Dietary Guidelines Call for More Exercise, Less Food
By Bill Tomlinson and Ilan Brat : WSJ : February 1, 2011
Stay away from the television at mealtime and skip the hamburgers in favor of seafood and vegetables, says the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The latest edition of the federal government's closely watched dietary guidelines, issued every five years, takes a more assertive approach than in the past in attempting to shape American eating habits.
The Obama administration has focused on trying to curb obesity, and the new recommendations strongly suggest that both what Americans eat and how they eat it matters in overall diet and health. First Lady Michelle Obama has made childhood obesity a leading cause, but had no formal role in the recommendations.
The USDA also got more specific in telling Americans what kind of protein they should eat. Whereas fish used to be lumped together in a catch-all category for lean meat and beans, the agency is now saying seafood is an important part of the diet.
The agency suggests that people prepare and serve smaller portions at home, and eat a small, healthy snack before heading out to parties to keep from gorging. Americans should also drink more water instead of soda or other drinks with a heavy load of calories and little other nutritional benefit.
New Guidelines Enjoy your food, but eat less.
Avoid oversized portions.
Make half your plate fruits and vegetables.
Switch to fat-free or low-fat (1%) milk.
Compare sodium in foods like soup, bread, and frozen meals – and choose the foods with lower numbers.
Drink water instead of sugary drinks.
Source: USDA
Food Figures Average amount of salt Americans consume each day: 3,400 milligrams (Recommended amount: 1,500 milligrams per day for high-risk groups, 2,300 for others.)
Percentage of sodium in diet that comes from pizza: 6%
On average, percentage of total calories that comes from added sugars: 16%
Percentage of added sugar in diet that comes from soda and other sugary drinks: 36%
Average annual consumption, per person, of seafood in the U.S. (including shellfish): 11 pounds
Average annual consumption, per person, of beef in the U.S.: 65 pounds (of which 33 pounds are hamburger)
Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture; American Meat Institute (beef consumption)
"We need to eat smarter," said Thomas Pearson, a doctor who directs the Rochester Prevention Research Center and who served on the advisory committee that helped develop the guidelines. "Generally, we need to eat less, and understand the good choices we can make in our daily activity."
The guidelines also focus heavily on the calories that Americans consume. One new chapter titled "Building Healthy Eating Patterns" breaks down the calories in different types of foods Americans regularly eat. In three ounces of fried chicken strips, breading and frying fat account for 108, or 44%, of the total 246 calories, it says.
About 40% of the calories in one cup of sweetened applesauce comes from added sugars. The chapter provides several templates for quantities of different foods to eat each day on a 2,000-calorie diet.
The USDA said it will release a next-generation food pyramid incorporating the new guidelines in the coming months.
Many of the suggestions are simple ideas. For example, the USDA recommends that fruits and vegetables should fill half of the plate. Among the most significant new recommendations is that people 51 and older reduce daily sodium intake to less than 1,500 milligrams—far less than the average American consumes. Men between ages 30 and 39 are by far the highest consumers of sodium, ingesting an average of about 4,500 milligrams per day.
The new guidelines point to processed foods as the primary source of salt overconsumption. Pizza, salad dressing, cold cuts and hamburgers are some of the high-sodium foods that Americans need to eat less often, the guidelines say.
The lower recommendation also applies to those of any age who are African-American or have high blood pressure or diabetes. Others are advised to reduce daily sodium intake below 2,300 milligrams.
The impact of the guidelines may soon be felt on the grocery shelf, because food companies routinely look to them when reformulating products and designing marketing efforts.
Campbell Soup Co. says it will continue to look for ways to reduce the number of calories per serving in its products in the future. Amid the increased focus on cutting calories, the company has worked to develop products that help consumers control portions.
Some of the Camden, N.J., company's microwaveable Soup at Hand products say on the front of the package that they have only 80 calories in each container, said David Smith, Campbell's vice president of research and development for the North American division. Likewise, Pepperidge Farm's Deli Flats, were designed so each one would have 100 calories.
"In our products, we try to get you a decent amount [per serving] that won't leave you craving the rest of the bag," Mr. Smith said.
The added emphasis on seafood consumption may create some confusion. Some people have shied away from fish because of fears about mercury and other contaminants. The government addressed the mercury issue in an appendix, saying pregnant or breastfeeding women should avoid eating shark, king mackerel, tilefish from the Gulf of Mexico and swordfish.
Meanwhile, meat producers responded quickly to the suggestion that Americans substitute seafood for some red meat or poultry.
"A recommendation to add fish to your diet doesn't mean you should cut back on lean beef. Both sources of protein offer unique yet equally important nutrients," said Shalene McNeill, executive director of human nutrition research at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. "Beef is a leading source of several nutrients, including protein, iron and zinc."
Pressed on what the recommendations could mean for livestock farmers, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack suggested that American farmers need not worry, because exports for meat are rising.
The guidelines say people should eat more fruits and vegetables and consume at least half of all grains as whole grains. They call on Americans to switch to fat-free or low-fat milk and choose a variety of proteins, including beans, peas and soy products.
By Bill Tomlinson and Ilan Brat : WSJ : February 1, 2011
Stay away from the television at mealtime and skip the hamburgers in favor of seafood and vegetables, says the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The latest edition of the federal government's closely watched dietary guidelines, issued every five years, takes a more assertive approach than in the past in attempting to shape American eating habits.
The Obama administration has focused on trying to curb obesity, and the new recommendations strongly suggest that both what Americans eat and how they eat it matters in overall diet and health. First Lady Michelle Obama has made childhood obesity a leading cause, but had no formal role in the recommendations.
The USDA also got more specific in telling Americans what kind of protein they should eat. Whereas fish used to be lumped together in a catch-all category for lean meat and beans, the agency is now saying seafood is an important part of the diet.
The agency suggests that people prepare and serve smaller portions at home, and eat a small, healthy snack before heading out to parties to keep from gorging. Americans should also drink more water instead of soda or other drinks with a heavy load of calories and little other nutritional benefit.
New Guidelines Enjoy your food, but eat less.
Avoid oversized portions.
Make half your plate fruits and vegetables.
Switch to fat-free or low-fat (1%) milk.
Compare sodium in foods like soup, bread, and frozen meals – and choose the foods with lower numbers.
Drink water instead of sugary drinks.
Source: USDA
Food Figures Average amount of salt Americans consume each day: 3,400 milligrams (Recommended amount: 1,500 milligrams per day for high-risk groups, 2,300 for others.)
Percentage of sodium in diet that comes from pizza: 6%
On average, percentage of total calories that comes from added sugars: 16%
Percentage of added sugar in diet that comes from soda and other sugary drinks: 36%
Average annual consumption, per person, of seafood in the U.S. (including shellfish): 11 pounds
Average annual consumption, per person, of beef in the U.S.: 65 pounds (of which 33 pounds are hamburger)
Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture; American Meat Institute (beef consumption)
"We need to eat smarter," said Thomas Pearson, a doctor who directs the Rochester Prevention Research Center and who served on the advisory committee that helped develop the guidelines. "Generally, we need to eat less, and understand the good choices we can make in our daily activity."
The guidelines also focus heavily on the calories that Americans consume. One new chapter titled "Building Healthy Eating Patterns" breaks down the calories in different types of foods Americans regularly eat. In three ounces of fried chicken strips, breading and frying fat account for 108, or 44%, of the total 246 calories, it says.
About 40% of the calories in one cup of sweetened applesauce comes from added sugars. The chapter provides several templates for quantities of different foods to eat each day on a 2,000-calorie diet.
The USDA said it will release a next-generation food pyramid incorporating the new guidelines in the coming months.
Many of the suggestions are simple ideas. For example, the USDA recommends that fruits and vegetables should fill half of the plate. Among the most significant new recommendations is that people 51 and older reduce daily sodium intake to less than 1,500 milligrams—far less than the average American consumes. Men between ages 30 and 39 are by far the highest consumers of sodium, ingesting an average of about 4,500 milligrams per day.
The new guidelines point to processed foods as the primary source of salt overconsumption. Pizza, salad dressing, cold cuts and hamburgers are some of the high-sodium foods that Americans need to eat less often, the guidelines say.
The lower recommendation also applies to those of any age who are African-American or have high blood pressure or diabetes. Others are advised to reduce daily sodium intake below 2,300 milligrams.
The impact of the guidelines may soon be felt on the grocery shelf, because food companies routinely look to them when reformulating products and designing marketing efforts.
Campbell Soup Co. says it will continue to look for ways to reduce the number of calories per serving in its products in the future. Amid the increased focus on cutting calories, the company has worked to develop products that help consumers control portions.
Some of the Camden, N.J., company's microwaveable Soup at Hand products say on the front of the package that they have only 80 calories in each container, said David Smith, Campbell's vice president of research and development for the North American division. Likewise, Pepperidge Farm's Deli Flats, were designed so each one would have 100 calories.
"In our products, we try to get you a decent amount [per serving] that won't leave you craving the rest of the bag," Mr. Smith said.
The added emphasis on seafood consumption may create some confusion. Some people have shied away from fish because of fears about mercury and other contaminants. The government addressed the mercury issue in an appendix, saying pregnant or breastfeeding women should avoid eating shark, king mackerel, tilefish from the Gulf of Mexico and swordfish.
Meanwhile, meat producers responded quickly to the suggestion that Americans substitute seafood for some red meat or poultry.
"A recommendation to add fish to your diet doesn't mean you should cut back on lean beef. Both sources of protein offer unique yet equally important nutrients," said Shalene McNeill, executive director of human nutrition research at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. "Beef is a leading source of several nutrients, including protein, iron and zinc."
Pressed on what the recommendations could mean for livestock farmers, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack suggested that American farmers need not worry, because exports for meat are rising.
The guidelines say people should eat more fruits and vegetables and consume at least half of all grains as whole grains. They call on Americans to switch to fat-free or low-fat milk and choose a variety of proteins, including beans, peas and soy products.
"Smart" Food Choices
Vitamin Pills: A False Hope?
By Tara Parker-Pope : NY Times Article : February 17, 2009
Ever since the Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Linus Pauling first promoted “megadoses” of essential nutrients 40 years ago, Americans have been devoted to their vitamins. Today about half of all adults use some form of dietary supplement, at a cost of $23 billion a year.
But are vitamins worth it? In the past few years, several high-quality studies have failed to show that extra vitamins, at least in pill form, help prevent chronic disease or prolong life.
The latest news came last week after researchers in the Women’s Health Initiative study tracked eight years of multivitamin use among more than 161,000 older women. Despite earlier findings suggesting that multivitamins might lower the risk for heart disease and certain cancers, the study, published in The Archives of Internal Medicine, found no such benefit.
Last year, a study that tracked almost 15,000 male physicians for a decade reported no differences in cancer or heart disease rates among those using vitamins E and C compared with those taking a placebo. And in October, a study of 35,000 men dashed hopes that high doses of vitamin E and selenium could lower the risk of prostate cancer.
Of course, consumers are regularly subjected to conflicting reports and claims about the benefits of vitamins, and they seem undeterred by the news — to the dismay of some experts.
“I’m puzzled why the public in general ignores the results of well-done trials,” said Dr. Eric Klein, national study coordinator for the prostate cancer trial and chairman of the Cleveland Clinic’s Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute. “The public’s belief in the benefits of vitamins and nutrients is not supported by the available scientific data.”
Everyone needs vitamins, which are essential nutrients that the body can’t produce on its own. Inadequate vitamin C leads to scurvy, for instance, and a lack of vitamin D can cause rickets.
But a balanced diet typically provides an adequate level of these nutrients, and today many popular foods are fortified with extra vitamins and minerals. As a result, diseases caused by nutrient deficiency are rare in the United States.
In any event, most major vitamin studies in recent years have focused not on deficiencies but on whether high doses of vitamins can prevent or treat a host of chronic illnesses. While people who eat lots of nutrient-rich fruits and vegetables have long been known to have lower rates of heart disease and cancer, it hasn’t been clear whether ingesting high doses of those same nutrients in pill form results in a similar benefit.
In January, an editorial in The Journal of the National Cancer Institute noted that most trials had shown no cancer benefits from vitamins — with a few exceptions, like a finding that calcium appeared to lower the recurrence of precancerous colon polyps by 15 percent.
But some vitamin studies have also shown unexpected harm, like higher lung cancer rates in two studies of beta carotene use. Another study suggested a higher risk of precancerous polyps among users of folic acid compared with those in a placebo group.
In 2007, The Journal of the American Medical Association reviewed mortality rates in randomized trials of antioxidant supplements. In 47 trials of 181,000 participants, the rate was 5 percent higher among the antioxidant users. The main culprits were vitamin A, beta carotene and vitamin E; vitamin C and selenium seemed to have no meaningful effect.
“We call them essential nutrients because they are,” said Marian L. Neuhouser, an associate member in cancer prevention at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. “But there has been a leap into thinking that vitamins and minerals can prevent anything from fatigue to cancer to Alzheimer’s. That’s where the science didn’t pan out.”
Everyone is struggling to make sense of the conflicting data, said Andrew Shao, vice president for scientific and regulatory affairs at the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a vitamin industry trade group. Consumers and researchers need to “redefine our expectations for these nutrients,” he said. “They aren’t magic bullets.”
Part of the problem, he said, may stem from an inherent flaw in the way vitamins are studied. With drugs, the gold standard for research is a randomized clinical trial in which some patients take a drug and others a placebo. But vitamins are essential nutrients that people ingest in their daily diets; there is no way to withhold them altogether from research subjects.
Vitamins given in high doses may also have effects that science is only beginning to understand. In a test tube, cancer cells gobble up vitamin C, and studies have shown far higher levels of vitamin C in tumor cells than are found in normal tissue.
The selling point of antioxidant vitamins is that they mop up free radicals, the damaging molecular fragments linked to aging and disease. But some free radicals are essential to proper immune function, and wiping them out may inadvertently cause harm.
In a study at the University of North Carolina, mice with brain cancer were given both normal and vitamin-depleted diets. The ones who were deprived of antioxidants had smaller tumors, and 20 percent of the tumor cells were undergoing a type of cell death called apoptosis, which is fueled by free radicals. In the fully nourished mice, only 3 percent of tumor cells were dying.
“Most antioxidants are also pro-oxidants,” said Dr. Peter H. Gann, professor and director of research in the department of pathology at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “In the right context and the right dose, they may be able to cause problems rather than prevent them.”
Scientists suspect that the benefits of a healthful diet come from eating the whole fruit or vegetable, not just the individual vitamins found in it. “There may not be a single component of broccoli or green leafy vegetables that is responsible for the health benefits,” Dr. Gann said. “Why are we taking a reductionist approach and plucking out one or two chemicals given in isolation?”
Even so, some individual vitamin research is continuing. Scientists are beginning to study whether high doses of whole-food extracts can replicate the benefits of a vegetable-rich diet. And Harvard researchers are planning to study whether higher doses of vitamin D in 20,000 men and women can lower risk for cancer and other chronic diseases.
“Vitamin D looks really promising,” said Dr. JoAnn E. Manson, the chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an investigator on several Harvard vitamin studies. “But we need to learn the lessons from the past. We should wait for large-scale clinical trials before jumping on the vitamin bandwagon and taking high doses.”
There is now solid evidence that heart risk is lower for those who eat a “Mediterranean Diet” — heavy in fruits and vegetables, some olive oil, some nuts, some wine, plenty of fish, not much red meat. There’s also pretty good evidence that, independent of studies of the Mediterranean diet, a diet rich in vegetables and nuts may lower the risk of heart disease.
