Friday, November 30, 2007

Junk-free foods trend


As consumers continue to want natural and environmentally-friendly products, according to Mintel's 2008 food trend predictions, manufacturers will put more information on their labels, such as where ingredients come from, how they are manufactured, and how they are packaged.
Mintel predicts that even more companies will take steps to remove artificial colors, preservatives flavors and "otherwise unknown ingredients" from their products next year, so as to make junk-free claims and have 'clean' labels.
It expects that ingredients lists "will read more like home recipes than chemists' shopping lists".
Let us hope that this trend, full-fledged in Europe, will reach our shores soon.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Health problems associated with obesity continue to grow


Health problems associated with obesity continue to grow, for instance, excess body fat is now being linked with poor bone health. The bones of people with high body fat were 8% to 9% weaker than those of normal body fat, according to a study in the November issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Girls on the Run - Lollipop Run

Girls on the Run of the Bay Area is a unique non-profit organization that aims to educate and build confidence in young girls through a non-competitive curriculum-based running program. Girls ages 8 to 13 sign up for a 10-week training program, where they are exposed to health education, life skills development, mentoring relationships, and physical training. The program culminates with a 5K or 1-mile run called the Lollipop Run. It will be hosted at Crissy Fields in San Francisco on Dec. 8, 2007 at 10:00am. ALL ARE WELCOME TO PARTICIPATE!

I signed up to be a Running Buddy for this program and met with my girl today. On the day of the Lollipop Run, I will be running along her side to support and cheer her on. Today, we ran/walked/skipped/side stepped 1/4 of a mile together. She was very positive and excited about the program and mentioned that some of her best friends participate in Girls on the Run as well! After my time with her, I realized not only is this a program to get kids to be physically active, but that it is truly a safe environment for girls to learn life lessons and make friendships to last. Please support Girls on the Run by volunteering your time or donating to their programs.

States Slow to Ban Restaurant Trans Fats


Although 14 states have so far proposed a ban or restriction on trans fats in restaurants, not a single bill has been passed as the end of the year is nearing. This month, Ohio became the 15th state to make such a proposal, reported The Associated Press. The legislation has faced strong opposition from the National Restaurant Association and its state-level affiliates.

Overall Nutritional Quality Index: An alternative to FDA's Nutrition Facts?


Here is another interesting press release today:
Topco Associates LLC introduced the Overall Nutritional Quality Index, a food scoring system. The system allows for at-a-glance comparison of foods on the basis of overall nutritional quality. Topco Associates will join with Griffin Hospital in an effort to introduce the system to grocery stores nationwide by 2008.
OK, so we all know FDA's Nutrition Panels are confusing and incomplete, in part because they are the result of compromises with Big Food lobbies.
So who is behind this much publicized alternative? Here is Wikipedia's entry for Topco Associates LLC.. In brief, an entity owned by grocery stores. So for the moment, let us take the news with a grain of salt, and hope FDA will manage to revamp nutrition facts labels with public health in mind.

Two-thirds of States Get Poor Grades on School Food Report Card


Kentucky and Oregon top the nation in healthy school foods policies, but two-thirds of states have no or weak nutrition standards to limit junk-food and soda sales out of vending machines, school stores, and other venues outside of school meals, according to a school foods report card from the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

strong argument against the idea that saturated fat causes heart disease


Here is an extract of a groundbreaking entry found on Nina Planck's passionate, well-researched blog:

Uffe Ravnskov is a leader of a loose international network of doctors, scientists, and researchers known as The Cholesterol Skeptics. On November 25, Ravnskov, who is the the author of a terrific and admirably brief book called The Cholesterol Myths, wrote this note. (I put some words in bold.)

'An interesting discussion between Gary Taubes and Ronald Krauss aired on November 2 (Talk of the Nation). Krauss was previously head of the Nutrition Committee of the American Heart Association, the organisation that publishes the official US guidelines for prevention of heart disease. Krauss and his group were the first to show that a high level of small, dense LDL was a much stronger risk factor for coronary heart disease than LDL, and also that there is an inverse association between intake of saturated fat and small, dense LDL, thus a strong argument against the idea that saturated fat causes heart disease. Recently I asked Krauss why the AHA still warns against saturated fat. He answered that decisions for guidelines are made by voting and there is still a majority in favor of the traditional view.'

Science, as anyone who has read Thomas Kuhn, or who follows Bush administration policy on environmental and medical issues knows, can be political. And when medical and nutritional advice are decided democratically - that is, by voting - it takes time for the dominant consensus to gain critics and lose proponents. Many have observed that ideological renewal doesn't happen until some critical number of influential proponents die off - literally.

Let's hope they get the good news in time, and don't die of heart disease from eating too much powdered skim milk, spray-dried eggs, corn oil, and whatever new-fangled trans fat-free vegetable oil spread is being advertised on NPR this morning. I've seen one study (Nutrition and Metabolism, January 15, 2007) on the new fake vegetable oil spreads which are trans-free; they increased heart disease risk factors. K.C. Hayes found that these interestified fats reduce HDL and raise blood sugar. The control group ate regular palm oil, a traditional saturated vegetable fat.

Remember the general rule: If your great-grandmother ate it, it's probably okay. Here's my three-point plan: One, eat diverse traditional foods, no matter what your tradition is, Irish, Swedish, Jamaican, or Malaysian. Two, avoid industrial foods, especially corn oil and sugars of all kinds. Three, eat the traditional foods you happen to prefer. Now stop worrying about your diet.

Meanwhile, here are two brief juicy videos explaining what's wrong with the so-called lipid hypothesis. They make a good introduction for friends, family, and doctors you might want to talk to about butter and health.

Big Fat Lies
The McGovern Report

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Omega-3 fatty acids claims reviewed by FDA


FDA found that certain nutrient content claims for foods, including conventional foods and dietary supplements, that contain omega-3 fatty acids, do not meet the requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. FDA is proposing to change food labeling in response.
Let us check those food labels closely again.

