Tequila might help you lose weight

We Heart It

I’m about to make your day: based on a recent study, tequila can aid in weight loss.

Yes, you read that correctly. TEQUILA WILL HELP YOU LOSE WEIGHT.

Not only will it assist in the weight loss process, but it will also help to lower blood sugar. This is amazing news for people suffering from type-2 Diabetes.

A recent study conducted at the American Chemical Society has blessed us with this amazing information on this glorious humpday.

Basically agavina, a sugar that comes from the agave plant used to produce tequila, triggered insulin production and lowered blood sugar in an experiment conducted with mice. In addition to these astonishing results, the sweetener also helped the overweight mice drops some hefty LBS.

Agavin, unlike sucrose, fructose and glucose, is not absorbed by the body, so it will not increase blood glucose.

Can I get a “hallelujah”? Yeah, I’m talking to you Jeff Buckley.

We’re not telling you to rip tequila shots with every meal, however — these agavins are actually a type of fiber that creates a full feeling, ergo suppressing appetite.

The scientists who conducted this study believe that agavins are a viable light sweetener substitute since, ”they are sugars, highly soluble, have a low glycemic index, and a neutral taste, but most important, they are not metabolized by humans.”

Currently there are approximately 26 million Americans suffering from diabetes, with another 2 million getting diagnosed annually.

The fact that there is the potential for developing a different type of sweetener that lowers sugar levels instead of raising them is revolutionary.

Stayed tuned as the study and tests continue to progress.

Source

Fitness myths you probably believe

How much we should eat vs. how much we do eat

FDA proposes new nutritional labels

Federal health officials have said portion size changes are necessary to reflect the reality of the American diet. Now a 20-ounce bottle of soda will be considered one serving instead of 2.5 servings and ice cream serving sizes will increase from a half-cup to one cup, which more accurately reflect how much people really consume.

Another significant change will be a separate line for sugars that are manufactured and added to food, which public health experts say has contributed to America’s obesity problem.

The federal government started requiring nutrition labels in the early 1990s and has not changed them significantly since. A line for trans fats, however, was added in 2006, which addressed a health issue that people were just beginning to understand at the time.

The changes in the nutrition labels are intended to make it easier for people to read and understand, and will include putting the calorie count in really big font to make sure people know that’s very important.

Also, the inclusion of Vitamin A and B will become optional, while Vitamin D and potassium, which are important for bone health, blood pressure, and the immune system, will be added.

The new labels will be open to public input for 90 days. It will take several months after that before the changes will happen and then the FDA will give businesses another two years to actually alter their labels.

The FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Foods Michael R. Taylor estimates it will cost about $2 billion for companies to implement the changes, but that it will save $30 billion eventually in health benefits.

Source

What happens when you eat too many gummy vitamins?

Eating too many gummy vites can cause permanent health damage, according to Dr. Ken Spaeth, director of occupational and environmental medicine at the North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System.

“On the whole, it would be a very bad idea and potentially dangerous to take excessive amounts of multivitamins, even tasty ones such as the gummy variety,” Spaeth said. “While the recommended amounts pose virtually no risk, consuming an entire bottle of vitamins can cause permanent and serious harm.”

Wait, PERMANENT harm?

“The risk comes, most notoriously, from the ‘fat-soluble’ vitamin such as vitamin A, D, E, etc. that are contained with the multi-bear, multi-worm or other gummy multivitamin species,” Spaeth said. “The body is not able to clear excessive amounts of this type quickly, and the subsequent build up of high levels can inflict an array of injury to various organ systems including the brain.”

If you ate the entire bottle, you could maybe die:

“Consuming a full bottle of vitamins in any form, gummy or other, would likely ensure that levels of both the water- and fat-soluble vitamins would reach toxic levels. It is worth noting that minerals, such as zinc, magnesium, manganese, etc. are also commonly included in multivitamins and would likely be at toxic levels as a result of consuming an entire bottle.”

Also, vitamin overdose is a special risk for children.


“In general, children are more susceptible to harm from toxic effects,” Spaeth said.“Vitamins for adults are generally dosed with higher amounts since adults are larger, have a greater body mass, and a fully developed organ systems whereas kid’s vitamins are dosed lower and, often, intended to meet the needs of a developing body. Regardless of age, though, eating a bottle of gummy vitamins should be avoided because of the very real danger. The poison control hotline or an Emergency Department should be consulted if someone you know disregards this advice.”

*Spaeth notes that every multivitamin brand has a proprietary list of vitamins, so it is hard to speak to all possible brands as the types and amounts of what’s in there vary.

So you should probably stop eating more than the recommended dosage of your gummy vites.

Source

Most unfortunate design flaws in the human body

Sometimes evolution is stupid, and the human body is proof. Here are the most problematic physical and behavioral "scars of evolution" we humans have to deal with.

The human body is, in many respects, a resounding tribute to the adaptive powers of natural selection. We've evolved gloriously large, complex brains capable of abstract thought and foresight. We're bipedal, dextrous, and enjoy relatively long lives (lives that include a fairly generous fertility window), to list a few of the qualities that have allowed us to propagate and thrive across the planet.

But that doesn't mean we're perfect. Far from it, in fact. Not only did evolution create a species that's "good enough," it also produced some distinctly negative traits. Back in 1951, the biologist Wilton Krogman referred to these as the "scars of human evolution."

In some respects, these "scars" can be seen as vestigial traits, but that's not quite accurate. Rather, they're examples of the various trade-offs and side-effects of evolution. They're also not physical or psychological limitations per se (like our poor sense of smell or inability to grasp large numbers — those traits weren't adaptive in our recent evolutionary past). Also, I left out aging and age-related disorders; those aren't so much "flaws" of evolution as they're an indelible and insurmountable limitation of biological evolution. Lastly, I decided to include some characteristics that evolution designed rather poorly.

Without further ado here are humanity's most unfortunate design flaws; please add any that you think I overlooked to the comments.

Physical Characteristics

The Dual Function of the PharynxThis is one of the most problematic "features" of the human body — and the cause of innumerable deaths throughout human history. Like many other primates, we're forced to use the same anatomical structure for both ingestion and respiration. But when obstructed, airflow is blocked, which can lead to choking, and in some cases, death.

Our Inability to Biosynthesize Vitamin CVitamin C plays a crucial role as an anti-oxidant and in collagen synthesis. But certain animals, such as primates, guinea pigs, and some bats and birds, have completely lost the ability to synthesize this compound. So, when Vitamin C-rich food sources are scarce, such as fruits, we experience a weakened immune response —not to mention scurvy in extreme cases.

Also, because we can't make all the vitamins we need, we carry a host of deadly bacteria in our bowels, which produce them for us. But when this process is disrupted, like a hole in the intestine, it can flare into peritonitis.

The Awkward Wiring of the Male Urinary Tract
The urinary tract in males passes through — rather than being routed around — the prostate gland, which can swell and block urinary function.

The Close Proximity of our Genitals to our Rectum
Not only is this aesthetically displeasing, it's also unhygienic. Combined with our short urethras — especially in women — this leads to frequent urinary tract and bladder infections (UTIs) (remember, front to back, ladies). As the character Darald quipped in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, "Let me just say that if God was a city planner he would not put a playground next to a sewage system."

Our Multi-Function Genitals
Relatedly, our genitals are forced to perform multiple functions. While on the one hand it can be seen as conservation in design, it creates health problems. Again, it's unhygienic. For women, sexual intercourse pushes bacteria further into the urethra, leading to UTIs. Additionally, both men and women can contract UTIs from two sexually transmitted bacteria, chlamydia and mycoplasma. And of course, for women, this is also the part of the body where, in addition to sex and urination, newborn babies come out.

The Extremely Narrow Human Birth Canal
Speaking of which, human females have an unreasonably narrow birth canal, resulting in significantly increased risks to both mother and child during birth (not to mention prolonged labors and extreme levels of discomfort). In fact, death in childbirth used to be the leading cause of death for women during their reproductive years (our big, bulbous heads also has something to do with it). This is a consequence of our quick evolutionary leap from quadrupeds to bipeds, resulting in our narrow pelvis — the passage through which newborn babies pass.

Our Over-Loaded Lower Backs
This is also a consequence of our transition from four-legged to two-legged creatures. According to paleoanthropologist Bruce Latimer of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio,
When humans stood upright, they took a spine that had evolved to be stiff for climbing and moving in trees and rotated it 90 degrees, so it was vertical—a task Latimer compared to stacking 26 cups and saucers on top of each other (vertebrae and discs) and then, balancing a head on top. But so as not to obstruct the birth canal and to get the torso balanced above our feet, the spine has to curve inwards (lordosis), creating the hollow of our backs. That's why our spines are shaped like an "S." All that curving, with the weight of the head and stuff we carry stacked on top, creates pressure that causes back problems—especially if you play football, do gymnastics, or swim the butterfly stroke. In the United States alone, 700,000 people suffer vertebral fractures per year and back problems are the sixth leading human malady in the world. "If you take care of it, your spine will get you through to about 40 or 50," said Latimer. "After that, you're on your own."

