Five Best Foods on Earth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCe3prLsBSo
Top Ten Best Foods
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4shudantHtA
Top Ten Worst Foods
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZlVpthaYEs
Top Ten Worst Drinks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ReLQJRicys
Showing posts with label toxin: the standard american diet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label toxin: the standard american diet. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Scientists claim junk food is as addictive as heroin
Scientists claim junk food is as addictive as heroin
by Tom Laskawy
27 Oct 2009 Link to full article below
With the rumors swirling that Michelle Obama is a big fan of former FDA Commissioner David Kessler’s new book The End of Overeating, it seems reasonable to check in on the science behind an “addiction model” for salty, sweet, and fatty processed food (an assertion at the core of the book). As it happens, a group of researchers from the independent, not-for-profit Scripps Research Institute has just released a new peer-reviewed study on the subject. The conclusion: the brain responds to junk food the same way it does to heroin:
Junk food elicits addictive behavior in rats similar to the behaviors of rats addicted to heroin, a new study finds.
To read the full article: http://www.grist.org/article/scientists-claim-junk-food-is-as-addictive-as-heroin
by Tom Laskawy
27 Oct 2009 Link to full article below
With the rumors swirling that Michelle Obama is a big fan of former FDA Commissioner David Kessler’s new book The End of Overeating, it seems reasonable to check in on the science behind an “addiction model” for salty, sweet, and fatty processed food (an assertion at the core of the book). As it happens, a group of researchers from the independent, not-for-profit Scripps Research Institute has just released a new peer-reviewed study on the subject. The conclusion: the brain responds to junk food the same way it does to heroin:
Junk food elicits addictive behavior in rats similar to the behaviors of rats addicted to heroin, a new study finds.
To read the full article: http://www.grist.org/article/scientists-claim-junk-food-is-as-addictive-as-heroin
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
10 Things the Food Industry Doesn't Want You To Know
10 Things the Food Industry Doesn't Want You to Know
Two nutrition experts argue that you can't take marketing campaigns at face value
By Adam Voiland
October 17, 2008
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/2008/10/17/10-things-the-food-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-know.html
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/2008/10/17/10-things-the-food-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-know_print.htm
[Read comments:
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/2008/10/17/10-things-the-food-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-know/comments/ ]
With America's obesity problem among kids reaching crisis proportions, even junk food makers have started to claim they want to steer children toward more healthful choices. In a study released earlier this year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that about 32 percent of children were overweight but not obese, 16 percent were obese, and 11 percent were extremely obese. Food giant PepsiCo, for example, points out on its website that "we can play an important role in helping kids lead healthier lives by offering healthy product choices in schools." The company highlights what it considers its healthier products within various food categories through a "Smart Spot" marketing campaign that features green symbols on packaging. PepsiCo's inclusive criteria—explained here—award spots to foods of dubious nutritional value such as Diet Pepsi, Cap'n Crunch cereal, reduced-fat Doritos, and Cheetos, as well as to more nutritious products
such as Quaker Oatmeal and Tropicana Orange Juice.
Video: Is Your Child Overweight?Related News
Revising Your Diet? Emphasize Plants
Health Reasons to Cut Back on Corn Consumption
'Diets' That Promote Health (and Always Have)
Talk about Diet And Nutrition
But are wellness initiatives like Smart Spot just marketing ploys? Such moves by the food industry may seem to be a step in the right direction, but ultimately makers of popular junk foods have an obligation to stockholders to encourage kids to eat more—not less—of the foods that fuel their profits, says David Ludwig, a pediatrician and the co-author of a commentary published in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association that raises questions about whether big food companies can be trusted to help combat obesity. Ludwig and article co-author Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University, both of whom have long histories of tracking the food industry, spoke with U.S. News and highlighted 10 things that junk food makers don't want you to know about their products and how they promote them.
1. Junk food makers spend billions advertising unhealthy foods to kids.
According to the Federal Trade Commission, food makers spend some $1.6 billion annually to reach children through the traditional media as well the Internet, in-store advertising, and sweepstakes. An article published in 2006 in the Journal of Public Health Policy puts the number as high as $10 billion annually. Promotions often use cartoon characters or free giveaways to entice kids into the junk food fold. PepsiCo has pledged that it will advertise only "Smart Spot" products to children under 12.