Eating a lot of trans fats (typically found in processed foods that contain partially hydrogenated oil) probably increases the risk of heart disease, the researchers found, as does a diet rich in foods that have a high glycemic index, such as sugary cereals and refined grains.
Smart Foods
Most of the foods that are smartest for the brain are also good for the heart because both rely on a steady oxygen supply. The risks for cardiovascular disease correlate with risks for cognitive decline.
1. Blueberries
Sweet wild blueberries are bursting with antioxidants, which mop up nasty free radicals. Studies of rats show that a blueberry-rich diet improves memory and motor skills and reverses age-related declines in balance and coordination. Chemicals in blueberries affect the contractile machinery of arteries, and therefore have a good affect on blood pressure. Elevated blood pressure can damage delicate blood vessels in the brain and can lead to strokes.
2. Dark Leafy Greens
Chemicals called homocysteines are a normal part of protein metabolism, but high levels are linked with cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease (as well as heart disease), which accounts for most cases of dementia in the U.S. According to Katherine Tucker, director of the dietary assessment research program at the Human Nutrition Research Center of Aging, “homocysteine has a toxic effect on arterial walls, and oxidation corrodes the arterial walls too, which makes them a bad combination.” In order to break themselves down, homocysteines require folate and B12 or B6, vitamins found in vegetables like collard greens and Swiss chard.
3. Salmon, Sardines, and Herring
Fatty fish are full of neuroprotective omega-3 fatty acids. Higher levels of omega-3 in the blood go hand-in-hand with higher levels of serotonin, a mood-enhancing brain chemical. A study from the Rush Institute for Healthy Aging in Chicago found that people who eat at least one fish meal a week are significantly less likely to end up with Alzheimer’s disease than those who regularly eschew fish. Because a fish diet aids communication between nerve cells, studies have shown its positive effect on learning acquisition and memory performance.
4. Spinach
Spinach research has finally caught up with mom’s advice: Spinach turns out to be full of antioxidant power. James Joseph, chief of the Neurosciences Laboratory of the Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, finds spinach beneficial in slowing down age-related problems in the central nervous system and cognitive deficits. A salad with spinach has more than three times the amount of folate than one with iceberg lettuce.
5. Red Wine, or better yet, Grape Juice
Drinking red wine in moderation increases longevity. But since alcohol slows down the brain’s ability to function properly, grape juice may be a smarter beverage choice. New research from James Joseph shows that concord grape juice significantly improves short-term memory and motor skills. It’s not just the heavy dose of antioxidants. Joseph believes that grape juice increases production of the neurotransmitter dopamine. Concord grape juice has the highest total antioxidant level of any fruit, vegetable or juice tested.
6. Whole Grains and Brown Rice
One of the best things you can do to improve intake of nutrients is to switch to brown rice. It’s filled with vitamins and magnesium, which seems to be important to cognitive health. Whole grains contain vitamin B6, which aids in reducing homocysteine levels. Americans often don’t get enough vitamin B6, because they mostly eat processed foods.
7. Hot cocoa and dark chocolate
Here's some good and bad news for chocoholics: Dark chocolate seems to lower blood pressure, but it requires an amount less than two Hershey's Kisses to do it, a small study suggests. The new research adds to mounting evidence linking dark chocolate with health benefits, but it's the first to suggest that just a tiny amount may suffice.
Warm up with hot cocoa to help your brain as well as your frostbitten fingers. The antioxidant content of two tablespoons of pure cocoa powder is almost two times stronger than red wine, two to three times stronger than green tea and four to five times stronger than that of black tea. The antioxidants in hot cocoa protect brain cells from oxidative stress that can lead to Alzheimer’s and other disorders.
8. Nuts, Notably Almonds and Walnuts
Adding to their party-mix appeal, nuts are rich in antioxidants and have been found to lower blood cholesterol levels. A Harvard study showed that women who ate more than five ounces of nuts per week had a significantly lower risk of coronary heart disease than those who ate an ounce or less. And, they don’t contribute to weight gain as much as other kinds of fatty foods. Walnuts are rich in omega-3s.
9. Olive Oil
A staple of the highly touted “Mediterranean Diet,” olive oil contains the potent antioxidants called polyphenols, Olive oil has been shown to reduce blood pressure and cholesterol levels. The extra-virgin variety is best.
10. Garlic
This pungent herb fends off aging via its antioxidant properties. It also contains strong antibacterial and antiviral compounds that help shake off stress-induced colds and infections. Raw, crushed garlic is best; cooked garlic is less powerful but still benefits the cardiovascular system.
BUTTER VS MARGARINE
The battle continues. Study the label.
By Jane E. Brody : : NY Times article : September 5, 2006
The culinary battle between butter and margarine has raged for decades, but, it turns out, for the wrong reason. We now know that the partly hydrogenated fatty acids in margarine and many processed foods are harmful to health — more harmful, in fact, than the saturated fat in butter.
This does not mean butter is healthier. But it does mean consumers need to pay far more attention to the fat content of all the foods they consume, both at home and in restaurants. The process commonly used to convert liquid vegetable oil into a fat with the consistency of butter, the baking qualities of lard and a long shelf life forms trans fatty acids, which every diner and snacker should avoid.
Gram for gram, trans fats, as they are commonly called, are more hazardous to the heart than the saturated fats that damage arteries. Like saturated fats, they raise the “bad,” or L.D.L., cholesterol that can become glued to arteries; but unlike saturated fats, they also lower the “good” H.D.L. cholesterol that clears away these harmful deposits.
Butter is not a heart-healthy choice because its saturated fat far outweighs the trans fat in traditional stick margarines. Also, butter contains cholesterol, which can raise blood levels of cholesterol in some people; margarine, which is made from vegetable sources, does not.
The good news is that a Food and Drug Administration ruling, which took effect in January, requires food companies to list the amount of trans fats on the nutrition label of every package. As a result, most companies have switched the fats they use so they can say “no trans fats” on the label.
The bad news is that some substitutions — to tropical oils like palm, palm kernel and coconut — are reintroducing more heart-damaging saturated fats to American diets and causing environmental devastation in several countries where palm and coconut trees grow.
Furthermore, consumers who use the “no trans fats” label proclamation as their buying guide can still end up buying a lot of what nutritionists call junk foods. And the F.D.A. ruling does not apply to foods sold in restaurants, bakeries, takeout and other retail food outlets where unsuspecting consumers could be loading up on harmful trans fats.
That prompted the New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene in March to ask the city’s 20,000 restaurants and 14,000 food suppliers to eliminate partly hydrogenated oils from kitchens and provide foods and food products free of industrially produced trans fatty acids.
What Trans Fats Do
The health concerns about trans fats go far beyond the effects on blood cholesterol. In a report in the June issue of The Journal of the American Dietetic Association, researchers led by Katherine M. Phillips, a biochemist at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, reviewed what is known about trans fats and their alternatives.
The “trans” in trans fatty acids refers to the biochemical configuration of the fat molecule. Natural polyunsaturated fatty acids in vegetable oils have a “cis” conformation: the hydrogen atoms in each double bond are on the same side. But the processes used in partial hydrogenation results in some double bonds with a “trans” conformation: hydrogen atoms on opposite sides of each double bond.
This little biochemical switch turns out to have potentially devastating health effects. In addition to raising bad cholesterol (especially the small L.D.L. particles that stick to blood vessels) and lowering good cholesterol, trans fatty acids raise blood levels of triglycerides and lipoprotein (a), which raise cardiovascular risk.
But that is not all. Trans fatty acids, when compared with cis-unsaturated fats, also raise blood levels of substances like C-reactive protein that are markers of bodywide inflammation and cellular dysfunction, also linked to heart and blood vessel disease.
Trans fats can interfere with the metabolism of essential fatty acids, the synthesis of healthful omega-3 fatty acids and the balance of prostaglandins, disrupting protection against blood clots. And high intakes of trans fats may cause insulin resistance, a marker of type 2 diabetes.
In a recent review in The New England Journal of Medicine on the relationship between trans fats and heart disease, even low levels of trans fats in the diet — a mere 1 percent to 2 percent of calories per day — were linked to a substantially increased risk of heart disease. In studies of 140,000 individuals, consuming 2 percent of calories as trans fats resulted in a 23 percent increase in heart disease.
In 1983, scientists at the US Department of Agriculture estimated that the average American consumed 8 grams of trans fats a day (that’s 3.6 percent of a 2,000-calorie diet), with 85 percent coming from foods containing partly hydrogenated oils and the rest from trans fats naturally present in meat and dairy products.
The low levels of trans fats in meats and dairy products result from hydrogenation by microbes in the gut of ruminant animals (cows, sheep and goats). In addition, small amounts of trans fats are formed when vegetable oils are refined at high temperatures.
A more recent estimate based on mid-1990’s data by the F.D.A. put the average trans fat consumption by adults at 5.8 grams a day. The main contributors of these fats were cakes and related products (23.8 percent), margarine (16.5 percent), cookies and crackers (9.8 percent), fried potatoes (8.3 percent), chips and snacks (4.8 percent) and household shortenings (4.3 percent).
Choosing Healthier Foods
The new food label rule exempts products with less than 0.5 gram of trans fatty acid per serving, which can list the amount as zero per serving. But if someone eats, say, four servings of the food instead of one, as many do, the amount of trans fats consumed can have a significant effect.
The only way to know if a zero listing really means zero is to check the ingredients list. If partly hydrogenated oil is an ingredient, there is some trans fat in the food. (Fully hydrogenated oils, listed only as “hydrogenated,” do not contain trans fats. Rather, these fats are saturated.)
Furthermore, the listing of trans fats is meaningful only if consumers read the label and select foods that have no trans fats and no partly hydrogenated oils.
If you want to avoid trans fats when eating out or buying takeout, you have to ask how a food was prepared. Ask what cooking fats were used, including the oils in salad dressings. The New England Journal authors said that to avoid adverse health effects, “complete or near-complete avoidance of industrially produced trans fats” is necessary.
To protect heart health, you would be wise, as well, to avoid foods made with tropical oils (palm, palm kernel and coconut), which contain saturated fatty acids.
Soft and liquid margarines have little or no trans fats. And American producers are working hard to develop alternative methods of producing shelf-stable vegetable oils, which should be on the shelf in the next year or so.
McDonald’s in Denmark, where there is a legal limit on industrially produced trans fats in foods (less than 2 percent), manages to serve food without these harmful fats. Why not here? Denmark has shown that eliminating partly hydrogenated vegetable oils from foods in stores and restaurants does not result in a loss of palatability, availability or quality, or an increase in the cost or consumption of saturated fats.
Is Margarine healthier than Butter?
By Anahad O'Connor : NY Times Article : October 16, 2007
THE FACTS
The debate has been around nearly as long as butter and margarine themselves: Is one truly healthier than the other?
The confusion persists for good reason. Butter, which has been used for thousands of years, is made from animal products, making it high in cholesterol and saturated fat, which have been linked to heart disease.
Margarine is made from polyunsaturated vegetable oils like corn oil, which do not contain saturated fats. Most people assume that makes it heart-healthy. Not exactly. The process of turning polyunsaturated oils into semisolid table spreads creates trans fats, which are just as bad as saturated fats, if not worse.
But most studies and health experts suggest that margarine, selected carefully, can be a safer choice. Because higher levels of trans fat make margarines more solid, it is best to choose those that are liquid or sold in tubs. Many varieties now contain water or liquid vegetable oil instead of partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, which can make them virtually free of trans fats. Even better, experts say, is to choose an alternative, like olive or canola oil.
THE BOTTOM LINE
Margarine generally contains less fat and cholesterol than butter, but it is not ideal.
Canola oil may now be sold to consumers as a product that can reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.
The disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, killing half a million people every year. Canola oil and certain foods made with canola oil are allowed to start making the claim, the Food and Drug Administration said October 6, 2006.
Labels can say that limited evidence suggests eating 19 grams — about 1 1/2 tablespoons — of canola oil daily may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease due to its unsaturated fat content, the FDA said. Canola oil should replace a similar amount of saturated fat and not increase the total number of calories a person eats each day, FDA said.
The U.S. Canola Association, which petitioned FDA for permission to make the claim, said studies show that unsaturated fat from canola oil lowers cholesterol, including LDL or "bad" cholesterol, as part of a diet low in saturated fat.
Healthy Hearts Never Take a Holiday
This holiday season, give yourself the gift of a healthier heart.
Limiting your alcohol consumption is one important step, said Dr. Ajit Raisinghani, director of the non-invasive cardiac lab at the University of California, San Diego.
He said that every year during the holidays, emergency rooms at hospitals across the United States see patients with heart palpitations and light headedness. Many of these patients have an abnormal heart rhythm caused by drinking too much alcohol -- a condition called "Holiday Heart."
"Usually the patient experiences palpitations accompanied by a sensation of light-headedness. When the patients come into the ER, we learn they've usually spent the weekend drinking. Most often, they're college kids who are otherwise healthy," Raisinghani said.
The condition usually resolves itself within 24 hours. However, some patients will be admitted to hospital and given medication to slow down their heart rate until it returns to its normal rhythm.
Raisinghani offered some other tips for keeping your heart healthy during the holidays and the rest of the year:
By Tara Parker-Pope : NY Times Article : February 17, 2009
Ever since the Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Linus Pauling first promoted “megadoses” of essential nutrients 40 years ago, Americans have been devoted to their vitamins. Today about half of all adults use some form of dietary supplement, at a cost of $23 billion a year.
But are vitamins worth it? In the past few years, several high-quality studies have failed to show that extra vitamins, at least in pill form, help prevent chronic disease or prolong life.
The latest news came last week after researchers in the Women’s Health Initiative study tracked eight years of multivitamin use among more than 161,000 older women. Despite earlier findings suggesting that multivitamins might lower the risk for heart disease and certain cancers, the study, published in The Archives of Internal Medicine, found no such benefit.
Last year, a study that tracked almost 15,000 male physicians for a decade reported no differences in cancer or heart disease rates among those using vitamins E and C compared with those taking a placebo. And in October, a study of 35,000 men dashed hopes that high doses of vitamin E and selenium could lower the risk of prostate cancer.
Of course, consumers are regularly subjected to conflicting reports and claims about the benefits of vitamins, and they seem undeterred by the news — to the dismay of some experts.
“I’m puzzled why the public in general ignores the results of well-done trials,” said Dr. Eric Klein, national study coordinator for the prostate cancer trial and chairman of the Cleveland Clinic’s Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute. “The public’s belief in the benefits of vitamins and nutrients is not supported by the available scientific data.”
Everyone needs vitamins, which are essential nutrients that the body can’t produce on its own. Inadequate vitamin C leads to scurvy, for instance, and a lack of vitamin D can cause rickets.
But a balanced diet typically provides an adequate level of these nutrients, and today many popular foods are fortified with extra vitamins and minerals. As a result, diseases caused by nutrient deficiency are rare in the United States.
In any event, most major vitamin studies in recent years have focused not on deficiencies but on whether high doses of vitamins can prevent or treat a host of chronic illnesses. While people who eat lots of nutrient-rich fruits and vegetables have long been known to have lower rates of heart disease and cancer, it hasn’t been clear whether ingesting high doses of those same nutrients in pill form results in a similar benefit.
In January, an editorial in The Journal of the National Cancer Institute noted that most trials had shown no cancer benefits from vitamins — with a few exceptions, like a finding that calcium appeared to lower the recurrence of precancerous colon polyps by 15 percent.
