Exercise
Exercising harder keeps weight off longer
24 minutes ago
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - People who consistently engage in high levels of exercise over the long haul are the most successful at losing weight and keeping it off, a new study shows.
Among a group of overweight men and women participating in an 18-month weight loss program, those who were still getting 75 minutes of exercise daily a year after the program ended had lost 12 kilograms (26 pounds), compared to 0.8 kg (1.8 pounds) for people who were exercising less.
But only 13 of the 154 people who completed the study were able to sustain this level of activity, Dr. Deborah F. Tate of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and her colleagues found. "Strategies are needed to help participants maintain high levels of activity over the long-term," she and her colleagues conclude in a report in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
The researchers initially assigned 202 people to either a high physical activity group who aimed to burn 2,500 calories per week (equivalent to a 75-minute walk daily) or standard behavioral treatment, including 30 minutes of exercise daily, equivalent to 1,000 calories per week.
Twelve and 18 months later, people in the high activity group had lost significantly more weight than those in the lower activity group.
Although the participants in the high activity group were able to sustain the 2,500 calorie per week exercise goal during the 18-month study, their activity level declined once treatment ended, which resulted in no between-group differences in activity or weight loss at 2.5 years.
However, a small subgroup of people who stuck to the 2,500 calorie per week exercise regimen after the 18-month treatment period ended maintained a significantly larger weight loss than those who didn't exercise as much.
People who maintained high levels of exercise were also eating fewer calories and less fat.
The researchers believe that their e-mails, mailings and phone calls to study participants for the initial 18 months of the study were successful in helping them to reach exercise goals; continuing to stay in touch may have helped them sustain this level of activity.
"It is also possible that sustaining the long-term behavior changes that are needed for behaviors such as physical activity will require changes in the larger social and environmental context in which these behaviors occur," they conclude.
SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, April 2007.
Ban Snacks in Schools?
Expert panel urges junk food ban in schools
By Will Dunham 54 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sugary drinks, fatty chips and gooey snack cakes should be banned from U.S. schools in the face of rising childhood obesity fueled by these junk foods, an expert panel said on Wednesday in a report requested by Congress.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Institute of Medicine panel proposed nutritional standards more restrictive than current government rules for foods and drinks sold outside regular meal programs in cafeterias, vending machines and school stores in elementary, middle and high schools.
They promote fruits, vegetables, whole grains and nonfat or low-fat dairy products and seek limits on calories, saturated fat, salt and sugar. The panel opposed caffeinated products due to possible harmful effects like headaches and moodiness.
The proposals would banish most potato and corn chips, candies, cheese curls, snack cakes such as Twinkies, "sports drinks" such as Gatorade, sugary sodas and iced teas and punches made with minimal fruit juice.
A 15-member panel headed by Dr. Virginia Stallings of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia crafted standards applying to items not part of federally sponsored meal programs, which already meet some nutrition guidelines. They do not restrict bagged lunches or snacks children bring to school.
"Because foods and beverages available on the school campus also make up a significant proportion of the daily calorie intake, they should contribute to a healthful diet. And school campuses should be an overall healthy eating environment," Stallings told reporters.
The Institute of Medicine provides advice on health issues to U.S. policymakers. These recommendations came at the request of Congress.
The American Beverage Association trade group said industry already was changing the type of products available in schools to reduce calories and portion size, and had agreed to voluntary guidelines on items sold in schools.
'RISING OBESITY'
Consumer advocates called the proposals vastly superior to existing Agriculture Department standards dating to the 1970s for foods sold alongside official school meals, and asked Congress to embrace them.
"They're recommending very strongly that schools no longer sell junk food and sugary drinks, and that none of the foods sold undermine children's diet and health. And that's really important these days because of the rising obesity rates," said Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest advocacy group.
Sen. Tom Harkin (news, bio, voting record), an Iowa Democrat sponsoring a bill to toughen the existing government rules, said unenforceable voluntary guidelines by industry are not enough.