Starchy foods such as white rice and bread raise the likelihood of diabetes


Starchy foods such as white rice and bread raise the likelihood of diabetes for both black and Chinese women, but adding some whole-grain foods may reverse the risk, according to individual studies from Boston University School of Public Health and Vanderbilt University.
One more reason to want FDA to update food Nutrition Panels by itemizing carbs into refined carbohydrates and whole grains.

Airline food getting healthier?


Airline food is getting healthier, but there is plenty of room for improvement, according to Charles Stuart Platkin, a nutritional expert who analyzed nine U.S. airlines' snacks and meals for coach passengers. United Airlines serves the most nutritious food and was given Platkin's highest "health score," 4? stars on a 5-star scale.
Hmm...All we see in this nicely boxed package is just highly-processed food. Hardly anything fresh or natural. If we must eat something when flying for a few hours, maybe our best option is still to bring a few pieces of fruits or anything else that's actually healthy.

The American Heart Association (AHA) updated criteria for its Food Certification Program


The American Heart Association (AHA) updated criteria for its Food Certification Program, which will include new limits for trans fats. After Jan. 1, 2008, companies seeking to include the AHA's heart-check mark on packages will have to demonstrate the product contains less than 0.5 grams per Reference Amount Customarily Consumed. Individual foods and meat/poultry/seafood items will have to meet additional requirements related to servings...
Somewhat belated on the one hand, and still not addressing the transfat loophole on the other hand - which still allows sizable quantities of transfats per package, should the package contain several serving sizes.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Proposed Ban on Genetically Modified Corn in Europe


While the proposed ban on genetically modified corn in Europe stems from environmental considerations, this constitutes one more move against the powerful biotechnology industry -and towards our protection- to follow up on.
Already, genetically modified ingredients are mandatorily labeled in Europe, so that Europeans are better informed about what's in their foods.
Which is not the case here in America: Even though 93 percent of Americans support GMO labeling, Monsanto Corp and others in their league have successfully lobbied our government to prevent labeling GMOs. How many of us are aware that 89 percent of soybeans, and 61 percent of corn is genetically modified? Because of the prevalence of corn and soy in processed foods, most Americans have been eating at least some GM foods for years. More on this excellent informative, proactive website.
Here is a link to a campaign to label GMOs.

"No artificial growth hormone" to be banned from milk labels in Pennsylvania


Monsanto managed to get the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture to ban labels on milk and dairy products that say it comes from cows that haven’t been treated with artificial bovine growth hormone, which is sometimes known as rBGH or rBST. Agriculture officials in Ohio are contemplating a similar decision.
Monsanto is the leading purveyor of genetically-modified seeds and other organisms meant for the food supply. As of today, they've successfully lobbied to get our government to prevent labeling GMOs. For some reason, milk producers have so far been allowed to state when they did not use Monsanto's hormones -albeit in a circonvoluted fashion. This allowed us consumers to make informed choices. Is this move in Pennsylvania going to gain momentum, once again at our expense?

More food fraud unearthed by Center for Science in the Public Interest


Get more enlightment from CSPI: See how claims for common processed foods -such as containing whole grains, yogurt, berries, etc.- are abusively used by food corporations. Also CSPI tackles with Coca Cola's bogus Enviga calorie burning drink...

Friday, November 23, 2007

Chocolate case: Debunking Hershey's health claims


Found on the blog of a young outspoken lady, this post deconstructs Hershey's Whole Bean Chocolate health claims... By analyzing the ingredient list: Ingredients: Milk chocolate (milk; sugar; cocoa butter; chocolate; cocoa; lactose (milk); milk fat; soy lecithin; PGPR, emulsifier; vanillin, artificial flavor); inulin; calcium carbonate; sucralose)

On a different note -same idea- have fun with this post from epicurean David Lebovitz.

Monday, November 19, 2007

UK alters traffic light labeling system to account for added sugars


From Marion Nestle's blog, the news that the U.K. Food Standards agency is now requiring food manufacturers to itemize added sugars and naturally-occurring sugars on the nutrition facts panel. FDA, take notice.

Book Review: Ending The Food Fight


Warning: This is not just another diet book!
Dr. Ludwig pioneered the use of a low-glycemic diet to combat obesity 10 years ago, when he founded the Optimal Weight For Life Program at Children's Hospital Boston. His approach integrates biology (weight control systems), behavior (willpower, parenting skills) and environment to benefit both the overweight child and his family.
Dr. Ludwig begins his book by describing how our environment has become more and more toxic over the past decades: Distorted portions, increased proportion of highly processed foods and beverages in our everyday diet, junk food and beverages sold in schools, reduced PE programs, omnipresence of food commercials, etc. He coins the phrase "fake food" to describe factory food, nutrient-poor processed food. Fake food creates addiction and promotes overeating -the cause for the obesity epidemic. In our toxic environment, kids are fed a steady diet of fake food that has become the norm. We have stopped cooking and have delegated this responsibility to food processors -whose main goal is profit.
In order to reverse the damage, Dr. Ludwig offers 2 key strategies:

1- Developing eating and activity habits:
Eating to feel full is a family affair: Get rid of all fake foods in the pantry; stock up on whole foods: vegetables, beans, fruits, unprocessed grains. Eliminate all sweetened beverages and reduce fruit juice to maximum 1 cup a day. Eat slowly.
Getting physical means play, walk rather than drive, take the stairs instead of the escalator, participate in the household chores, etc.

2- Strenghening the family environment:
Parents must model healthy habits by eliminating junk food from home, limiting TV and internet surfing/chatting, and increasing play, walk, exercise.
Parents and children are taught to be mindful to respond intelligently to the environment: e.g. eating mindfully is about how you eat: Think about what you put in your mouth, its taste while you're eating the food, and where the food comes from.
Parents have to teach children to resist instant gratification to achieve a long-term goal, which leads to empowerment.