But some vitamin studies have also shown unexpected harm, like higher lung cancer rates in two studies of beta carotene use. Another study suggested a higher risk of precancerous polyps among users of folic acid compared with those in a placebo group.
In 2007, The Journal of the American Medical Association reviewed mortality rates in randomized trials of antioxidant supplements. In 47 trials of 181,000 participants, the rate was 5 percent higher among the antioxidant users. The main culprits were vitamin A, beta carotene and vitamin E; vitamin C and selenium seemed to have no meaningful effect.
“We call them essential nutrients because they are,” said Marian L. Neuhouser, an associate member in cancer prevention at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. “But there has been a leap into thinking that vitamins and minerals can prevent anything from fatigue to cancer to Alzheimer’s. That’s where the science didn’t pan out.”
Everyone is struggling to make sense of the conflicting data, said Andrew Shao, vice president for scientific and regulatory affairs at the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a vitamin industry trade group. Consumers and researchers need to “redefine our expectations for these nutrients,” he said. “They aren’t magic bullets.”
Part of the problem, he said, may stem from an inherent flaw in the way vitamins are studied. With drugs, the gold standard for research is a randomized clinical trial in which some patients take a drug and others a placebo. But vitamins are essential nutrients that people ingest in their daily diets; there is no way to withhold them altogether from research subjects.
Vitamins given in high doses may also have effects that science is only beginning to understand. In a test tube, cancer cells gobble up vitamin C, and studies have shown far higher levels of vitamin C in tumor cells than are found in normal tissue.
The selling point of antioxidant vitamins is that they mop up free radicals, the damaging molecular fragments linked to aging and disease. But some free radicals are essential to proper immune function, and wiping them out may inadvertently cause harm.
In a study at the University of North Carolina, mice with brain cancer were given both normal and vitamin-depleted diets. The ones who were deprived of antioxidants had smaller tumors, and 20 percent of the tumor cells were undergoing a type of cell death called apoptosis, which is fueled by free radicals. In the fully nourished mice, only 3 percent of tumor cells were dying.
“Most antioxidants are also pro-oxidants,” said Dr. Peter H. Gann, professor and director of research in the department of pathology at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “In the right context and the right dose, they may be able to cause problems rather than prevent them.”
Scientists suspect that the benefits of a healthful diet come from eating the whole fruit or vegetable, not just the individual vitamins found in it. “There may not be a single component of broccoli or green leafy vegetables that is responsible for the health benefits,” Dr. Gann said. “Why are we taking a reductionist approach and plucking out one or two chemicals given in isolation?”
Even so, some individual vitamin research is continuing. Scientists are beginning to study whether high doses of whole-food extracts can replicate the benefits of a vegetable-rich diet. And Harvard researchers are planning to study whether higher doses of vitamin D in 20,000 men and women can lower risk for cancer and other chronic diseases.
“Vitamin D looks really promising,” said Dr. JoAnn E. Manson, the chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an investigator on several Harvard vitamin studies. “But we need to learn the lessons from the past. We should wait for large-scale clinical trials before jumping on the vitamin bandwagon and taking high doses.”
There is now solid evidence that heart risk is lower for those who eat a “Mediterranean Diet” — heavy in fruits and vegetables, some olive oil, some nuts, some wine, plenty of fish, not much red meat. There’s also pretty good evidence that, independent of studies of the Mediterranean diet, a diet rich in vegetables and nuts may lower the risk of heart disease.
Eating a lot of trans fats (typically found in processed foods that contain partially hydrogenated oil) probably increases the risk of heart disease, the researchers found, as does a diet rich in foods that have a high glycemic index, such as sugary cereals and refined grains.
Smart Foods
Most of the foods that are smartest for the brain are also good for the heart because both rely on a steady oxygen supply. The risks for cardiovascular disease correlate with risks for cognitive decline.
1. Blueberries
Sweet wild blueberries are bursting with antioxidants, which mop up nasty free radicals. Studies of rats show that a blueberry-rich diet improves memory and motor skills and reverses age-related declines in balance and coordination. Chemicals in blueberries affect the contractile machinery of arteries, and therefore have a good affect on blood pressure. Elevated blood pressure can damage delicate blood vessels in the brain and can lead to strokes.
2. Dark Leafy Greens
Chemicals called homocysteines are a normal part of protein metabolism, but high levels are linked with cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease (as well as heart disease), which accounts for most cases of dementia in the U.S. According to Katherine Tucker, director of the dietary assessment research program at the Human Nutrition Research Center of Aging, “homocysteine has a toxic effect on arterial walls, and oxidation corrodes the arterial walls too, which makes them a bad combination.” In order to break themselves down, homocysteines require folate and B12 or B6, vitamins found in vegetables like collard greens and Swiss chard.
3. Salmon, Sardines, and Herring
Fatty fish are full of neuroprotective omega-3 fatty acids. Higher levels of omega-3 in the blood go hand-in-hand with higher levels of serotonin, a mood-enhancing brain chemical. A study from the Rush Institute for Healthy Aging in Chicago found that people who eat at least one fish meal a week are significantly less likely to end up with Alzheimer’s disease than those who regularly eschew fish. Because a fish diet aids communication between nerve cells, studies have shown its positive effect on learning acquisition and memory performance.
4. Spinach
Spinach research has finally caught up with mom’s advice: Spinach turns out to be full of antioxidant power. James Joseph, chief of the Neurosciences Laboratory of the Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, finds spinach beneficial in slowing down age-related problems in the central nervous system and cognitive deficits. A salad with spinach has more than three times the amount of folate than one with iceberg lettuce.
5. Red Wine, or better yet, Grape Juice
Drinking red wine in moderation increases longevity. But since alcohol slows down the brain’s ability to function properly, grape juice may be a smarter beverage choice. New research from James Joseph shows that concord grape juice significantly improves short-term memory and motor skills. It’s not just the heavy dose of antioxidants. Joseph believes that grape juice increases production of the neurotransmitter dopamine. Concord grape juice has the highest total antioxidant level of any fruit, vegetable or juice tested.
6. Whole Grains and Brown Rice
One of the best things you can do to improve intake of nutrients is to switch to brown rice. It’s filled with vitamins and magnesium, which seems to be important to cognitive health. Whole grains contain vitamin B6, which aids in reducing homocysteine levels. Americans often don’t get enough vitamin B6, because they mostly eat processed foods.
7. Hot cocoa and dark chocolate
Here's some good and bad news for chocoholics: Dark chocolate seems to lower blood pressure, but it requires an amount less than two Hershey's Kisses to do it, a small study suggests. The new research adds to mounting evidence linking dark chocolate with health benefits, but it's the first to suggest that just a tiny amount may suffice.
Warm up with hot cocoa to help your brain as well as your frostbitten fingers. The antioxidant content of two tablespoons of pure cocoa powder is almost two times stronger than red wine, two to three times stronger than green tea and four to five times stronger than that of black tea. The antioxidants in hot cocoa protect brain cells from oxidative stress that can lead to Alzheimer’s and other disorders.
8. Nuts, Notably Almonds and Walnuts
Adding to their party-mix appeal, nuts are rich in antioxidants and have been found to lower blood cholesterol levels. A Harvard study showed that women who ate more than five ounces of nuts per week had a significantly lower risk of coronary heart disease than those who ate an ounce or less. And, they don’t contribute to weight gain as much as other kinds of fatty foods. Walnuts are rich in omega-3s.
9. Olive Oil
A staple of the highly touted “Mediterranean Diet,” olive oil contains the potent antioxidants called polyphenols, Olive oil has been shown to reduce blood pressure and cholesterol levels. The extra-virgin variety is best.
10. Garlic
This pungent herb fends off aging via its antioxidant properties. It also contains strong antibacterial and antiviral compounds that help shake off stress-induced colds and infections. Raw, crushed garlic is best; cooked garlic is less powerful but still benefits the cardiovascular system.
BUTTER VS MARGARINE
The battle continues. Study the label.
By Jane E. Brody : : NY Times article : September 5, 2006
The culinary battle between butter and margarine has raged for decades, but, it turns out, for the wrong reason. We now know that the partly hydrogenated fatty acids in margarine and many processed foods are harmful to health — more harmful, in fact, than the saturated fat in butter.
This does not mean butter is healthier. But it does mean consumers need to pay far more attention to the fat content of all the foods they consume, both at home and in restaurants. The process commonly used to convert liquid vegetable oil into a fat with the consistency of butter, the baking qualities of lard and a long shelf life forms trans fatty acids, which every diner and snacker should avoid.
Gram for gram, trans fats, as they are commonly called, are more hazardous to the heart than the saturated fats that damage arteries. Like saturated fats, they raise the “bad,” or L.D.L., cholesterol that can become glued to arteries; but unlike saturated fats, they also lower the “good” H.D.L. cholesterol that clears away these harmful deposits.
Butter is not a heart-healthy choice because its saturated fat far outweighs the trans fat in traditional stick margarines. Also, butter contains cholesterol, which can raise blood levels of cholesterol in some people; margarine, which is made from vegetable sources, does not.
The good news is that a Food and Drug Administration ruling, which took effect in January, requires food companies to list the amount of trans fats on the nutrition label of every package. As a result, most companies have switched the fats they use so they can say “no trans fats” on the label.
The bad news is that some substitutions — to tropical oils like palm, palm kernel and coconut — are reintroducing more heart-damaging saturated fats to American diets and causing environmental devastation in several countries where palm and coconut trees grow.
Furthermore, consumers who use the “no trans fats” label proclamation as their buying guide can still end up buying a lot of what nutritionists call junk foods. And the F.D.A. ruling does not apply to foods sold in restaurants, bakeries, takeout and other retail food outlets where unsuspecting consumers could be loading up on harmful trans fats.
That prompted the New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene in March to ask the city’s 20,000 restaurants and 14,000 food suppliers to eliminate partly hydrogenated oils from kitchens and provide foods and food products free of industrially produced trans fatty acids.
What Trans Fats Do
The health concerns about trans fats go far beyond the effects on blood cholesterol. In a report in the June issue of The Journal of the American Dietetic Association, researchers led by Katherine M. Phillips, a biochemist at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, reviewed what is known about trans fats and their alternatives.
The “trans” in trans fatty acids refers to the biochemical configuration of the fat molecule. Natural polyunsaturated fatty acids in vegetable oils have a “cis” conformation: the hydrogen atoms in each double bond are on the same side. But the processes used in partial hydrogenation results in some double bonds with a “trans” conformation: hydrogen atoms on opposite sides of each double bond.
This little biochemical switch turns out to have potentially devastating health effects. In addition to raising bad cholesterol (especially the small L.D.L. particles that stick to blood vessels) and lowering good cholesterol, trans fatty acids raise blood levels of triglycerides and lipoprotein (a), which raise cardiovascular risk.
But that is not all. Trans fatty acids, when compared with cis-unsaturated fats, also raise blood levels of substances like C-reactive protein that are markers of bodywide inflammation and cellular dysfunction, also linked to heart and blood vessel disease.
Trans fats can interfere with the metabolism of essential fatty acids, the synthesis of healthful omega-3 fatty acids and the balance of prostaglandins, disrupting protection against blood clots. And high intakes of trans fats may cause insulin resistance, a marker of type 2 diabetes.
In a recent review in The New England Journal of Medicine on the relationship between trans fats and heart disease, even low levels of trans fats in the diet — a mere 1 percent to 2 percent of calories per day — were linked to a substantially increased risk of heart disease. In studies of 140,000 individuals, consuming 2 percent of calories as trans fats resulted in a 23 percent increase in heart disease.
In 1983, scientists at the US Department of Agriculture estimated that the average American consumed 8 grams of trans fats a day (that’s 3.6 percent of a 2,000-calorie diet), with 85 percent coming from foods containing partly hydrogenated oils and the rest from trans fats naturally present in meat and dairy products.
The low levels of trans fats in meats and dairy products result from hydrogenation by microbes in the gut of ruminant animals (cows, sheep and goats). In addition, small amounts of trans fats are formed when vegetable oils are refined at high temperatures.
A more recent estimate based on mid-1990’s data by the F.D.A. put the average trans fat consumption by adults at 5.8 grams a day. The main contributors of these fats were cakes and related products (23.8 percent), margarine (16.5 percent), cookies and crackers (9.8 percent), fried potatoes (8.3 percent), chips and snacks (4.8 percent) and household shortenings (4.3 percent).
Choosing Healthier Foods
The new food label rule exempts products with less than 0.5 gram of trans fatty acid per serving, which can list the amount as zero per serving. But if someone eats, say, four servings of the food instead of one, as many do, the amount of trans fats consumed can have a significant effect.
The only way to know if a zero listing really means zero is to check the ingredients list. If partly hydrogenated oil is an ingredient, there is some trans fat in the food. (Fully hydrogenated oils, listed only as “hydrogenated,” do not contain trans fats. Rather, these fats are saturated.)
Furthermore, the listing of trans fats is meaningful only if consumers read the label and select foods that have no trans fats and no partly hydrogenated oils.
If you want to avoid trans fats when eating out or buying takeout, you have to ask how a food was prepared. Ask what cooking fats were used, including the oils in salad dressings. The New England Journal authors said that to avoid adverse health effects, “complete or near-complete avoidance of industrially produced trans fats” is necessary.
To protect heart health, you would be wise, as well, to avoid foods made with tropical oils (palm, palm kernel and coconut), which contain saturated fatty acids.
Soft and liquid margarines have little or no trans fats. And American producers are working hard to develop alternative methods of producing shelf-stable vegetable oils, which should be on the shelf in the next year or so.
McDonald’s in Denmark, where there is a legal limit on industrially produced trans fats in foods (less than 2 percent), manages to serve food without these harmful fats. Why not here? Denmark has shown that eliminating partly hydrogenated vegetable oils from foods in stores and restaurants does not result in a loss of palatability, availability or quality, or an increase in the cost or consumption of saturated fats.
Is Margarine healthier than Butter?
By Anahad O'Connor : NY Times Article : October 16, 2007
THE FACTS
The debate has been around nearly as long as butter and margarine themselves: Is one truly healthier than the other?
The confusion persists for good reason. Butter, which has been used for thousands of years, is made from animal products, making it high in cholesterol and saturated fat, which have been linked to heart disease.
Margarine is made from polyunsaturated vegetable oils like corn oil, which do not contain saturated fats. Most people assume that makes it heart-healthy. Not exactly. The process of turning polyunsaturated oils into semisolid table spreads creates trans fats, which are just as bad as saturated fats, if not worse.
But most studies and health experts suggest that margarine, selected carefully, can be a safer choice. Because higher levels of trans fat make margarines more solid, it is best to choose those that are liquid or sold in tubs. Many varieties now contain water or liquid vegetable oil instead of partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, which can make them virtually free of trans fats. Even better, experts say, is to choose an alternative, like olive or canola oil.
THE BOTTOM LINE
Margarine generally contains less fat and cholesterol than butter, but it is not ideal.
Canola oil may now be sold to consumers as a product that can reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.
The disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, killing half a million people every year. Canola oil and certain foods made with canola oil are allowed to start making the claim, the Food and Drug Administration said October 6, 2006.
Labels can say that limited evidence suggests eating 19 grams — about 1 1/2 tablespoons — of canola oil daily may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease due to its unsaturated fat content, the FDA said. Canola oil should replace a similar amount of saturated fat and not increase the total number of calories a person eats each day, FDA said.
The U.S. Canola Association, which petitioned FDA for permission to make the claim, said studies show that unsaturated fat from canola oil lowers cholesterol, including LDL or "bad" cholesterol, as part of a diet low in saturated fat.