The panel proposed two categories of foods and beverages that can be sold in schools based on grade level.
One category should be allowed at all grade levels during school and after-school activities and should provide at least one serving of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, or nonfat or low-fat dairy.
Examples include whole fruits, raisins, carrot sticks, whole-grain cereals, some multi-grain tortilla chips, some granola bars, some nonfat yogurt, plain water, skim and 1 percent fat milk, soy drinks and 100 percent fruit and vegetable juices.
A second category should be available only to high school students after regular school hours, including baked potato chips, whole-wheat crackers, graham crackers, pretzels, caffeine-free diet soda and seltzer water.
The panel took no position on foods with sugar substitutes, saying studies are lacking on effects of long-term consumption starting in childhood.
Flavonols seem to be good in preventing Cancer
Flavonols may help ward off pancreatic cancer
27 minutes ago
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A look at the eating patterns of 183,518 California and Hawaii residents has found evidence that a diet high in flavonols might help ward off pancreatic cancer.
ADVERTISEMENT
Flavonols are found in plant-based foods with onions, apples, berries, kale, and broccoli having the highest concentrations.
During an average of 8 years, 529 subjects developed pancreatic cancer. People who had the largest amount of flavonols in their diet -- measured with a "food frequency" questionnaire -- had a 23-percent lower risk of developing pancreatic cancer compared with people with the lowest levels, Dr. Ute Nthlings from the German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research in Los Angeles.
Smokers benefited most, presumably because they are at high risk for pancreatic cancer already. Smokers who ate the most flavonols reduced their risk of developing pancreatic cancer by 59 percent, compared with smokers who at the least flavonols.
Smoking is currently the only known risk factor for the disease and "short of stopping tobacco use, it has been difficult to consistently show lifestyle factors that might help protect against this deadly cancer, Nthlings noted in a statement.
Of the three individual flavonols studied (kaempferol, quercetin and myricetin), kaempferol, abundant in spinach and some cabbages, was associated with the largest risk reduction (22 percent) among all study subjects.
Across levels of intake, total flavonol consumption as well as consumption of quercetin, which is most abundant in onions, and myricetin, found mostly in red onions and berries, were all associated with a statistically significant trend toward reduced pancreatic cancer risk in current smokers, but not in former smokers or those who never smoked.
The study did not investigate the biologic mechanisms by which flavonols might protect against pancreatic cancer. But the anti-cancer effects of these compounds, in general, have been attributed to their ability to inhibit cell growth and oxidative stress, and induce detoxification enzymes and programmed cell death.
Summing up, Nthlings told Reuters Health that the "key finding is that a high intake of flavonols might help reduce the risk of pancreatic cancer, especially in smokers. The study, therefore, underlines the current recommendation of consuming a plant-based diet, although the findings will have to be confirmed in other studies to draw firm conclusions."
Fruits and Veggies
Fruits and Vegetables Fight Off Cancer
Mon Apr 16, 11:47 PM ET
MONDAY, April 16 -- If you want to reduce your risk of several common types of cancer, help may be no farther away than your kitchen.
A trio of new studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research on Sunday found that vegetables and fruits help lower your chances of getting head and neck, breast, ovarian and pancreatic cancers.
One of the studies even found that just one additional serving of vegetables or fruits could help lower the risk of head and neck cancer. Still, the more fruits and vegetables you can consume, the better.
"Those who ate six servings of fruit and vegetables per 1,000 calories had a 29 percent decreased risk relative to those who had 1.5 servings," said Neal Freedman, a Cancer Prevention Fellow in the division of Cancer Prevention at the
National Cancer Institute and author of one of the studies.
Freedman looked at how the fruit and vegetable intake compared to the incidence of head and neck cancer is 490,802 adults. During the five-year study period, 787 people were diagnosed with head and neck cancers.