2. The studies that food producers support tend to minimize health concerns associated with their products.
In fact, according to a review led by Ludwig of hundreds of studies that looked at the health effects of milk, juice, and soda, the likelihood of conclusions favorable to the industry was several times higher among industry-sponsored research than studies that received no industry funding. "If a study is funded by the industry, it may be closer to advertising than science," he says.
3. Junk food makers donate large sums of money to professional nutrition associations.
The American Dietetic Association, for example, accepts money from companies such as Coca-Cola, which get access to decision makers in the food and nutrition marketplace via ADA events and programs, as this release explains. As Nestle notes in her blog and discusses at length in her book Food Politics, the group even distributes nutritional fact sheets that are directly sponsored by specific industry groups. This one, for example, which is sponsored by an industry group that promotes lamb, rather unsurprisingly touts the nutritional benefits of lamb. The ADA's reasoning: "These collaborations take place with the understanding that ADA does not support any program or message that does not correspond with ADA's science-based healthful-eating messages and positions," according to the group's president, dietitian Martin Yadrick. "In fact, we think it's important for us to be at the same table with food companies because of the positive influence that we can
have on them."
4. More processing means more profits, but typically makes the food less healthy.
Minimally processed foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables obviously aren't where food companies look for profits. The big bucks stem from turning government-subsidized commodity crops—mainly corn, wheat, and soybeans—into fast foods, snack foods, and beverages. High-profit products derived from these commodity crops are generally high in calories and low in nutritional value.
5. Less-processed foods are generally more satiating than their highly processed counterparts.
Fresh apples have an abundance of fiber and nutrients that are lost when they are processed into applesauce. And the added sugar or other sweeteners increase the number of calories without necessarily making the applesauce any more filling. Apple juice, which is even more processed, has had almost all of the fiber and nutrients stripped out. This same stripping out of nutrients, says Ludwig, happens with highly refined white bread compared with stone-ground whole wheat bread.
6. Many supposedly healthy replacement foods are hardly healthier than the foods they replace.
In 2006, for example, major beverage makers agreed to remove sugary sodas from school vending machines. But the industry mounted an intense lobbying effort that persuaded lawmakers to allow sports drinks and vitamin waters that—despite their slightly healthier reputations—still can be packed with sugar and calories.
7. A health claim on the label doesn't necessarily make a food healthy.
Health claims such as "zero trans fats" or "contains whole wheat" may create the false impression that a product is healthy when it's not. While the claims may be true, a product is not going to benefit your kid's health if it's also loaded with salt and sugar or saturated fat, say, and lacks fiber or other nutrients. "These claims are calorie distracters," adds Nestle. "They make people forget about the calories." Dave DeCecco, a spokesperson for PepsiCo, counters that the intent of a labeling program such as Smart Spot is simply to help consumers pick a healthier choice within a category. "We're not trying to tell people that a bag of Doritos is healthier than asparagus. But, if you're buying chips, and you're busy, and you don't have a lot of time to read every part of the label, it's an easy way to make a smarter choice," he says.
8. Food industry pressure has made nutritional guidelines confusing.
As Nestle explained in Food Politics, the food industry has a history of preferring scientific jargon to straight talk. As far back as 1977, public health officials attempted to include the advice "reduce consumption of meat" in an important report called Dietary Goals for the United States. The report's authors capitulated to intense pushback from the cattle industry and used this less-direct and more ambiguous advice: "Choose meats, poultry, and fish which will reduce saturated fat intake." Overall, says Nestle, the government has a hard time suggesting that people eat less of anything.
9. The food industry funds front groups that fight antiobesity public health initiatives.
Unless you follow politics closely, you wouldn't necessarily realize that a group with a name like the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) has anything to do with the food industry. In fact,Ludwig and Nestle point out, this group lobbies aggressively against obesity-related public health campaigns—such as the one directed at removing junk food from schools—and is funded, according to the Center for Media and Democracy, primarily through donations from big food companies such as Coca-Cola, Cargill, Tyson Foods, and Wendy's.
10. The food industry works aggressively to discredit its critics.
According to the new JAMA article, the Center for Consumer Freedom boasts that "[our strategy] is to shoot the messenger. We've got to attack [activists'] credibility as spokespersons." Here's the group's entry on Marion Nestle.