Healthy Hearts Never Take a Holiday
This holiday season, give yourself the gift of a healthier heart.
Limiting your alcohol consumption is one important step, said Dr. Ajit Raisinghani, director of the non-invasive cardiac lab at the University of California, San Diego.
He said that every year during the holidays, emergency rooms at hospitals across the United States see patients with heart palpitations and light headedness. Many of these patients have an abnormal heart rhythm caused by drinking too much alcohol -- a condition called "Holiday Heart."
"Usually the patient experiences palpitations accompanied by a sensation of light-headedness. When the patients come into the ER, we learn they've usually spent the weekend drinking. Most often, they're college kids who are otherwise healthy," Raisinghani said.
The condition usually resolves itself within 24 hours. However, some patients will be admitted to hospital and given medication to slow down their heart rate until it returns to its normal rhythm.
Raisinghani offered some other tips for keeping your heart healthy during the holidays and the rest of the year:
- Get regular exercise -- 30 minutes of aerobic exercise three times a week can significantly reduce the risk of developing heart disease.
- Limit your salt intake. Too much salt contributes to high blood pressure, a leading cause of heart failure and stroke. People who have heart disease need to be especially careful about their salt intake.
- Make an effort not to gain weight over the holidays.
- Avoid saturated fats, which stimulate the production of LDL (bad) cholesterol and increase blood cholesterol levels.
- Learn how to effectively cope with stress, which can be caused by trying to do too much during the holidays. Tension, frustration and sadness can trigger or worsen heart irregularities. Exercise is a good way to relieve stress.
- Schedule time for rest and relaxation during the holidays.
- Nurture friendly, caring relationships in order to counter loneliness, which can have negative effects on the heart.
- Make time to do activities that make you happy and make you laugh.
The Cholesterol Connection
by Sally Wadyka for MSN Health & Fitness
There’s no denying that a healthy diet is the first line of defense against rising cholesterol. “If you eat a predominantly plant-based diet—with lots of fruits and vegetables plus some fish—you are on the right track to keeping your cholesterol at a healthy level,” says Lisa Dorfman, a registered dietitian and spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association. That said, certain so-called super-foods can actually help lower bad cholesterol and/or increase the good cholesterol. Ideally, you want to shoot for total cholesterol under 200, with LDL (the bad one) under 110 and HDL (the good one) greater than 35.
Try to incorporate more of these
Almonds: Studies have found that eating just a quarter cup of almonds a day can lower your LDL by 4.4 percent, according to dietitian Leslie Bonci, who is also the director of sports nutrition at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. “Eating nuts, especially almonds, which are high in good-for-you monounsaturated fat, is better than simply eating a low-fat snack like pretzels,” says Bonci. Of course, they can also be high in calories, so stick with a small serving and choose almonds that are dry roasted without oil.
Oatmeal: You’ve seen the commercials with people proclaiming dramatic drops in their cholesterol numbers thanks to a daily serving of this hot cereal. Those great results are due to the high levels of soluble fiber found in oatmeal. “The soluble fiber binds to the bile acids that are the precursor to the development of cholesterol and help flush it out,” explains Bonci. It doesn’t matter how you get your oats—those instant, just-add-water packets are just as good for you as traditional, slow-cooked versions.
Fish: Omega-3 fatty acids are widely considered to be the best of the “good” fats, and the best place to find them is in fish—especially fatty fishes like salmon, halibut and tuna. According to Dorfman of the ADA, you want to get 1.5 to 3 grams per day of omega-3. A 4-ounce piece of salmon will give you close to 3 grams, and you can also get these fatty acids from walnuts and flaxseed (two tablespoons of flaxseed provides 3.5 grams) and in fish oil supplements.
Red wine: Not everything that’s good for you has to feel virtuous. A glass of red wine, which contains flavanols, has been shown to have anti-inflammatory properties that may help lower cholesterol and stave off heart disease. But in this case, more is definitely not better. “For women, the recommendation is one drink a day and for men it’s two,” says Bonci. More than that will, literally, dilute any potential benefits. These flavanols can also be found in red grape juice and dark cocoa.
Soy: Soybeans, soy nuts and edamame, plus any products made from soy (like tofu, soymilk, etc.) can help to reduce the production of new cholesterol. A little can go a long way—aim for about 25 grams of soy protein a day (the amount in a cup of edamame). And those who are at an increased risk of breast or prostate cancer may want to skip it since too much of soy’s phyto-estrogens can act similarly to the body’s own estrogen (which has been shown to feed some hormone-dependent tumors).
Now that you know the good stuff to add to your diet, try to reduce—or better Whole-milk dairy products: Saturated fat, which clogs arteries and increases LDL levels, is the No. 1 cholesterol-boosting culprit. And foods like ice cream and cheese are where you’re likely to find them. Swap out the Ben & Jerry’s Chubby Hubby for a lower-fat frozen yogurt, and skip the brie in favor of something less rich, like a part-skim mozzarella.
Processed meats: Bacon, sausage, liverwurst and the like are also wonderful sources of artery-clogging saturated fat. Look for lower-fat options, like bacon and sausage made from turkey and other lean protein sources.
Fast-food fries: Even worse than saturated fats are the dreaded trans fats. “You might as well take a gun and shoot yourself!” says Dorfman. The main source of trans fats are partially hydrogenated oils, and that’s exactly what most fast-food restaurants are still using to cook their fries. Trans fats hit cholesterol with a double whammy—in addition to raising your LDL, they simultaneously lower your HDL.
Tropical oils: Palm kernel and coconut oils are two of the fattiest of oils—100 percent of the bad-for-you saturated variety. Don’t use them when you cook at home, and try to avoid them when you eat out (most fast-food restaurants have eliminated them, but you can check their Web sites for detailed nutritional information). Use heart-healthy mono- and polyunsaturated fats, like olive, canola and safflower oil, instead.
Baked goods: Many manufacturers of packaged cookies and cakes have eliminated trans fats from their recipes, but check the nutrition labels to be sure. But all baked goods—even those that are homemade—are high in saturated fats, thanks to the butter and shortening. Since no one wants to give up dessert completely, eat high-fat baked goods only occasionally, opting more often for low-fat sweets like sorbets.
Eating your way to a healthy heart
By Tara Parker-Pope : NY Times Article : May 13, 2008
MOST people think heart-healthy living involves sacrifice. Give up your favorite foods. Break a sweat. Lose weight. But some of the best things you can do for your heart do not involve deprivation or medication. Simple and even pleasurable changes in the foods you eat can rival medication in terms of the benefit to your heart.
“Almost everyone has something they can do in their diet or activity that will impact their risk of heart disease,” said Dr. Graham Colditz, adjunct professor of epidemiology at Washington University in St. Louis. “It’s not about taking anything to the extremes of major deprivation, extreme marathon running or becoming a vegetarian.”
Even so, many people are not getting the message. While doctors still advise patients to diet, exercise and stop smoking, the medical community has adopted an almost singular focus on cholesterol-lowering drugs as the fastest and best way to battle heart disease. Americans spend $18 billion a year on cholesterol-reducing drugs, making them the nation’s biggest-selling class of drugs.
Clearly, drug treatments have played a role in the health of American hearts. Since 1950, age-adjusted death rates from cardiovascular disease have dropped 60 percent, a statistic praised by government health officials.
Average blood pressure and cholesterol levels are dropping, partly because of drug treatments. But drugs don’t get all the credit. A sharp drop in smoking has had a huge impact on heart health. And major changes in diet have also played a role. Surveys of the food supply suggest that consumption of saturated fat and cholesterol has decreased since the early 1900s. Medical care has also improved.
But an important lesson from the last 50 years is that when it comes to improving heart health, it is important to look beyond the medicine cabinet.
Just a few small changes — eating more fish, vegetables, nuts and fiber — can have a major impact on your risk for heart problems. For some people, drinking moderate amounts of wine may offer additional benefits. Even a 55-year-old man who is about 20 pounds overweight and does not exercise regularly will have a heart-disease risk far below average if he regularly consumes fish, nuts, fiber and vegetables and drinks moderate amounts of wine.
It’s hard to believe that such simple food changes can make a meaningful difference, but data from hundreds of studies show they can.
For instance, a review of nearly 100 studies evaluating various cholesterol-lowering agents and diets showed just how potent fish can be as a heart protector. In studies of people who consume diets rich in omega-3 fatty acids like those found in fish, heart risk was 23 percent lower compared with a control group. The 2005 review appeared in The Archives of Internal Medicine.
The same report also reviewed studies of statin use and showed a 13 percent lower heart risk. Because it was not a head-to-head comparison, it cannot be concluded that eating fish is better than using statins. But the results clearly show the powerful effect of fish in the diet.
Many studies of fish consumption and heart health are based on observation of Eskimos and people in Mediterranean regions. And random clinical trials have shown that consuming omega-3 fatty acids can reduce heart attacks and cardiovascular death. These fatty acids can also slow the progress of atherosclerosis in coronary patients, according to the American Heart Association.
Several studies now show that regular consumption of omega-3s from a variety of sources, including fish, nuts and soybean oil, can lower cardiovascular risk as much as 60 percent, according to a 2006 review in The American Journal of Cardiology.
It doesn’t take much fish. Doctors recommend eating it, particularly fatty kinds like mackerel, lake trout, herring, sardines, albacore tuna and salmon, just twice a week.
People worry about exposure to mercury and toxins from fish, but experts say that for middle-age and older men and postmenopausal women, the benefits of fish far outweigh the risks of exposure to environmental pollutants.
The data on increasing consumption of fiber-rich foods, vegetables and nuts is also compelling. A 2001 report in Nutrition Reviews concluded that eating just a handful of nuts (about three to four tablespoons) five times a week can reduce risk of coronary artery disease between 25 and 40 percent.
And while everyone knows it is good to eat your vegetables, many people do not realize how easy it really is to consume five to nine servings of fruits and vegetables a day. Just having a salad of leafy greens (two cups) with tomatoes and half a cup of broccoli, for instance, totals four servings. If you had juice with breakfast, you’re already up to five by lunchtime.
Whether to add alcohol to your daily diet is more controversial. Increasingly, studies support the idea that drinking a small amount each day — no more than one to two servings — is better for you than not drinking. Large observational studies show that drinking moderate amounts of alcohol can lower the risk of dying in a given year by about 25 percent, compared with those who rarely drink. But it’s not true for everyone. Excessive use of alcohol can lead to addiction, traffic accidents and potentially fatal medical problems.
Even small amounts of alcohol can increase risk for certain health worries, like breast and colon cancer. Although those risks are generally offset by the extra heart benefits, some people may decide it is not worth it. Much of the research on alcohol’s benefit comes from studies that observe people over time rather than from controlled clinical trials, which are more reliable. So while there is a strong association with moderate alcohol consumption and better health, the results are not conclusive.
Making better food choices won’t always produce obvious results, like weight loss. But substituting fish for red meat, high-fiber foods for processed pastries and eating more vegetables may push more fattening foods off your plate, and at the least, prevent weight gain. Add a half-hour walk after dinner and you have gone a long way toward lowering heart risk.
by Sally Wadyka for MSN Health & Fitness
There’s no denying that a healthy diet is the first line of defense against rising cholesterol. “If you eat a predominantly plant-based diet—with lots of fruits and vegetables plus some fish—you are on the right track to keeping your cholesterol at a healthy level,” says Lisa Dorfman, a registered dietitian and spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association. That said, certain so-called super-foods can actually help lower bad cholesterol and/or increase the good cholesterol. Ideally, you want to shoot for total cholesterol under 200, with LDL (the bad one) under 110 and HDL (the good one) greater than 35.
Try to incorporate more of these
Almonds: Studies have found that eating just a quarter cup of almonds a day can lower your LDL by 4.4 percent, according to dietitian Leslie Bonci, who is also the director of sports nutrition at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. “Eating nuts, especially almonds, which are high in good-for-you monounsaturated fat, is better than simply eating a low-fat snack like pretzels,” says Bonci. Of course, they can also be high in calories, so stick with a small serving and choose almonds that are dry roasted without oil.
Oatmeal: You’ve seen the commercials with people proclaiming dramatic drops in their cholesterol numbers thanks to a daily serving of this hot cereal. Those great results are due to the high levels of soluble fiber found in oatmeal. “The soluble fiber binds to the bile acids that are the precursor to the development of cholesterol and help flush it out,” explains Bonci. It doesn’t matter how you get your oats—those instant, just-add-water packets are just as good for you as traditional, slow-cooked versions.
Fish: Omega-3 fatty acids are widely considered to be the best of the “good” fats, and the best place to find them is in fish—especially fatty fishes like salmon, halibut and tuna. According to Dorfman of the ADA, you want to get 1.5 to 3 grams per day of omega-3. A 4-ounce piece of salmon will give you close to 3 grams, and you can also get these fatty acids from walnuts and flaxseed (two tablespoons of flaxseed provides 3.5 grams) and in fish oil supplements.
Red wine: Not everything that’s good for you has to feel virtuous. A glass of red wine, which contains flavanols, has been shown to have anti-inflammatory properties that may help lower cholesterol and stave off heart disease. But in this case, more is definitely not better. “For women, the recommendation is one drink a day and for men it’s two,” says Bonci. More than that will, literally, dilute any potential benefits. These flavanols can also be found in red grape juice and dark cocoa.
Soy: Soybeans, soy nuts and edamame, plus any products made from soy (like tofu, soymilk, etc.) can help to reduce the production of new cholesterol. A little can go a long way—aim for about 25 grams of soy protein a day (the amount in a cup of edamame). And those who are at an increased risk of breast or prostate cancer may want to skip it since too much of soy’s phyto-estrogens can act similarly to the body’s own estrogen (which has been shown to feed some hormone-dependent tumors).
Now that you know the good stuff to add to your diet, try to reduce—or better Whole-milk dairy products: Saturated fat, which clogs arteries and increases LDL levels, is the No. 1 cholesterol-boosting culprit. And foods like ice cream and cheese are where you’re likely to find them. Swap out the Ben & Jerry’s Chubby Hubby for a lower-fat frozen yogurt, and skip the brie in favor of something less rich, like a part-skim mozzarella.
Processed meats: Bacon, sausage, liverwurst and the like are also wonderful sources of artery-clogging saturated fat. Look for lower-fat options, like bacon and sausage made from turkey and other lean protein sources.
Fast-food fries: Even worse than saturated fats are the dreaded trans fats. “You might as well take a gun and shoot yourself!” says Dorfman. The main source of trans fats are partially hydrogenated oils, and that’s exactly what most fast-food restaurants are still using to cook their fries. Trans fats hit cholesterol with a double whammy—in addition to raising your LDL, they simultaneously lower your HDL.
Tropical oils: Palm kernel and coconut oils are two of the fattiest of oils—100 percent of the bad-for-you saturated variety. Don’t use them when you cook at home, and try to avoid them when you eat out (most fast-food restaurants have eliminated them, but you can check their Web sites for detailed nutritional information). Use heart-healthy mono- and polyunsaturated fats, like olive, canola and safflower oil, instead.
Baked goods: Many manufacturers of packaged cookies and cakes have eliminated trans fats from their recipes, but check the nutrition labels to be sure. But all baked goods—even those that are homemade—are high in saturated fats, thanks to the butter and shortening. Since no one wants to give up dessert completely, eat high-fat baked goods only occasionally, opting more often for low-fat sweets like sorbets.