Our Achy Knees
Again, an aftereffect of bipedalism. We have to distribute all our weight on just two limbs, which often leads to aches and pains. You can also add achy, or arthritic hips, to this list.

The Overly Complicated Human Foot
Anthropologist Jeremy DeSilva of Boston University put it this way:

Starting with the foot, DeSilva held up a cast with 26 bones and said: "You wouldn't design it out of 26 moving parts." Our feet have so many bones because our ape-like ancestors needed flexible feet to grasp branches. But as they moved out of the trees and began walking upright on the ground in the past 5 million years or so, the foot had to become more stable, and bit by bit, the big toe, which was no longer opposable, aligned itself with the other toes and our ancestors developed an arch to work as a shock absorber. "The foot was modified to remain rigid," said DeSilva. "A lot of BandAids were stuck on these bones." But the bottom line was that our foot still has a lot of room to twist inwards and outwards, and our arches collapse. This results in: ankle sprains, plantar fasciitis, Achilles tendonitis, shin splints, and broken ankles. These are not modern problems, due to stiletto heels; Fossils show broken ankles that have healed as far back as 3 million years ago.

A better design for upright walking and running, DeSilva said, would be a foot and ankle like an ostrich. An ostrich's ankle and lower leg bones are fused into a single structure, which puts a kick into their step—and their foot has only two toes that aid in running. "Why can't I have a foot like that?" asked DeSilva. One reason is that ostriches trace their upright locomotion back 230 million years to the age of dinosaurs, while our ancestors walked upright just 5 million years ago.

Our Inefficient Sinuses
Humans have several sinuses — air-filled cavities that help with drainage of mucus and fluid. But our maxillary sinuses, located on our cheekbone, drain upwards. This often leads to the build-up of fluids and mucus, which can cause an infection.

The "Blind Spot" in Our Eyes
Our so-called "blind spot" is the result of a quirk that happens during embryological development. To deal with this, we've had to evolve elaborate and costly perception-correcting mechanisms. Our very own Esther Inglis-Arkell describes it like this:

Light gets into the eye by passing through the pupil. It hits the retina at the back of the eye. The retina is covered with light-sensing proteins. They relay what they sense to the optic nerve which carries the information back into the brain. The problem is, the optic nerve ends in the field of the retina itself. This is a little like having to plug the power cable for a TV directly into the screen. It creates a dark spot. Most of the time, the other eye will see what's happening in its partner's blind, but if the blind spots overlap while looking at a certain object, or if the person is only looking through one eye, the brain just fills in the spot looking at the surrounding picture.

A Single Set of Adult Teeth
This is where evolution got unreasonably cheap on us, providing humans with just one set of teeth for our entire adult lives. Once we hit 35, our teeth start to go — one of many signs that evolution primed us for reproduction, followed by a brief period of child-rearing, and pretty much nothing else (unless you subscribe to the grandmother hypothesis).

Behavioral Characteristics

Our fondness for sweet, salty, and fatty foods
Our bodies need sugar, salt, and fat — just not in extreme quantities. But in a state of nature, these foods are often scarce or difficult to preserve. That's why we find these food unreasonably delicious and irresistible. It's our body's way of saying, "Yo, eat this stuff while you can, it's good for you." But most of us now live in a world of tremendous abundance, and we consume these foods in ridiculous quantities, leading to all sorts of modern health problems.

Tribalism
Humans have a kind of ingrained fear or distrust of the "out-group." It's a previously adaptive trait that binds small groups of individuals together and prevents them from wandering off or joining other groups. But it also leads to ethnocentrism and divisions between groups. Studies show that oxytocin, while strengthening feelings of trust between individuals, increases fear of "the other." This characteristic was obviously important back when we lived in family clans or tribal arrangements, but today it leads to all sorts of social problems, including racism, prejudice, and our inability to empathize with people we don't immediately know.

Any Number of Cognitive Biases
Many of our cognitive biases — annoying glitches in our thinking that cause us to make questionable decisions and reach erroneous conclusions — are a consequence of our limited intelligence and predisposed tendencies. Examples include the confirmation bias (we love to agree with people who agree with us), the gambler's fallacy (the tremendous weight we tend to put on previous events that aren't causal factors), our tendency to neglect or misjudge probability, and the status-quo bias (we often make choices that guarantee that things remain the same). Some of these are adaptive traits, but others are simply cognitive deficiencies.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
This is an example of how we've potentially pathologized a perfectly "normal" human psychological characteristic. Because ADHD appears to have a genetic component (it affects about 5% of school-aged children), questions have been raised about its prior role as a trait required for survival, namely its adaptive function in hunter, fighter, and wader theories. But today, we see it as something maladaptive — something that needs to be treated. Put another way, and like our penchant for sweet, salty, and fatty foods, it's a trait that's not so much nonoptimal as it's ill suited for present-day society.

Source

Foods you think are healthy, but aren't

The Miami Heat and Michelle Obama for Let's Move

Truth about common nutrition myths

Fitness Magazine

If the last time you ate fried anything was at the state fair three years ago, we have news for you. No, funnel cake hasn't become the diet food du jour. But fried foods -- as well as burgers and beer -- can have a place in a healthy diet. Surprised? No wonder. "With all the misinformation and exaggerated health headlines out there, it's easy to get fooled," says Robert J. Davis, PhD, an adjunct professor at Emory University's Rollins School of Public Health and the author of Coffee Is Good for You. To help you figure out which truths to swallow, we asked the experts to debunk the top 10 food myths. Read on to find out what's standing between you and better health, not to mention that basket of chicken fingers.


Myth: Red wine is tops for your ticker. 
The real deal: When it comes to heart health, red wine gets all the glory. But that glass of Syrah may not be so superior: University of Texas researchers found that although moderate drinkers lived longer than those who abstained, wine drinkers weren't better off than those who preferred beer or liquor.

"Reports of red wine's antioxidant powers were probably overblown," says Arthur Klatsky, MD, the senior cardiology consultant for Kaiser Permanente, a nonprofit health plan based in Oakland, California. The alcohol itself is what boosts levels of HDL, or "good," cholesterol. "The molecules act like Drano in your blood vessels, sweeping away plaque," Dr. Klatsky says. "This lowers your risk of developing blood clots, which can lead to strokes and heart attacks." Whether you prefer Pinot or pilsner, raise a glass to your health -- and then switch to water. Tossing back more than two drinks a day does your heart more harm than good, Dr. Klatsky says.

Myth: Organic produce packs more nutrients than the conventional kind. 
The real deal: Although buying organic fruits and veggies helps protect the environment, research published in theAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that they have no nutritional advantage over their conventionally grown counterparts. And while the latter contain more chemical residue, no studies have definitively proven that the amount of chemicals we ingest causes any harm: Much of the research linking pesticides with disease was done on farmers who had been exposed to huge quantities, Davis says. Still prefer organic? Spend the extra money on produce that has a peel you eat, such as apples and peaches.

Myth: A grilled-chicken sandwich beats a burger. 
The real deal: This seemingly healthy favorite not only contains more calories -- roughly 350 versus 250 -- than a plain hamburger, but it can also be a sodium bomb. "Many restaurants use chicken that has been injected with a saltwater solution to keep it moist," says Stephen Sinatra, MD, a cardiologist in Saint Petersburg, Florida, and a coauthor of The Fast Food Diet. Even a no-frills chicken sandwich with just lettuce, tomato, and mayo can pack more than 1,300 milligrams of sodium. That's more than double the amount in a burger and more than half of your daily quota.

Worried about a burger's toll on your heart? Don't be. A recent study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that people who ate about five ounces of lean beef daily as part of a healthy diet lowered their cholesterol level by the same amount as those who ate less beef.

Myth: Wheat is wicked. 
The real deal: With celebrities such as Gwyneth Paltrow and Lady Gaga praising gluten-free diets, it comes as no surprise that sales of products made without gluten -- a protein found in wheat, barley, and rye -- have nearly tripled since 2006. But unless you're one of the estimated 7 percent of people in the United States with celiac disease or a gluten sensitivity, there's no need to avoid the stuff.

"Wheat is packed with important nutrients, including folate," says Jessica Crandall, RD, a dietitian in Denver and a spokeswoman for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Few gluten-free breads, cereals, or pastas, meanwhile, are a good source of folate, a B vitamin. "Shun whole grains completely and you may even wind up gaining weight," says Bonnie Taub-Dix, RD, the author ofRead It Before You Eat It. That's because they boost the level of the feel-good chemical serotonin in your brain, so if you skip them, chances are you'll feel unsatisfied and wind up snacking unnecessarily.

