suggested that a "Mediterranean diet" or long-term beta-carotene supplements could ward off the illness. Both contain anti-oxidants, which could protect the brain from damage.
The Alzheimer's Society said that most people could cut their risk by eating a healthy diet. The first study, in the journal Neurology, looked at the diets of more than 8,000 healthy men and women aged over 65.
They found that those who regularly ate omega-3 oils, found in some cooking oils and certain types of fish, were far less likely to develop dementia over the following four year period. People who ate fish at least once a week had a 40% lower risk of dementia, while eating fruit and vegetables once a day reduced the risk by 35%.
However, eating other types of cooking oils containing omega-6 - such as sunflower oil - rather than omega-3 doubled the risk.
Dr Pascale Barberger-Gateau, from the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research in Bordeaux, said: "These results could have considerable implications for public health."
The second study looked at the effects of beta-carotene supplements over an average of 18 years.
Source - BBC
The Big Question: Where do the latest findings leave the debate on breast-feeding?
Why are we asking this now?
Just when you thought scientists had made their minds up on a topic – from life on Mars to the health dangers of bacon butties – another study comes along to upset the consensus. This week researchers reported that breastfeeding babies boosted their IQs by seven points. However, this only occurs in those babies who have inherited a particular gene called FADS2, they found. Fortunately nine out of 10 children have the necessary gene. For the one in 10 who don't, breast feeding makes no difference to intelligence. Bottle feeding, in this regard, is equally good.
Is this the last word on the subject?
Unlikely. The link between breast feeding and intelligence has been debated since 1929 when the first paper on the subject was published. We thought we had heard the last word a year ago when the largest scientific study of the supposed link concluded that breast-fed babies were indeed smarter – but not because of the milk they were fed.
Instead the researchers, from the University of Edinburgh, said they were smarter because their mothers were. Women who breast-fed tended to be more intelligent and more highly educated, and provided more stimulation for their babies at home. The higher IQ of their babies was mostly inherited, accounting for 75 per cent of the difference. The rest of the difference was due to their environment – breast-fed babies had mothers who were older, better educated and lived in nicer homes where they received more attention.
Terrie and Abshalom Moffit, the husband and wife team who published this week's study based on 3,000 children in the UK and New Zealand, said they had corrected for these factors – and they still found a seven-point IQ difference.
Source - Independent
Just when you thought scientists had made their minds up on a topic – from life on Mars to the health dangers of bacon butties – another study comes along to upset the consensus. This week researchers reported that breastfeeding babies boosted their IQs by seven points. However, this only occurs in those babies who have inherited a particular gene called FADS2, they found. Fortunately nine out of 10 children have the necessary gene. For the one in 10 who don't, breast feeding makes no difference to intelligence. Bottle feeding, in this regard, is equally good.
Is this the last word on the subject?
Unlikely. The link between breast feeding and intelligence has been debated since 1929 when the first paper on the subject was published. We thought we had heard the last word a year ago when the largest scientific study of the supposed link concluded that breast-fed babies were indeed smarter – but not because of the milk they were fed.
Instead the researchers, from the University of Edinburgh, said they were smarter because their mothers were. Women who breast-fed tended to be more intelligent and more highly educated, and provided more stimulation for their babies at home. The higher IQ of their babies was mostly inherited, accounting for 75 per cent of the difference. The rest of the difference was due to their environment – breast-fed babies had mothers who were older, better educated and lived in nicer homes where they received more attention.
Terrie and Abshalom Moffit, the husband and wife team who published this week's study based on 3,000 children in the UK and New Zealand, said they had corrected for these factors – and they still found a seven-point IQ difference.
Source - Independent
The cancer you can keep at bay with wholemeal bread
Eating two portions of whole grains a day could almost halve the risk of developing pancreatic cancer, research shows.
The cancer is one of the deadliest forms of the disease, claiming the lives of around 7,000 Britons a year and killing 95 per cent of patients within two years.
But research has shown a diet rich in wholemeal bread, brown rice and other whole grain foods could bring about a substantial reduction in the risk of developing it.
A study of more than 2,000 men and women revealed a clear link between the amount of whole grains eaten and the chance of developing pancreatic cancer.
Those who ate at least two helpings of whole grains a day - the equivalent of a cup of brown rice or porridge, or two slices of wholemeal bread - were 40 per cent less likely to develop the disease than those who ate less than one portion.
The study, which was carried out by the University of California, San Francisco, also noted that those who ate more than 0.9oz (26.5g) of fibre a day were 35 per cent less likely to develop pancreatic cancer than those who ate less than 0.6oz (15.6g).
The researchers said: "There is a possibility that diet can affect one's risk of pancreatic, as well as other cancers.
Source - Daily Mail
The cancer is one of the deadliest forms of the disease, claiming the lives of around 7,000 Britons a year and killing 95 per cent of patients within two years.
But research has shown a diet rich in wholemeal bread, brown rice and other whole grain foods could bring about a substantial reduction in the risk of developing it.
A study of more than 2,000 men and women revealed a clear link between the amount of whole grains eaten and the chance of developing pancreatic cancer.
Those who ate at least two helpings of whole grains a day - the equivalent of a cup of brown rice or porridge, or two slices of wholemeal bread - were 40 per cent less likely to develop the disease than those who ate less than one portion.