Eating your way to a healthy heart
By Tara Parker-Pope : NY Times Article : May 13, 2008
MOST people think heart-healthy living involves sacrifice. Give up your favorite foods. Break a sweat. Lose weight. But some of the best things you can do for your heart do not involve deprivation or medication. Simple and even pleasurable changes in the foods you eat can rival medication in terms of the benefit to your heart.
“Almost everyone has something they can do in their diet or activity that will impact their risk of heart disease,” said Dr. Graham Colditz, adjunct professor of epidemiology at Washington University in St. Louis. “It’s not about taking anything to the extremes of major deprivation, extreme marathon running or becoming a vegetarian.”
Even so, many people are not getting the message. While doctors still advise patients to diet, exercise and stop smoking, the medical community has adopted an almost singular focus on cholesterol-lowering drugs as the fastest and best way to battle heart disease. Americans spend $18 billion a year on cholesterol-reducing drugs, making them the nation’s biggest-selling class of drugs.
Clearly, drug treatments have played a role in the health of American hearts. Since 1950, age-adjusted death rates from cardiovascular disease have dropped 60 percent, a statistic praised by government health officials.
Average blood pressure and cholesterol levels are dropping, partly because of drug treatments. But drugs don’t get all the credit. A sharp drop in smoking has had a huge impact on heart health. And major changes in diet have also played a role. Surveys of the food supply suggest that consumption of saturated fat and cholesterol has decreased since the early 1900s. Medical care has also improved.
But an important lesson from the last 50 years is that when it comes to improving heart health, it is important to look beyond the medicine cabinet.
Just a few small changes — eating more fish, vegetables, nuts and fiber — can have a major impact on your risk for heart problems. For some people, drinking moderate amounts of wine may offer additional benefits. Even a 55-year-old man who is about 20 pounds overweight and does not exercise regularly will have a heart-disease risk far below average if he regularly consumes fish, nuts, fiber and vegetables and drinks moderate amounts of wine.
It’s hard to believe that such simple food changes can make a meaningful difference, but data from hundreds of studies show they can.
For instance, a review of nearly 100 studies evaluating various cholesterol-lowering agents and diets showed just how potent fish can be as a heart protector. In studies of people who consume diets rich in omega-3 fatty acids like those found in fish, heart risk was 23 percent lower compared with a control group. The 2005 review appeared in The Archives of Internal Medicine.
The same report also reviewed studies of statin use and showed a 13 percent lower heart risk. Because it was not a head-to-head comparison, it cannot be concluded that eating fish is better than using statins. But the results clearly show the powerful effect of fish in the diet.
Many studies of fish consumption and heart health are based on observation of Eskimos and people in Mediterranean regions. And random clinical trials have shown that consuming omega-3 fatty acids can reduce heart attacks and cardiovascular death. These fatty acids can also slow the progress of atherosclerosis in coronary patients, according to the American Heart Association.
Several studies now show that regular consumption of omega-3s from a variety of sources, including fish, nuts and soybean oil, can lower cardiovascular risk as much as 60 percent, according to a 2006 review in The American Journal of Cardiology.
It doesn’t take much fish. Doctors recommend eating it, particularly fatty kinds like mackerel, lake trout, herring, sardines, albacore tuna and salmon, just twice a week.
People worry about exposure to mercury and toxins from fish, but experts say that for middle-age and older men and postmenopausal women, the benefits of fish far outweigh the risks of exposure to environmental pollutants.
The data on increasing consumption of fiber-rich foods, vegetables and nuts is also compelling. A 2001 report in Nutrition Reviews concluded that eating just a handful of nuts (about three to four tablespoons) five times a week can reduce risk of coronary artery disease between 25 and 40 percent.
And while everyone knows it is good to eat your vegetables, many people do not realize how easy it really is to consume five to nine servings of fruits and vegetables a day. Just having a salad of leafy greens (two cups) with tomatoes and half a cup of broccoli, for instance, totals four servings. If you had juice with breakfast, you’re already up to five by lunchtime.
Whether to add alcohol to your daily diet is more controversial. Increasingly, studies support the idea that drinking a small amount each day — no more than one to two servings — is better for you than not drinking. Large observational studies show that drinking moderate amounts of alcohol can lower the risk of dying in a given year by about 25 percent, compared with those who rarely drink. But it’s not true for everyone. Excessive use of alcohol can lead to addiction, traffic accidents and potentially fatal medical problems.
Even small amounts of alcohol can increase risk for certain health worries, like breast and colon cancer. Although those risks are generally offset by the extra heart benefits, some people may decide it is not worth it. Much of the research on alcohol’s benefit comes from studies that observe people over time rather than from controlled clinical trials, which are more reliable. So while there is a strong association with moderate alcohol consumption and better health, the results are not conclusive.
Making better food choices won’t always produce obvious results, like weight loss. But substituting fish for red meat, high-fiber foods for processed pastries and eating more vegetables may push more fattening foods off your plate, and at the least, prevent weight gain. Add a half-hour walk after dinner and you have gone a long way toward lowering heart risk.
You Are Also What You Drink
By Jane E. Brody : NY Times Article : March 27, 2007
What worries you most? Decaying teeth, thinning bones, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, dementia, cancer, obesity? Whatever tops your list, you may be surprised to know that all of these health problems are linked to the beverages you drink — or don’t drink. Last year, with the support of the Unilever Health Institute in the Netherlands (Unilever owns Lipton Tea), a panel of experts on nutrition and health published a “Beverage Guidance System” in hopes of getting people to stop drinking their calories when those calories contribute little or nothing to their health and may actually detract from it. The panel, led by Barry M. Popkin, a nutrition professor at the University of North Carolina, was distressed by the burgeoning waistlines of Americans and the contribution that popular beverages make to weight problems. But the experts also reviewed 146 published reports to find the best evidence for the effects of various beverages on nearly all of the above health problems. I looked into a few others, and what follows is a summary of what we all found. At the head of the list of preferred drinks is — you guessed it — water. No calories, no hazards, only benefits. But the panel expressed concern about bottled water fortified with nutrients, saying that consumers may think they don’t need to eat certain nutritious foods, which contain substances like fiber and phytochemicals lacking in these waters. (You can just imagine what the panel would have to say about vitamin-fortified sodas, which Coca-Cola and Pepsi plan to introduce in the coming months.)
Sweet Liquid Calories
About 21 percent of calories consumed by Americans over the age of 2 come from beverages, predominantly soft drinks and fruit drinks with added sugars, the panel said in its report. There has been a huge increase in sugar-sweetened drinks in recent decades, primarily at the expense of milk, which has clear nutritional benefits. The calories from these sugary drinks account for half the rise in caloric intake by Americans since the late 1970s. Not only has the number of servings of these drinks risen, but serving size has ballooned, as well, with some retail outlets offering 32 ounces and free refills. Add the current passion for smoothies and sweetened coffee drinks (there are 240 calories in a 16-ounce Starbucks Caffe Mocha without the whipped cream), and you can see why people are drinking themselves into XXXL sizes. But calories from sweet drinks are not the only problem. The other matter cited by the panel, in its report in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, is that beverages have “weak satiety properties” — they do little or nothing to curb your appetite — and people do not compensate for the calories they drink by eating less. Furthermore, some soft drinks contribute to other health problems. The American Academy of General Dentistry says that noncola carbonated beverages and canned (sweetened) iced tea harm tooth enamel, especially when consumed apart from meals. And a study of 2,500 adults in Framingham, Mass., linked cola consumption (regular and diet) to the thinning of hip bones in women. If you must drink something sweet, the panel suggested a no-calorie beverage like diet soda prepared with an approved sweetener, though the experts recognized a lack of long-term safety data and the possibility that these drinks “condition” people to prefer sweetness. Fruit juices are also a sweet alternative, although not nearly as good as whole fruits, which are better at satisfying hunger.
Coffee, Tea and Caffeine
Here the news is better. Several good studies have linked regular coffee consumption to a reduced risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer and, in men and in women who have not taken postmenopausal hormones, Parkinson’s disease. Most studies have not linked a high intake of either coffee or caffeine to heart disease, even though caffeinated coffee raises blood pressure somewhat and boiled unfiltered coffee (French-pressed and espresso) raises harmful LDL and total cholesterol levels. Caffeine itself is not thought to be a problem for health or water balance in the body, up to 400 milligrams a day (the amount in about 30 ounces of brewed coffee). But pregnant women should limit their intake because more than 300 milligrams a day might increase the risk of miscarriage and low birth weight, the panel said. Mice prone to an Alzheimer’s-like disease were protected by drinking water spiked with caffeine equivalent to what people get from five cups of coffee a day. And a study of more than 600 men suggested that drinking three cups of coffee a day protects against age-related memory and thinking deficits. For tea, the evidence on health benefits is mixed and sometimes conflicting. Tea lowers cancer risk in experimental animals, but the effects in people are unknown. It may benefit bone density and help prevent kidney stones and tooth decay. And four or five cups of black tea daily helps arteries expand and thus may improve blood flow to the heart.
Alcohol
Alcohol is a classic case of “a little may be better than none but a lot is worse than a little.” Moderate consumption — one drink a day for women and two for men — has been linked in many large, long-term studies to lower mortality rates, especially from heart attacks and strokes, and may also lower the risk of Type 2 diabetes and gallstones. The panel found no convincing evidence that one form of alcohol, including red wine, was better than another. But alcohol even at moderate intakes raises the risk of birth defects and breast cancer, possibly because it interferes with folate, an essential B vitamin. And heavy alcohol consumption is associated with several lethal cancers, cirrhosis of the liver, hemorrhagic stroke, hypertension, dementia and some forms of heart disease.
Dairy and Soy Drinks
Here my reading of the evidence differs slightly from that of the panel, which rated low-fat and skim milk third, below water and coffee and tea, as a preferred drink and said dairy drinks were not essential to a healthy diet. The panel acknowledged the benefits of milk for bone density, while noting that unless people continue to drink it, the benefit to bones of the calcium and vitamin D in milk is not maintained. Other essential nutrients in milk include magnesium, potassium, zinc, iron, vitamin A, riboflavin, folate and protein — about eight grams in an eight-ounce glass. A 10-year study of overweight individuals found that milk drinkers were less likely to develop metabolic syndrome, a constellation of coronary risk factors that includes hypertension and low levels of protective HDLs. To me, this says you may never outgrow your need for milk. The panel emphasized the need for children and teenagers to drink more milk and fewer calorically sweetened beverages. “Fortified soy milk is a good alternative for individuals who prefer not to consume cow milk,” the panel said, but cautioned that soy milk cannot be legally fortified with vitamin D and provides only 75 percent of the calcium the body obtains from cow’s milk.
Lycopenes : Review Says Evidence Is Scant that it prevents cancer
By Nicholas Bakalar : NY Times Article : July 24, 2007
In a review of scientific data, the Food and Drug Administration has found almost no evidence that tomatoes or the antioxidant lycopene have any effect in cancer prevention. The review, published online July 10 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, examined 81 studies of lycopene and concluded that none produced any credible evidence to support a relationship between consumption of the antioxidant either in food or dietary supplements, and the risk for prostate, lung, colorectal, gastric, breast, ovarian, endometrial or pancreatic cancer. The authors also examined 64 observational studies of tomato or tomato product consumption and cancer risk. Twenty-five of them were eliminated because they were a republication of old data or because they had deficiencies that prevented drawing scientific conclusions. Of the 39 remaining studies, the authors found no evidence that tomato consumption reduced the risk of lung, breast, colorectal, endometrial or cervical cancer. They concluded that it was at best very unlikely that eating tomatoes had any effect on the risk for pancreatic, prostate, gastric or ovarian cancer. There is no basis, the authors write, for manufacturers to make health claims for lycopene as a food ingredient or a dietary supplement, and they said claims about the effect of tomatoes on prostate, ovarian, gastric and pancreatic cancer should be qualified by noting that such assertions are unlikely, uncertain or lacking in scientific evidence. A separate study, published last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that a low-fat diet rich in fruits and vegetables had no benefit in preventing the recurrence of breast cancer.
The Family Meal is what counts; whether TV is on or off.
By Tara Parker-Pope : NY Times Article : October 16, 2007
Television viewing has long been linked with poor eating habits. So when University of Minnesota researchers embarked on a study of family meals, they fully expected that having the TV on at dinner would take a toll on children's diets. But to their surprise, it didn't make much difference. Families who watched TV at dinner ate just about as healthfully as families who dined without it. The biggest factor wasn't whether the TV was on or off, but whether the family was eating the meal together. "Obviously, we want people eating family meals, and we want them to turn the TV off," said Shira Feldman, public health specialist at the university's School of Public Health and lead author of the research. "But just the act of eating together is on some level very beneficial, even if the TV is on." The research, published this month in The Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, is the latest testament to the power of the family meal. While many parents worry about what their kids are eating — vegetables versus junk — a voluminous body of research suggests that the best strategy for improving a child's diet is simply putting food on the table and sitting down together to eat it. The importance of the family meal has been shown mainly in studies from the University of Minnesota, Harvard and Rutgers that have looked at family eating habits of nearly 40,000 middle-school students and teenagers. The research has shown that those who regularly have meals with their parents eat more fruits, vegetables and calcium-rich foods, ingest more vitamins and nutrients, and consume less junk food. Some of the research has shown that kids who regularly sit down to a family meal are at lower risk for behaviors like smoking and drug and alcohol use. But as is the case with all studies that observe people over time, the big question is whether the family meal really leads to healthier habits. Could it be that kids from happier, more health-conscious families are simply more likely to sit down to a family meal? University of Minnesota researchers have sought to answer that question by looking at "family connectedness," which essentially measures the psychological health of a family. Children from highly connected families have been shown to eat healthier foods, get better grades and have lower risk for smoking and drug and alcohol use. But in the Minnesota research, whether the family was connected or troubled was less important than whether they regularly dined together. One study, published in The Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine in 2004, found that even after controlling for family connectedness, kids who had seven or more family meals a week were far less likely to smoke, drink alcohol or use marijuana than those who had just one or none. In the latest study measuring the effects of television, researchers surveyed the eating habits of about 5,000 middle and high school students in Minneapolis and St. Paul. The data were collected during the 1998-99 school year but analyzed only recently. About two-thirds of the students reported that they ate dinner with their parents at least three times a week. But about half of that group said they also watched television during the family meal. Over all, the children ate healthier foods if the television was turned off, but the differences weren't as big as researchers expected. The biggest effect was seen among the kids who didn't eat regular family meals at all. Girls who dined alone ate fewer fruits, vegetables and calcium-rich foods and more soft drinks and snack foods than girls who ate with their parents. And girls who ate with their parents ate more calories — up to 14 percent more, suggesting that dining alone puts girls at higher risk for eating disorders. Boys who didn't eat with their parents had fewer vegetables and calcium-rich foods than family diners. The lesson for parents, say the study authors, is that being together at dinner is what counts. Having the TV on during the meal, while not desirable, can also serve a purpose if it helps bring sullen teenagers and families to the table. Why a family meal can make such a difference isn't entirely clear. It may be that parents simply put better food on the table when everyone gets together. People dining alone tend to eat pizza, for instance, while families who order pizza together tend to put vegetables or a salad on the table, Ms. Feldman noted. It may also be that dining together allows parents to set a better eating example for their kids. And mealtime is often the only chance parents have to actually look over their busy teenagers, catch up on their lives and visually assess behavioral or physical changes that might signal problems. Dr. Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, who has led much of the Minnesota research, says that when parents hear the data about the importance of the family meal, they often feel guilty if work schedules and teenagers' extracurricular activities keep them from dining together. The key, she said, is togetherness, not timing. A family that is scattered at the dinner hour might be able to meet regularly for breakfast instead. And even adding one or two more family meals to the week is better than nothing. "I would put the emphasis on just looking at where your family is now and seeing what you can do to improve," Dr. Neumark-Sztainer said. "I think many people just don't realize how important the family meal really is."
