Top Ten ways Corporate Food is Making us Fat and threatening our Food Supplies

Here are the top ten disturbing news stories about our food that have come across my screen in recent days, and which inspire a certain amount of alarm in me.
1. Sugary, i.e. non-diet soft drinks make you fat, especially if you are genetically at greater risk of being fat. According to a study about to appear in the New England Journal of Medicine, teens who had genes that disposed them to put on weight easily were twice as likely to be obese if they drank a lot of soda pop. Pre-modern human beings who lived in conditions of food scarcity probably tried to bulk up when they saw a drought becoming prolonged, and there would have been a survival advantage to being able to put on weight quickly when you were trying. So likely those teens’ bodies thought all the sugar they were being fed was a sign of famine coming, and obliged by storing a lot of fat to get through it. For a certain percentage of the population, extra calories are actually subject to a multiplier effect inside their own bodies. (It can even happen to Lady Gaga.)
Soft drinks have like 160- 180 calories per can and nobody can afford all that in their diet even once daily.
In other words, not only is Mayor Bloomberg’s policy of banning supersized soft drinks in New York justified, actually people should just never drink sugary soft drinks.
2. Here’s the kicker. It isn’t just the sugar that puts some people at risk of obesity. It is bisphenol A or BPA, a chemical used to coat the aluminum cans in which soft drinks come (as well as soup and other cans) so as to prevent them from rusting. A recent study in JAMA found that the one fourth of the thousands of children and adolescents in their study that had the most BPA in their urine were twice as likely to be obese as those in the one fourth that had the least BPA. So I guess if they were drinking sugary sodas out of cans, they were really doomed to be obese. BPA has been implicated in other studies in “diabetes, cardiovascular disease, reproductive disorders, and obesity in adults.”
Think you can get away from BPA by avoiding cans and going to plastic bottles instead? Think again. It is widely used in the making of clear plastics, and there is evidence that it seeps into us from them.
Glass is better.
When exactly will the US government have enough evidence to ban BPA? When we’re all 400 pounds?
3. The Consumer Union has found concerning levels of arsenic in American-grown rice. Apparently much rice in the US is grown in the Southwest and West on land that used to be used for cotton, on which arsenic-laden pesticides were used for decades. Arsenic can cause cancer. Me, I never like to hear the phrases “arsenic” and “in your food” in the same sentence.
4. Over-use of antibiotics may be making us fat. There is now scientific evidence that the antibiotics activate bacteria that are good at turning carbohydrates into fat. That is, the Atkins and Manhattan diets may work mainly because a lot of people’s gut microbe population had already been messed with by the antibiotics. People are always trying to get antibiotics for their children with viruses, which can’t anyway be treated that way. Ironically, they may not only be giving them medicine inappropriate to their malady but may be priming them for diabetes and heart disease later in life.
5. Speaking of antibiotics, 150 scientists and physicians are calling for the end of non-medical antibiotics being routinely administered to livestock All that is happening is that we are evolving bacteria to be resistant to antibiotics, and are already killing 100,000 Americans a year that way (more than die of AIDS). This baneful practice, they warn, has to stop.
6. Genetically modified corn, treated with the pesticide Roundup, were found by a French team of scientists to cause more frequent and more rapidly growing tumors in rats than ordinary corn. The study has been criticized and it is based on a small N. But, I’ll tell you what. Let us decide. Could we please have the genetically modified vegetables marked as such, Congress? I know we ordinary folk don’t pay you the way the corporations pay you, but you are supposed to be representing us lab rats too.
7. The global collapse of bee colonies, a severe threat to the world food supply, according to three new studies, is likely being in some part caused by a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids. France and Germany have already banned them. But Corporatocracy America has not. Are there other factors involved in the great bee die-off? Sure, but why not remove a major factor when we can? Oh, and by the way, see 4 above, because another cause may be genetically modified plants that have absorbed pesticides into their genetic structure.
8. It is not just what corporations put in our food. It is also how they produce it that endangers us. Industrialized, often state-subsidized fishing is rapidly depleting world fish stocks. I’ve heard David Suzuki worry that half of all marine species could be extinct in 50 years at this rate, between overfishing and ocean acidification (caused by all the extra carbon we are pumping into the air at the Koch brothers’ behest).
9. Blooms and dead zones in coastal waters from the run-off from corporate farming of massive amounts of nitrogen fertilizer are threatening the health of our seas.
10. 40% of US corn production goes to making ethanol, and at a time of drought and high food prices, this policy is indefensible. The US has to relax the laws mandating ethanol. Although ethanol claims to be carbon-neutral because the corn takes carbon dioxide out of the air when it is growing, processing it into ethanol releases a lot of greenhouse gases. Moreover the policy of burning it in cars is apparently on the verge of causing malnutrition.

Drinking tea may help prevent chronic illnesses

Research has long shown the antioxidant properties and health benefits of drinking tea, but new findings suggest that tea may also have significant preventative properties against chronic disease.

Recent findings were discussed Wednesday at the Fifth International Scientific Symposium on Tea and Human Health in Washington, D.C.

"If there's anything that can confidently be communicated to the public, it's the ability of tea to be associated and demonstrated in the primary prevention of chronic disease," says meeting chair Jeffrey Blumberg, a professor in Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston.