The bottom line, says Nestle, is quite simple: Kids need to eat less, include more fruits and vegetables, and limit the junk food
Two nutrition experts argue that you can't take marketing campaigns at face value
By Adam Voiland
October 17, 2008
http://health.usnews.com/
http://health.usnews.com/
[Read comments:
http://health.usnews.com/
With America's obesity problem among kids reaching crisis proportions, even junk food makers have started to claim they want to steer children toward more healthful choices. In a study released earlier this year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that about 32 percent of children were overweight but not obese, 16 percent were obese, and 11 percent were extremely obese. Food giant PepsiCo, for example, points out on its website that "we can play an important role in helping kids lead healthier lives by offering healthy product choices in schools." The company highlights what it considers its healthier products within various food categories through a "Smart Spot" marketing campaign that features green symbols on packaging. PepsiCo's inclusive criteria—explained here—award spots to foods of dubious nutritional value such as Diet Pepsi, Cap'n Crunch cereal, reduced-fat Doritos, and Cheetos, as well as to more nutritious products
such as Quaker Oatmeal and Tropicana Orange Juice.
Video: Is Your Child Overweight?Related News
Revising Your Diet? Emphasize Plants
Health Reasons to Cut Back on Corn Consumption
'Diets' That Promote Health (and Always Have)
Talk about Diet And Nutrition
But are wellness initiatives like Smart Spot just marketing ploys? Such moves by the food industry may seem to be a step in the right direction, but ultimately makers of popular junk foods have an obligation to stockholders to encourage kids to eat more—not less—of the foods that fuel their profits, says David Ludwig, a pediatrician and the co-author of a commentary published in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association that raises questions about whether big food companies can be trusted to help combat obesity. Ludwig and article co-author Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University, both of whom have long histories of tracking the food industry, spoke with U.S. News and highlighted 10 things that junk food makers don't want you to know about their products and how they promote them.
1. Junk food makers spend billions advertising unhealthy foods to kids.
According to the Federal Trade Commission, food makers spend some $1.6 billion annually to reach children through the traditional media as well the Internet, in-store advertising, and sweepstakes. An article published in 2006 in the Journal of Public Health Policy puts the number as high as $10 billion annually. Promotions often use cartoon characters or free giveaways to entice kids into the junk food fold. PepsiCo has pledged that it will advertise only "Smart Spot" products to children under 12.
2. The studies that food producers support tend to minimize health concerns associated with their products.
In fact, according to a review led by Ludwig of hundreds of studies that looked at the health effects of milk, juice, and soda, the likelihood of conclusions favorable to the industry was several times higher among industry-sponsored research than studies that received no industry funding. "If a study is funded by the industry, it may be closer to advertising than science," he says.
3. Junk food makers donate large sums of money to professional nutrition associations.
The American Dietetic Association, for example, accepts money from companies such as Coca-Cola, which get access to decision makers in the food and nutrition marketplace via ADA events and programs, as this release explains. As Nestle notes in her blog and discusses at length in her book Food Politics, the group even distributes nutritional fact sheets that are directly sponsored by specific industry groups. This one, for example, which is sponsored by an industry group that promotes lamb, rather unsurprisingly touts the nutritional benefits of lamb. The ADA's reasoning: "These collaborations take place with the understanding that ADA does not support any program or message that does not correspond with ADA's science-based healthful-eating messages and positions," according to the group's president, dietitian Martin Yadrick. "In fact, we think it's important for us to be at the same table with food companies because of the positive influence that we can
have on them."
4. More processing means more profits, but typically makes the food less healthy.
Minimally processed foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables obviously aren't where food companies look for profits. The big bucks stem from turning government-subsidized commodity crops—mainly corn, wheat, and soybeans—into fast foods, snack foods, and beverages. High-profit products derived from these commodity crops are generally high in calories and low in nutritional value.
5. Less-processed foods are generally more satiating than their highly processed counterparts.
Fresh apples have an abundance of fiber and nutrients that are lost when they are processed into applesauce. And the added sugar or other sweeteners increase the number of calories without necessarily making the applesauce any more filling. Apple juice, which is even more processed, has had almost all of the fiber and nutrients stripped out. This same stripping out of nutrients, says Ludwig, happens with highly refined white bread compared with stone-ground whole wheat bread.