Dr. Ludwig develops thoroughly these points into a detailed, practical 9-week program. He includes numerous easy recipes with simple nutrition facts, along with shopping lists for breakfast, lunchboxes and dinner with dessert included, all based on real foods.
This book encompasses sheer health advice: Dr. Ludwig gives a bigger picture of how families can fight the commercial, toxic environment and strenghen their health, and their ties.

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Dr. Rob Lustig on Obesity, Refined Carbs & Fructose Addiction


Dr. Rob Lustig Interview

Dr Lustig: I am a pediatric endocrinologist, which means I study glands and hormones and children. I’m very interested in how the brain controls energy balance; and I’m also interested in signals that come from the body up to the brain. I’m particularly interested in how hormones and behavior interact. A lot of people think that obesity is a behavior; that somehow you’re just too darn fat, you eat too much, you exercise too little, and that it’s your fault. In fact the federal government wants it to be your fault because that way they can deny Medicare payments so there is actual financial incentive to make it your fault. The research that I have done suggests that the behavior (of obesity) is actually secondary to biochemical changes. The hormones that are driving obesity are also driving the behavior. The question is why have the hormones changed? And this is the work that I have been doing over the past 15 years. It has led me to specific thoughts about what has happened and what has changed. It starts even earlier than childhood. It starts in the pregnant mother. The more overweight the mother is when she gets pregnant, the more chance that the child is going to be obese when the child is born.

S: So if your family has a history of obesity, then the chance that the offspring will have obesity also increases.

Dr. Lustig: It’s about a 5-time increase because of that.

S: So in the last 30 years, the influx of sugar in our society has produced even more obesity. And now it’s multiplying?

Dr. Lustig: In fact it’s a geometric progression and that’s what we’re seeing. Despite all of the efforts that the federal government has tried to institute – this thing called Healthy People 2000, well that didn’t work. Now, we have Healthy People 2010 and that’s not working. In fact, the incidence of obesity keeps going up. There’s just a Johns Hopkins study that came out about a month ago that said if things keep going the way they are going, in 2015 41% of America will be obese.

S: Could you estimate the health cost?

Dr. Lustig: It’s going to break the bank.

S: And our federal government is basically saying, “take responsibility for yourself.”

Dr. Lustig: In fact, if the hormonal changes are altering the behavior, which is what I believe based on the research that I’ve done, then you basically can’t control your behavior. It’s not possible. We have to basically get at what the actual cause of the problem is in order to affect change.

S: Would you say of the current obesity epidemic that there are ways of taking care of some of the issues or that the prospects are bleak?

Dr. Lustig: There are the biochemical problems, there are the behavioral issues, and there are the societal issues. My personal feeling is that the behavioral issues are impossible for a population to alter until the societal and environmental issues are dealt with. If you look at any other disorder of addiction which this in fact is, the federal government has three kinds of responses. They have 1) regulation, 2) interdiction, and 3) behavioral modification. For instance, drug programs, they have all sorts of laws, the coast guard and the army to prevent drugs from getting into the country, and we put people in jail for that. For obesity, which is also an addiction, the only thing we have is education. We don’t have regulation or interdiction. And there is nothing on the table. That’s why the fast food suits were being brought to get some regulations. Unfortunately, they have been thrown out by Congress because they have been lobbied to do so. I don’t see any government effort being made to alter the environment to help people with the behavioral aspect of this, the phenomenon of addiction.

S: People don’t think of this as an addiction. That’s part of the education don’t you think?

Dr. Lustig: That’s right. You have to understand what addiction is. Addiction in its simplest molecular form is one biochemical in your brain called dopamine. And dopamine is the addiction neurotransmitter, not a hormone. The more dopamine that one particular area of your brain gets, called the nucleus accumbens, the more the reward is fostered and the more addictive the phenomenon will be. This is how drugs of abuse work, this is how nicotine and alcohol work. Unfortunately, this is also how sugar works. It has been shown in numerous studies that sugar ups your dopamine. The question is why and what can we do about it? Fructose is a particular sugar that is particularly egregious. Fructose is half of sucrose. Sucrose is table sugar, so table sugar is definitely part of the problem. Then, of course there is high fructose corn syrup, which is what every soda is flavored with. It is the first ingredient in BBQ sauce and in ketchup. The question is how did it get there, why is it there, who put it there, and why won’t they take it out?

S: It’s because of the great subsidies in the Midwest for the farm agriculture.

Dr. Lustig: Absolutely. It’s what you do with corn. A lot of people want to turn corn into alcohol, but they won’t because from an economic standpoint, that’s actually not a winner. But it is certainly a winner to turn it into high fructose corn syrup because that increases sales of foods by quite a bit. We have a food industry in this country that currently produces 3900 calories per person per day. We as human beings can only eat 1800 calories per person per day. So the food industry in this country is making more than double what we can eat. Somebody has to eat the rest. Well, who is it? It’s us. Because they have found a way to influence this addiction to make us eat more.

S: The dopamine makes you crave for more.

Dr. Lustig: That’s right. The whole thing keeps going. Food profits are up by 5%. In the old days, before 1980, food profits were up by 1%. So the food companies are seeing a quintupling of their profits since they’ve added high fructose corn syrup to their foods.

K: Do you think they produce more products with high fructose corn syrup, either because it's so cheap or so addictive, to maximize profits?

Dr. Lustig: It’s both. They work together. If the companies made all of these products with high fructose corn syrup but we didn’t eat more, then they couldn’t make more profits then there wouldn’t be more foods on the market. The fact is they are profiting so there is only reason to make more. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy and it’s not going to get better because there is no regulation.

S: Not only is there no regulation, even if there is some regulation, you see a little bit coming into schools where they are not being enforced.