One of those is osteoporosis, the "brittle bone" disease. Green tea in particular may help reduce the risk for fractures and improve bone mass, a leading health concern as people age, suggests a study by researchers at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center. "Osteoporosis is a non-curable disease and prevention is key," said Chwan-Li "Leslie" Shen, associate professor of pathology.

In a six-month trial of 171 postmenopausal women with low bone mass, researchers found participants had improvements in bone formation by consuming 500 mg of green tea polyphenol capsules a day, the equivalent of four to six cups of tea, alone or in conjunction with practicing tai chi. Tai chi is a gentle form of exercise based on Chinese martial arts.

Green tea promoted bone remodeling within three months of consumption and reduced oxidative stress damage, Shen said. "Bone loss can be slowed. You can slow the progression. You can delay the onset of osteoporosis."

Among other preventative properties of tea reported were in the area of cardiovascular health. A small study of 19 people with hypertension and 19 people without found that drinking just one cup of black tea before consuming a high-fat meal supported healthy arterial function and prevented negative effects on blood pressure.

"It is evident that the ingestion of black tea may be able to induce a protective effect by not only reducing blood pressure but also reducing the negative action of the fat load on the arteries," said researcher Claudio Ferri, director of Internal Medicine at the University L'Aquila, Italy. Flavonoids, which induce dilation of the arteries, are the most important component in tea, Ferri said. Consumption of black tea could lead to a reduction in strokes, heart attacks and cardiovascular diseases, he said.

"If we were able to reduce blood pressure just slightly and shift the entire population to a lower blood pressure, that has a significant public health impact in terms of reduced numbers of (people with) hypertension and of course the consequences for cardiovascular disease. Small, modest, long-term benefits on blood pressure can be quite important on the public health point of view," Blumberg said.

Additional findings were also presented, building on previous studies:

-- Consumption of green tea and caffeine can help burn up to 100 more calories a day, through increased energy expenditure and fat oxidation, according to researchers at Maastricht University, the Netherlands.

-- Tea drinkers experienced better task performance and alertness in a placebo-controlled study conducted by Unilever R&D, Vlaardingen, the Netherlands.

-- Flavonoids in green and black tea can provide a probiotic effect in the lower gastrointestinal tract, according to Alan Crozier, professor at the University of Glasgow, Scotland.

Tea's polyphenols, natural plant compounds, and flavonoids, compounds in plant-based foods, are full of health benefits, Blumberg said.

"There are a lot of flavonoids in fruits and vegetables. Many people aren't getting as many flavonoids as they need to. Another way to get them is tea."

"If you don't drink tea," Blumberg said, "you should start. It's really delicious. It's convenient. ... It has zero calories."

Improve your balance by walking

The sense of balance typically worsens with age. It can be further compromised by certain medical conditions and medications; uncorrected vision problems; or a lack of flexibility. Poor balance often leads to falls, which can cause head and other disabling injuries. Hip fractures, in particular, can lead to serious health complications and threaten independence. A combination of activities such as walking, strength training, and specific workouts can improve balance and prevent falls, especially in older adults.

Walking helps build lower-body strength, an important element of good balance. Walking is safe exercise for most people and, in addition to improving balance, counts toward your aerobic activity goals. If health problems make walking especially difficult for you, a physiatrist or physical therapist can suggest other options.

A good walking plan should be designed to safely boost physical activity whether you're sedentary or fairly active. The minutes count, not the miles. Here's how to tailor a walking plan to your needs:

If you aren't in the habit of exercising, start at the beginning. If you normally use a cane or walker, be sure to do so. As you feel stronger and more comfortable, gradually add more minutes to your walks.

If you already exercise start with a walking plan that best matches your current routine and build from there. If the plan seems too easy, add time, distance, or hills. Aim for at least 150 minutes of walking per week, but don't hesitate to add more.

A Diet Loaded With Sugar Makes Rats Dumber

PROBLEM: The average American consumes roughly 47 pounds of cane sugar and 35 pounds of high-fructose corn syrup per year, mostly through processed foods like soft drinks, condiments, and desserts. Though previous studies have shown how these sweeteners harm the body through its role in diabetes, obesity, and fatty liver, it was unclear if they had impact on mental processes

METHODOLOGY: University of California, Los Angeles, researchers Rahul Agrawal and Fernando Gomez-Pinillatrained two groups of rats on a maze twice daily for five days before serving them a fructose solution as drinking water for six weeks. The second group also received omega-3 fatty acids, which protect against damage to the synapses or the chemical connections between brain cells that enable memory and learning. After this experimental diet period, the researchers tested the rats' ability to recall the visual landmarks the scientists installed to help them escape the maze.

RESULTS: The second group of rats remembered the correct route and were able to exit much faster than the rats that did not receive omega-3 fatty acids in the form of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and flaxseed oil. A closer look at the brains of the DHA-deprived mammals showed a decline in synaptic activity and signs of resistance to insulin, a hormone that controls blood sugar and regulates synaptic function.

CONCLUSION: A high-fructose diet sabotages learning and memory, but omega-3 fatty acids can partially offset the damage.

IMPLICATION: Gomez-Pinilla says consuming one gram of DHA per day through foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids like salmon, walnuts, and flaxseeds can protect the brain against fructose's dumbing effects. "It's like saving money in the bank," he says in a statement. "You want to build a reserve for your brain to tap when it requires extra fuel to fight off future diseases."