Myth: Sprinkling on less salt keeps sodium in check. 
The real deal: Nine in 10 Americans consume more than 2,300 milligrams of sodium, the recommended daily threshold, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Laying off the shaker can help a little, but 90 percent of the sodium in our diets comes from processed and restaurant foods. "Manufacturers use it as a preservative, so it's found in items that don't even taste salty, like bread," says CDC epidemiologist Elena Kuklina, MD, PhD. The first step toward cutting back: reading labels. Go for breads with fewer than 100 milligrams a slice and soups with no more than 140 milligrams per serving.

Myth: Raw veggies rule. 
The real deal: There's no need to crunch through another plate of crudités in the name of nutrition. "Besides making vegetables more palatable, cooking can also increase their nutritional value," says Tammy Roberts, RD, a nutrition and health-education specialist at the University of Missouri Extension. In fact, Cornell University scientists found that stewing tomatoes for a half hour increased their cancer-fighting lycopene content by 35 percent. Cooking also unlocks another nutrient, beta-carotene, in corn and carrots. "Heat breaks down the fibrous cell walls, releasing more of these antioxidants," Roberts explains.

On the other hand, water-soluble vitamins, including vitamin C, are usually destroyed by heat. "To cover all your bases, eat a variety of vegetables," Roberts says. If you dig into a salad at lunch, consider serving roasted broccoli or carrots as a side dish at dinner.

Myth: Brown eggs are better than white. 
The real deal: Despite their higher price tag (they can cost up to 20 percent more), brown eggs aren't all they're cracked up to be. "Although they look more wholesome, they have the same nutritional breakdown as the white kind," Crandall says. "They simply come from a different breed of hen."

Instead, put your extra dollars toward omega-3-enriched eggs, which can deliver more than 600 milligrams of these heart-healthy fats, compared with the 30 milligrams provided by the regular kind. Researchers found that people who ate fortified eggs daily experienced a 32 percent decrease in their triglyceride level. For the biggest benefit, look for brands that contain both EPA and DHA, two easy-to-absorb omega-3s.

Myth: High-fructose corn syrup is worse for you than sugar. 
The real deal: It's been blamed for America's obesity crisis, but experts say that high-fructose corn syrup doesn't pave the way for weight gain any more than other sweeteners do. "From a biochemical standpoint, it's no different from sucrose, or table sugar," says Marion Nestle, PhD, a professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University and a coauthor of Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics. "It has the same number of calories, and the body processes both of them the same way."

The problem is that high-fructose corn syrup is extremely cheap, so manufacturers add it to countless products. As a result, Americans are consuming more of the sweet stuff than ever before. The bottom line: Limit your consumption of all added sugar, which can appear on labels as "dextrose," "maltose," "beet sugar," and "fruit juice concentrate."

Myth: Fried food makes you fat. 
The real deal: "Deep-frying can be just as healthy as sautéing," says Harold McGee, a food-science writer and the author of On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen. "When properly deep-fried, food soaks up minimal oil." Case in point: A chicken leg contains only 16 calories more when fried than it does when roasted. That's because the intense heat causes moisture inside the food to evaporate, creating steam pressure that blocks oil -- and calories -- from entering. To create this effect, the oil needs to be between 325 and 350 degrees for larger pieces of food, like chicken, and 375 to 400 degrees for smaller items, such as potato wedges. To know when the proper temperature has been hit, use a deep-frying or candy thermometer.

Myth: Loading up on fruit helps you slim down. 
The real deal: Some weight-loss plans consider fruit a freebie that dieters don't have to factor into their daily tally. But just because grapes are loaded with nutrients doesn't mean you should graze on them all day. "Fruit is high in vitamins and fiber," Taub-Dix says. "But it still contains calories and sugar." A banana, for instance, has roughly the same number of calories -- around 100 -- as two chocolate-chip cookies.

If you're trying to slim down, Taub-Dix recommends that you stick with four servings (a half cup or a piece of fruit counts as one) a day and pair each serving with some protein. "A handful of nuts or a cup of Greek yogurt will slow down digestion and keep your blood sugar levels steady," she says.

Source

Sales of low-cal soda falling faster than other types

Joanna Stepka is the soda industry's new nightmare.

The 33-year-old Rhode Island resident began drinking Diet Coke in kindergarten, graduating to three cans a day by adulthood. She quit in August after her gym trainer told her artificial sweeteners are unhealthy and make people fat even if they don't have calories.

"I thought it was a win-win, but after learning about the chemicals, definitely not,'' says Mrs. Stepka, a parenting lifestyle blogger.

Coca-Cola Co. (KO) and rivals hoped zero-calorie recipes would lift the $75 billion U.S. soda industry after Americans began scaling back on full-calorie carbonated soft drinks in the late 1990s amid obesity concerns. For a while they helped: Diet soda's share of consumption rose from 26% to 31% between 1990 and 2010, according to Beverage Marketing Corp., even as many consumers complained about the taste.

Now diet soda is the industry's weightiest problem. Store sales of zero- and low-calorie soda plunged 6.8% in dollar terms in the 52 weeks through Nov. 23, while sales of regular sodas dropped 2.2%, according to Wells Fargo, citing Nielsen scanner data. As a category, diet soda has contracted more than regular soda for three straight years.

"We are seeing a fundamental shift in consumer habits and behaviors," PepsiCo Inc. (PEP) Chairman Indra Nooyi said recently.

PepsiCo gets about a quarter of its U.S. revenue from soda. Coke and Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc. (DPS) both derive more than half their U.S. sales from soda.

Soda isn't the staple it once was. In a March survey by Mintel, 34% of those aged 18 to 36 considered it a "treat,'' a higher proportion than among older drinkers. Meanwhile, about 20% of Americans say they are on a diet, down from more than 25% a decade ago, according to NPD Group.

But the biggest drag is health fears about artificial sweeteners found in diet soda—mainly aspartame, but also sucralose and acesulfame potassium.

The American Beverage Association says such sweeteners are among "the most studied and reviewed ingredients'' over four decades, and are safe weight-loss tools, positions echoed by the American Diabetes Association and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

The Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies around the world also vouch for their safety.

Still, in a July opinion piece published in the journal Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism, Susan Swithers, a Purdue University professor, argued that frequent consumption of such sweeteners might trigger "metabolic derangements'' by tripping up body mechanisms that regulate caloric intake.

Such concerns follow some studies showing a correlation between diet soda and obesity, diabetes and heart disease.

"There's way more not known than known,'' says Dana Small, a professor at Yale University School of Medicine.

Aspartame, in particular, gives consumers pause, after some studies starting in the 1970s linked it to cancer.

The FDA, which approved aspartame in 1981, says such studies, including an Italian one in 2005, were flawed.

The Internet has amplified fears. Among the top 10 Google search results for "diet soda'' on a recent day: "10 Reasons to Give Up Diet Soda,'' "No, seriously: Diet sodas are terrible for you, too'' and "7 side effects of drinking diet soda.''

Mrs. Stepka, the former Diet Coke drinker, broadcast going cold turkey to more than 6,000 Twitter followers. She also posted "10 Reasons to Give Up Diet Soda'' on her mother's Facebook wall to pressure her to quit.

In the Mintel survey, 46% agreed artificially sweetened soda is "unhealthy,'' including more than 50% of consumers younger than 35.

In a recent survey by Datamonitor, 28% of U.S. respondents said they avoid low-calorie sweeteners entirely and another 23% said they try to limit intake.

Soda companies are redoubling marketing and decadeslong efforts to create new diet sweeteners—especially ones derived from natural sources like the stevia plant, which is already in some beverages but can produce a bitter aftertaste.

Coke ran print ads this summer defending aspartame and pointing to more than 200 studies backing its safety. It is also leaning heavily on Taylor Swift to promote Diet Coke, splashing the singer's autograph on cans of the top-selling diet soda in October after signing her to a marketing deal.

"We believe very strongly in the future of Diet Coke,'' Steve Cahillane, Coke's Americas chief, recently told investors.

But earlier this year in South America the company began selling Coca-Cola Life, a mid-calorie cola featuring stevia for the first time in its flagship brand.

The company hasn't ruled out bringing it to the U.S. and is developing a new stevia variant with PureCircle Ltd. (PCRTF) that could win FDA approval in the coming weeks.

Bloomberg News Soda companies are redoubling marketing and decades long efforts to create new diet sweeteners.

PepsiCo axed aspartame in April from Pepsi Next, a mid-calorie cola, and plans to launch a new diet soda next year.