The study, which was carried out by the University of California, San Francisco, also noted that those who ate more than 0.9oz (26.5g) of fibre a day were 35 per cent less likely to develop pancreatic cancer than those who ate less than 0.6oz (15.6g).
The researchers said: "There is a possibility that diet can affect one's risk of pancreatic, as well as other cancers.
Source - Daily Mail
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Revealed: Resisting chocolate just makes you want more, say psychologists
For those keen to lose weight, cutting out chocolate would seem to be common sense.
But banishing all thoughts of chocolate could actually end up making you fatter.
Psychologists have discovered that those who try to stop thinking about chocolate eat nearly 50 per cent more than than those who have a more liberal approach to their craving. They say it could explain why some women are prone to "yo-yo" dieting or go on to develop binge-eating disorders.
Psychologist James Erskine, of the University of Hertfordshire, who led the independent research, said: "The act of avoidance seems to completely backfire. We found that if you try not to think about eating chocolate, it tends to lead you to eat more. In other words, thinking about chocolate is not dangerous – but trying not to think about it is."
Dr Erskine, who calls the phenomenon a "behavioural rebound", claims his findings could help those struggling to give up unhealthy foods and even smoking.
The study, called "Resistance Can Be Futile", and published in the scientific journal Appetite, looked at 134 undergraduates.
Source - Daily Mail
But banishing all thoughts of chocolate could actually end up making you fatter.
Psychologists have discovered that those who try to stop thinking about chocolate eat nearly 50 per cent more than than those who have a more liberal approach to their craving. They say it could explain why some women are prone to "yo-yo" dieting or go on to develop binge-eating disorders.
Psychologist James Erskine, of the University of Hertfordshire, who led the independent research, said: "The act of avoidance seems to completely backfire. We found that if you try not to think about eating chocolate, it tends to lead you to eat more. In other words, thinking about chocolate is not dangerous – but trying not to think about it is."
Dr Erskine, who calls the phenomenon a "behavioural rebound", claims his findings could help those struggling to give up unhealthy foods and even smoking.
The study, called "Resistance Can Be Futile", and published in the scientific journal Appetite, looked at 134 undergraduates.
Source - Daily Mail
We can't work it out
We all know exercise helps you lose weight. But does it? There is almost no scientific evidence to support the orthodoxy. Indeed, it could even do the exact opposite...
Let us begin with a short quiz: a few questions to ponder during the 30 (or 60 or 90) minutes a day you spend burning off excess calories at the gym, or perhaps while feeling guilty because you're not so engaged. If lean people are more physically active than fat people - one fact in the often-murky science of weight control that's been established beyond reasonable doubt - does that mean that working out will make a fat person lean? Does it mean that sitting around will make a lean person fat? How about a mathematical variation on these questions?
Let's say we go to the gym and burn off 3,500 calories every week - that's 700 calories a session, five times a week. Since a pound of fat is equivalent to 3,500 calories, does that mean we'll be a pound slimmer for every week we exercise? And will we continue to slim down at this pace for as long as we continue to exercise?
For most of us, fear of flab is the reason we exercise, the motivation that drives us to the gym. It's also why public-health authorities have taken to encouraging ever more exercise as part of a healthy lifestyle. If we're fat or fatter than ideal, we work out. Burn calories. Expend energy. Still fat? Burn more. The dietary guidelines of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), for instance, now recommend we engage in up to 60 minutes daily of 'moderate to vigorous intensity' physical activity just to maintain weight - that is, keep us from fattening further.
Considering the ubiquity of the message, the hold it has on our lives, and the elegant simplicity of the notion - burn calories, lose weight - wouldn't it be nice to believe it were true? The catch is that science suggests it's not, and so the answer to all of the above quiz questions is 'no'.
Source - Guardian
Let us begin with a short quiz: a few questions to ponder during the 30 (or 60 or 90) minutes a day you spend burning off excess calories at the gym, or perhaps while feeling guilty because you're not so engaged. If lean people are more physically active than fat people - one fact in the often-murky science of weight control that's been established beyond reasonable doubt - does that mean that working out will make a fat person lean? Does it mean that sitting around will make a lean person fat? How about a mathematical variation on these questions?
Let's say we go to the gym and burn off 3,500 calories every week - that's 700 calories a session, five times a week. Since a pound of fat is equivalent to 3,500 calories, does that mean we'll be a pound slimmer for every week we exercise? And will we continue to slim down at this pace for as long as we continue to exercise?
For most of us, fear of flab is the reason we exercise, the motivation that drives us to the gym. It's also why public-health authorities have taken to encouraging ever more exercise as part of a healthy lifestyle. If we're fat or fatter than ideal, we work out. Burn calories. Expend energy. Still fat? Burn more. The dietary guidelines of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), for instance, now recommend we engage in up to 60 minutes daily of 'moderate to vigorous intensity' physical activity just to maintain weight - that is, keep us from fattening further.
Considering the ubiquity of the message, the hold it has on our lives, and the elegant simplicity of the notion - burn calories, lose weight - wouldn't it be nice to believe it were true? The catch is that science suggests it's not, and so the answer to all of the above quiz questions is 'no'.
Source - Guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)