How Exercise Can Jog the Memory

 It's well established that exercise substantially changes the human brain, affecting both thinking and emotions. But a sophisticated, multifaceted new study suggests that the effects may be more nuanced than many scientists previously believed. Whether you gain all of the potential cognitive and mood benefits from exercise may depend on when and how often you work out, as well as on the genetic makeup of your brain.

For the experiment, published last month in Neuroscience, researchers in the department of psychology and neuroscience at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H., recruited 54 adults, ages 18 to 36, from the college and the surrounding community. The volunteers were healthy but generally sedentary; none exercised regularly.

During their first visit to the lab, they completed a series of questionnaires about their health and mood, including how anxious they were both at that moment and in general.

They also gave blood for genetic testing. Earlier studies had shown that exercise can increase levels of a protein called brain-derived neurotropic factor, or BDNF, which is thought to play a role in the positive effects of exercise on thinking. But some people produce less BDNF after exercise than others because they have a variation in the gene that controls BDNF production, though it's unknown whether they derive less cognitive benefit from exercise as a result. So the scientists wanted to determine each volunteer's BDNF gene status.

Then the group submitted to a memory test, consisting of pictures of objects flashed across a computer screen. Soon after, another set of pictures appeared, and the volunteers were asked to note, with keystrokes, whether they'd seen each particular image before.

This task involves a different part of the brain from the one most often focused on in studies of exercise and memory, says David Bucci, an associate professor of psychology and brain science at Dartmouth, who oversaw the study. Other experiments typically examine the effect of exercise on the hippocampus, the brain's primary memory center, he says, but the object-recognition task involves activity in the perirhinal cortex, a portion of the brain essential to remembering particular things or objects and whether they happen to be new in your experience. Without a healthy perirhinal cortex, you might recall where you've put your car keys (a hippocampal memory task), but not what car keys are.

Finally, after completing the tests, the volunteers were randomly assigned to exercise or not during the next four weeks. Half began a supervised program of walking or jogging four times a week for at least 30 minutes. The other half remained sedentary.

After a month, the volunteers returned to the lab for retesting. But first, some exercised. Half of the exercising group walked or jogged before the testing; half did not. Ditto for the sedentary group: Half exercised that day for the first time since the start of the study; the rest did not.

The earlier tests of memory and mood were repeated.

The results were, in certain aspects, a surprise. As expected, many of the volunteers who'd been exercising for the past month significantly improved their scores on the memory and mood tests. But not all of them did. In general, those volunteers who had exercised for the past month and who worked out on the day of retesting performed the best on the memory exam. They also tended to report less anxiety than other volunteers.

Those who had exercised during the preceding month but not on the day of testing generally did better on the memory test than those who had been sedentary, but did not perform nearly as well as those who had worked out that morning.

Interestingly, while exercising before the test didn't improve the memory scores of those who'd remained sedentary for the past month, it did increase their self-reported anxiety levels. They were more jittery than they had been on the first lab visit.

Perhaps most intriguing, though, was what the researchers discovered when they compared the volunteers' BDNF gene variants and their scores on the memory test. They found that those with the variant that blunts BDNF production after exercise -- a fairly common variation, existing in about 30 percent of people of European Caucasian heritage -- did not improve their memories, even if they exercised regularly. (No consumer test exists to check for the variant.)

What all of this means for people who are hoping that exercise will improve their minds is unclear, Dr. Bucci says, but it does suggest that the interplay of physical activity and brainpower is more complex than we have perhaps yet acknowledged.

Some people's ability to recall objects, for instance, "may respond less robustly" to exercise than other people's, he says, if their genetic makeup doesn't promote the release of BDNF.

But the overall message of this study and of ongoing research in his lab, Dr. Bucci adds, is that exercise generally enhances the ability to remember. The people who did improve their memory test scores, he points out, were invariably those who'd exercised throughout the previous month and again the morning of the testing, suggesting a powerful cumulative effect from the exercise sessions, he says.

More generally, Dr. Bucci says, there are many types of memory involving many different areas within the brain, and few seem unaffected by regular, moderate exercise, although the effects may be inconsistent from person to person.

"The current data strongly suggests that people should be physically active" if they wish to enjoy a sturdy, unporous memory in the long term, Dr. Bucci says. Walk or jog regularly, in other words, and most of us can expect to continue recognizing our keys as keys.

Gretchen Reynolds is the author of "The First 20 Minutes: Surprising Science Reveals How We Can Exercise Better, Train Smarter, Live Longer" (Hudson Street Press, 2012).

We hope you'll "Like" the new Well on Facebook, where you'll find news and conversations about fitness, food and family health.

Use glycemic index to help control blood sugar

Picture an old-fashioned roller coaster with plenty of ups and downs. That’s what your blood sugar and insulin levels look like over the course of a day. The highs that follow meals and snacks drop to lows later on. Learning to eat in a way that makes your blood sugar levels look more like a kiddie coaster with gentle ups and downs than a strap-’em-in, hang-on-tight ride with steep climbs and breathtaking drops can make a difference to your health.

How can you do this? A tool called the glycemic index (GI) can help. It rates carbohydrate-containing foods by how much they boost blood sugar (blood glucose). As someone with diabetes, I use the glycemic index as one strategy to keep my blood sugar under control. And there may be other benefits—low glycemic index diets have been linked to reduced risks for cancer, heart disease, and other conditions.