After adjusting the data to account for smoking and alcohol use -- known head and neck cancer risk factors -- the researchers found that those who consumed the most fruits and vegetables had the lowest risk for head and neck cancers. Vegetables appeared to offer more cancer prevention than fruits alone did.
Adding just one serving of fruit or vegetables per each 1,000 calories consumed daily resulted in a 6 percent reduction of risk, Freedman said.
"Quitting smoking and reducing alcohol use protects against head and neck cancer. Our results suggest that increasing consumption of fruits and vegetables may also contribute to reduced head and neck cancer risk, and add support to current dietary recommendations to increase fruit and vegetable consumption," Freedman noted.
"I think Americans fall pretty short of the recommendations [for fruit and vegetable consumption]," said Tara Miller, program manager for the Center for Corporate Wellness at New York University Medical Center in New York City. "So, it's good news that only an extra serving a day could make a difference."
In the second study, researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, conducted lab experiments to see if broccoli and soy protein offered any protection against more aggressive breast and ovarian cancers.
When consumed together, digesting broccoli and soy forms a compound called diindolylmethane (DIM). In the lab experiments, the researchers found that DIM could affect the motility of breast and ovarian cancer cells, which could help keep cancers from spreading.
Miller said one concern about soy is that it may be a problem for people with estrogen-fueled cancers, because soy acts like estrogen in the body. She said soy is a nutritious, healthy food, but she recommends eating it in moderation.
The third study looked at the diets of 183,518 people from California and Hawaii, and compared their intake of flavonols to their risk of pancreatic cancer. Flavonols are protective compounds found in fruits and vegetables, such as onions, apples, berries, kale and broccoli.
Those who had the highest consumption of flavonols reduced their risk of pancreatic cancer by 23 percent, scientists from the Cancer Research Center of Hawaii found. The benefit was even greater for people who smoked. Smokers with high levels of flavonols reduced their risk of pancreatic cancer by 59 percent.
"These studies give lots more ammo to what we've been saying -- eating a large variety of plant-based foods is one of the best things you can do for your health in terms of cancer prevention," said Melanie Polk, the nutrition education adviser for the American Institute for Cancer Research.
"If you're eating three or four servings daily, don't think that eating one or two additional servings won't make a difference, though working toward a goal of five to nine servings a day makes sense," Polk said.
She suggested visiting farmer's markets or even taking more time to explore the options available in your local grocery store. Additionally, Polk said you should try to find new recipes for vegetables. "There are lots of ways to fix them that really taste good," she said. "Don't just settle for a boiled pot of kale."
More on Red Meat
Study Links Cured Meats to Lung Disease
Mon Apr 16, 11:47 PM ET
MONDAY, April 16 -- As if you needed another reason to improve your eating habits, researchers have demonstrated a possible link between a diet rich in cured meats -- such as hot dogs, bacon and deli meats -- and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Dr. Rui Jiang, an associate research scientist at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City, led the study that examined the diet and lung function of 7,352 people with an average age of 64.5 years.
Using data compiled as part of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the study authors found a statistical association between people who ate 14 or more servings monthly of cured meats and the incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This held true even after the researchers factored in such variables as age, smoking, and the amount of fruits and vegetables in the subjects' diets.
"People who eat 14 or more servings of cured meat per month have about an 80 percent increased odds of COPD versus people who don't eat cured meat at all," Jiang said.
And, the more cured meats a person eats a month, on average, the higher the risk of COPD, the study said.
The findings were published in the April issue of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
According to the American Lung Association, COPD is an umbrella term for emphysema and chronic bronchitis, and the fourth leading cause of death in the United States. The single greatest risk factor for the disease is smoking.
Yet, the association between COPD and cured meats doesn't come entirely out of left field. Cured meats are rich in nitrites, which have, in animal studies, been linked to lung damage. No epidemiologic study had ever been done to test the possible association between cured meats and lung disease in humans, however, Jiang said.
