The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food – NYTimes.com

This is a really long article (I’m only halfway through) but it’s basically an abbreviated version of a book I read a few years ago called “The end to overeatting” which outlined how processed foods were made addictive by various combinations of fat, sugar and salt. It’s really interesting. Click through at the bottom for the whole thing.

The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food - NYTimes.com

By MICHAEL MOSS

On the evening of April 8, 1999, a long line of Town Cars and taxis pulled up to the Minneapolis headquarters of Pillsbury and discharged 11 men who controlled America’s largest food companies. Nestlé was in attendance, as were Kraft and Nabisco, General Mills and Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola and Mars. Rivals any other day, the C.E.O.’s and company presidents had come together for a rare, private meeting. On the agenda was one item: the emerging obesity epidemic and how to deal with it. While the atmosphere was cordial, the men assembled were hardly friends. Their stature was defined by their skill in fighting one another for what they called “stomach share” — the amount of digestive space that any one company’s brand can grab from the competition.

James Behnke, a 55-year-old executive at Pillsbury, greeted the men as they arrived. He was anxious but also hopeful about the plan that he and a few other food-company executives had devised to engage the C.E.O.’s on America’s growing weight problem. “We were very concerned, and rightfully so, that obesity was becoming a major issue,” Behnke recalled. “People were starting to talk about sugar taxes, and there was a lot of pressure on food companies.” Getting the company chiefs in the same room to talk about anything, much less a sensitive issue like this, was a tricky business, so Behnke and his fellow organizers had scripted the meeting carefully, honing the message to its barest essentials. “C.E.O.’s in the food industry are typically not technical guys, and they’re uncomfortable going to meetings where technical people talk in technical terms about technical things,” Behnke said. “They don’t want to be embarrassed. They don’t want to make commitments. They want to maintain their aloofness and autonomy.”

A chemist by training with a doctoral degree in food science, Behnke became Pillsbury’s chief technical officer in 1979 and was instrumental in creating a long line of hit products, including microwaveable popcorn. He deeply admired Pillsbury but in recent years had grown troubled by pictures of obese children suffering from diabetes and the earliest signs of hypertension and heart disease. In the months leading up to the C.E.O. meeting, he was engaged in conversation with a group of food-science experts who were painting an increasingly grim picture of the public’s ability to cope with the industry’s formulations — from the body’s fragile controls on overeating to the hidden power of some processed foods to make people feel hungrier still. It was time, he and a handful of others felt, to warn the C.E.O.’s that their companies may have gone too far in creating and marketing products that posed the greatest health concerns.

The discussion took place in Pillsbury’s auditorium. The first speaker was a vice president of Kraft named Michael Mudd. “I very much appreciate this opportunity to talk to you about childhood obesity and the growing challenge it presents for us all,” Mudd began. “Let me say right at the start, this is not an easy subject. There are no easy answers — for what the public health community must do to bring this problem under control or for what the industry should do as others seek to hold it accountable for what has happened. But this much is clear: For those of us who’ve looked hard at this issue, whether they’re public health professionals or staff specialists in your own companies, we feel sure that the one thing we shouldn’t do is nothing.”

As he spoke, Mudd clicked through a deck of slides — 114 in all — projected on a large screen behind him. The figures were staggering. More than half of American adults were now considered overweight, with nearly one-quarter of the adult population — 40 million people — clinically defined as obese. Among children, the rates had more than doubled since 1980, and the number of kids considered obese had shot past 12 million. (This was still only 1999; the nation’s obesity rates would climb much higher.) Food manufacturers were now being blamed for the problem from all sides — academia, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society. The secretary of agriculture, over whom the industry had long held sway, had recently called obesity a “national epidemic.”

via The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food – NYTimes.com.

BPA substitute could spell trouble: Experiments show bisphenol S also disrupts hormone activity

Definitely seeing the merit of just buying glass from now on! I love my BPA free water bottle but… who knows what’s in it instead?