Comparing carbs

Carbohydrates are the main nutrient in bread, pasta, cereals, beans, vegetables, and dairy foods. All carbs are made up of sugar molecules. Some carbs, like sucrose (table sugar), are just a pair of linked sugar molecules, glucose and fructose. Other carbs, like the starches in potatoes, corn, and wheat, are a tangle of glucose molecules strung together in long chains.

How a carbohydrate-containing food affects blood sugar depends on how quickly the digestive system can break apart the food into its component sugar molecules. It also depends on the sugar molecules present.

The glycemic index measures how much a food boosts blood sugar compared to pure glucose. A food with a glycemic index of 28 boosts blood sugar only 28% as much as pure glucose; one with a glycemic index of 100 acts just like pure glucose. Over the past three decades, researchers have measured the glycemic index of several thousand foods.Click here to see the glycemic index of 100 foods. You can also look up glycemic index values from the University of Sydney’s GI website.

Glycemic index and health

New studies on how the glycemic index of a diet affects health are published almost every week. Some of the latest include:

• A low glycemic index diet can help maintain weight loss
• A high glycemic index diet has been linked to increased risk of prostate, colorectal, and pancreatic cancers
• A high glycemic index diet was linked to an increased risk of breast cancer
• A high glycemic index diet appears to increase the risk of cardiovascular disease
• The lower the glycemic index of a meal, the lower the blood sugar and insulin levels after eating

Using the glycemic index

Using the glycemic index to choose a healthier diet is easier than you might think. “It’s actually quite simple,” says Dr. Jennie Brand-Miller, a professor of human nutrition at the University of Sydney and an advocate of the glycemic index. “Swap low glycemic index foods for high ones.” See the table below for examples of these swaps.

Brand-Miller and others suggest three categories of carbohydrate-containing foods:

Low glycemic index (GI of 55 or less): Most fruits and vegetables, beans (Brand-Miller calls beans “star performers”), minimally processed grains, pasta, low-fat dairy foods, and nuts.

Moderate glycemic index (GI 56 to 69): White and sweet potatoes, corn, white rice, couscous, breakfast cereals such as Cream of Wheat and Mini Wheats.

High glycemic index (GI of 70 or higher): White bread, rice cakes, most crackers, bagels, cakes, doughnuts, croissants, waffles, most packaged breakfast cereals.

Choosing healthy, low-GI foods is easier in Australia, where hundreds of foods carry the GI label.

A few caveats

You can’t rely on the glycemic index alone for choosing a healthy diet. Some foods, like carrot and watermelon, have a high glycemic index, but a serving contains so little carbohydrate that the effect on blood sugar is small. Others, like sugary soda, have a moderate glycemic index because they contain a fair amount of fructose, which has relatively little effect on blood sugar. But they also pack plenty of glucose, which does boost blood sugar, cautions Dr. Frank Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at Harvard School of Public Health.

The glycemic index of a particular food can also be influenced by what it is eaten with. Olive oil or something acidic, like vinegar or lemon juice, can slow the conversion of starch to sugar, and so lower the glycemic index.

The glycemic index isn’t a perfect guide for choosing a healthy diet. But it offers useful information that can help you choose foods that have kinder, gentler effects on blood sugar.

 Swaps for lowering glycemic index

Instead of this high glycemic index food	Eat this lower glycemic index food
White rice	Brown rice or converted rice
Instant oatmeal	Steel-cut oats
Cornflakes	Bran flakes
Baked potato	Pasta
White bread	Whole-grain bread
Corn	Peas or leafy greens
Fruit roll-up	Whole fruit

Simple workouts to stretch and strengthen your feet

Limber up - To limber up your foot before attempting other exercises, try this:
1. Sit in a chair with your feet flat on the floor.
2. Lift your left leg so your foot is off the floor and use your big toe to make circles in the air, moving in a clockwise direction, for 15 to 20 rotations.
3. Reverse direction and make another 15 to 20 circles, this time in a counterclockwise direction.
4. Repeat with your right foot.
  
Bottom of foot - To stretch the muscles on the bottom of your feet:
1. Stand with feet together.
2. Step back with your left leg so your heel is raised and your toes press against the ground. You should feel the muscles on the bottom of your feet pull gently.
3. Hold for 20 to 30 seconds.
4. Repeat with your right foot.
  
Heel exercises - To stretch the back of your heel:
1. Loop an exercise band around the leg of a heavy piece of furniture, such as a table or desk.
2. Sitting directly in front of it, slip your foot into the loop so the exercise band curls around your forefoot, just below your toes.
3. Pull back with your forefoot, flexing at the ankle. Hold for several seconds, then relax. You should feel a stretch along the back of your heel.
4. Repeat 10 to 15 times.
5. Repeat with your other foot.

Kids who cook hungrier for healthy food choices

Getting kids to pass up junk food in favour of healthier fruits and veggies has led to many a mealtime meltdown for parents everywhere. Now, researchers from the University of Alberta offer a simple solution: give them an apron.

A provincewide survey of Grade 5 students in Alberta suggests the best way to get your child to eat healthier foods—and actually enjoy them—is to have them help with meal preparation.

“Kids who like fruits and vegetables more tend to eat them more frequently and have better diets,” said lead author Yen Li Chu, a post-doctoral fellow in the School of Public Health. “These data show that encouraging kids to get involved in meal preparation could be an effective health promotion strategy for schools and parents.”