Dr. Lustig: Absolutely. I’ll give you an example. My daughter, who is 8 years old and in 2nd grade last year, came home and said, “Dad, you’re not going to believe this.” She brought home a carton of Berkeley Farms 1% Chocolate Milk compared to 1% Milk (without chocolate). The 1% Milk had 130 calories and 15 grams of carbohydrates (lactose or milk sugar). The 1% Chocolate Milk had 190 calories, so 60 calories more per carton. It’s like getting an extra half glass of orange juice, with 29 grams of sugar per carton, all of which were high fructose corn syrup. Basically, if you drink a Berkeley Farms 1% Chocolate Milk, you’re basically getting a glass of milk and a half a Coke.

S: So why do they sell this at school?

Dr. Lustig: The school nutrition people say it is the only way to get kids to drink their milk. They need their Calcium and their Vitamin D.

S: Let’s talk a bit about fructose and how insulin turns into fat.

Dr. Lustig: Insulin doesn’t turn into fat. Insulin helps drive energy into fat. Most of your audience knows what diabetes is. Diabetes is high blood sugar and it’s bad for you. It hurts your kidneys, eyes, blood vessels and heart. You can ultimately die from it. Let’s take a diabetic off the street. Blood sugar is 300. That is bad. We give the diabetic a shot of insulin. Insulin lowers blood sugar. Blood sugar goes from 300 down to 100. That is good. Blood sugar went down by 200 points. That is good. Where did the 200 points of blood sugar go? They were in the blood, now they’re not. They went to the fat for storage. That is insulin’s job. Insulin takes whatever you aren’t burning and puts it into fat for storage. Insulin turns sugar to fat. Insulin makes fat. More insulin, more fat – body fat. That is what happens when you don’t burn it. Any calorie that you take in has one of three things. Either you convert it (that is good), store it (not good), or it goes out in your urine (which means you are diabetic -- much worse). That is why exercise is so important because it gives you an opportunity to burn it but it also important because it reduces food consumption. People think exercising increases food consumption but it doesn’t. It actually reduces food consumption and actually helps detoxify some of the sugars that are in your liver. Bottomline: when your insulin is high, you are going to gain weight. There is another hormone in your body, called leptin, that is made by fat cells and goes to your brain and tells your brain you don’t need to eat any more. It also tells your body to burn energy properly. I’ll give you an example. Take a 5 year old. Give him a cookie. What happens?

S: He’s bouncing off walls.

Dr. Lustig: Exactly. You call that the “sugar high.” That’s not the “sugar high.” That’s leptin telling the muscles to burn the energy because it’s trying to stay weight stable. That’s a normal physiologic process. Try that with an obese kid. It doesn’t happen. The kid eats the cookies and there’s no bouncing off walls. The reason is because that kid’s leptin isn’t working right. If that kid’s leptin was working right, number one he’d be thin and secondly, he’d be bouncing off walls with that cookie. But instead, what happens is that cookie ends up as fat and he doesn’t bounce off walls. The reason is that his leptin isn’t working. The question is how come the obese kid’s leptin doesn’t work, whereas the thin kid’s leptin does? What makes that difference? The answer, based on the research that I’ve done, is the hormone insulin. Insulin is suppose to make you gain weight. Insulin drives energy to fat. If insulin makes fat and fat makes leptin and leptin is supposed to keep you from gaining more weight, then you have a nice negative feedback cycle. That is good because then you won’t gain the weight. But if your insulin is blocking your leptin, then the insulin is driving the energy storage (fat storage increases) and blocking your brain from seeing the leptin which means that your brain is starving, which means that you are going to eat more and keep gaining the weight. The question is where did the insulin come from? Why is our insulin higher today than it was 25 years ago? That is where the whole sugar question comes from. That is why this whole fructose issue is so huge because fructose is the single worst aggravator of insulin in our bodies.

S: So if you eat a certain level of sugar, and it messes with your insulin, your leptin is not going to tell you to stop eating.

Dr. Lustig: That’s exactly right.

S: Higher body fat correlates with the inability to use the hormone leptin.

M: I’d like to get back at the 29 grams of sugar found in the 1% Chocolate Milk from your daughter’s school. There was a petition from CSPI back in 1999 to set the maximum amount of added sugars per day at 40 grams. Did you find a safe level for ingestion of sugar?

Dr. Lustig: I haven’t actually done those studies. I don’t know if there is a safe level. I think ultimately there is a reason for eating carbohydrates but it’s not the reason that we should be eating carbohydrates. Carbohydrates are a perfectly good energy source if it is balanced by something else called fiber. Fiber is good. Carbohydrates are made with fiber. There is no carbohydrate in nature that doesn’t include fiber. Think about it. Look at a piece of sugar cane. What does it look like? It’s this big fibrous thing. In the ancient times, people would have to suck it to try to get the little bit of sugar out of this very fibrous stalk. Of course, now we have 100 pound bags just lying around waiting to be turned into doughnuts. Another example is orange juice vs. oranges. Oranges have fiber and 20 calories. Orange juice has no fiber and 120 calories. Which do you think is better for you? So what’s good about fiber? Fiber slows sugar absorption from the gut into the bloodstream, thereby keeping your insulin down. A high fiber meal means your insulin doesn’t rise as high because your blood sugar doesn’t rise as high. The second thing that fiber does is it makes the food move through the intestine faster. There is a satiety signal at the end of your intestine, a hormone that comes out into the bloodstream sooner so that you won’t eat that second portion. That is why they say fiber is more filling because it actually makes that satiety signal start earlier. What we tell our patients is that they have to wait 20 minutes for second portions.

S: So if you eat solid whole food, an apple instead of apple juice, that fiber in the apple slows the insulin in your body and also creates the feeling of not being so hungry.

Dr. Lustig: Apples are fine. Apple juice is not. Oranges are fine. Orange juice is not. Smoothies are also not good.