"There is a plausible background to it," said Dr. Neil Schachter, professor of pulmonary medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. "They (the study authors) are not the first to say that diet may impact lung disease, and certainly there have been many hypotheses about chemicals and oxidative species that may enhance the development of chronic lung disease."
This study does not, however, prove cured meats actually cause COPD, Schachter said. "Associations don't mean causality," he said. "That's the bottom line of an epidemiologic study. Because even though they control for many variables, they cannot control for everything."
Dr. Norman Edelman, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, who called the findings "interesting," echoed that sentiment. "Like any correlational cross-sectional study, there's always the possibility there's some other confounding variable they haven't considered."
Food brand choice, nutritional content and genetics may all play a role in the development of COPD, for instance, he said.
In addition, Jiang said that because this is a cross-sectional study rather than a longitudinal one -- meaning that it looks at a collection of individuals at a single point in time instead of following the same individuals over an extended period -- "we cannot say cured meat is associated with an increased risk of developing COPD, only that people who ate cured meat were more likely to have it."
Neither Jiang nor Schachter recommended wholesale dietary changes as a result of this study, and neither did Cathy Nonas, a registered dietician and director of diabetes and obesity programs at North General Hospital in New York City. "Would I tell people not to ever eat lunch meats again?" she said, "No, I wouldn't."
But, Nonas added, the study "does play up the idea that fresh foods are probably still better for you. And that a moderate amount of all of these things (cured meats) is certainly better than too much."
Jiang and colleagues have now completed two independent, prospective studies on the relationship between cured meat consumption and COPD, which, Jiang said, confirmed the findings in this report. Both studies have been submitted for publication, Jiang added.
More information
For more information on COPD, visit the American Lung Association.
Watch out for red meat
Red and processed meat linked to breast cancer
Mon Apr 16, 3:05 PM ET
NEW YORK - Women who eat a lot of meat, particularly red or processed meats, may be more likely to develop breast cancer, according to a large study of British women.
ADVERTISEMENT
Researchers found that among 35,372 women, between the ages of 35 and 69 years old, who were followed for 8 years, those who ate the largest amount of meat were more likely than non-meat eaters to develop breast cancer before or after menopause.
The link was stronger among postmenopausal women, with red and processed meat seeming to particularly raise their risk of breast cancer. Women who ate the most red meat (2 or more ounces per day) were 56 percent more likely to develop breast cancer than the women who ate no red meat.
Meanwhile, those who ate the most processed meat (more than three quarters of an ounce per day) showed a 64-percent increase in their risk of the disease.
The association between meat in the diet and breast cancer was weaker among premenopausal women, but those with the highest total meat intake were still 20 percent more likely to develop the disease than non-meat eaters.
Professor Janet E. Cade and her colleagues at the University of Leeds report the findings in the British Journal of Cancer.
Many studies have investigated the relationship between diet and breast cancer. Some, but not all, have found that meat and saturated fat may raise women's risk of the disease. One of the strengths of the current study was the detailed dietary information it collected, according to the authors.
Meat intake remained linked to breast cancer risk even after the researchers factored in the women's overall diet content and quantity, age, weight, exercise habits and smoking.
There are a number of reasons that heavy meat consumption could theoretically contribute to breast cancer, according to experts. One possibility is saturated fat, which research suggests may promote the growth of tumor cells. Another explanation may be certain compounds produced when meat is grilled -- heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons - that have been shown to promote tumors in animals, and possibly in humans.
While studies have come to conflicting conclusions over the connection between meat and breast cancer, the current findings suggest that it's best for women to have their burgers in moderation, according to the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR).
"This new study offers further confirmation of AICR's standing recommendation to limit intake of red meat to less than 3 ounces per day," Dr. Ritva Butrum, a science advisor to the group, said in a statement.
"If these results are confirmed by other investigations in the future," Butrum added, "post-menopausal women may wish to limit their intake of meat, especially processed meat, even further."