Published last month by Public Health Nutrition in an early online release, the study involved a survey of students in 151 schools across Alberta to learn about kids’ experiences with cooking and food choices.

Nearly one-third of children reported helping with meal prep at least once a day; another one-third said they helped one to three times a week. A quarter of children helped once a month, and 12.4 per cent avoided the kitchen completely.

In general, children preferred fruits to veggies, but children who helped with cooking showed a greater preference for both. Vegetable preference was also 10 per cent higher among children who helped cook.

The data also showed that kids who did meal prep and cooking were more confident about the importance of making healthier food choices.

Paul Veugelers, co-author and Canada Research Chair in Population Health at the U of A, said getting children to eat healthier food promotes bone and muscle development, learning and self-esteem.

“Good food is important for us. It keeps weight gain away—and more important than that, it keeps chronic disease away,” Veugelers said. “The overarching objective of our work is to lower the burden of chronic disease in our society. A healthy diet is right at the top.”

Chu said the results underscore the value of getting kids interested in mealtime activities in the home, but added there could be room for schools to get involved, too.

“You can go into schools and have cooking classes and cooking clubs to help them boost their fruit and vegetable intake and make healthier choices,” she said.

Though this survey dealt with Grade 5 students, the lessons are equally applicable to older youth, including post-secondary students, added Veugelers.

“For many of them, it may be the first time they leave home, the first time in their lives they’re responsible for their own diets,” he said. “There are lessons here for them too, to form groups and take turns cooking, and pay attention to good meal preparation.”

This work was part of the Real Kids Alberta evaluation funded by Alberta Health. Real Kids Alberta is a collaborative initiative between the School of Public Health and Alberta Health to provide directions to improve eating habits and activity levels in Albertachildren and youth

When Dieting, Not All Calories Are Created Equal

A low-glycemic-index diet is better than a low-fat or Atkins diet in terms of improving metabolism and reducing the risk of various chronic diseases

By Christopher Wanjek and LiveScience Bad Science Columnist  | Wednesday, June 27, 2012

A calorie is a calorie, goes the popular mantra. But now doctors and dieticians might have to eat those words.

Researchers have found that not all calories are created equal and that the types of calories you eat, particularly after losing weight, can have a profound effect on how efficiently your body burns calories and keeps off unwanted pounds.

The ideal diet that promotes a fast metabolism — that is, your body's ability to quickly burn off calories — as well as promotes long-term health in terms of disease-free organs appears to be (surprise!) fresh vegetables and whole grains or any foods that reduce the surge of blood sugar after a meal.

These foods are said to have a low glycemic index and are generally foods that are not processed. The Mediterranean diet is one example.

The study, led by researchers at Boston Children's Hospital, is detailed in the June 27 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Blame it on evolution

Anyone who has struggled to lose weight knows that the harder part is keeping off that weight. One of the reasons is that, after weight loss, the rate at which people burn calories decreases, reflecting a slower metabolism.

Blame it on evolution: Your body doesn't want to lose weight, so it becomes efficient at doing more with fewer calories when faced withtimes of famine, which in these modern times is called a diet. As a result, some dieters find themselves packing on pounds even while on a calorie-restricted diet because their metabolism has become slower.

Cara Ebbeling of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children's Hospital, first author on the study, and her colleagues have found that what you eat can significantly affect your metabolism rate. A diet full of processed foods and simple carbohydrates, which have a high glycemic index, eventually will lead to a slower metabolism. [7 Diet Tricks That Really Work]

This index, a scale from 0 to 100, is a measure of how quickly a carbohydrate is digested and released into the bloodstream as glucose. So, 200 calories of corn flakes (93 on the glycemic index), or a diet filled with such processed foods, can continuously spike the blood with glucose and trigger a cascade of events that ultimately lead to more weight gain compared to 200 calories of hummus (6 on the glycemic index).

Not necessarily fat vs. carb

Specifically, Ebbeling's group studied three dietary paradigms: an Atkins' low-carb diet (60 percent of calories from fat, 10 percent from carbs); a mixed diet with foods generally low on the glycemic index (40 percent of calories from fat, 40 percent from carbs); and a low-fat diet with a mix of carbohydrates generally high on the glycemic index (20 percent of calories from fat, 60 percent from carbs).

Patients, who had recently lost weight, were placed on each of these diets for four weeks. They lived in the care of the researchers, who controlled meals and measured various aspects of their metabolism and blood profiles.

In terms of metabolism, the Atkins-like diet was the winner, said the study's senior author, David Ludwig, director of the obesity center. While on the low-carb diet, patients burned 300 more calories each day during normal activities compared to the time spent on the low-fat diet. Three hundred calories is about the amount of energy burned in an hour of moderate exercise, which the low-carb dieters are getting for free, Ludwig said.

But there was a catch. Blood samples taken while participants were on the low-carb diet revealed spikes in cholesterol and other measures of heart disease, stroke and even diabetes risk. [7 Foods Your Heart Will Hate]

The low-glycemic-index diet offered the best in terms of modest improvement in metabolism and reducing the risk of various chronic diseases, Ludwig told LiveScience. The low-fat diet — what's recommended by the U.S. government and the American Heart Association — performed the worse, Ludwig added, because it decreased the metabolism rate and raised the risk for diabetes and metabolic syndrome.