The company is weighing a new stevia variant and a sweetener enhancer developed by Senomyx Inc. that could lower the sucrose, fructose or high-fructose corn syrup in soda without sacrificing taste.

Dr Pepper Snapple is spending heavily to market Dr Pepper Ten, an artificially sweetened, 10-calorie soda that it launched in 2011 to appeal to males. A television commercial features a bearded man eating tree bark and canoeing with a bear while praising Ten's "bold'' flavor.

Source

Nutrition mistake 80% of people make

If a miracle ingredient found in many tasty, inexpensive foods helped you lose weight, live longer, and avoid dangerous diseases, wouldn’t you eat it every day?

Actually, there is such a food ingredient—dietary fiber—and most of us eat too little of it, putting ourselves at increased risk for heart problems and other health woes, according to a new study published in the December issue of The American Journal of Medicine (AJM).

In fact, the study found that more than 80 percent of the 23,168 people studied consumed far less than the recommended amount of fiber—and most men averaged less than half of the amount needed to keep their hearts healthy.

The researchers reported that compared to people who eat the most fiber, those who ate the least had a much higher rate of heart disease risk factors, such as obesity, chronic inflammation, and metabolic syndrome.

Metabolic syndrome is a dangerous gang of five metabolic villains that doubles risk for heart attack and quintuples it for type 2 diabetes, as I reported in a recent article. Here’s a closer look at the study.

What’s the link between fiber and heart disease risk?
The researchers reported that previous studies suggest that dietary fiber protects against heart disease by reducing blood pressure, cholesterol, and biomarkers of inflammation, all of which play a major role in the development of heart disease, the leading killer of Americans.

In addition, a diet that is rich in fiber has been linked to weight loss (by helping people feel full) and improved insulin sensitivity. Obesity and insulin resistance can contribute to risk for both heart disease and type 2 diabetes, which in turn, also increases the threat of developing heart disease.

What are the other health benefits of fiber?
In a 2011 study of nearly 400,000 older adults, conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and American Association of Retired People (AARP), those who ate a fiber-rich diet had the lowest death rates during the 9-year study.

The study found that men ages 50 or older who ate the most fiber had an up to 56 percent lower risk for dying from cardiovascular disease, respiratory illnesses, or infectious diseases, compared to men who ate the least fiber. In women ages 50 and up, a high-fiber diet reduced fatalities from those conditions by up to 59 percent.

Another 2011 report, by the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR), concluded that more than 64,000 cases of colon cancer could be prevented if Americans ate more fiber-rich plant foods, cut down on red meat and alcohol, exercised more, and stayed lean.

After analyzing hundreds of scientific papers, the group’s experts concluded that the evidence that foods containing fiber reduce colon cancer risk is now “convincing.”

How much fiber should you eat?
The Institute of Medicine recommends 38 grams of fiber daily for men ages 19 to 50, and 30 grams daily for men over 50. Women ages 19 to 50 should eat 25 grams daily, while the goal for women over 50 is 21 grams daily.

In the AJM study, which analyzed dietary data from participants in a national health survey, daily fiber intake only averaged 15.7 to 17 grams, less than half the amount advised for men ages 50 or younger.

Which foods contain the most fiber?
The AICR recommends a plant-based diet that is high in such fiber-rich foods such as fruits, vegetables, beans, and whole grains.

Their experts also advise limiting red meat to 18 ounces (cooked weight) per week. That’s equivalent to 5 to 6 small portions of beef, lamb, or pork.

Also be aware that fiber comes in two varieties, as I reported recently. Insoluble fiber helps food move through the digestive system more quickly, helping cut risk for colon cancer. This type of fiber is found in whole wheat, bran, nuts, and many vegetables.

Soluble fiber, which helps reduce cholesterol and blood sugar, is found in such foods as oats, peas, apples, beans, citrus fruits, carrots, and psylium, according to the Mayo Clinic. It’s best to increase the amount of fiber in your diet gradually, to help your digestive system adjust to the change.

Source

Is honey better than sugar?

The Claim: Honey is a healthy alternative to sugar. It is packed with nutrients and better for diabetics.

Studies show a spoonful of honey eases coughs in kids over 1 year old. Photocuisine

The Verdict: Honey does have more nutrients—including antioxidants—than ordinary refined sugar, nutritionists say, but it isn't better for diabetics, as it still raises blood sugar. Health benefits of honey are mostly unproven, though some studies show taking a spoonful eases coughs in children over a year old and helps them sleep.

Honey contains 21 calories a teaspoon, compared with 16 calories for refined white sugar, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's nutrient database. It is slightly sweeter than sugar, meaning you can use a little less, nutritionists say. It contains small amounts of vitamins—including vitamin C and folate—and minerals such as magnesium, while white sugar is nearly devoid of nutrients, according to the database.

Replacing table sugar with honey may have "modest benefits" nutritionally, says Toby Smithson, a Vernon Hills, Ill., dietitian and a spokeswoman for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. But diabetics, who are advised to carefully limit carbohydrate intake, are better off using their carb budgets for fiber-rich foods, such as oatmeal, or fruits, such as apples, she adds.

Both table sugar and honey cause blood sugar to rise, which can be an issue for diabetics. Honey breaks down in the body "a little more slowly" than sugar, says Amanda Kirpitch, a nutritionist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston, but not enough to make a practical difference.

One benefit of honey is its antioxidants, nutrients that scientists believe may slow cellular damage caused by unstable molecules or atoms called free radicals. A 2009 study, published in the journal of the American Dietetic Association, found eight samples of supermarket honey had "intermediate" antioxidant activity. Specifically, honey had more antioxidant activity than refined white sugar, which had nearly zero, but less activity than dark and blackstrap molasses, which had the most of all the sweeteners tested.

Study author Katherine M. Phillips, senior research scientist at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University's Food Analysis Laboratory Control Center in Blacksburg, Va., says honey still has far fewer antioxidants per serving than antioxidant-rich foods such as red wine, blueberries or walnuts.

It isn't known how honey helps coughs and sore throats, says Pennsylvania State University pediatrics professor Ian M. Paul. Dr. Paul was the author of a 2007 study of 105 children that found honey was effective at calming coughs. It's possible the antioxidants in honey boost the immune system, or it could be simply that it coats the back of the throat, which becomes irritated during the common cold, he says. Dr. Paul's study, published in 2007 in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, was sponsored by the National Honey Board, an industry-funded group that operates under the USDA's oversight.

In a study of 300 children published last year in the journal Pediatrics, Israeli researchers found a spoonful of honey a half-hour before bedtime was more effective at reducing coughs and improving sleep than a placebo syrup. The American Academy of Pediatrics doesn't recommend giving honey to children under a year old because it can contain bacteria that causes infant botulism.

Source

Food pairings for better nutritional gains

Batman and Robin, Thelma and Louise: Some foods are like these storied duos—great individually, but a powerhouse as a team. "When we eat certain foods together, their nutrients combine to produce a performance or health benefit that outweighs what you'd get if you ate them on their own," says Marni Sumbal, M.S., R.D., owner of Trimarni Coaching and Nutrition in Jacksonville, Florida. Tap into the powers of food synergy all day long with these six good-chemistry combinations that may improve your runs and set the stage for better recovery.

Breakfast Combo: Green Tea + Toast = Less OvereatingStarchy breakfast favorites like toast, pancakes, and cereal are a great way for runners to load up on carbohydrates. But when eaten alone they may produce a blood-sugar spike and crash that can lead to postworkout or midmorning cravings for sweet or fatty foods. Green tea may blunt the spike, easing the urge to overeat. A 2012 Pennsylvania State University study found that starch combined with an antioxidant in green tea, called EGCG, lowers blood-sugar rise by up to 50 percent. The dose of EGCG in the study was the equivalent of that found in 12 ounces of green tea. That same 12-ounce cup also provides about 45 milligrams of caffeine to jumpstart your morning.
Bonus: Add a squirt of lemon to your cup of green tea. A study in Molecular Nutrition & Food Research found that adding citrus juice to green tea increases the body's ability to absorb the tea's antioxidants.

Lunch Combo: Lentils + Red Bell Pepper = More EnergyLentils are rich in iron—which helps transport oxygen to working muscles—making the legume an ideal lunch option for runners. But because iron in plant-based foods is "non-heme" (i.e., not from hemoglobin), the body doesn't absorb it as easily as it does heme iron found in animal products, says Ilana Katz, M.S., R.D., a sports nutritionist in Atlanta. Enter vitamin C—rich red bell peppers. "Vitamin C is a powerful enhancer of non-heme iron absorption by making it more soluble in the intestines," says Katz. Dark leafy greens also have significant doses of iron, while tomatoes and broccoli provide vitamin C to boost iron absorption.
Bonus: Higher vitamin C intake can help marathoners slash their risk of catching a cold by up to 50 percent.