6. Many supposedly healthy replacement foods are hardly healthier than the foods they replace.
In 2006, for example, major beverage makers agreed to remove sugary sodas from school vending machines. But the industry mounted an intense lobbying effort that persuaded lawmakers to allow sports drinks and vitamin waters that—despite their slightly healthier reputations—still can be packed with sugar and calories.
7. A health claim on the label doesn't necessarily make a food healthy.
Health claims such as "zero trans fats" or "contains whole wheat" may create the false impression that a product is healthy when it's not. While the claims may be true, a product is not going to benefit your kid's health if it's also loaded with salt and sugar or saturated fat, say, and lacks fiber or other nutrients. "These claims are calorie distracters," adds Nestle. "They make people forget about the calories." Dave DeCecco, a spokesperson for PepsiCo, counters that the intent of a labeling program such as Smart Spot is simply to help consumers pick a healthier choice within a category. "We're not trying to tell people that a bag of Doritos is healthier than asparagus. But, if you're buying chips, and you're busy, and you don't have a lot of time to read every part of the label, it's an easy way to make a smarter choice," he says.
8. Food industry pressure has made nutritional guidelines confusing.
As Nestle explained in Food Politics, the food industry has a history of preferring scientific jargon to straight talk. As far back as 1977, public health officials attempted to include the advice "reduce consumption of meat" in an important report called Dietary Goals for the United States. The report's authors capitulated to intense pushback from the cattle industry and used this less-direct and more ambiguous advice: "Choose meats, poultry, and fish which will reduce saturated fat intake." Overall, says Nestle, the government has a hard time suggesting that people eat less of anything.
9. The food industry funds front groups that fight antiobesity public health initiatives.
Unless you follow politics closely, you wouldn't necessarily realize that a group with a name like the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) has anything to do with the food industry. In fact,Ludwig and Nestle point out, this group lobbies aggressively against obesity-related public health campaigns—such as the one directed at removing junk food from schools—and is funded, according to the Center for Media and Democracy, primarily through donations from big food companies such as Coca-Cola, Cargill, Tyson Foods, and Wendy's.
10. The food industry works aggressively to discredit its critics.
According to the new JAMA article, the Center for Consumer Freedom boasts that "[our strategy] is to shoot the messenger. We've got to attack [activists'] credibility as spokespersons." Here's the group's entry on Marion Nestle.
The bottom line, says Nestle, is quite simple: Kids need to eat less, include more fruits and vegetables, and limit the junk food
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Western Diet Causes 1/3 of Heart Attacks
Swapping fried and salty foods for fruit and veg could cut the global incidence of heart attacks by a third, a study of eating habits suggests.
Researchers analysed the diet of 16,000 people in 52 countries and identified three global eating patterns, Circulation journal reports.
The typical Western diet, high in fat, salt and meat, accounted for about 30% of heart attack risk in any population.
A "prudent" diet high in fruit and veg lowered heart risk by a third.
30% of the risk of heart disease in a population could be related to poor diet
Lead author Romania Iqbal
An Oriental diet, high in tofu, soy and other sauces, made no difference to heart attack risk. The researchers created a dietary risk score questionnaire based on 19 food groups and then asked 5,561 heart attack patients and 10,646 people with known heart disease to fill out their survey.
People who ate a Western diet had a 35% greater risk of having a heart attack than those who ate little or no fried foods and meat.
The typical Western diet has been widely linked to heart disease. High salt in the diet can raise blood pressure and the wrong type of fat can clog blood vessels.
Investigating overall eating patterns is more true to life than looking at intake of individual foods or nutrients.
Global trend
The researchers said their work suggested that the same relationships between food and heart disease that are observed in Western countries exist in other regions of the world.
Lead author Romania Iqbal, of McMaster University in Canada, said: "30% of the risk of heart disease in a population could be related to poor diet."
The researchers said that while components of the Oriental diet might be bad for the heart - such as the salt in soy sauce - these elements were likely cancelled out by protective components.
Ellen Mason, a cardiac nurse for the British Heart Foundation, said: "This study shows that it doesn’t matter whether you live in Bolton or Bombay, or whether you like to eat British, African Caribbean or Asian foods.
"The vital thing is to reduce your intake of salty, fried, fatty food to a minimum but increase the amount of fruit and vegetables you eat."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/7680283.stm
Published: 2008/10/21 00:16:34 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
Researchers analysed the diet of 16,000 people in 52 countries and identified three global eating patterns, Circulation journal reports.