S: You related juice to being just as bad as soft drinks.

Dr. Lustig: Absolutely. In some ways juice is worse. Number one, people think juice is healthy and it’s not. Whole fruit is healthy.

S: What if it says Organic apple juice?

Dr. Lustig: That’s irrelevant. Fiber is the good part and there is no fiber in the juice. The reason why fiber has been taken out of our diet is because you can’t freeze fiber. Go home and try it. Make a pot of brown rice. Put it in a Tupperware, put it in the freezer. Take it out the next day, and try to reheat it and eat it. See what happens. You won’t touch it. It might work in a shock absorber but you won’t eat it. You can’t freeze fiber. Otherwise, there would be frozen pears and plums in your supermarket. Food companies would like nothing better than to decrease the depreciation on the food that goes bad. They would love to freeze it but they can’t, so they extract the fiber from it. When you go out into the field and harvest the wheat, what color is it?

All: Brown.

Dr. Lustig: That’s the fiber. That’s the husk on the outside of the starch granule that’s on the inside. Of course, we mill it and pulverize it to get rid of the bran. We do it on purpose because we are after the starch on the outside. Sadly, the husk and bran is the good part. You want to eat your carbohydrate with fiber and that will actually solve this insulin problem. Unfortunately, that is the antithesis of processed food and big food. Processed and fast food is fiber-less food. This is on purpose because they have to freeze the food and send it all over the world to the different franchises where they have to cook it up fast. That is why there is no fiber in our diet anymore.

Medical anthropologists examined fecal matter of people who died 50,000 years ago found in caves. They extracted DNA material from the bacteria in the fecal matter in people of 50,000 years ago. The researchers found that human beings used to eat 100-300 grams of fiber per day. Now, we eat 12 grams. That has had a huge impact on the insulin problem. The insulin affects leptin and that affects obesity.

S: Is there a percentage in our daily diet that is healthier for us in terms of recommendation for fiber in grams?

Dr. Lustig: The important thing is that fiber is associated with the food rather than added separately. When you see things like Whole grain Lucky Charms, this is just a joke. That just doesn’t work. You also see foods with added fiber. That is added cereal fiber, which doesn’t work because it is not surrounding the starch granule. What you want is something that says whole grain. That means the wheat granule (the fiber or husk) is still intact. That means it will have the good benefits in terms of nutrition that you need.

S: If you eat an apple and you have the natural sugar with the fiber, it slows down the insulin so that it's taken slower in the body and it also helps to stop the craving to eat more. If you juice it, it goes directly into insulin, which goes directly into fat. The phenomenon of being full does not occur at all.

K: What if you had juice with high pulp? That’s fiber, right?

Dr. Lustig: That will help in terms of moving the food through the intestine faster, but once you have dissociated the juice from the fiber itself, your glucose absorption is going to increase and that is going to raise your insulin. You can get one potential benefit, but you’re not going to get both.

S: If you put fruit in a blender and you blend it, are you going to get the same effect of the fiber?

Dr. Lustig: No, smoothies are a problem. If you go to Jamba Juice, there are on average about 600 calories in one of those smoothies.

M: Right now, we tend to buy a lot of processed food because of its convenience. What about functional foods? When the food manufacturers use refined ingredients and add back fiber separated from the original ingredient, is it the same benefit that we get?

Dr. Lustig: There are two phenomenon associated with fiber. One is the rate of sugar rise and the second is how fast the food gets through the intestine. If you add fiber back, you’ll get the food through the intestine but you won’t affect the rate of sugar rise. So the insulin will still rise, the insulin blocks the leptin and it’s still going to force weight gain. It’s not optimal. It’s better to eat the food naturally rather than refined or processed and then added back.

K: Going back to the smoothie example. If you break down the fiber in a beverage like that, it’s the same thing as if you hadn’t had it whole. Why is that?

Dr. Lustig: The data shows it but I don’t know why.

M: Is it the same thing with potatoes when you eat them baked or mashed?

Dr. Lustig: No, because there is no fiber in potatoes. There is some in the skin but it has very little fiber. The clinic over at UCSF called the WATCH clinic, which stands for Weight Assessment for Teen and Child Health, advocates four simple messages to deal with childhood obesity. We see patients weekly. Our intake clinic for new patients is once a month where we see 12 new patients all on the same day. We do that for economies of scale because the lifestyle intervention that we advocate is better as a group than individually. We have four messages that we espouse in the clinic. Each one is evidence-based, makes sense, and shown to work. 1) Get rid of every sugar liquid in the house. Look at the side of a bottle and look at the calories. If the number is 5 or less, then you are good. If it is 6 or more, then leave it at the store. 2) Eat your carbohydrates with fiber. Again, look at the side of the package and look at dietary fiber, which is under calories on the label. If it is 3 or more, then you are good. If it is 2 or less, then it is garbage. 3) Wait 20 minutes before second portions. That is trying to take care of that satiety signal and try to get them to stop that second portion before it occurs. This last one is the most difficult for a lot of families. 4) Kids buy their TV time with physical activity. Kids are watching 4-6 hours of TV a day. They could be using that time to be doing some thing more beneficial like walking. We tell parents to go to Sears and buy the cheapest treadmill they have. This is priced at $269. Take the TV out of the kids room and put it in the living room. If the kid is watching, they are walking. If they are watching 2 hours of TV, then they are walking 2 hours. If they get tired of walking, then make them go and read a book.

S: Can you illustrate what one of these 10 year olds are like? Are you really seeing 10 year olds that are over 200 pounds?