No Gimmicks: Eat less and Exercise More
By Jane E. Brody NY Times Article : January 1, 2008
A desire to turn over a new, more healthful leaf typically accompanies the start of a new year. My mail, for example, has been inundated with diet books, most of which offer yet another gimmick aimed ultimately at getting the gullible reader to eat less and exercise more. Publishers assume, correctly, that the shock of the scale after nearly six weeks of overindulging on food and drink will prompt the purchase of one or more books on dieting by people who are desperate to return to their pre-Thanksgiving shape. And really, it doesn’t matter whether you choose a diet based on your genotype or the phases of the moon, or whether you cut down on sugars and starches or fats. If you consume fewer calories than you need to maintain your current weight, you will lose. My advice here is to save your money, toss out (or donate to a soup kitchen) the leftover high-calorie holiday fare, gradually reduce your portion sizes and return to your exercise routine (or adopt one if you spent too much of ’07 on your sofa). Slowly but surely the pounds will come off. And as Aesop said, slow and steady does indeed win the race. Gradual weight loss, achieved on an eating-and-exercise regimen that you can sustain indefinitely, is most likely to be permanent weight loss. If you’ve been reading this column for years, no doubt you already know that. But I believe it bears repeating at least once a year, not because I want to further depress the booksellers’ market, but because I’d rather you spend your hard-earned money on foods that can really help you achieve and maintain a healthy weight and good health. The basics of good nutrition have not changed. Meals replete with vegetables, fruits and whole grains and a small serving of a protein-rich food remain the gold standard of a wholesome diet. Still, at both ends of the age spectrum as well as in between, recent months have held some new findings — and some surprises — that are worth noting. Perhaps most distressing to a chocoholic like me was a report in the Nov. 20 issue of the journal Circulation that while dark chocolate can indeed improve coronary circulation and decrease the risk of heart-damaging clots, most dark chocolate on the market is all but stripped of the bitter-tasting flavanols that convey this health benefit. The color, in other words, tells you nothing. Now it’s up to manufacturers to label the flavanol content — not just the percentage of cocoa, which may have no flavanol at all.
Start Babies Off Right
By now every pregnant woman and new mother probably knows that breast is best for baby for the first six months of life. Unfortunately, as was noted at a recent March of Dimes presentation to the news media, many working women find it impossible to breast-feed exclusively when their paid maternity leave (if indeed they have a paid maternity leave) is only weeks long and they cannot afford, monetarily or professionally, to take unpaid leave. And as one of my former colleagues found, pumping breast milk in the ladies’ room, then searching for a refrigerator in which to store it, left so much to be desired that she quit her job. She and her husband sold their Manhattan apartment so they could afford to have her stay home with the baby. New mothers with jobs they cannot leave should know that any amount of breast-feeding (and feeding of pumped breast milk) is better than none at all, but also that millions of infants have grown up just fine on formula alone when they could not be nursed by their mothers. To get babies to eat fruits and vegetables, a study published in the December issue of Pediatrics found that what breast-feeding mothers regularly eat influences their babies’ initial acceptance of foods like peaches and green beans. Nonetheless, repeated exposure to green beans, which initially provoked a grimace, increased the babies’ consumption of this vegetable whether they were breast-fed or formula-fed. The researchers, from the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia, suggest that mothers ignore their babies’ facial expressions and keep offering foods that are good for them.
Focus on Brain Food
As the population ages and the prevalence of dementia rises, increased attention has focused on how diet may help keep cognitive decline at bay. A heart-healthy diet that keeps clogged arteries from limiting the brain’s supply of oxygen and nutrients has been linked to a lower risk of dementia. Likewise, omega-3 fatty acids in fish and fish oil, which counter inflammation, appear to protect the brain as well as the heart and joints. A recent analysis of 17 studies in the journal Pain found that daily supplements of these fatty acids significantly reduced inflammatory joint pain. But now there may be a new kid on the block: vitamin B12. A 10-year study with 1,648 participants in Oxford, England, found an increased risk of cognitive decline in older adults who had low blood levels of vitamin B12. This vitamin is found only in foods from animals, yet it is common for older people, especially those on limited budgets, to cut back on foods like meats and fish. Strict vegetarians, who have long been cautioned to take B12 as a supplement to prevent a deficiency, can add brain protection to the list of potential benefits. The rest of us should feel comfortable about eating red meat and poultry as long as it is lean and consumed in reasonable amounts. A serving of cooked meat, fish or poultry is only three to four ounces. The British researchers noted that high blood levels of homocysteine had previously been linked to an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease, and that B12 is one of the vitamins, along with folate and B6, that lower homocysteine levels. However, the researchers found no benefit to cognitive function from folate.
Foods to Fight Cancer : Here we come full circle.
A decade after the American Institute for Cancer Research issued its first major report on diet and cancer, a new magnum opus in concert with the World Cancer Research Fund was published late last year. Based on 7,000 studies of 17 kinds of cancer, it concluded that being overweight now ranks second only to smoking as a preventable cause of cancer. “Convincing evidence” of an increased risk resulting from body fatness was found for cancers of the kidney, endometrium, breast, colon and rectum, pancreas and esophagus. Other major findings of increased risk included red and processed meats for colon and rectal cancer, and alcoholic drinks for cancers of the mouth, throat, larynx, esophagus, breast, and colon and rectum.
“Convincing evidence” for cancer protection was found for physical activity against colon and rectal cancers, and for breastfeeding against breast cancer. “Probable” protection against various cancers was also found for dietary fiber; nonstarchy vegetables; fruits; foods rich in folates, beta-carotene, vitamin C and selenium; milk, and calcium supplements.
By Jane E. Brody : NY Times Article : March 27, 2007
What worries you most? Decaying teeth, thinning bones, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, dementia, cancer, obesity? Whatever tops your list, you may be surprised to know that all of these health problems are linked to the beverages you drink — or don’t drink. Last year, with the support of the Unilever Health Institute in the Netherlands (Unilever owns Lipton Tea), a panel of experts on nutrition and health published a “Beverage Guidance System” in hopes of getting people to stop drinking their calories when those calories contribute little or nothing to their health and may actually detract from it. The panel, led by Barry M. Popkin, a nutrition professor at the University of North Carolina, was distressed by the burgeoning waistlines of Americans and the contribution that popular beverages make to weight problems. But the experts also reviewed 146 published reports to find the best evidence for the effects of various beverages on nearly all of the above health problems. I looked into a few others, and what follows is a summary of what we all found. At the head of the list of preferred drinks is — you guessed it — water. No calories, no hazards, only benefits. But the panel expressed concern about bottled water fortified with nutrients, saying that consumers may think they don’t need to eat certain nutritious foods, which contain substances like fiber and phytochemicals lacking in these waters. (You can just imagine what the panel would have to say about vitamin-fortified sodas, which Coca-Cola and Pepsi plan to introduce in the coming months.)
Sweet Liquid Calories
About 21 percent of calories consumed by Americans over the age of 2 come from beverages, predominantly soft drinks and fruit drinks with added sugars, the panel said in its report. There has been a huge increase in sugar-sweetened drinks in recent decades, primarily at the expense of milk, which has clear nutritional benefits. The calories from these sugary drinks account for half the rise in caloric intake by Americans since the late 1970s. Not only has the number of servings of these drinks risen, but serving size has ballooned, as well, with some retail outlets offering 32 ounces and free refills. Add the current passion for smoothies and sweetened coffee drinks (there are 240 calories in a 16-ounce Starbucks Caffe Mocha without the whipped cream), and you can see why people are drinking themselves into XXXL sizes. But calories from sweet drinks are not the only problem. The other matter cited by the panel, in its report in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, is that beverages have “weak satiety properties” — they do little or nothing to curb your appetite — and people do not compensate for the calories they drink by eating less. Furthermore, some soft drinks contribute to other health problems. The American Academy of General Dentistry says that noncola carbonated beverages and canned (sweetened) iced tea harm tooth enamel, especially when consumed apart from meals. And a study of 2,500 adults in Framingham, Mass., linked cola consumption (regular and diet) to the thinning of hip bones in women. If you must drink something sweet, the panel suggested a no-calorie beverage like diet soda prepared with an approved sweetener, though the experts recognized a lack of long-term safety data and the possibility that these drinks “condition” people to prefer sweetness. Fruit juices are also a sweet alternative, although not nearly as good as whole fruits, which are better at satisfying hunger.
Coffee, Tea and Caffeine
Here the news is better. Several good studies have linked regular coffee consumption to a reduced risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer and, in men and in women who have not taken postmenopausal hormones, Parkinson’s disease. Most studies have not linked a high intake of either coffee or caffeine to heart disease, even though caffeinated coffee raises blood pressure somewhat and boiled unfiltered coffee (French-pressed and espresso) raises harmful LDL and total cholesterol levels. Caffeine itself is not thought to be a problem for health or water balance in the body, up to 400 milligrams a day (the amount in about 30 ounces of brewed coffee). But pregnant women should limit their intake because more than 300 milligrams a day might increase the risk of miscarriage and low birth weight, the panel said. Mice prone to an Alzheimer’s-like disease were protected by drinking water spiked with caffeine equivalent to what people get from five cups of coffee a day. And a study of more than 600 men suggested that drinking three cups of coffee a day protects against age-related memory and thinking deficits. For tea, the evidence on health benefits is mixed and sometimes conflicting. Tea lowers cancer risk in experimental animals, but the effects in people are unknown. It may benefit bone density and help prevent kidney stones and tooth decay. And four or five cups of black tea daily helps arteries expand and thus may improve blood flow to the heart.
Alcohol
Alcohol is a classic case of “a little may be better than none but a lot is worse than a little.” Moderate consumption — one drink a day for women and two for men — has been linked in many large, long-term studies to lower mortality rates, especially from heart attacks and strokes, and may also lower the risk of Type 2 diabetes and gallstones. The panel found no convincing evidence that one form of alcohol, including red wine, was better than another. But alcohol even at moderate intakes raises the risk of birth defects and breast cancer, possibly because it interferes with folate, an essential B vitamin. And heavy alcohol consumption is associated with several lethal cancers, cirrhosis of the liver, hemorrhagic stroke, hypertension, dementia and some forms of heart disease.
Dairy and Soy Drinks
Here my reading of the evidence differs slightly from that of the panel, which rated low-fat and skim milk third, below water and coffee and tea, as a preferred drink and said dairy drinks were not essential to a healthy diet. The panel acknowledged the benefits of milk for bone density, while noting that unless people continue to drink it, the benefit to bones of the calcium and vitamin D in milk is not maintained. Other essential nutrients in milk include magnesium, potassium, zinc, iron, vitamin A, riboflavin, folate and protein — about eight grams in an eight-ounce glass. A 10-year study of overweight individuals found that milk drinkers were less likely to develop metabolic syndrome, a constellation of coronary risk factors that includes hypertension and low levels of protective HDLs. To me, this says you may never outgrow your need for milk. The panel emphasized the need for children and teenagers to drink more milk and fewer calorically sweetened beverages. “Fortified soy milk is a good alternative for individuals who prefer not to consume cow milk,” the panel said, but cautioned that soy milk cannot be legally fortified with vitamin D and provides only 75 percent of the calcium the body obtains from cow’s milk.
Lycopenes : Review Says Evidence Is Scant that it prevents cancer
By Nicholas Bakalar : NY Times Article : July 24, 2007
In a review of scientific data, the Food and Drug Administration has found almost no evidence that tomatoes or the antioxidant lycopene have any effect in cancer prevention. The review, published online July 10 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, examined 81 studies of lycopene and concluded that none produced any credible evidence to support a relationship between consumption of the antioxidant either in food or dietary supplements, and the risk for prostate, lung, colorectal, gastric, breast, ovarian, endometrial or pancreatic cancer. The authors also examined 64 observational studies of tomato or tomato product consumption and cancer risk. Twenty-five of them were eliminated because they were a republication of old data or because they had deficiencies that prevented drawing scientific conclusions. Of the 39 remaining studies, the authors found no evidence that tomato consumption reduced the risk of lung, breast, colorectal, endometrial or cervical cancer. They concluded that it was at best very unlikely that eating tomatoes had any effect on the risk for pancreatic, prostate, gastric or ovarian cancer. There is no basis, the authors write, for manufacturers to make health claims for lycopene as a food ingredient or a dietary supplement, and they said claims about the effect of tomatoes on prostate, ovarian, gastric and pancreatic cancer should be qualified by noting that such assertions are unlikely, uncertain or lacking in scientific evidence. A separate study, published last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that a low-fat diet rich in fruits and vegetables had no benefit in preventing the recurrence of breast cancer.
The Family Meal is what counts; whether TV is on or off.
By Tara Parker-Pope : NY Times Article : October 16, 2007
Television viewing has long been linked with poor eating habits. So when University of Minnesota researchers embarked on a study of family meals, they fully expected that having the TV on at dinner would take a toll on children's diets. But to their surprise, it didn't make much difference. Families who watched TV at dinner ate just about as healthfully as families who dined without it. The biggest factor wasn't whether the TV was on or off, but whether the family was eating the meal together. "Obviously, we want people eating family meals, and we want them to turn the TV off," said Shira Feldman, public health specialist at the university's School of Public Health and lead author of the research. "But just the act of eating together is on some level very beneficial, even if the TV is on." The research, published this month in The Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, is the latest testament to the power of the family meal. While many parents worry about what their kids are eating — vegetables versus junk — a voluminous body of research suggests that the best strategy for improving a child's diet is simply putting food on the table and sitting down together to eat it. The importance of the family meal has been shown mainly in studies from the University of Minnesota, Harvard and Rutgers that have looked at family eating habits of nearly 40,000 middle-school students and teenagers. The research has shown that those who regularly have meals with their parents eat more fruits, vegetables and calcium-rich foods, ingest more vitamins and nutrients, and consume less junk food. Some of the research has shown that kids who regularly sit down to a family meal are at lower risk for behaviors like smoking and drug and alcohol use. But as is the case with all studies that observe people over time, the big question is whether the family meal really leads to healthier habits. Could it be that kids from happier, more health-conscious families are simply more likely to sit down to a family meal? University of Minnesota researchers have sought to answer that question by looking at "family connectedness," which essentially measures the psychological health of a family. Children from highly connected families have been shown to eat healthier foods, get better grades and have lower risk for smoking and drug and alcohol use. But in the Minnesota research, whether the family was connected or troubled was less important than whether they regularly dined together. One study, published in The Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine in 2004, found that even after controlling for family connectedness, kids who had seven or more family meals a week were far less likely to smoke, drink alcohol or use marijuana than those who had just one or none. In the latest study measuring the effects of television, researchers surveyed the eating habits of about 5,000 middle and high school students in Minneapolis and St. Paul. The data were collected during the 1998-99 school year but analyzed only recently. About two-thirds of the students reported that they ate dinner with their parents at least three times a week. But about half of that group said they also watched television during the family meal. Over all, the children ate healthier foods if the television was turned off, but the differences weren't as big as researchers expected. The biggest effect was seen among the kids who didn't eat regular family meals at all. Girls who dined alone ate fewer fruits, vegetables and calcium-rich foods and more soft drinks and snack foods than girls who ate with their parents. And girls who ate with their parents ate more calories — up to 14 percent more, suggesting that dining alone puts girls at higher risk for eating disorders. Boys who didn't eat with their parents had fewer vegetables and calcium-rich foods than family diners. The lesson for parents, say the study authors, is that being together at dinner is what counts. Having the TV on during the meal, while not desirable, can also serve a purpose if it helps bring sullen teenagers and families to the table. Why a family meal can make such a difference isn't entirely clear. It may be that parents simply put better food on the table when everyone gets together. People dining alone tend to eat pizza, for instance, while families who order pizza together tend to put vegetables or a salad on the table, Ms. Feldman noted. It may also be that dining together allows parents to set a better eating example for their kids. And mealtime is often the only chance parents have to actually look over their busy teenagers, catch up on their lives and visually assess behavioral or physical changes that might signal problems. Dr. Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, who has led much of the Minnesota research, says that when parents hear the data about the importance of the family meal, they often feel guilty if work schedules and teenagers' extracurricular activities keep them from dining together. The key, she said, is togetherness, not timing. A family that is scattered at the dinner hour might be able to meet regularly for breakfast instead. And even adding one or two more family meals to the week is better than nothing. "I would put the emphasis on just looking at where your family is now and seeing what you can do to improve," Dr. Neumark-Sztainer said. "I think many people just don't realize how important the family meal really is."