Prerun Combo: Oatmeal + Strawberries = Stronger RunsThe carbs in a bowl of oatmeal and berries provide a quick and convenient snack before lacing up your shoes—and the tag team of antioxidants (oats) and vitamin C (berries) may do your heart some good. Researchers at Tufts University found that vitamin C interacts with oat antioxidants to possibly improve how well antioxidants disrupt the oxidation of LDL cholesterol (oxidation makes this so-called "bad" cholesterol even worse).
Bonus: Splurge on organic strawberries. The Environmental Working Group found conventionally grown berries can contain high amounts of pesticide residue.

Postrun Combo: Cereal + Milk = Quicker Recovery More proof that cereal and milk are made for each other. Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin found that subjects who ate whole-grain cereal with fat-free milk after exercising at a moderate pace for two hours experienced noticeable increases in muscle glycogen repletion and protein synthesis, two markers for exercise recovery. "The natural sugars, protein, amino acids, and electrolytes in milk team up with carbs in cereal to provide muscles what they need after a workout," says Sumbal. The quicker you recover, the faster you can put in hard miles again.
Bonus: A British Journal of Nutrition study found that milk protein improves fluid retention postexercise, allowing for better rehydration and recovery.

Dinner Combo: Salad + Olive Oil = Lower Disease RiskA salad of brightly colored vegetables such as carrots, spinach, and tomatoes is packed with disease-fighting antioxidants, including beta-carotene and lycopene. But skip the fat-free dressing: These antioxidants require dietary fat for absorption. A 2012 Purdue University study found that the monounsaturated fat in canola oil (also think olive oil, almonds, and avocado) was best at bolstering antioxidant uptake, while saturated fat (think bacon crumbles and creamy dressings) was the least effective. Using just three grams (a little less than a teaspoon) of a monounsaturated fat-rich dressing is all that is needed to get the full benefit.
Bonus: "Monounsaturated fats are important for heart health," Sumbal says. "They lower LDL cholesterol, thereby reducing the risk for heart disease."

Before Bed Combo: Greek Yogurt + Hemp Seeds = MuscleShuttering the kitchen after dinner is common diet advice, but if you want to build muscle, consider a high-protein bedtime snack. Findings published inMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise in 2012 suggest that eating up to 40 grams of milk protein a half hour before bed promotes new muscle growth if exercise occurred earlier that evening. "More lean body mass can improve aerobic capacity increase muscle efficiency during runs, and reduce injury risk," says Katz. Greek yogurt has about double the protein of traditional versions, while nutty-tasting hemp seeds contain more protein (10 grams in three tablespoons) than other seeds, making this a power couple.
Bonus: Greek yogurt packs probiotics, which may reduce stomach issues like cramps and nausea in athletes.

Source

Debunking popular nutrition myths

Wouldn't it be nice if it were illegal for anyone to knowingly convey false or misleading information about nutrition in print or on TV? Alas, it may seem dishonest, but because of one main driver—profit—the misinformation continues.

But as an informed, not-easily-persuaded runner, you might be wondering, "why don't more people buy into the 'if it seems too good to be true, it probably is' line of thought?" Well, there are actually quite a few reasons. First of all, we all want quick and easy solutions to life events that confound us. Things we absolutely can't control, like aging or incurable diseases, and the things we can control with a lot of work, like managing the amount of stress in our lives, addressing our fluctuating weight, and more. Fad diets and fad products also sell because we tend to believe what we want to hear, we tend to believe what we see in print, and many ads sound quite scientific and true. So it makes sense that we dive in with both feet and believe nutrition news that's current and hot off the press.

This week in Fuel School, we're going to explore a few popular and cyclical nutrition myths and debunk them.

Myth #1: Natural is better. We've all heard this one, and my answer to this slogan is, "Arsenic is technically natural." There's no set definition for "natural" on a food label, and if you ask the FDA what they consider to be natural, here's what you'll find out: From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product as "natural" because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth. However, the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.

Many manufacturers who produce "natural" products to improve your health aren't always qualified to do so, and if you're opting for a natural remedy for whatever ails you, you might want to think twice. Keep in mind that some "natural" dietary supplements are not benign and can actually interact with other meds you might be taking or might even derail your running performance due to possible side effects. At the end of the day, more research is needed, and funding is not available to analyze every "natural" product. Remember: Just because that supplement or snack food claims to be natural doesn't mean it's going to boost your health and performance!

Myth #2: Coffee is evil and will dehydrate you!Thank goodness this one isn't true. While in large doses, caffeine can have a diuretic effect, a 2002 study by the researcher Armstrong (and colleagues) showed that despite its mild diuretic effect, caffeine does not dehydrate. In fact, many of us actually rely on caffeine-containing drinks (coffee, tea, soda, etc.) to hydrate us. If you're a habitual user, it's likely that any effect on urine losses is minor. Added bonus of caffeine? Just a moderate amount can actually improve your performance. The researcher Ganio and colleagues suggest that caffeine ingestion can be an effective ergogenic aid for endurance athletes when taken before and/or during exercise in moderate quantities (3-6 mg.kg body mass). They also add that abstaining from caffeine at least 7 days before an event will give the greatest chance of optimizing the ergogenic effect. Remember, a little bit of caffeine can go a long way and taking more won't make you faster; there is no evidence of a dose-response relationship to caffeine, and too much can make you feel jittery or worse. One word of caution—there are some runners who are sensitive to caffeine, and if you're one of them, I'd recommend leaving the coffee and caffeine-enhanced gels at home.

Myth #3: Breakfast isn't all that important. The other day I was in a coffee shop, and based on my attire, the cashier realized I was a runner. As we got to chatting, I let slip that I was a sports RD. Her eyes lit up, and she said she had something she'd been dying to know. Her question? "Exactly how important is breakfast, and will any food jump-start metabolism?"

It's probably not a coincidence that the frequency of eating breakfast has declined over the past decade while the incidence of obesity has skyrocketed. Time and time again, research has found links between eating breakfast and weighing less, and eating breakfast and having an overall healthier diet. Research suggests that by eating regular meals throughout the day, the risk for obesity and chronic diseases can be reduced, thanks to mechanisms involved in energy balance and metabolism. Breakfast actually is very improtant because when you skip breakfast, it may lead to an up-regulation of appetite (i.e. you feel hungrier) and this may lead to weight gain over time. Folks who skip breakfast tend to have a poorer quality of diet mainly because breakfast-eaters have higher fiber and nutrient intakes for fewer calories than those who skip breakfast, are starving by 10 a.m., and then dive into the box of donuts at the office.

But to answer the cashier's question, "What should I be eating?" luckily you've got some options. If it's a choice between skipping your meal altogether and chowing on double-deep fried donuts, I'd have to lean toward abstaining until something healthier is available. The best breakfasts include complex carbohydrates (e.g. whole grains), as research has found that whole grains and plant foods can help you feel satisfied for longer. Along with whole grains, breakfast is a great place to add in your first serving of fruit (and we're all looking to up our fruit and veggie intake, right?). For staying power, try adding in a source of lean protein, like skim milk mixed into your oatmeal or Greek yogurt with your granola.

Not a Myth!: Eating late in the evening makes you gain weightSurprise—this one isn't actually a myth and is backed by scientific evidence. Researchers have found that the time of day in which food is consumed may influence appetite and overall energy intake. Just as eating breakfast has been found to decrease overall food intake throughout the day, eating more later in the day has shown a positive correlation with overall food intake throughout the day. For more information about the benefits of shutting down the kitchen after dinner, turn to our class session on "Stop eating after dinner to lose weight."

Source

Five nutrients you can overdo

We’ve all been schooled about the unhealthy things we should limit, like sugar and sodium. But there are also some healthy things that, in excess, can do more harm than good. In other words, even when a nutrient is vital, more isn’t necessarily better.

Here are the risks associated with going overboard on five key nutrients–some of them may take you by surprise.

Omega-3 Fatty Acids
These healthy fats help fight inflammation, a known trigger of aging and disease, and they’ve been tied to a host of health benefits, from reducing the risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and depression, to maintaining healthy skin and supporting brain function. But new research has found that too much omega-3 may alter immune function, and disrupt the body’s ability to fend off viral or bacterial infections. Scientists are particularly concerned about a “layering” effect that occurs when people eat seafood, take fish oil supplements, and also consume foods fortified with omega-3s, like eggs, orange juice, and cereal. To avoid overload, talk to your physician and/or personal dietitian about your diet, so he or she can determine if you need to supplement or fortify your intake at all, and if so, exactly how much you should aim for.