Processed vs. non-processed

At first glance, this study might appear to rule out a so-called "low-fat" diet. Not so, says Dean Ornish, founder of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, Calif., and of the low-fat diet that bears his name.

"The choice is not between a diet that is low in fat yet high in sugar versus one that is low in sugar but high in fat, or an in-between diet," Ornish told LiveScience. "An optimal diet is predominantly whole foods that are low in fat and low in sugar and [low in] other high-glycemic-index foods," a diet he has long advocated.

Ludwig agreed that a low-fat diet could work provided that the carbohydrate component of the diet is low on the glycemic index. But this is complicated in an American diet, he said, because even whole grains, when heavily processed, can spike the blood sugar. Soft, whole wheat bread can have an identical glycemic index profile as white bread.

"We believe that low-glycemic-index diets are easier to stick to on a day-to-day basis, compared to low-carb and low-fat diets, which many people find limiting," said Ebbeling. "Unlike low-fat and very-low-carbohydrate diets, a low-glycemic-index diet doesn't eliminate entire classes of food, likely making it easier to follow and more sustainable."

"The focus on fat reduction is a waste of energy," added Ludwig. "Low-carb has downsides, too."

Abdominal fat and back pain- what to do

Obesity is a leading cause of nagging back pain. Reducing your weight by only 10% can make a big difference in less back pain. Extra abdominal fat and weight on the pelvis pulls the body forward and puts strain on your lower back muscles. Although obesity may not be the cause of the pain, it takes the pain to a whole new level. It throws off your posture, makes it difficult to properly align your body for a good sleep; it requires your back muscles to pick up the slack and learn to handle how you carry and shift your weight.

Here are some simple things you can do to reduce back pain that is aggravated by obesity.

• Actively work on losing weight. Aim for a 10% weight loss to start, then reevaluate.
• Stretch your back daily. You don't have to be a Yoga master to perform light stretching moves to ease the tension from your back.
• Use proper posture, holding your shoulders back and your back straight.
• Strengthen your back muscles and abs. Add resistance training to your weekly workout routine. The stronger abs and back you have, the better time you have coping with the pain caused by obesity.
• Be consistent with daily exericse. Losing even a little bit of weight can take some of the pressure off of your lower back.
• Commit to eating healthier and creating a lifestyle to support your new healthier habits

How Can I Control Visceral Fat?

·         There are four keys: exercise, diet, sleep, and stress management.

·         Exercise: Forget spot-reducing. There aren't any moves that specifically target visceral fat. As you lose weight, you lose all types of fat.

·         But vigorous aerobic exercise has been shown to trim subcutaneous and visceral fat, even fat stores in the liver linked to fatty liver disease. It's also proven to slow the build-up of visceral fat over the years.

·         In a Duke University study, 30 minutes of vigorous aerobic activity, done four times per week, reduced subcutaneous and visceral abdominal fat. Resistance training alone reduced only subcutaneous fat.

·         Cris Slentz, PhD, who worked on that study, defines “vigorous” as jogging for physically fit people and walking briskly at an incline for obese people who may risk injury by jogging. Workouts of the same intensity on stationary bikes and elliptical or rowing machines are also effective, Slentz says.     

·         On the flip side, studies show that inactivity leads to greater gathering of visceral fat over time. A lifestyle that includes moderate activity – raising your heart rate for 30 minutes at least three times per week – significantly slows visceral fat gains.

·         “Rake leaves, walk, garden, go to Zumba, play soccer with your kids. It doesn’t have to be in the gym,” Hairston says. If you are not active now, check with your doctor or other health care provider before starting a new fitness program.

·         Diet: There is no diet that targets visceral fat alone. But when you lose weight, belly fat usually goes first.

·         A fiber-rich diet may also help. Hairston’s research shows that people who eat 10 grams of soluble fiber per day, without any other diet changes, build up less visceral fat over time than others. That’s two small apples, a cup of green peas, and a half-cup of pinto beans, for example.

·         “Even if you kept everything else the same but switched to a higher-fiber bread, you might be able to better maintain your weight over time,” Hairston says.

·         Sleep: Too much or too little sleep also plays a role in the build-up of visceral fat. A study published in Sleep tracked adults' visceral fat over five years. People who slept five hours or less, or eight or more hours, per night gained more visceral fat than those who slept between six and seven hours per night. The study doesn't prove that sleep was the only difference, but it may have contributed to the visceral fat build-up.

·         Stress: Managing your stress matters. That includes chronic stress you face in your personal life, and societal stresses, such as discrimination. A study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology showed that African-American and white women who reported significant experiences of discrimination had more visceral fat than women who hadn’t had such experiences.

·         The stress of discrimination doesn't necessarily cause weight gain. But Shively, whose research focuses on social stress and visceral fat, tells WebMD that the body can respond to all types of social stress by storing fat viscerally.

·         “You can’t control society, but you can modify your response to it,” she says. Shively recommends getting social support, meditating, and exercising as ways to handle stress.

·         Keeping up with your friends may also help. A study published in Biological Psychiatry showed that men and women who got support from a best friend before a stress test made less cortisol, a stress hormone. And another study, published in the International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, showed that women who pray or meditate have healthier levels of cortisol than those who don't meditate.