No Gimmicks: Eat less and Exercise More
By Jane E. Brody NY Times Article : January 1, 2008
A desire to turn over a new, more healthful leaf typically accompanies the start of a new year. My mail, for example, has been inundated with diet books, most of which offer yet another gimmick aimed ultimately at getting the gullible reader to eat less and exercise more. Publishers assume, correctly, that the shock of the scale after nearly six weeks of overindulging on food and drink will prompt the purchase of one or more books on dieting by people who are desperate to return to their pre-Thanksgiving shape. And really, it doesn’t matter whether you choose a diet based on your genotype or the phases of the moon, or whether you cut down on sugars and starches or fats. If you consume fewer calories than you need to maintain your current weight, you will lose. My advice here is to save your money, toss out (or donate to a soup kitchen) the leftover high-calorie holiday fare, gradually reduce your portion sizes and return to your exercise routine (or adopt one if you spent too much of ’07 on your sofa). Slowly but surely the pounds will come off. And as Aesop said, slow and steady does indeed win the race. Gradual weight loss, achieved on an eating-and-exercise regimen that you can sustain indefinitely, is most likely to be permanent weight loss. If you’ve been reading this column for years, no doubt you already know that. But I believe it bears repeating at least once a year, not because I want to further depress the booksellers’ market, but because I’d rather you spend your hard-earned money on foods that can really help you achieve and maintain a healthy weight and good health. The basics of good nutrition have not changed. Meals replete with vegetables, fruits and whole grains and a small serving of a protein-rich food remain the gold standard of a wholesome diet. Still, at both ends of the age spectrum as well as in between, recent months have held some new findings — and some surprises — that are worth noting. Perhaps most distressing to a chocoholic like me was a report in the Nov. 20 issue of the journal Circulation that while dark chocolate can indeed improve coronary circulation and decrease the risk of heart-damaging clots, most dark chocolate on the market is all but stripped of the bitter-tasting flavanols that convey this health benefit. The color, in other words, tells you nothing. Now it’s up to manufacturers to label the flavanol content — not just the percentage of cocoa, which may have no flavanol at all.
Start Babies Off Right
By now every pregnant woman and new mother probably knows that breast is best for baby for the first six months of life. Unfortunately, as was noted at a recent March of Dimes presentation to the news media, many working women find it impossible to breast-feed exclusively when their paid maternity leave (if indeed they have a paid maternity leave) is only weeks long and they cannot afford, monetarily or professionally, to take unpaid leave. And as one of my former colleagues found, pumping breast milk in the ladies’ room, then searching for a refrigerator in which to store it, left so much to be desired that she quit her job. She and her husband sold their Manhattan apartment so they could afford to have her stay home with the baby. New mothers with jobs they cannot leave should know that any amount of breast-feeding (and feeding of pumped breast milk) is better than none at all, but also that millions of infants have grown up just fine on formula alone when they could not be nursed by their mothers. To get babies to eat fruits and vegetables, a study published in the December issue of Pediatrics found that what breast-feeding mothers regularly eat influences their babies’ initial acceptance of foods like peaches and green beans. Nonetheless, repeated exposure to green beans, which initially provoked a grimace, increased the babies’ consumption of this vegetable whether they were breast-fed or formula-fed. The researchers, from the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia, suggest that mothers ignore their babies’ facial expressions and keep offering foods that are good for them.
Focus on Brain Food
As the population ages and the prevalence of dementia rises, increased attention has focused on how diet may help keep cognitive decline at bay. A heart-healthy diet that keeps clogged arteries from limiting the brain’s supply of oxygen and nutrients has been linked to a lower risk of dementia. Likewise, omega-3 fatty acids in fish and fish oil, which counter inflammation, appear to protect the brain as well as the heart and joints. A recent analysis of 17 studies in the journal Pain found that daily supplements of these fatty acids significantly reduced inflammatory joint pain. But now there may be a new kid on the block: vitamin B12. A 10-year study with 1,648 participants in Oxford, England, found an increased risk of cognitive decline in older adults who had low blood levels of vitamin B12. This vitamin is found only in foods from animals, yet it is common for older people, especially those on limited budgets, to cut back on foods like meats and fish. Strict vegetarians, who have long been cautioned to take B12 as a supplement to prevent a deficiency, can add brain protection to the list of potential benefits. The rest of us should feel comfortable about eating red meat and poultry as long as it is lean and consumed in reasonable amounts. A serving of cooked meat, fish or poultry is only three to four ounces. The British researchers noted that high blood levels of homocysteine had previously been linked to an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease, and that B12 is one of the vitamins, along with folate and B6, that lower homocysteine levels. However, the researchers found no benefit to cognitive function from folate.
Foods to Fight Cancer : Here we come full circle.
A decade after the American Institute for Cancer Research issued its first major report on diet and cancer, a new magnum opus in concert with the World Cancer Research Fund was published late last year. Based on 7,000 studies of 17 kinds of cancer, it concluded that being overweight now ranks second only to smoking as a preventable cause of cancer. “Convincing evidence” of an increased risk resulting from body fatness was found for cancers of the kidney, endometrium, breast, colon and rectum, pancreas and esophagus. Other major findings of increased risk included red and processed meats for colon and rectal cancer, and alcoholic drinks for cancers of the mouth, throat, larynx, esophagus, breast, and colon and rectum.
“Convincing evidence” for cancer protection was found for physical activity against colon and rectal cancers, and for breastfeeding against breast cancer. “Probable” protection against various cancers was also found for dietary fiber; nonstarchy vegetables; fruits; foods rich in folates, beta-carotene, vitamin C and selenium; milk, and calcium supplements.
The 11 Best Foods You Aren’t Eating
Nutritionist and author Jonny Bowden has created several lists of healthful foods people should be eating but aren’t. But some of his favorites, like purslane, guava and goji berries, aren’t always available at regular grocery stores. I asked Dr. Bowden, author of “The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth,” to update his list with some favorite foods that are easy to find but don’t always find their way into our shopping carts. Here’s his advice.
CRUCIFEROUS VEGETABLES
If your family isn’t into broccoli, it’s time for a change.
Properly cooked, broccoli—a familiar member of the cabbage family—is delicious. It is also the best known of the cruciferous vegetables, a botanical name. But in recent years, cruciferous has also come to mean cancer fighting: These veggies contain powerful natural compounds that actually protect against cancer.
Consider some of the evidence:
There is more evidence, but you get the picture: Eating more cruciferous vegetables could be a major move toward better health. The question is, How much of these cancer-fighting vegetables is enough?
We all should eat five to nine servings per day of all types of fruits and vegetables, but no separate recommendations have been established (yet) for cruciferous veggies. In the absence of an official recommendation, experts at the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University in Corvallis have come up with a rule of thumb: five servings of cruciferous vegetables per week. If that sounds like a lot, remember that a single serving amounts to only half a cup, the equivalent of three broccoli florets, raw. That’s just a fraction of the size of the average fast-food serving of French fries!
Try a variety of cruciferous vegetables. Before you know it, you won’t be thinking about the cancer-protective potential of broccoli, or cauliflower or Brussels sprouts. You’ll be eating them because you like them. Enjoy!
List of cruciferous vegetables : The known cancer fighters
By Tara Parker-Pope : NY Times Article : May 20, 2008
By now, most people know they should be eating more vegetables. But are there ways to get more from the vegetables you already eat?
A growing body of research shows that when it comes to vegetables, it's not only how much we eat, but how we prepare them, that influences the amount of phytochemicals, vitamins and other nutrients that enter our body.
The benefits are significant. Numerous studies show that people who consume lots of vegetables have lower rates of heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, eye problems and even cancer. The latest dietary guidelines call for 5 to 13 servings — that is two and a half to six and a half cups a day. For a person who maintains her weight on a 2,000-calorie-a-day diet, this translates into nine servings, or four and a half cups a day, according to the Harvard School of Public Health. But how should they be served?
Surprisingly, raw and plain vegetables are not always best. In The British Journal of Nutrition next month, researchers will report a study involving 198 Germans who strictly adhered to a raw food diet, meaning that 95 percent of their total food intake came from raw food. They had normal levels of vitamin A and relatively high levels of beta carotene.
But they fell short when it came to lycopene, a carotenoid found in tomatoes and other red-pigmented vegetables that is one of the most potent antioxidants. Nearly 80 percent of them had plasma lycopene levels below average.
"There is a misperception that raw foods are always going to be better," says Steven K. Clinton, a nutrition researcher and professor of internal medicine in the medical oncology division at Ohio State University. "For fruits and vegetables, a lot of times a little bit of cooking and a little bit of processing actually can be helpful."
The amount and type of nutrients that eventually end up in the vegetables are affected by a number of factors before they reach the plate, including where and how they were grown, processed and stored before being bought. Then, it's up to you. No single cooking or preparation method is best. Water-soluble nutrients like vitamins C and B and a group of nutrients called polyphenolics are often lost in processing. For instance, studies show that after six months, frozen cherries have lost as much as 50 percent of anthocyanins, the healthful compounds found in the pigment of red and blue fruits and vegetables. Fresh spinach loses 64 percent of its vitamin C after cooking. Canned peas and carrots lose 85 percent to 95 percent of their vitamin C, according to data compiled by the University of California, Davis.
Fat-soluble compounds like vitamins A, D, E and K and the antioxidant compounds called carotenoids are less likely to leach out in water. Cooking also breaks down the thick cell walls of plants, releasing the contents for the body to use. That is why processed tomato products have higher lycopene content than fresh tomatoes.
In January, a report in The Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry concluded that over all, boiling was better for carrots, zucchini and broccoli than steaming, frying or serving them raw. Frying was by far the worst..
Still, there were tradeoffs. Boiling carrots, for instance, significantly increased measurable carotenoid levels, but resulted in the complete loss of polyphenols compared with raw carrots.
That report did not look at the effects of microwaving, but a March 2007 study in The Journal of Food Science looked at the effects of boiling, steaming, microwaving and pressure cooking on the nutrients in broccoli. Steaming and boiling caused a 22 percent to 34 percent loss of vitamin C. Microwaved and pressure-cooked vegetables retained 90 percent of their vitamin C.
What accompanies the vegetables can also be important. Studies at Ohio State measured blood levels of subjects who ate servings of salsa and salads. When the salsa or salad was served with fat-rich avocados or full-fat salad dressing, the diners absorbed as much as 4 times more lycopene, 7 times more lutein and 18 times the beta carotene than those who had their vegetables plain or with low-fat dressing.
Fat can also improve the taste of vegetables, meaning that people will eat more of them. This month, The American Journal of Preventive Medicine reported on 1,500 teenagers interviewed in high school and about four years later on their eating habits. In the teenage years, many factors influenced the intake of fruits and vegetables. By the time the study subjects were 20, the sole factor that influenced fruit and vegetable consumption was taste. Young adults were not eating vegetables simply because they didn't like the taste.
"Putting on things that make it taste better — spices, a little salt — can enhance your eating experience and make the food taste better, so you're more likely to eat vegetables more often," Dr. Clinton said.
Because nutrient content and taste can vary so widely depending on the cooking method and how a vegetable is prepared, the main lesson is to eat a variety of vegetables prepared in a variety of ways.
As Susan B. Roberts, director of the energy metabolism laboratory at the Tufts University Friedman School of Nutrition, put it, "Eating a variety of veggies is especially important so you like them enough to eat more."
Nutritionist and author Jonny Bowden has created several lists of healthful foods people should be eating but aren’t. But some of his favorites, like purslane, guava and goji berries, aren’t always available at regular grocery stores. I asked Dr. Bowden, author of “The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth,” to update his list with some favorite foods that are easy to find but don’t always find their way into our shopping carts. Here’s his advice.
- Beets: Think of beets as red spinach, because they are a rich source of folate as well as natural red pigments that may be cancer fighters.
How to eat: Fresh, raw and grated to make a salad. Heating decreases the antioxidant power. - Cabbage: Loaded with nutrients like sulforaphane, a chemical said to boost cancer-fighting enzymes.
How to eat: Asian-style slaw or as a crunchy topping on burgers and sandwiches. - Swiss chard: A leafy green vegetable packed with carotenoids that protect aging eyes.
How to eat it: Chop and saute in olive oil. - Cinnamon: May help control blood sugar and cholesterol.
How to eat it: Sprinkle on coffee or oatmeal. - Pomegranate juice: Appears to lower blood pressure and loaded with antioxidants.
How to eat: Just drink it. - Dried plums: Okay, so they are really prunes, but they are packed with antioxidants.
How to eat: Wrapped in prosciutto and baked. - Pumpkin seeds: The most nutritious part of the pumpkin and packed with magnesium; high levels of the mineral are associated with lower risk for early death.
How to eat: Roasted as a snack, or sprinkled on salad. - Sardines: Dr. Bowden calls them “health food in a can.'’ They are high in omega-3’s, contain virtually no mercury and are loaded with calcium. They also contain iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, zinc, copper and manganese as well as a full complement of B vitamins.
How to eat: Choose sardines packed in olive or sardine oil. Eat plain, mixed with salad, on toast, or mashed with dijon mustard and onions as a spread. - Turmeric: The “superstar of spices,'’ it may have anti-inflammatory and anti-cancer properties.
How to eat: Mix with scrambled eggs or in any vegetable dish. - Frozen blueberries: Even though freezing can degrade some of the nutrients in fruits and vegetables, frozen blueberries are available year-round and don’t spoil; associated with better memory in animal studies.
How to eat: Blended with yogurt or chocolate soy milk and sprinkled with crushed almonds. - Canned pumpkin: A low-calorie vegetable that is high in fiber and immune-stimulating vitamin A; fills you up on very few calories.
How to eat: Mix with a little butter, cinnamon and nutmeg.
CRUCIFEROUS VEGETABLES
If your family isn’t into broccoli, it’s time for a change.
Properly cooked, broccoli—a familiar member of the cabbage family—is delicious. It is also the best known of the cruciferous vegetables, a botanical name. But in recent years, cruciferous has also come to mean cancer fighting: These veggies contain powerful natural compounds that actually protect against cancer.
Consider some of the evidence:
- Bladder cancer: In one study, people who ate enough cruciferous vegetables to get lots of cancer-fighting compounds called isothiocyanates (ITCs) were 29% less likely to develop bladder cancer than those whose intake of ITCs was low.