Vitamin C
In addition to supporting immunity, vitamin C is needed to heal wounds, maintain healthy bones, teeth, blood vessels, and skin. It also acts as a major antioxidant, to stave off aging and chronic diseases, including heart disease, cancer, and arthritis. For adults, the upper limit, or maximum advised intake, from both food and supplements combined, is 2,000 mg a day. While some people may be fine taking in this amount or more, megadoses of vitamin C supplements have been shown to trigger bloating and digestive upset, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, heartburn, headaches, insomnia, and kidney stones. To keep your intake in check, aim to get your fill from naturally vitamin C rich foods, which include red and green bell peppers, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, citrus fruits, kiwi, papaya, strawberries, and pineapple.


Zinc
Zinc is found in every cell in your body. This important mineral supports immune function, as well as healthy vision, smell, taste, blood sugar regulation, metabolism, healing, and proper thyroid function. The upper limit, or daily maximum for zinc is 40 mg per day. Research has shown that less than this amount is safe to consume daily over time, but if too much zinc is taken long-term, side effects may include digestive upset, a metallic taste in the mouth, dizziness, headaches, fatigue, increased sweating, loss of muscle coordination, alcohol intolerance, and hallucinations. In addition, very high doses of zinc may actually weaken immune function, lower “good” heart-protective HDL cholesterol, and raise “bad” LDL cholesterol, the type tied to an increased risk of heart disease. Like omega-3s, the chances of getting too much increase if several sources are consumed, like zinc-rich foods (red meat, shellfish), on top of a supplement, and products fortified with zinc, such as nasal sprays or throat lozenges. If you think you may be exceeding your needs, talk to your doc or dietitian. Sometimes when I ask my clients about their supplement regime, they have absolutely no idea how much they’re taking.


Iron
Much of the iron in your body is found in your red blood cells, where it helps to carry oxygen to every cell. This key mineral is also is involved in producing energy for cells, and is an integral part of many proteins and enzymes needed for optimal health. Premenopausal women lose iron from monthly blood loss, but men and postmenopausal women need to be more mindful of their iron intakes, because once iron is absorbed, very little is excreted. That means excess iron can build up in tissues and organs, including the liver and heart. A genetic disorder called hemochromatosis, which affects 1 in 250 people of northern European descent, ups the risk of iron overload, because it causes iron to be easily absorbed. The daily maximum for iron is set at 45 mg for adults, but most premenopausal non-pregnant adult women generally need no more than 18 mg daily. The needs for men and women over 50 are less than half that amount, at 8 mg per day. To put that level in perspective, a 3-ounce serving of beef or a half cup of lentils each provide about 3 mg, but only about 3% to 35% of the iron from food is absorbed, depending on the type, as well as factors that either interfere with absorption (like tea) or enhance it (like vitamin C). If you’re taking supplements and you’re not sure if they contain iron, or if so, how much, be sure to check. Manufacturers don’t have to set doses below the advised daily caps.


Calcium
When you think of calcium, bones probably come to mind, and that’s where about 99% of the calcium in your body is found. But this mineral is also needed for proper heart, nerve, and muscle function, and it helps maintain your body’s acid/base balance. Women tend to be highly aware of calcium, due to campaigns about “boning up” to fight osteoporosis, so I sometimes worry about my clients getting too much. I’ve seen women who load up on dairy, in addition to popping calcium chews, taking a supplement, and choosing calcium-fortified foods, from OJ to energy bars. The upper limit (again from both food and supplements combined) for adult non-pregnant women and men is 2,500 mg before age 50 and 2,000 from 51 on. Exceeding that amount may lead to high blood calcium, which can trigger kidney problems, kidney stones, and calcium deposits in soft tissues. High calcium intakes can also lead to constipation, and interfere with the absorption of iron and zinc. Getting too much calcium from food alone is rare, but if you think you may be racking up an excess amount from other sources, talk to your health care providers about the best ways to strike an ideal balance.

Source

What the trans fat ban means for food

Yesterday the FDA announced plans to take trans fats off its list of GRAS, or generally recognized as safe, foods. To some, like the New York Post with its “FAT-WAH” cover headline, this is a vicious new outcropping of nanny state-ism and an intrusive, sudden national ban that will sweep dozens of treasured foods off supermarket shelves. To the people who have been following this for the years it's been in the making, like Marion Nestle, it's closing an important loophole: that manufacturers could put "zero trans fat" on the label of a food that contained less than 0.5 grams of trans fats per serving. Taking trans fats off the GRAS list won't remove them from the food supply. Manufacturers can still petition the FDA for exceptions. But it goes a long way toward getting them out.Companies seldom change unless they have to, which they say means unless consumers ask them to.

It's an occasion for high-fiving, and there's plenty of that. "The FDA is back," Nestle told the Timesreporter—and the agency has indeed been AWOL when it comes to matters it should be regulating faster and more forcefully, some of them, like food safety inspections, excusable because of constantly shrinking budgets, and others, like the national menu calorie labeling that should have been in force a year ago, are explicable only by political caution that with time looks like cowardice. Center for Science in the Public Interest, which first petitioned the FDA to require putting trans fats on food labels in 1994, has been getting and deserves a good deal of credit for its persistent campaign.

But what the announcement really shows is how public health works: slowly, based on mounting scientific evidence, against constant and mounting headwinds of public ridicule and, much more important, industry lobbying and advertising.

Companies seldom change unless they have to, which they say means unless consumers ask them to. If you don’t want trans fats or gluten or genetically modified organisms, fine with us! Just tell us with your food dollars! This is of course a way of saying that they don’t want government telling them what to do, and gives them a chance to shape the public opinion they say they simply obey, with millions of dollars in ad campaigns and lobbying.

Just the most recent example is Tuesday’s defeat of Washington state’s Ballot Initiative 522, the latest of several statewide initiatives to require GMO labeling to fail. Here the overwhelming imbalance in campaign spending got spelled out, as Helena Bottemiller Evich at Politico and others reported, when the Grocery Manufacturers Association was forced to name the companies that had helped contributed $22 million to fight it, as opposed to the $8.4 million raised by Whole Foods, the Center for Food Safety [editor's note: an earlier version incorrectly listed CSPI as a donor], and Dr. Bronner’s, among others. The main soda makers were among the larggest donors to the anti-labeling campaign. (Even Bloomberg View is telling GMO-labeling advocates to give up and move their energies elsewhere.)

Though in my reporting I in fact frequently encounter companies that take it upon themselves to make helpful changes, for example related to environmentally and socially responsible practices, you don’t get companies to re-make their core products from scratch, risking disastrous consumer desertion sales drop-offs, unless their hands are forced. Today Olga Khazan charmingly illustrates a history of just how popular trans fats were with both manufacturers and consumers from their invention, in the early 1900s—and how they were advertised as health-promoting.

The lesson, though, is not that the public shouldn't trust science, because one year’s saturated-fats-are-evil message will eventually become next year’s hey-butter-is-great-when-you-look-at-Crisco. The road to strong public recommendations isn't clear, as scientific research is slow and zigzags. Both food makers and scientists can be guilty of jumping the gun, depending on what they think they can sell or who they can get to fund big studies and endowed chairs.

In the case of trans fats, scientific consensus about the damage they caused steadily mounted starting in the 1970s. As I wrote in an article in this magazine tracing the progress of trans fats bans, a 2002 consensus report from the National Academies of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine called the relationship between trans-fat consumption and coronary heart disease “linear,” and stated that the only acceptable level of trans fats in the diet was zero; in 2003, the Food and Drug Administration required food processors to list trans-fat levels on nutrition labels along with saturated fat. In 2006, Walter Willett, Meir Stampfer, and colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health published aNew England Journal of Medicine review article saying that trans fats caused anywhere from 72,000 to 228,000 heart-disease events a year.The advocates against trans fats who seemed so crazy even six years ago are seeming a lot less crazy today.

That December, the New York City board of health, led by Michael Bloomberg and the city health commissioner, Thomas Frieden, now head of the Centers for Disease Control, voted to ban trans fats from restaurants, school cafeterias, pushcarts, and every other establishment it regulated. When I visited Frieden at his New York office, he laid out the larger goal. “We don’t want to exhort people to look at labels for trans fat,” he told me. “We want people to walk into a restaurant and not worry there’s an artificial chemical in their food” that is killing them.

The path he saw was that one city’s regulation would force the hand of McDonald’s and every other large food maker: once they reformulated for one important market, the way would be clear to reformulate for the rest of the country. By that time McDonald’s had solved the problem, but Dunkin' Donuts hadn’t, and was resisting the removal of trans fats, which gave doughnuts the consistency consumers wanted. It turned out, though, that consumers didn’t mind retooled fats. Dunkin' solved the problem once it had to. So did the other companies that saw no reason to invest huge sums in risking markets.