·         But you only have so much time, right? “If you could only afford the time to do one of these things, exercise probably has the most immediate benefits, because it hits both obesity and stress response,” Shively says.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/540061-how-to-lose-belly-fat-with-exercise-without-hurting-my-injured-back/

http://www.livestrong.com/article/98771-exercises-lose-belly-fat-hurting/

http://www.spine-health.com/wellness/exercise/exercise-sciatica-a-herniated-disc

Abdominal fat and what to do about it

(This article was first printed in the December 2006 issue of the Harvard Women’s Health Watch. For more information or to order, please go to http://www.health.harvard.edu/womens.)

Though the term might sound dated, “middle-age spread” is a greater concern than ever. As women go through their middle years, their proportion of fat to body weight tends to increase — more than it does in men. Especially at menopause, extra pounds tend to park themselves around the midsection, as the ratio of fat to lean tissue shifts and fat storage begins favoring the upper body over the hips and thighs. Even women who don’t actually gain weight may still gain inches at the waist.

At one time, women might have accepted these changes as an inevitable fact of postmenopausal life. But we’ve now been put on notice that as our waistlines grow, so do our health risks. Abdominal, or visceral, fat is of particular concern because it’s a key player in a variety of health problems — much more so than subcutaneous fat, the kind you can grasp with your hand. Visceral fat, on the other hand, lies out of reach, deep within the abdominal cavity, where it pads the spaces between our abdominal organs.

Visceral fat has been linked to metabolic disturbances and increased risk for cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. In women, it is also associated with breast cancer and the need for gallbladder surgery.

Abdominal fat locations Generally speaking, abdominal fat is either visceral (surrounding the abdominal organs) or subcutaneous (lying between the skin and the abdominal wall). Fat located behind the abdominal cavity, called retroperitoneal fat, is generally counted as visceral fat. Several studies indicate that visceral fat is most strongly correlated with risk factors such as insulin resistance, which sets the stage for type 2 diabetes. Some research suggests that the deeper layers of subcutaneous fat may also be involved in insulin resistance (in men but not in women).

Where’s the fat?

Fat accumulated in the lower body (the pear shape) is subcutaneous, while fat in the abdominal area (the apple shape) is largely visceral. Where a woman’s fat ends up is influenced by several factors. Heredity is one: Scientists have identified a number of genes that help determine how many fat cells an individual develops and where these cells are stored (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, April 25, 2006). Hormones are also involved. At menopause, estrogen production decreases and the ratio of androgen (male hormones present in small amounts in women) to estrogen increases — a shift that’s been linked in some studies to increased abdominal fat after menopause. Some researchers suspect that the drop in estrogen levels at menopause is also linked to increased levels of cortisol, a stress hormone that promotes the accumulation of abdominal fat.

As the evidence against abdominal fat mounts, researchers and clinicians are trying to measure it, correlate it with health risks, and monitor changes that occur with age and overall weight gain or loss. The most accurate measurement techniques, magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography, are expensive and not available for routine use. However, research using these imaging methods has shown that waist circumference reflects abdominal fat. It has largely superseded waist-to-hip ratio (waist size divided by hip size) as an indicator of fat distribution, because it is easier to measure and about as accurate. There’s also evidence that waist circumference is a better predictor of health problems than body mass index (BMI), which indicates only total body fat (see “Measuring up”).

Measuring up Researchers have tried several ways of measuring the links between health risks and body weight or fat distribution: Body mass index (BMI). A ratio of weight in kilograms to the square of height in meters, BMI helps identify people whose weight increases their risk for several conditions, including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. People with BMIs of 25–29.9 are considered overweight, and those with BMIs of 30 or over, obese. However, some researchers think BMI isn’t always a valid indication of obesity, because it gives misleading results in people who are very muscular or very tall. To calculate your BMI, go towww.nhlbisupport.com/bmi or use this formula: Weight in pounds × 703 ÷ (height in inches)2. Waist-to-hip ratio. To find your waist-to-hip ratio, divide your waist measurement at its narrowest point by your hip measurement at its widest point. As a marker of a person’s abdominal fat, this measure outperforms BMI. For women, the risk for heart disease and stroke begins to rise at a ratio of about 0.8. Waist circumference. The simplest way to check for abdominal fat is to measure your waist. Run a tape measure around your torso at about the level of your navel. (Official guidelines determine the level at which waist circumference is measured by locating a bony landmark: the top of the right hipbone, or right iliac crest, where it intersects a line dropped vertically from the middle of the right armpit.) Breathe minimally, and make sure not to pull the tape measure so tight that it depresses the skin. In women with a BMI of 25–34.9, a waist circumference greater than 35 inches is considered high risk, although research suggests there is some extra health risk at any size greater than 33 inches. A study in the September 2006 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that in women, a large waist was correlated with diabetes risk — even when BMI was in the normal range (18.5–24.9). Since abdominal fat can be a problem despite a normal BMI, health assessments should include both BMI and waist circumference. The relationship between waist circumference and health risk varies by ethnic group. For example, in Asian women, a waist circumference above 31.5 inches is considered a health risk.