- Prostate cancer: A recent study showed that men who ate three or more servings of cruciferous veggies per week had a prostate cancer risk that was 41% lower than men who ate less than one serving per week.
- Lung cancer: Some studies suggest that eating more than three weekly servings of cruciferous veggies protects against lung cancer; in general people with lung cancer consumed less of these vegetables than people who were cancer free. (Keep in mind that eating broccoli won’t cancel out the risks posed by smoking.)
- Colorectal cancer: A small British study found that eating lots of broccoli and Brussels sprouts daily (9 ounces of each) increased excretion (in urine) of a substance found in well-done meat believed to promote colorectal cancer. Other studies haven’t found a strong link between cruciferous vegetables and colon cancer prevention, but if you eat a lot of meat, it might be wise to have a side of broccoli or Brussels sprouts with your burgers and steaks.
There is more evidence, but you get the picture: Eating more cruciferous vegetables could be a major move toward better health. The question is, How much of these cancer-fighting vegetables is enough?
We all should eat five to nine servings per day of all types of fruits and vegetables, but no separate recommendations have been established (yet) for cruciferous veggies. In the absence of an official recommendation, experts at the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University in Corvallis have come up with a rule of thumb: five servings of cruciferous vegetables per week. If that sounds like a lot, remember that a single serving amounts to only half a cup, the equivalent of three broccoli florets, raw. That’s just a fraction of the size of the average fast-food serving of French fries!
Try a variety of cruciferous vegetables. Before you know it, you won’t be thinking about the cancer-protective potential of broccoli, or cauliflower or Brussels sprouts. You’ll be eating them because you like them. Enjoy!
List of cruciferous vegetables : The known cancer fighters
- Arugala
- Bok choy
- Broccoli
- Brussels sprouts
- Cabbage
- Cauliflower
- Collards
- Kale
- Kohlrabi
- Mustard greens
- Radishes
- Swiss chard
- Turnips
- Watercress
By Tara Parker-Pope : NY Times Article : May 20, 2008
By now, most people know they should be eating more vegetables. But are there ways to get more from the vegetables you already eat?
A growing body of research shows that when it comes to vegetables, it's not only how much we eat, but how we prepare them, that influences the amount of phytochemicals, vitamins and other nutrients that enter our body.
The benefits are significant. Numerous studies show that people who consume lots of vegetables have lower rates of heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, eye problems and even cancer. The latest dietary guidelines call for 5 to 13 servings — that is two and a half to six and a half cups a day. For a person who maintains her weight on a 2,000-calorie-a-day diet, this translates into nine servings, or four and a half cups a day, according to the Harvard School of Public Health. But how should they be served?
Surprisingly, raw and plain vegetables are not always best. In The British Journal of Nutrition next month, researchers will report a study involving 198 Germans who strictly adhered to a raw food diet, meaning that 95 percent of their total food intake came from raw food. They had normal levels of vitamin A and relatively high levels of beta carotene.
But they fell short when it came to lycopene, a carotenoid found in tomatoes and other red-pigmented vegetables that is one of the most potent antioxidants. Nearly 80 percent of them had plasma lycopene levels below average.
"There is a misperception that raw foods are always going to be better," says Steven K. Clinton, a nutrition researcher and professor of internal medicine in the medical oncology division at Ohio State University. "For fruits and vegetables, a lot of times a little bit of cooking and a little bit of processing actually can be helpful."
The amount and type of nutrients that eventually end up in the vegetables are affected by a number of factors before they reach the plate, including where and how they were grown, processed and stored before being bought. Then, it's up to you. No single cooking or preparation method is best. Water-soluble nutrients like vitamins C and B and a group of nutrients called polyphenolics are often lost in processing. For instance, studies show that after six months, frozen cherries have lost as much as 50 percent of anthocyanins, the healthful compounds found in the pigment of red and blue fruits and vegetables. Fresh spinach loses 64 percent of its vitamin C after cooking. Canned peas and carrots lose 85 percent to 95 percent of their vitamin C, according to data compiled by the University of California, Davis.
Fat-soluble compounds like vitamins A, D, E and K and the antioxidant compounds called carotenoids are less likely to leach out in water. Cooking also breaks down the thick cell walls of plants, releasing the contents for the body to use. That is why processed tomato products have higher lycopene content than fresh tomatoes.
In January, a report in The Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry concluded that over all, boiling was better for carrots, zucchini and broccoli than steaming, frying or serving them raw. Frying was by far the worst..
Still, there were tradeoffs. Boiling carrots, for instance, significantly increased measurable carotenoid levels, but resulted in the complete loss of polyphenols compared with raw carrots.
That report did not look at the effects of microwaving, but a March 2007 study in The Journal of Food Science looked at the effects of boiling, steaming, microwaving and pressure cooking on the nutrients in broccoli. Steaming and boiling caused a 22 percent to 34 percent loss of vitamin C. Microwaved and pressure-cooked vegetables retained 90 percent of their vitamin C.
What accompanies the vegetables can also be important. Studies at Ohio State measured blood levels of subjects who ate servings of salsa and salads. When the salsa or salad was served with fat-rich avocados or full-fat salad dressing, the diners absorbed as much as 4 times more lycopene, 7 times more lutein and 18 times the beta carotene than those who had their vegetables plain or with low-fat dressing.
Fat can also improve the taste of vegetables, meaning that people will eat more of them. This month, The American Journal of Preventive Medicine reported on 1,500 teenagers interviewed in high school and about four years later on their eating habits. In the teenage years, many factors influenced the intake of fruits and vegetables. By the time the study subjects were 20, the sole factor that influenced fruit and vegetable consumption was taste. Young adults were not eating vegetables simply because they didn't like the taste.
"Putting on things that make it taste better — spices, a little salt — can enhance your eating experience and make the food taste better, so you're more likely to eat vegetables more often," Dr. Clinton said.
Because nutrient content and taste can vary so widely depending on the cooking method and how a vegetable is prepared, the main lesson is to eat a variety of vegetables prepared in a variety of ways.
As Susan B. Roberts, director of the energy metabolism laboratory at the Tufts University Friedman School of Nutrition, put it, "Eating a variety of veggies is especially important so you like them enough to eat more."
Personal Health Rules Worth Following, for Everyone’s Sake
By Jane E. Brody : NY Times Article : February 2, 2010
In the more than four decades that I have been reading and writing about the findings of nutritional science, I have come across nothing more intelligent, sensible and simple to follow than the 64 principles outlined in a slender, easy-to-digest new book called “Food Rules: An Eater’s Manual,” by Michael Pollan.
Mr. Pollan is not a biochemist or a nutritionist but rather a professor of science journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. You may recognize his name as the author of two highly praised books on food and nutrition, “In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto” and “The Omnivore’s Dilemma.” (All three books are from Penguin.)
If you don’t have the time and inclination to read the first two, you can do yourself and your family no better service than to invest $11 and one hour to whip through the 139 pages of “Food Rules” and adapt its guidance to your shopping and eating habits.
Chances are you’ve heard any number of the rules before. I, for one, have been writing and speaking about them for decades. And chances are you’ve yet to put most of them into practice. But I suspect that this little book, which is based on research but not annotated, can do more than the most authoritative text to get you motivated to make some important, lasting, health-promoting and planet-saving changes in what and how you eat.
Reasons to Change
Two fundamental facts provide the impetus Americans and other Westerners need to make dietary changes. One, as Mr. Pollan points out, is that populations who rely on the so-called Western diet — lots of processed foods, meat, added fat, sugar and refined grains — “invariably suffer from high rates of the so-called Western diseases: obesity, Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer.” Indeed, 4 of the top 10 killers of Americans are linked to this diet.
As people in Asian and Mediterranean countries have become more Westernized (affluent, citified and exposed to the fast foods exported from the United States), they have become increasingly prone to the same afflictions.
The second fact is that people who consume traditional diets, free of the ersatz foods that line our supermarket shelves, experience these diseases at much lower rates. And those who, for reasons of ill health or dietary philosophy, have abandoned Western eating habits often experience a rapid and significant improvement in their health indicators.
I will add a third reason: our economy cannot afford to continue to patch up the millions of people who each year develop a diet-related ailment, and our planetary resources simply cannot sustain our eating style and continue to support its ever-growing population.
In his last book, Mr. Pollan summarized his approach in just seven words: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” The new book provides the practical steps, starting with advice to avoid “processed concoctions,” no matter what the label may claim (“no trans fats,” “low cholesterol,” “less sugar,” “reduced sodium,” “high in antioxidants” and so forth).
As Mr. Pollan puts it, “If it came from a plant, eat it; if it was made in a plant, don’t.”
Do you already avoid products made with high-fructose corn syrup? Good, but keep in mind, sugar is sugar, and if it is being added to a food that is not normally sweetened, avoid it as well. Note, too, that refined flour is hardly different from sugar once it gets into the body.
Also avoid foods advertised on television, imitation foods and food products that make health claims. No natural food is simply a collection of nutrients, and a processed food stripped of its natural goodness to which nutrients are then added is no bargain for your body.
Those who sell the most healthful foods — vegetables, fruits and whole grains — rarely have a budget to support national advertising. If you shop in a supermarket (and Mr. Pollan suggests that wherever possible, you buy fresh food at farmers’ markets), shop the periphery of the store and avoid the center aisles laden with processed foods. Note, however, that now even the dairy case has been invaded by products like gunked-up yogurts.
Follow this advice, and you will have to follow another of Mr. Pollan’s rules: “Cook.”
“Cooking for yourself,” he writes, “is the only sure way to take back control of your diet from the food scientists and food processors.” Home cooking need not be arduous or very time-consuming, and you can make up time spent at the stove with time saved not visiting doctors or shopping for new clothes to accommodate an expanding girth.
Although the most wholesome eating pattern consists of three leisurely meals a day, and preferably a light meal at night, if you must have snacks, stick to fresh and dried fruits, vegetables and nuts, which are naturally loaded with healthful nutrients. I keep a dish of raisins and walnuts handy to satisfy the urge to nibble between meals. I also take them along for long car trips. Feel free to use the gas-station restroom, but never “get your fuel from the same place your car does,” Mr. Pollan writes.
Treating Treats as Treats
Perhaps the most important rules to put into effect as soon as possible are those aimed at the ever-expanding American waistline. If you eat less, you can afford to pay more for better foods, like plants grown in organically enriched soil and animals that are range-fed.
He recommends that you do all your eating at a table, not at a desk, while working, watching television or driving. If you’re not paying attention to what you’re eating, you’re likely to eat more than you realize.
But my favorite tip, one that helped me keep my weight down for decades, is a mealtime adage, “Stop eating before you’re full” — advice that has long been practiced by societies as diverse as Japan and France. (There is no French paradox, by the way: the French who stay slim eat smaller portions, leisurely meals and no snacks.)
Practice portion control and eat slowly to the point of satiation, not fullness. The food scientists Barbara J. Rolls of Penn State and Brian Wansink of Cornell, among others, have demonstrated that people eat less when served smaller portions on smaller plates. “There is nothing wrong with special occasion foods, as long as every day is not a special occasion,” Mr. Pollan writes. “Special occasion foods offer some of the great pleasures of life, so we shouldn’t deprive ourselves of them, but the sense of occasion needs to be restored.”
Here is where I can make an improvement. Ice cream has been a lifelong passion, and even though I stick to a brand lower in fat and calories than most, and limit my portion to the half-cup serving size described on the container, I indulge in this treat almost nightly. Perhaps I’ll try the so-called S policy Mr. Pollan says some people follow: “No snacks, no seconds, no sweets — except on days that begin with the letter S.”
Lots of Reasons to Eat Fish
By Jane E. Brody : NY Times : August 18, 2014
Fish is good for you, better than heart-damaging red meat and even better than lean poultry. Oily fish like salmon, mackerel, bluefish, herring and sardines are rich in omega-3 fatty acids. These are polyunsaturated fatty acids that may protect against heart attacks and stroke, help control blood clotting and build cell membranes in the brain. They are also important to an infant’s visual and neurological development.
Omega-3s may also help ameliorate a variety of conditions, such as cancer, depression, inflammatory bowel disease, and autoimmune disorders like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.
The best evidence for the benefits comes from studies of people who have long eaten fish, as opposed to taking supplements of omega-3s.
Nearly three decades ago, Dutch researchers published a groundbreaking study in The New England Journal of Medicine. Intrigued by the extremely low death rate from coronary heart disease among Greenland Eskimos, the Dutch team followed 872 men aged 40 to 59 for 20 years and found that those who ate as little as one or two fish meals a week had a 50 percent lower death rate from heart attacks than those who did not eat fish.
Other studies linked fish consumption to a reduced risk of strokes, although later research concluded that the lifesaving benefit was limited to people at high risk of cardiovascular disease.
Given that heart disease and stroke are the leading causes of death among Americans, you’d think this research might have drastically lifted our consumption of fish. Alas, relatively little change has occurred.
Fish consumption reached a high of 16.6 pounds per person a year in 2004, and has declined slightly since, according to the Department of Agriculture. “Asians eat about 35 pounds of fish a year, including bony fish,” Paul Greenberg, the author of two popular books on seafood, told me.
This may help to explain the longer life expectancy of the Japanese.
Although meat intake by Americans has nose-dived from a peak of nearly 150 pounds a person in 1971, it is still at 100 pounds per capita. Poultry intake has risen from 41 pounds in the 1960s to 99 pounds a person today.
If choosing which fish to buy is your issue, search out a specialty store or supermarket seafood counter that has a knowledgeable clerk. Ask for recommendations and preparation ideas. Plenty of stores will have recipes available. A useful guide to the most environmentally friendly choices can be found at www.seafoodwatch.org.
Make sure you’re getting fresh fish, which should not smell “fishy.” The freshest fish is sold frozen, unless it comes from local waters. I avoid buying fish on Mondays because most wholesale markets are closed on Sundays and Monday’s fish is more likely to be old.
If the fish you buy is wrapped in plastic, it will become smelly unless it’s frozen right after purchase. I always rinse and pat dry fish before cooking it.
If you live near a coast, check out farmer’s markets or stores for locally caught fish and shellfish, which is likely to be freshest and more flavorful.
Farmed fish is not necessarily the ecological or health disaster some claim it to be. American catfish, for example, is “our most successfully farmed fish, and the process creates wetlands that birds use a lot,” Mr. Greenberg said. Farmed salmon now comes mostly from Chile, where it cannot disrupt wild populations.
Most mussels come from farms and help to clean the water they live in. They are low in fat and calories, are good sources of omega-3s and are very low in cholesterol. On the other hand, shrimp (half of it farmed, often under questionable conditions), squid and lobster are high in cholesterol.
Those concerned about cooking fish and its odoriferous aftereffect have two options: Grill it outdoors, or choose fish when you dine out or take out.
A frequent kitchen mistake is overcooking fish. It should appear a little raw when taken from the oven or stovetop, Mr. Greenberg suggested. “By the time it gets to the table, it will be properly done,” he said. I agree.
Some people have to be cautious about seafood. Anyone with a clear-cut allergy to any fish or shellfish, which can be life-threatening, should avoid it and learn what other varieties may cross-react.
Pregnant women are advised to limit their consumption of fish like tuna and swordfish with high levels of mercury, which can injure the developing fetal brain. But prior pregnancy restrictions on raw fish (sushi and sashimi) have been lifted, so long as the fish has been frozen at 0 to minus 4 degrees for at least three days to kill any possible parasites.