Dr. Lustig: Absolutely and quite a few. And they are on their way to Type-2 Diabetes. And for the reasons we’ve talked about, because their insulin is high. You can tell that insulin is high because of this rash on the back of the neck, which is called Acanthosis; it is this velvety, hyper-pigmented rash on the back of the neck and in the under arms and sometimes under the breast cleavage and sometimes on the groin. What that is is excess insulin working on the skin. We can just look at the kid and know that the insulin is high. The insulin drives the fat, the fat keeps growing and growing, until one day in the future they’re going to actually outgrow their insulin supply. At that point, they can’t turn sugar into fat, so whatever they take in stays in the blood and rise and now that kid has Type-2 Diabetes. We have seen this huge epidemic of Type-2 Diabetes in children. It used to be that Type-2 Diabetes was never seen in children. It now accounts for 30% of all of our new diagnosis; that is 30% of all our kid diabetics are now Type-2. That is because of obesity, which is due to fructose and insulin.

S: In the past, it was Type-1, which you were born with. Now, kids are acquiring Type-2 Diabetes, which is a phenomenon.

Dr. Lustig: It’s what happens when you outgrow your insulin. Once you have Diabetes, the clock’s ticking until you die. If you get Diabetes as a teenager, your life expectancy is going to be cut markedly short. We already know from statistical studies that if your BMI (Body Mass Index) is 40 as an adult, then your life expectancy is cut by 20 years if you are Caucasian; and by 40 years if you are African American. As a result, you have decrease productivity and an increase in medical expenses. By 2015, 41% of America will be obese. There goes our economy, army, the entire medical care to take care of the obese. There should be a huge outcry but we are too busy to care about this issue.

S: Besides Type-2 diabetes and obesity, what are some of the other things that happen to a child and adolescent?

Dr. Lustig: Fructose causes fatty liver. The fat in the liver builds up and can cause cirrhosis the same way alcohol does.

S: So coca cola can act like booze.

Dr. Lustig: Absolutely. Fructose is alcohol without the buzz. Drinking a can of soda is like drinking a can of beer in terms of what it does to your liver, the number of calories, and of what it does to your leptin. A can of soda and a can of beer are the same. If you feel good about giving your 13-year-old a can of beer, then go to it.

S: So your liver can’t tell the difference?

Dr. Lustig: There’s no difference as far as the liver can see.

S: Fructose is a major ingredient in soft drinks. It is also in every thing that has sugar in our society. So you are chugging this stuff.

Dr. Lustig: At our obesity clinic, we look at the number of calories in soft drinks and juice that our kids come in with. At UCSF, we see a completely multi-ethnic population; we have Caucasians, Latinos, African Americans, Asians, and Pacific Islanders. We have all five major category groups at UCSF. The one group that we don’t see much of are Native Americans. Interestingly, the Caucasians, Latinos, Asians, and Pacific Islanders drink, on average, 200-calories per person per day. African Americans are consuming 400-calories per person per day.

S: Is that a cultural difference?

Dr. Lustig: Absolutely, there is a cultural difference. The African Americans are drinking double what the other groups are. All are obese, but the African Americans double. The first tenet is to get rid of all the sugary drinks. We explain the effect of fructose on the liver and everything else. Then we bring the patients back in 3 months. The Caucasians, Latinos, Asians, and Pacific Islanders have all reduced their sugared liquid consumption close to zero. The African Americans are still at 400. No change; no change at all.

S: What’s the struggle?

Dr. Lustig: Well, we ask the kid “Why haven’t you been able to make this change?” The answer is always the same. One answer from every kid. “Because water doesn’t taste good.”

S: It’s like the milk and the chocolate milk.

Dr. Lustig: Water is what you’re supposed to drink because that’s what keeps you hydrated. So, why does water have to be sweet? Where did this come from? Well, there’s the addiction that we’re talking about. The fact is it is addictive. The fact is that the kids can’t get off it. They won’t because they need it. This is how that dopamine is being driven. That’s how the insulin is affecting dopamine transmission in the brain and it’s causing these kids to continue to crave this.

K: In addition to this being a physiological addiction, do you think it has anything to do with marketing?

Dr. Lustig: Oh, absolutely; of course it does. Who’s in the schools? Who’s paying for the uniforms? Who’s paying for the shoulder pads? Absolutely. In the bay area, SB 965 was passed as an effort to try to get sodas out of the schools in California. In fact, sports drinks and juice are just taking the place. Well, who owns the sports drinks and juice companies? The soft drink companies do, so it’s only changing the vending machines and not the products.

S: So we have talked about SB 965 and they are trying to reduce the amount of sugar in vending machines. But for the football teams, they’re providing electrolyte replacement beverages, which have high amounts of sugar.

Dr. Lustig: Right. Well the sports drinks companies are very interesting. In 1967, when that electrolyte replacement beverage first came out; it contained glucose, sodium, and water. It’s the same thing we use to re-hydrate kids in India who have cholera. It’s an oral re-hydration solution which is why it was invented, which makes sense. Did it taste good? Not really. Nobody liked it. But it was good if you were an athlete because it was an oral re-hydration solution. In the mid-90’s, a soft drink company bought this electrolyte replacement beverage made a conscious decision that they were going to market this stuff as a sports drink to everyone. They had to make it worth drinking so they added fructose to it, so now it’s sweet. Do you need that? No. For 25-30 years, it did not have fructose in it, but it does now. The reason is to get kids to drink it and to get them addicted. So this problem is well known to the soft drink companies, but they choose to market their product and choose to make a lot of money.

S: If you were to build a new food pyramid, what would it look like to you?