The analogy I'm building toward is, of course, sugar-sweetened drinks. Scientific consensus has built to practically the bursting point that sodas make kids fat. Soda makers deride the officials who try to do something about it, and work as hard as they can to cast doubt on science. Mayor Bloomberg, though fairly trim, was their fattest target, in the Mrs. Doubtfire costume they dressed him up in when he tried to impost a portion limit on sodas in restaurants and movie theaters. Now that he’s leaving, they’ll find another target.

But opinion will change, national bodies start to fall into line as they did on trans fats and are doing with sugary drinks. The most outspoken enemies of sugar, like Robert Lustig, are trying to take it off the GRAS list--something that CSPI petitioned the FDA to do last February, asking it to study and determine safe levels of high-fructose corn syrup. The chance of an FDA announcement of that in six years seems pretty unlikely now. But soda makers already have more than dozens of low-sugar and sugar-free drinks: they have scores and scores of them. They’ve quietly been working to solve the problem, while spending (often literally) untold sums not to risk their core products. The advocates against trans fats who seemed so crazy even six years ago, when the New York trans fat ban went into effect, are seeming a lot less crazy today.

Source

10 surprising dangers of vitamins and supplements

More than half of American adults take vitamins, minerals, herbs, or other nutritional supplements. Some of those products aren’t especially helpful, readers told us in a recent survey, but that aside, don’t assume they’re safe because they’re “all natural.” They may be neither. Here are 10 hazards that we’ve distilled from interviews with experts, published research, and our own analysis of reports of serious adverse events submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, which we obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. Read and be warned.

1. Supplements are not risk-free
More than 6,300 reports of serious adverse events associated with dietary supplements, including vitamins and herbs, streamed into the FDA from supplement companies, consumers, health-care providers, and others between 2007 and mid-April of 2012. The reports by themselves don’t prove the supplements caused the problems, but the raw numbers are cause for some concern. Symptoms included signs of heart, kidney, or liver problems, aches, allergic reactions, fatigue, nausea, pains, and vomiting.

The reports described more than 10,300 serious outcomes (some included more than one), including 115 deaths and more than 2,100 hospitalizations, 1,000 serious injuries or illnesses, 900 emergency-room visits, and some 4,000 other important medical events.

The FDA gets far more reports about serious problems with prescription medication than about supplements. But there’s a big difference between the two, notes Pieter Cohen, M.D., an internist at Cambridge Health Alliance in Massachusetts with a special interest in supplements. “These powerful medications with powerful side effects are actually saving lives when used appropriately,” he says of prescription drugs. “But when healthy consumers use supplements, there’s rarely, if ever, a powerful lifesaving effect.”

The FDA suspects most supplement problems never come to its attention, says Daniel Fabricant, Ph.D., director of the agency’s Division of Dietary Supplement Programs. But those that do are still useful because they can raise red flags about a developing problem. For instance, last year the agency noted seven reports of serious health problems regarding consumers who took Soladek vitamin solution, marketed by Indo Pharma of the Dominican Republic. When the FDA learned that tested samples contained vitamins A and D at concentrations many times the recommended daily allowances, it issued a consumer warning.

Why not simply order a problem product off the market? Current laws make that so difficult for the FDA that to date it has banned only one ingredient, ephedrine alkaloids. That effort dragged on for a decade, during which ephedra weight-loss products were implicated in thousands of adverse events, including deaths.

Type the name of the supplement you’re interested in into the search box at www.fda.gov to see whether it has been subject to warnings, alerts, or voluntary recalls. If you suspect you’re having a bad reaction to a supplement, tell your doctor. You can also report your problem to the FDA at 800-332-1088 or www.fda.gov/medwatch.

2. Some supplements are really prescription drugs
Fabricant has said that dietary supplements spiked with prescription drugs are “the largest threat” to consumer safety. Since 2008 there have been recalls of more than 400 such products, mostly those marketed for bodybuilding, sexual enhancement, and weight loss, according to the FDA.

We’ve seen many recalled products that have contained the same or similar active ingredients as prescription drugs, such as sildenafil (Viagra), tadalafil (Cialis), and sibutramine (Meridia, a weight-loss drug that was withdrawn from the market in 2010 because of evidence that it increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes). Others contained synthetic steroids.

Those adulterated products can cause some of the same side effects and interactions that consumers may have been trying to avoid by choosing supplements over drugs. The FDA has received reports of strokes, acute liver injury, kidney failure, pulmonary embolism (blood clots in the lung), and death associated with drug-tainted supplements.

“A number of the spiked sexual enhancement products claim to work within 20 to 45 minutes,” Fabricant said on the FDA’s website. “When we see a product that makes claims above and beyond what a dietary supplement might do—above supporting health—and within a time frame of a few minutes, it tips us off that we might have a spiked product.”

Slim down with diet and exercise. Build muscles by weight training. And consult a doctor if you need help in the bedroom, since it could indicate an underlying health problem. If you suspect you’ve purchased a product that is tainted with undeclared prescription drugs or steroids, send an e-mail about it to the FDA, at taintedproducts@fda.hhs.gov.

3. You can overdose on vitamins and minerals
Unless your health-care provider tells you that you need more than 100 percent of the recommended daily intake of a particular nutrient, you probably don’t.

“It doesn’t make sense to me to take huge doses of vitamins and minerals unless there’s a diagnosed problem, because there is so little evidence that they do good and sometimes a possibility that they might do harm,” says Marion Nestle, M.P.H., Ph.D., a professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University.

Megadoses of the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K can cause problems, and even some standard doses may interfere with certain prescription medicine. Some people may experience adverse effects from too much calcium or iron.

The table below shows the maximum daily intake of key nutrients that the Institute of Medicine has determined is unlikely to pose a risk of adverse health effects. (The numbers apply to the general population, not to those who may need supplementation because of a medical condition.)

It’s surprisingly easy to overdo it. For instance, a 50-something woman who’s worried about her bones might eat a breakfast of Whole Grain Total cereal, which contains around 1,000 milligrams of calcium per serving, with a half-cup of skim milk (150 milligrams of calcium), and take a calcium supplement (500 milligrams) on top of her One-A-Day Menopause Formula multivitamin, which includes 300 milligrams of calcium. She’d already be coming close to the upper tolerable daily calcium limit of 2,000 milligrams.

Using information from the labels on the supplements and food you routinely consume, add up your total daily exposure to everything, and then check the related table to see whether you’re overdoing it. If your doctor says you need more of a specific nutrient than you can get from food (or sun exposure, in the case of vitamin D), a single-ingredient pill may be sufficient.

Best and worst foods to eat before bed

Ah, sleep. It's something we relentlessly crave, but we never seem to get enough of it. Aside from the daily stressors in life, there's one big thing that can keep you from snoozing -- your diet. Here, the best and worst foods to eat for sleep.

Best: Cereal and Milk
Your go-to breakfast staple can also moonlight as the perfect pre-bedtime snack. Eating a combination of carbohydrates and protein enables our bodies to produce the "happy hormone" serotonin, which in turn produces melatonin, a neurotransmitter that has a calming effect, explains Danielle Omar, a DC-based registered dietitian. Just stay away from sugary cereals to avoid getting a sugar high right before bed. Other safe nighttime snack bets include cheese and crackers, cottage cheese and fruit, or oatmeal with milk for a similar soothing effect.

Worst: Protein
While protein is a vital part of our daily diets, too much of it means less sleep at the end of the day. "High-protein diets have a tendency to give you more energy and not calm you down," says Dr.Michael J. Breus, author of The Sleep Doctor's Diet Plan. Instead, remember to munch on a high-carb, low-protein snack that's no more than 200 calories before bed.

Best: Passionfruit
Though not always available in the nearest supermarket, it's worth finding if you're in need of some serious shuteye. Passionfruit contains somniferum, which has sleep-inducing properties. Omar recommends eating the fruit as is, or try it as a juice or tea.

Worst: Alcohol
Sure, your eyelids may start drooping after that second glass of wine, but chances are you'll have a restless night of sleep once you turn in. "After drinking alcohol, usually you get drowsy and fall asleep," says Omar. "But you don't get into the REM stage of sleep." When that happens, you're kept from achieving a deep, uninterrupted sleep -- as the bags under your eyes will tell you the next day.

Best: Bananas
Often called "a pill in a peel" by experts, bananas contain high levels of magnesium, a mineral that acts as a muscle relaxant, which can help us start snoozing faster. Also extremely helpful is the whopping 422 milligrams of potassium one banana contains, since studies have shown potassium can help regulate sleep patterns and nerves.