The typical Western diet, high in fat, salt and meat, accounted for about 30% of heart attack risk in any population.
A "prudent" diet high in fruit and veg lowered heart risk by a third.
30% of the risk of heart disease in a population could be related to poor diet
Lead author Romania Iqbal
An Oriental diet, high in tofu, soy and other sauces, made no difference to heart attack risk. The researchers created a dietary risk score questionnaire based on 19 food groups and then asked 5,561 heart attack patients and 10,646 people with known heart disease to fill out their survey.
People who ate a Western diet had a 35% greater risk of having a heart attack than those who ate little or no fried foods and meat.
The typical Western diet has been widely linked to heart disease. High salt in the diet can raise blood pressure and the wrong type of fat can clog blood vessels.
Investigating overall eating patterns is more true to life than looking at intake of individual foods or nutrients.
Global trend
The researchers said their work suggested that the same relationships between food and heart disease that are observed in Western countries exist in other regions of the world.
Lead author Romania Iqbal, of McMaster University in Canada, said: "30% of the risk of heart disease in a population could be related to poor diet."
The researchers said that while components of the Oriental diet might be bad for the heart - such as the salt in soy sauce - these elements were likely cancelled out by protective components.
Ellen Mason, a cardiac nurse for the British Heart Foundation, said: "This study shows that it doesn’t matter whether you live in Bolton or Bombay, or whether you like to eat British, African Caribbean or Asian foods.
"The vital thing is to reduce your intake of salty, fried, fatty food to a minimum but increase the amount of fruit and vegetables you eat."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/7680283.stm
Published: 2008/10/21 00:16:34 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Aging and Weight Gain: How NOT To Get Fatter As You Get Older
Aging and Weight Gain: How NOT to Get Fatter as You Get Older
by www.SixWise.com
You may remember your childhood years fondly as a time of bike rides, endless summers, and visits from the tooth fairy. Among these many pleasures from your younger years was also a seemingly endless metabolism -- and with it the ability to eat as many hamburgers, ice cream sandwiches, French fries and slices of birthday cake as you pleased without gaining a pound.
There's good news: weight gain as you age is NOT inevitable.
Sadly, as you get older, you lose this ability to burn off the calories as quickly, therefore holding on to those cupcakes and cheeseburgers far longer than you'd probably like to, and often in places you surely don't want to, such as your belly, hips and thighs. This begs the question -- why do we get fatter as we get older, and more importantly, can it be avoided?
Aging and Weight Gain -- Inevitable?
While there is no question that we tend to gain weight as we grow older, the big question still remains as to why this weight gain occurs and whether or not it is inevitable. There have been many studies devoted to discovering the causes of this weight gain.
One such study was conducted by Monash University researcher Dr. Zane Andrews, a neuroendocrinologist with the university's department of physiology. This study uncovered that one of the reasons the scale creeps up as you get older is that appetite-suppressing cells are attacked by free radicals after eating -- and this degeneration is more significant following meals rich in carbohydrates and sugars.
People between the ages of 25 and 50 are most at risk according to Dr. Andrews, as the neurons that tell people in this crucial age range not to overeat are being killed off. This reduction in appetite-suppressing cells could be one explanation for the complexity of adult-onset obesity.
What is also a factor is that the modern diet has become increasingly filled with sugars and carbohydrates, which is leading to premature cell deterioration.
Another reason that we gain weight as we get older is that muscles turn to fat as we age, decreasing our muscle mass and increasing body fat. This happens at around 30, when both men and women experience an up to 40% reduction in both muscle and bone mass.
This change, which begins at age 30 and reaches a plateau at about 60 or 70, coincides with a decrease in our physical abilities, affecting reaction time and rate at which we perform tasks. This causes many people to become less physically active, which sabotages their efforts to remain slim, as exercising and maintaining an active lifestyle are crucial to keeping an elevated metabolic rate and winning the battle of the bulge.
If you're between the ages of 25 and 50, eating a lot of carbs and sugar may deteriorate your appetite-suppressing cells.
Studies have shown that both men and women experience these changes similarly. However, women tend to have more difficulty with the weight issue, particularly after menopause, which occurs between the late-40s and early 50s. Around this time, about 60% of women experience some sort of weight gain, usually about a pound a year, most of it accumulating around the stomach. This is particularly frustrating for women due to the fact that the hormonal and metabolic changes that occur during menopause make it difficult, if not impossible, to shed this weight.