Dr. Lustig: First, I’d put exercise at the bottom of the pyramid and it would be three-quarters of the pyramid. To be honest with you, none of what you eat matters if you are getting exercise. Why is exercise so good for you? Because it burns calories? No. Twenty minutes of jogging is one chocolate chip cookie. I mean, it’s a joke. That’s not why exercise is good. Exercise is good for three reasons: 1) It improves your skeletal muscles insulin sensitivity. This means that your body can work better on less insulin. If your insulin goes down, that means your leptin works better. If you leptin works better, that means you will eat less. By helping your skeletal muscle, you are helping yourself. 2) It is the best stress reducer we have. Kids are stressed today like never before. There are all sorts of stressors that when we were kids we never even imagined. The fact is TV is a stress. It has been shown that TV raises your hormone cortisol, which is your stress hormone; and cortisol makes your insulin go up and cortisol makes you eat more. Exercise is the best stress reducer. By keeping your cortisol down, that helps your weight. 3) It’s the one way to get your liver to burn off the fructose and fat accumulated in your liver. Then, your liver works better, and your insulin also goes down. Those are the reasons why exercise is good. If you exercise, it almost doesn’t matter what you eat. Unfortunately, society actually makes you not want to exercise. For instance, no child left behind. As far as I’m concerned, that’s no child moving forward and no teacher left standing. What is no child left behind saying? It says that we have to get kids to do better in class or we’re going to lose federal funding or replace the school. So we can’t let our kids exercise during school hours. We need kids in the classroom. In fact, physical activity has gone down, not up. There was an interesting study done in East Carolina University two years ago where they went into the schools and got the schools to agree to give the researchers 45 minutes a day in vigorous activity for the kids. The question was not what happened to the kids' weight; the question was what happened to the kids' grades? What do you think happened? The grades went up. They took 45 minutes out for physical activity, so that’s 45 minutes less in class and the kids did better in school. The idea that we should keep our kids in class more because of failing grades makes no sense at all. The first thing I would do is scrap the pyramid and put exercise in the pyramid instead. Everything else is secondary.

S: How does your research get to the public?

Dr. Lustig: It’s very difficult. The fact is most of the public doesn’t want to know about science. They don’t want to understand the science. And since the science says that the policy has to change, it becomes very problematic. I used to live in Memphis, Tennessee. Do you know why fast food is so big in Memphis, Tennessee? Not because it’s cheap, tasty, or fast. It’s because it’s clean and air-conditioned. It’s the only place in town that parents could go to escape their own homes. So we brought this phenomenon to the aldermen of Memphis, Tennessee, of course all of who were African American, and said this is what’s going on. Do you know what the response was? Do you want to take away the one thing in life that gives these people pleasure? And I thought, no, he’s got a point. This is a real problem. This is a much bigger problem than just getting education out to the masses. This is a huge issue. What is it about our society that has made people decide that food was their salvation? I don’t get it. I think we have to work with the churches. I think we have to work with the pastors. I think we have to get this out in new ways rather than just journal articles and TV shows. This has to involve the entire African American and Latino community to really make some headway. We really need to partner with people to make this happen.

S: So are the African American and Latino population hit the hardest in childhood obesity? What’s the percentage obesity among female adolescents?

Dr. Lustig: The obesity prevalence of African American girls is 45%. That’s where we are and we need to do something about it. Unfortunately, my talking doesn’t seem to make much difference. We need to find new avenues and new partners to be able to get this message out in a rational way. It’s going to stay difficult as long as the operative word is behavior. We have to make the operative word environment; environment controls the behavior.

S: You can’t expect an adolescent to have the ability to understand nutrition as well as an adult does?

Dr. Lustig: The fact is they can understand the negative consequences but it’s the environment that drives their behavior. Education isn’t enough.

S: The government right now is saying that this is your personal responsibility.

Dr. Lustig: A lot of people draw a parallel between tobacco and obesity. If you look at the reduction in tobacco consumption, which has occurred in California and less so in other states, it basically started with second hand smoke and non-smokers' rights. Up to that point, things just kept going up. In 1964, the U.S. Surgeon General and all the lawsuits made no difference. It was only when second hand smoke and non-smokers' rights were passed in 1994 that we started to see the decline. In fact, it was the non-smokers that made smoking less palatable. How do we do that in obesity? One way, we could say, you have to pay more money to sit on a plane if you are obese. Now companies are saying you’re going to be charged more money for health insurance if you are obese. This is the stick approach, but nevertheless once we start finding ways to bring the non-obese persons' rights into obesity then maybe there will be some behavioral affect.

S: In one minute, if I had a child that is obese and needs help, where would I go to get help?

Dr. Lustig: Your Pediatrician’s office should be the place to go but the Pediatrician doesn’t know anything about Nutrition and doesn’t have any time to deal with your kid's problem. It’s very difficult. The likelihood is you’re going to have to see a sub specialist, such as a Nutritionist. The Nutritionist, in general, says a calorie is a calorie – eat less, exercise more, which of course isn’t going to work. It’s going to require physician education, community leader education, and politician education first and foremost. Unfortunately, the individual family is really left scrambling. It is awful. They can come see me, but of course our waitlist is 6 months long.

S: Well, thank you so much.

Dr. Lustig: Thank you for having me.

Food Label Saga: Definition for "Natural" gets ugly


More battle to get FDA to define "natural"...Too bad the impulsion comes from the Food Industry.

Food Label Saga: FDA to revamp Nutrition Facts Panel


In a first step toward revamping the Nutrition Facts panel on food labels, FDA is seeking comments by Jan. 31, 2008 on what new reference values it should use to calculate the percent daily value in the labels and what factors the agency should consider in establishing new reference values. In addition, FDA is seeking comments on whether it should require that certain nutrients be added or removed from the Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels.

It is about time: Daily value reference amounts have not been updated since the late 70s. Why not ask:

- that a max daily value for added sugars be established -% daily value for sugars is conspicuously absent from the current Nutrition Panel, which makes it difficult to monitor sugars consumption -a major contributor for such chronic diseases as metabolic syndrom. Maybe adopt the USDA recommendation for max. 40g /day.

- that carbohydrates be itemized into refined starches, whole grains, naturally occurring sugars, added sugars, and fiber.

- that saturated fats be itemized into natural saturated fats and synthetic saturated fats (the real bad guys), and that a more scientific daily value be established for natural saturated fats -See our Good Calories, Bad Calories entry.