SOURCE: British Journal of Cancer, April 2007.
I Think Mercury Inhalation Counts as part of your Diet, right?
DON'T LET THESE "SILVER" FILLINGS IN YOUR MOUTH
Court ruling OKs mercury fillings
Fri Apr 13, 10:46 AM ET
WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court said Friday it could not force the
Food and Drug Administration to tighten restrictions on dental fillings containing mercury.
Advocacy groups sought to ban the use of such fillings and to force the FDA to classify them as risky, subjecting them to tougher regulations.
The groups say the fillings pose health risks to patients who inhale mercury vapors and dental office employees who handle the materials.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously ruled that, while certain FDA actions can be appealed, the court has no jurisdiction to review agency inaction.
The mercury mixture has stirred controversy since dentists began using it to fill cavities in the 1800s. Significant levels of mercury exposure can cause permanent damage to the brain and kidneys, but the FDA has said for years that mercury fillings don't harm patients, except in rare cases when they have allergic reactions.
Amalgam fillings are about 50 percent mercury, joined with silver, copper and tin. Tens of millions of Americans receive mercury fillings each year. Many doctors have begun switching to resin composite fillings that blend better with the natural coloring of teeth.
Federal health officials began a new review of the safety of the fillings last year.
Most Americans don't eat smart and exercise: CDC
Most Americans don't eat smart and exercise: CDC
WASHINGTON - Only one in seven Americans exercises enough and eats enough fruits and vegetables, and men are worse than women, federal health officials said on Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT
"These results underscore the need to promote diets high in fruits and vegetables and regular physical activity among all populations in the United States and among racial and ethnic minority communities in particular," U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers said in a report.
The
CDC tracked the percentage of Americans who eat at least five servings of fruits and vegetables daily and engage in moderately intense exercise for at least 30 minutes five days per week or vigorous exercise for at least 20 minutes three days per week as recommended by the government.
Overall, 14.6 percent of Americans met both the dietary and exercise benchmarks, including 12.4 percent of men and 16.6 percent of women.
The findings come at a time of rising obesity in the United States and concern among public health experts about sedentary lifestyles and diets loaded with fat and sweets.
The report found that 12.6 percent of white men and 17.4 percent of white women reached both benchmarks, compared to 11.2 percent of black men and 12.6 percent of black women and 11.7 percent of Latino men and 14.8 percent of Latino women.
Among all groups, American Indian and Alaska Native men (17.5 percent) and women (19.6 percent) did the best.
"The population right now really needs to take responsibility for their own health," Mary Kay Solera, head of the CDC's National Fruit and Vegetable Program and one of the report's authors, said in a telephone interview.
'WE'RE NOT DOING IT'
"People know that they need to be eating more fruits and vegetables and they know they need to be doing more physical activity. But we're not doing it," Solera added.
Unlike other reports tracking such issues, this one examines those behaviors in tandem for a more complete view. It did not assess whether things are getting better or worse.
"Poor diet and lack of physical activity cause chronic disease," Solera said. "As our good habits decrease and you've got a lot of bad habits, then chronic disease is going to increase, health care costs will increase. There are consequences to what we're doing."
The CDC noted that being overweight or obese increases one's risk of heart disease, some cancers, high blood pressure, diabetes, stroke and other ailments.
The report was based on self-reported data from a 2005 telephone survey of 356,112 Americans. The survey asked respondents to report their level of exercise and their diet with questions such as, "How often do you eat potatoes, not including French fries, fried potatoes or potato chips?"
The report said some of the racial differences in exercise levels detected might be due to a lack of exercise facilities in lower-income, nonwhite communities.
Moderately intense exercise was defined as brisk walking, bicycling, vacuuming, gardening or anything else that causes small increases in breathing or heart rate. Vigorous exercise was defined as running, aerobics, heavy yard work or other things that cause large increases in breathing or heart rate.