Another explanation for growing heavier as we grow older is simple genetics. If you're lucky enough to have a mother or grandmother who was naturally slim, even in their golden years, you might stay that way too. However, if you have relatives who got heavier as they got older, then chances are you may too.
A Weighty Issue
While staying slim is certainly more difficult as you age, for many weight gain is beginning in the younger years. There has been a steady increase in obesity rates among Americans over the last 20 years, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC). In fact, Colorado is the only state in the union that has a prevalence of obesity less than 20%! And in 2007, the overall obesity rate jumped to nearly 26%, which is up from 24% in 2005.
While these numbers are distressing enough, what is even more alarming is the rate at which America's children are joining the ever-growing ranks of the obese. Perhaps due to poor diets and more time than ever spent in front of video games, computers, and TV sets, American children are heavier than ever, putting them at risk for diseases typically reserved for adults, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and hypertension.
To help address this crises, the CDC has launched a campaign called "Healthy People 2010," which seeks to decrease the number of obese Americans down to 15% by the year 2010 through a program of nutritional education and motivating people to get out and exercise more. In addition, many states such as New York have banned the use of dangerous trans fats in restaurants and require them to place calorie and fat information in all their menus.
Schools across the nation have begun to take vending machines off campuses and many have banned sugary foods such as cupcakes and candy from parties. And many campaigns, such as Boston's Metrowest Community Healthcare Foundation , have been established with the goal of educating parents about the severity of the problem and encouraging them to get their children away from the video games and out exercising, as well as eating better foods. This advice, while good for children, will also help parents to establish healthier lifestyle habits and hopefully keep to a healthy weight even as they get older.
Taking a Load Off
While weight gain is more likely to happen as you get older, it is not inevitable. There are many things you can do to help fight off those extra pounds. Staying active is key. While it may be tempting to forego physical activity as you age and perhaps your body starts to ache a bit more, exercise is crucial to not only staying slimmer, but to living longer and healthier lives.
The more physically fit you are, the easier it is to fend off disease. Regular exercise not only boosts your immune system, but it's good for your mental well-being too. The endorphins that are released during exercise even help stave off depression and anxiety, common problems faced as we grow older.
Along with exercise, you may also need to reevaluate your diet as you get older. Changing eating habits is never easy, especially if they've been engrained over several decades, but it is necessary if you want to maintain a healthy weight. While it's never good to eat that extra slice of pie on a regular basis, it is particularly important as you get older to avoid these "danger" foods and replace them with foods that cater more to the body's changing nutritional needs. If you are unsure of how best to tweak your diet, there are plenty of nutritionists that are willing to help construct a diet plan that will fit your needs.
For most of us, staying slim is no easy task, especially as we grow older and our bodies start to change. However, getting older doesn't have to equal getting heavier. Taking a few simple steps can help increase your odds of staying slim well into your golden years.
Recommended Reading
What Really Causes the "Beer Belly" in Men and How to Get Rid of Your Gut
Aging Gracefully: Enjoy a Vital, Fulfilling Life Regardless of Age
Sources
Science Daily August 2008
CDC: U.S. Obesity Trends
TheBostonChannel.com
by www.SixWise.com
You may remember your childhood years fondly as a time of bike rides, endless summers, and visits from the tooth fairy. Among these many pleasures from your younger years was also a seemingly endless metabolism -- and with it the ability to eat as many hamburgers, ice cream sandwiches, French fries and slices of birthday cake as you pleased without gaining a pound.
There's good news: weight gain as you age is NOT inevitable.
Sadly, as you get older, you lose this ability to burn off the calories as quickly, therefore holding on to those cupcakes and cheeseburgers far longer than you'd probably like to, and often in places you surely don't want to, such as your belly, hips and thighs. This begs the question -- why do we get fatter as we get older, and more importantly, can it be avoided?
Aging and Weight Gain -- Inevitable?
While there is no question that we tend to gain weight as we grow older, the big question still remains as to why this weight gain occurs and whether or not it is inevitable. There have been many studies devoted to discovering the causes of this weight gain.
One such study was conducted by Monash University researcher Dr. Zane Andrews, a neuroendocrinologist with the university's department of physiology. This study uncovered that one of the reasons the scale creeps up as you get older is that appetite-suppressing cells are attacked by free radicals after eating -- and this degeneration is more significant following meals rich in carbohydrates and sugars.