Worst: Fatty Foods
The fattier your dinner is, the less sleep you'll get, warns Dr. Breus. Eating foods high in fat (especially ones that are greasy or fried) will likely cause uncomfortable heartburn or stomach issues when you lie down. Stick to low-fat snacks and make sure to eat at least two hours before hitting the hay.

Best: Cherry Juice
A 2011 study published in the European Journal of Nutrition found that tart cherry juice is a great sleep aid. Adults who drank two glasses of cherry juice daily slept an average of 39 minutes longer than usual. Turns out cherries boast some of the highest levels of melatonin among natural foods, explains Dr. Breus. Try a small nighttime smoothie to start dreaming with 1 cup concentrated tart cherry juice, half a banana, 1/2 cup soymilk, and 5 crushed ice cubes.

Worst: Spicy Food
Not only will that Thai takeout leave your mouth on fire, it may cause nightmares, says Dr. Breus. "I've had patients who've said when they eat a spicy meal it affects their dreams at night." Backing up these claims is a study published in the International Journal of Psychophysiology, which found that subjects who ingested Tabasco sauce and mustard with their dinner had elevated body temperatures during their first sleep cycle, causing sleep disruption and more awake time at night.

Best: Warm Milk
Most of us were fed warm milk as babies and toddlers to help us fall asleep, but the science behind why the drink makes us sleepy is lacking, says Dr. Breus. "There's not enough tryptophan in a glass of warm milk -- you'd have to drink a gallon and a half of it to feel any effect." It's likely that warm milk works as a placebo for inducing sleep because it's comforting. Hey, whatever works, right?

Worst: Caffeine
The effects of caffeine may be obvious, but what's not so obvious is that the stimulant stays active in our bodies for eight to ten hours. "The effects vary from person to person, but by the afternoon you should cut off the caffeine," says Omar. And that doesn't just mean that third cup of coffee after lunch. "That means chocolate too!" she says.

Source

A breakdown of the different sweeteners on the market

Despite its association with all things chaste, white hardly reveals innocence with sugar. Those seemingly pure-as-the-driven-snow granules are in fact typically refined at least six times, which means that any ensuing nutritive value is nil. But our collective sweet tooth has only been growing -- and the health risks, increasing.

Americans currently consume an average of 60 pounds of sugar a year. "That's about 20 teaspoons a day in added sweeteners -- more than twice the amount recommended by the USDA for the average American, explains naturopathic doctor Cathy Wong, author of The Inside-Out Diet. (When you add other sweeteners, like corn syrup, those numbers jump to about 140 pounds a year, and 44 teaspoons a day.) All the extra calories, along with the boomerang effect sugar has on blood sugar levels, contribute to our obesity and diabetes epidemics -- and conditions like Crohn's disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and elevated triglyceride levels (a risk factor for stroke and heart disease).

By no means do natural sweeteners give us license to spoil a sweet tooth rotten, but they're an improvement over sugar. Some provide trace minerals and other nutrients, and they send your blood sugar on a slower, steadier journey -- which benefits both your in-the-moment energy level and your long-term health. "It's about upgrading your sweets, health-wise," says Beth Reardon, R.D., an integrative nutritionist for Duke Integrative Medicine in Durham, North Carolina.

But don't assume every natural sweetener is healthier across the board. Fructose, for instance, a fruit-derived sugar, converts to triglycerides more easily than table sugar does. Others are high in calories. "And in terms of their impact on your blood sugar, a lot of the natural alternatives -- honey and maple syrup, for instance -- aren't that different from table sugar," says Wong. The bottom line: Every sweetener has pros and cons, the most notable of which we've culled here. If you're diabetic or have health issues related to your diet, consult with your doctor to find the best option.

Agave Nectar
Derived from a spiky, desert-dwelling succulent plant, agave nectar (also known as agave syrup) has the same botanical parentage as tequila. Of the two, the sweetener will get you into far less trouble. With 60 calories per tablespoon, it's not low-calorie, but it's about 33 percent sweeter than sugar -- so you can use less.

Pros
Particularly easy to find in supermarkets (look in the health-food section), agave nectar has a light, slightly fruity taste. Though research is still scant, agave appears to have a minimal effect on blood sugar and insulin levels, according to Wong.

Cons
Agave syrup is high in fructose; besides the triglycerides issue, some research suggests that fructose doesn't shut off appetite hormones, so you may end up overeating.

Use
Try agave nectar in coffee, tea, and baked goods. But in the last case, expect some trial and error: "When you use liquid sweeteners in baking, you need to reduce the liquid content in the recipe," says Reardon. Unfortunately, there's no foolproof equation, but experiment with a 1/4 cup reduction for every cup of liquid sweetener. You may also want to subtract 25 degrees from the recipe's suggested baking temperature to compensate for the added liquid content.

Brown Rice Syrup
When combined with sprouted rice or barley, cooked brown rice yields this sweet liquid that tastes vaguely of butterscotch or caramel. Brown rice syrup contains about 13 calories per teaspoon and is less sweet than sugar.

Pros
The syrup breaks down relatively slowly, providing more of a time-release energy flow than sugar does. Unlike sugar, this rice derivative contains magnesium, manganese, and zinc.

Cons
There is still glucose in there, says Wong, so diabetics should avoid using this sweetener.

Use
With its distinct flavor, brown rice syrup works better in baked goods than in coffee and tea. When baking with it, replace each cup of white sugar with 1 1/4 cup of brown rice syrup. As with agave nectar, slightly reduce other liquids in the recipe to accommodate for this liquid sweetener.

Erythritol
Once solely an ingredient in packaged foods, this sugar alcohol is now available in a powdered form. With a clean, cool taste and nearly no calories, erythritol is most commonly the result of breaking down, fermenting, and filtering sugar cane or corn starch. "After heating the resulting liquid until the water evaporates, you are left with whitish crystals," explains Wong.

Pros
Since it is low in calories, erythritol is good for people with weight concerns. "It is promising for diabetics, too, as it doesn't affect blood sugar or insulin levels," says Wong. Bonus pros: Erythritol won't decay your teeth (the offending bacteria don't metabolize it), and, in moderate quantities, it doesn't cause the stomach upset that other sugar alcohols do.

Cons
Excessive consumption (over 20 teaspoons a day) can cause problems like gas, bloating, and diarrhea.

Use
Because it's clean tasting, erythritol works well in coffees and teas. But you can also bake with this heat-stable powder. Know that it's only about 70 percent as sweet as table sugar, though, so you'll need to account for that difference.

Maple Syrup
Though typically limited to the role of pancake and waffle adjunct, this boiled down maple tree sap has a lot more to offer -- particularly USDA Grade B syrup. "Usually made toward the end of the season, it has a stronger flavor than Grade A and is thought to contain more minerals," says Wong. Either way, you're looking at about 17 calories per teaspoon.

Pros
Low-tech and barely processed, pure maple syrup is a good source of minerals like manganese and zinc.

Cons
A diabetic no-no, maple syrup can boost blood sugar levels. Then there is the distinctive flavor, which limits the sweetener's application.

Use
Though you probably don't want to start squirting syrup into hot drinks, it enhances baked desserts. Try substituting U cup for 1 cup of sugar, and reduce the recipe's liquid content.

Stevia
A case study in semantics, this native South American plant is technically a supplement, not a sweetener, according to the FDA. Citing "lack of safety evidence," they've yet to approve it for use as a food. However, many experts, including Reardon, don't place much stock in the FDA's position. Stevia is available in liquid and powdered form in the vitamin aisle. You can also grow your own plant, or buy the dried herb from sources like mountainroseherbs.com.

Pros
Because it's about 300 times sweeter than sugar, stevia is potent in minute quantities, and it contributes zero calories. In addition, says Wong, some evidence shows that stevia may help lower blood sugar levels.

Cons
Some people find that stevia has a bitter aftertaste.

Use
If you're interested in baking with stevia, look to specialty books or Web sites; since the herb's sweetness and volume are drastically different from that of sugar, there's no easy substitution formula. Stevia works well in hot beverages like coffee or tea, however. (The liquid and powder forms will dissolve; if you're using the fresh or dried leaf, strain it out.) Also try it for sweetening cold foods, such as plain yogurt, salad dressing, or grapefruit. But keep the extreme sweetness in mind; start small and add gradually.

The Latest on Aspartame
Results of a 2005 European study showed an increased risk for lymphoma and leukemia in rats fed the artificial sweetener aspartame in doses proportional to what would be considered safe in people. Another, published in 2007, also found an increased risk of breast cancer. Citing studies that found no link between aspartame and cancer, the FDA maintains aspartame is safe. But plenty of experts disagree. "In my opinion, the results are concerning enough that people should avoid aspartame," says Cathy Wong, N.D. "If they do use it, they shouldn't use it as their sole sweetener."

Source