- Finally, how about ending the trans fat less-than-.5g/per serving loophole? We currently can get quite a few grams trans fats per portion in a product that claims zero trans fat per serving. Multiply these portions consumed throughout the day, and there you go: Without you knowing, those hidden grams of trans fats add up. Thanks to the loophole!

Or maybe we, consumers without Lobby power, should start thinking seriously about avoiding foods that come with labels...

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Debunking Superfoods Beverages


Since we have talked about the latest Superfoods fad in our processed foods, Snapple, a subsidiary of Cadbury Scheppes -one of the largest producers of soft drinks in America- has put out 2 press releases addressing this very fad in just a week.
The first one announces: Snapple Squeezes Tropical Flavors and 'Good For You' Benefits into New Line of Super Premium Juice Drinks.. Today, we got a new Snapple launch: Snapple's New Antioxidant Water and LYTeWater Take Hydration to the Next Level.

Well, let us get deeper in this new buzz, starting with the Snapple Super Premium Juice Drinks. We checked Snapple's website, and picked the new Peach Mangosteen (a superfruit)Juice Drink. The webpage for this product starts with the claim that it helps support your immune system. Ahem. OK, what does the ingredient list say then? (the only objective piece of information)

Ingredients:
Filtered water, sugar, juice concentrates (pear, carrot, mangosteen), natural flavors, citric acid, vitamin C, vitamin A palmitat, vitamin E acetate, acacia gum.

So #1 ingredient is water; followed by...sugar, then juice concentrates (which really means more sugars, and one of the worst ones in high concentrations: fructose). Wait let's stop here: So the Mangosteen part of this superfruit drink is really present only in a processed form in this beverage..Uh oh, that is why Snapple has to actually add artificial vitamins in order to be able to boast the immunity-boosting claim!

Looking at the nutrition facts now: So one bottle of this drink means you really get 36g sugars (i.e more than 7 tsp sugars), which is close to the total daily recommended value of added sugars of 40g.

Up to you to decide if this is going to be the only sweet treat of your day...

If we deconstruct the same way Snapple brand new superfruit enhanced waters, such as Antioxidant Water Grape Pomegranate - Defy, we will still find water#1, sugar#2, and some type of processed juice thereafter. You will get 32.5g sugars per bottle (6.5 tsp)..Definitively not a guilt-free thirst-quencher!

FYI, Vitamin Water has the exact same "nutrition" profile, and the stuff is allowed in our schools...

King Corn, the movie


Just in time for the new Farm Bill (non)event, this poweful movie will take you to the big American corn trip, all the way from field gluts -subsidized by our very taxes- to the ubiquitous presence of corn and its avatars in our food supply.
Corn has been pointed out as one of the major causes for our current metabolic syndrom epidemic. Check out the movie to figure out the hows and whys.

Food Label Saga: What is "natural"?


USDA defines "natural" when applied to meat and poultry: No artificial or synthetic ingredients, including added hormones, and minimally processed.

Here is FDA's definition for "natural": When the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors or synthetic substances. The loophole is that they don't define synthetic.

So under FDA, High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) can be claimed as natural, because at some point it comes from corn, and does not contain added color, artificial flavors, etc.

As a matter of fact, here is the process involved in making HFCS: Corn refiners are equipped with centrifuges, hydroclones, ion exchange columns and buckets of enzymes in order to modify the molecular structure of corn and turn it into HFCS.

Back in the 80s, FTC came up with this definition for "natural": A food that has no more processing than something which could be made in a household kitchen.
Unfortunately, this definition was never adopted. Does anyone here own a ion exchange column?

Back in February 2006, the Sugar Association -with its own agenda against the Corn Refiners Association- petitioned FDA to restrict claims for "natural" to minimally-processed ingredients, in line with the USDA definition.
The petition was once more rejected: The Corn lobby must be more powerful than the Sugar lobby.

What is our best resource to figure out what is natural then? Flip the package over, as usual, and read the ingredient list: If a child can read any single word of it, explain what it is, and how it is made, it may be a good sign.

Food Label Saga: Who benefits?


Because FDA and USDA have been so weakened thanks to Big Food intense lobbying, our current food labels are the confusing pieces of information we struggle with every day.
Here is an article that uncovers some of the issues at stake.

Genetically Modified Foods


"The largest scientific experiment ever performed on the human species".

To learn more about these manipulated foods that do not have to be labeled in the US,
here are a few documentary clips:

-Genetically Modified Food: Panacea or Poison
-Future of Food
-Future of Food Pt.2
-Future of Food Pt.3
-Future of Food Pt.4
-Future of Food Pt.5
-Future of Food Pt.6
-Future of Food Pt.7

Concerned?
Here is a website for a campaign to label GMOs, and The Future of Food movie's website that lists a bunch of its sources and resources.

Meanwhile, our main non-GMO option here in the US is to buy organic as much as we can afford, at least for everything involving corn, soy, wheat, canola, etc., as well as milk from cows not treated with rBST (another creation from Monsanto Corp).

Farm Bill Update and other government/corporations collusions


Marion Nestle has written a powerful entry on her blog about Farm bill being passed this week. She shows that once again, corporate wealth will prevail over public health -and explains why...
Just read this earlier entry, the revolving door better than ever.
Difficult to stay healthy in a food world regulated by Big Food priorities...

The Case For Real Food


This article made the headline of the New York Times yesterday.

It shows how nutritionists have been studying isolated nutrients in foods in order to uncover their health benefits in our bodies. Recently however, several vitamin studies have shown that their benefits are not only limited, but also may cancel out each other when taken out of their whole foods context. A case for the nutrition community has been made to re-focus their studies on whole foods, rather than single nutrients, so that nutrient synergies within one food are better understood, and functional claims from the Food Industry are made more cautiously.