People between the ages of 25 and 50 are most at risk according to Dr. Andrews, as the neurons that tell people in this crucial age range not to overeat are being killed off. This reduction in appetite-suppressing cells could be one explanation for the complexity of adult-onset obesity.
What is also a factor is that the modern diet has become increasingly filled with sugars and carbohydrates, which is leading to premature cell deterioration.
Another reason that we gain weight as we get older is that muscles turn to fat as we age, decreasing our muscle mass and increasing body fat. This happens at around 30, when both men and women experience an up to 40% reduction in both muscle and bone mass.
This change, which begins at age 30 and reaches a plateau at about 60 or 70, coincides with a decrease in our physical abilities, affecting reaction time and rate at which we perform tasks. This causes many people to become less physically active, which sabotages their efforts to remain slim, as exercising and maintaining an active lifestyle are crucial to keeping an elevated metabolic rate and winning the battle of the bulge.
If you're between the ages of 25 and 50, eating a lot of carbs and sugar may deteriorate your appetite-suppressing cells.
Studies have shown that both men and women experience these changes similarly. However, women tend to have more difficulty with the weight issue, particularly after menopause, which occurs between the late-40s and early 50s. Around this time, about 60% of women experience some sort of weight gain, usually about a pound a year, most of it accumulating around the stomach. This is particularly frustrating for women due to the fact that the hormonal and metabolic changes that occur during menopause make it difficult, if not impossible, to shed this weight.
Another explanation for growing heavier as we grow older is simple genetics. If you're lucky enough to have a mother or grandmother who was naturally slim, even in their golden years, you might stay that way too. However, if you have relatives who got heavier as they got older, then chances are you may too.
A Weighty Issue
While staying slim is certainly more difficult as you age, for many weight gain is beginning in the younger years. There has been a steady increase in obesity rates among Americans over the last 20 years, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC). In fact, Colorado is the only state in the union that has a prevalence of obesity less than 20%! And in 2007, the overall obesity rate jumped to nearly 26%, which is up from 24% in 2005.
While these numbers are distressing enough, what is even more alarming is the rate at which America's children are joining the ever-growing ranks of the obese. Perhaps due to poor diets and more time than ever spent in front of video games, computers, and TV sets, American children are heavier than ever, putting them at risk for diseases typically reserved for adults, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and hypertension.
To help address this crises, the CDC has launched a campaign called "Healthy People 2010," which seeks to decrease the number of obese Americans down to 15% by the year 2010 through a program of nutritional education and motivating people to get out and exercise more. In addition, many states such as New York have banned the use of dangerous trans fats in restaurants and require them to place calorie and fat information in all their menus.
Schools across the nation have begun to take vending machines off campuses and many have banned sugary foods such as cupcakes and candy from parties. And many campaigns, such as Boston's Metrowest Community Healthcare Foundation , have been established with the goal of educating parents about the severity of the problem and encouraging them to get their children away from the video games and out exercising, as well as eating better foods. This advice, while good for children, will also help parents to establish healthier lifestyle habits and hopefully keep to a healthy weight even as they get older.
Taking a Load Off
While weight gain is more likely to happen as you get older, it is not inevitable. There are many things you can do to help fight off those extra pounds. Staying active is key. While it may be tempting to forego physical activity as you age and perhaps your body starts to ache a bit more, exercise is crucial to not only staying slimmer, but to living longer and healthier lives.
The more physically fit you are, the easier it is to fend off disease. Regular exercise not only boosts your immune system, but it's good for your mental well-being too. The endorphins that are released during exercise even help stave off depression and anxiety, common problems faced as we grow older.
Along with exercise, you may also need to reevaluate your diet as you get older. Changing eating habits is never easy, especially if they've been engrained over several decades, but it is necessary if you want to maintain a healthy weight. While it's never good to eat that extra slice of pie on a regular basis, it is particularly important as you get older to avoid these "danger" foods and replace them with foods that cater more to the body's changing nutritional needs. If you are unsure of how best to tweak your diet, there are plenty of nutritionists that are willing to help construct a diet plan that will fit your needs.
For most of us, staying slim is no easy task, especially as we grow older and our bodies start to change. However, getting older doesn't have to equal getting heavier. Taking a few simple steps can help increase your odds of staying slim well into your golden years.