The good news is that visceral fat yields fairly easily to exercise and diet, with benefits ranging from lower blood pressure to more favorable cholesterol levels. Subcutaneous fat located at the waist — the pinchable stuff — can be frustratingly difficult to budge, but in normal-weight people, it’s generally not considered as much of a health threat as visceral fat is. In fact, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2004 found that liposuction removal of subcutaneous fat (up to 23 pounds of it) in 15 obese women had no effect after three months on their measures of blood pressure, blood sugar, cholesterol, or response to insulin. Weight loss through diet and exercise, on the other hand, triggers many changes that have positive health effects.

What’s wrong with abdominal fat?

Body fat, or adipose tissue, was once regarded as little more than a storage depot for fat blobs waiting passively to be used for energy. But research suggests that fat cells — particularly abdominal fat cells — are biologically active. It’s more accurate to think of fat as an endocrine organ or gland, producing hormones and other substances that can profoundly affect our health. One such hormone is leptin, which is normally released after a meal and dampens appetite. Fat cells also produce the hormone adiponectin, which is thought to influence the response of cells to insulin. Although scientists are still deciphering the roles of individual hormones, it’s becoming clear that excess body fat, especially abdominal fat, disrupts the normal balance and functioning of these hormones.

Scientists are also learning that visceral fat pumps out immune system chemicals called cytokines — for example, tumor necrosis factor and interleukin-6 — that can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease by promoting insulin resistance and low-level chronic inflammation. These and other biochemicals, some not yet identified, are thought to have deleterious effects on cells’ sensitivity to insulin, blood pressure, and blood clotting.

One reason excess visceral fat is so harmful could be its location near the portal vein, which carries blood from the intestinal area to the liver. Substances released by visceral fat, including free fatty acids, enter the portal vein and travel to the liver, where they can influence the production of blood lipids. Visceral fat is directly linked with higher total cholesterol and LDL (bad) cholesterol, lower HDL (good) cholesterol, and insulin resistance.

Insulin resistance means that your body’s muscle and liver cells don’t respond adequately to normal levels of insulin, the pancreatic hormone that carries glucose into the body’s cells. Glucose levels in the blood rise, heightening the risk for diabetes. Together, insulin resistance, high blood glucose, excess abdominal fat, unfavorable cholesterol levels (including high triglycerides), and high blood pressure constitute the metabolic syndrome, a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke.

Excess fat at the waist has been linked to several other disorders as well. A European study of nearly 500,000 women and men found that, for women, a waist-to-hip ratio above 0.85 was associated with a 52% increase in colorectal cancer risk. A long-running community study on atherosclerosis conducted by researchers at Wake Forest University found that even among normal-weight people, those with higher waist-to-hip ratios had just as much difficulty as those with higher BMIs in carrying out various activities of daily living, such as getting in and out of bed and performing household chores.

A larger waist measurement also predicts the development of high blood pressure, regardless of total body fat, according to a 10-year study of Chinese adults published in the August 2006 American Journal of Hypertension. Finally, a study presented at the 2005 annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience found that older people with bigger bellies had worse memory and less verbal fluency, even after taking diabetes into account.

Now for the good news

So what can we do about tubby tummies? A lot, it turns out. The starting point for bringing weight under control, in general, and combating abdominal fat, in particular, is regular moderate-intensity physical activity — at least 30 minutes per day (and perhaps up to 60 minutes per day) to control weight. In a study comparing sedentary adults with those exercising at different intensities, researchers at Duke University Medical Center found that the non-exercisers experienced a nearly 9% gain in visceral fat after six months. Subjects who exercised the equivalent of walking or jogging 12 miles per week put on no visceral fat, and those who exercised the equivalent of jogging 20 miles per week lost both visceral and subcutaneous fat.

Strength training (exercising with weights) may also help fight abdominal fat. A University of Pennsylvania study followed overweight or obese women, ages 24–44, for two years. Compared to participants who received only advice about exercise, those given an hour of weight training twice a week reduced their proportion of body fat by nearly 4% — and were more successful in keeping off visceral fat.

Spot exercising, such as doing sit-ups, can tighten abdominal muscles, but it won’t get at visceral fat.

Diet is also important. Pay attention to portion size, and emphasize complex carbohydrates (fruits, vegetables, and whole grains) and lean protein over simple carbohydrates such as white bread, refined-grain pasta, and sugary drinks. Replacing saturated fats and trans fats with polyunsaturated fats can also help. But drastically cutting calories is not a good diet strategy, because it can force the body into starvation mode, slowing metabolism and paradoxically causing it to store fat more efficiently later on.

Scientists hope to develop drug treatments that target abdominal fat. For example, studies of the weight-loss medication sibutramine (Meridia), which was approved in 1997, have shown that the drug’s greatest effects are on visceral fat. Rimonabant (Acomplia) — not yet FDA-approved — is the first of a new class of drugs that block a receptor in the brain that increases appetite. Acomplia has been shown to modestly reduce the accumulation of fat at the waist.

Because levels of the hormone dehydroepiandrosterone, better known as DHEA, decline with age, many people believe that DHEA supplementation can reverse age-related changes, including increased abdominal fat. DHEA is converted in the body to testosterone and estrogen and regulates various functions. Some studies have linked DHEA to longevity in animals and people, and others have linked it to modest health benefits. But the results of a two-year randomized trial published in the Oct. 19, 2006, New England Journal of Medicineshowed that DHEA had no effect on aging markers, including body-composition measurements, in women and men ages 60 and over.

For now, experts stress that lifestyle, especially exercise, is the very best way to fight visceral fat.