Recommended Reading
What Really Causes the "Beer Belly" in Men and How to Get Rid of Your Gut
Aging Gracefully: Enjoy a Vital, Fulfilling Life Regardless of Age
Sources
Science Daily August 2008
CDC: U.S. Obesity Trends
TheBostonChannel.com
Monday, October 13, 2008
POP Goes the National Diabetes Rate
POP Goes the National Diabetes Rate
By the Inkslinger
October 6, 2008
http://www.seventhgeneration.com/learn/blog/pop-goes-national-diabetes-rate?source=email&utm_source=bronto&utm_medium=email&utm_term=READ+MORE+&utm_content=fidyl%40yahoo.com&utm_campaign=7Gen+-+October+8%2C+2008+-+Non-Nation
We've all heard the news: type 2 diabetes is epidemic and the situation is going from bad to catastrophic with some 24 million people, or about 8% of the U.S. population, diagnosed as diabetic and, according to CDC estimates, another 57 million suffering from the blood sugar changes that precede the disease. Suddenly, a huge swath of our population has developed or is at risk of developing this dangerous condition. What's going on?
The conventional wisdom says too many Americans simply have a lousy diet oversaturated with fats and sugars that combine in the body to promote the obesity that causes the insulin resistance that triggers type 2 diabetes. But some new research says maybe the cause is chemicals in the environment.
At issue are Persistent Organic Pollutants, or POPS, which are carbon-based chemicals (often containing chlorine) that resist biodegradation and build up in the environment and inside people, too. It's a complicated medical detective tale, but here's the Cliff Notes version: Our bodies manufacture an enzyme called GGT that scientists have learned is a strong indicator of diabetes. The higher your GGT levels, the more likely you are to be diabetic. Researchers have also discovered that GGT plays a big role in clearing POPs out of our cells. Putting two and two together, they wondered: Is GGT simply a marker for the true cause of this epidemic and are POPs the real culprit where diabetes is concerned?
The preliminary answer is yes. Because when this theory was explored, scientists found that people with the highest levels of POPs were found to have a rate of diabetes 38 times that of those with the lowest levels. And weight had nothing to do with it. Skinny people with high levels of POPs were likely to be diabetic. Obese people with low levels of POPs were not.
No one really knows what's going on yet, but I believe in a few years this is going to be a major story. (Keep your eyes on it.) Think of this research as the first distant rumble of scientific thunder. If the storm builds, it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back where our chemically-dependent lifestyles are concerned.
By the Inkslinger
October 6, 2008
http://www.seventhgeneration.
We've all heard the news: type 2 diabetes is epidemic and the situation is going from bad to catastrophic with some 24 million people, or about 8% of the U.S. population, diagnosed as diabetic and, according to CDC estimates, another 57 million suffering from the blood sugar changes that precede the disease. Suddenly, a huge swath of our population has developed or is at risk of developing this dangerous condition. What's going on?
The conventional wisdom says too many Americans simply have a lousy diet oversaturated with fats and sugars that combine in the body to promote the obesity that causes the insulin resistance that triggers type 2 diabetes. But some new research says maybe the cause is chemicals in the environment.
At issue are Persistent Organic Pollutants, or POPS, which are carbon-based chemicals (often containing chlorine) that resist biodegradation and build up in the environment and inside people, too. It's a complicated medical detective tale, but here's the Cliff Notes version: Our bodies manufacture an enzyme called GGT that scientists have learned is a strong indicator of diabetes. The higher your GGT levels, the more likely you are to be diabetic. Researchers have also discovered that GGT plays a big role in clearing POPs out of our cells. Putting two and two together, they wondered: Is GGT simply a marker for the true cause of this epidemic and are POPs the real culprit where diabetes is concerned?
The preliminary answer is yes. Because when this theory was explored, scientists found that people with the highest levels of POPs were found to have a rate of diabetes 38 times that of those with the lowest levels. And weight had nothing to do with it. Skinny people with high levels of POPs were likely to be diabetic. Obese people with low levels of POPs were not.
No one really knows what's going on yet, but I believe in a few years this is going to be a major story. (Keep your eyes on it.) Think of this research as the first distant rumble of scientific thunder. If the storm builds, it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back where our chemically-dependent lifestyles are concerned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