Jan. 22, 2013 — A few years ago, manufacturers of water bottles, food containers, and baby products had a big problem. A key ingredient of the plastics they used to make their merchandise, an organic compound called bisphenol A, had been linked by scientists to diabetes, asthma and cancer and altered prostate and neurological development. The FDA and state legislatures were considering action to restrict BPA’s use, and the public was pressuring retailers to remove BPA-containing items from their shelves.

The industry responded by creating “BPA-free” products, which were made from plastic containing a compound called bisphenol S. In addition to having similar names, BPA and BPS share a similar structure and versatility: BPS is now known to be used in everything from currency to thermal receipt paper, and widespread human exposure to BPS was confirmed in a 2012 analysis of urine samples taken in the U.S., Japan, China and five other Asian countries.

According to a study by University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston researchers, though, BPS also resembles BPA in a more problematic way. Like BPA, the study found, BPS disrupts cellular responses to the hormone estrogen, changing patterns of cell growth and death and hormone release. Also like BPA, it does so at extremely low levels of exposure.

“Our studies show that BPS is active at femtomolar to picomolar concentrations just like endogenous hormones — that’s in the range of parts per trillion to quadrillion,” said UTMB professor Cheryl Watson, senior author of a paper on the study now online in the advance publications section ofEnvironmental Health Perspectives. “Those are levels likely to be produced by BPS leaching from containers into their contents.”

Watson and graduate student René Viñas conducted cell-culture experiments to examine the effects of BPS on a form of signaling that involves estrogen receptors — the “receivers” of a biochemical message — acting in the cell’s outer membrane instead of the cell nucleus. Where nuclear signaling involves interaction with DNA to produce proteins and requires hours to days, membrane signaling (also called “non-genomic” signaling) acts through much quicker mechanisms, generating a response in seconds or minutes.

Watson and Viñas focused on key biochemical pathways that are normally stimulated when estrogen activates membrane receptors. One, involving a protein known as ERK, is linked to cell growth; another, labeled JNK, is tied to cell death. In addition, they examined the ability of BPS to activate proteins called caspases (also linked to cell death) and promote the release of prolactin, a hormone that stimulates lactation and influences many other functions.

“These pathways form a complicated web of signals, and we’re going to need to study them more closely to fully understand how they work,” Watson said. “On its own, though, this study shows us that very low levels of BPS can disrupt natural estrogen hormone actions in ways similar t

Can ‘Negative-Calorie’ Foods Help You Lose Weight?

by

Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN, CNS: Can 'Negative-Calorie' Foods Help You Lose Weight?

Well, yes and no. Digesting food burns calories. And it’s true that a few foods, such as grapefruit and celery, contain fewer calories than it takes to digest them. So, when you eat these foods, you actually burn more calories than you take in. Thus, the term “negative-calorie foods.”

Theoretically, the more negative-calorie foods I eat, the more weight I lose! How great is that? Now all I need is a job that pays me more the less I do, and a bank account that gets bigger the more I spend!

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. Here’s why: When nutritionists estimate how many calories you should eat, we’re already taking into consideration how many calories you burn chewing and digesting your food. The “negative-calorie diet” essentially subtracts those calories twice. That’s the kind of accounting that will make you bounce checks (or get you a really good job on Wall Street).

How Negative-Calorie Foods Help You Lose Weight

But will eating a whole bunch of celery and grapefruit speed your weight loss? Only if you eat them instead of brownies and potato chips. In other words, you can’t eat a brownie and then burn off the calories by chasing it with a hundred sticks of celery. The only way to make this work is to eat the hundred sticks of celery first. Then, with any luck, you’ll be too full to eat the brownie.

Replacing high-calorie foods with low-calorie foods will help you lose weight because it reduces your overall calorie intake. Of course, you can also lose weight by exercising, which burns calories. But digesting negative-calorie foods does not constitute an exercise program. Take it from me: A half-hour spent on the treadmill or bike is going to burn a lot more calories than a half-hour spent digesting celery.

Those lists of negative-calorie foods you’ll find on the Internet are simply lists of low-calorie foods. And, if you’re dieting, these kinds of foods are your friends. To that end, here’s a list of “negative-calorie foods.” But take this list with a grain of salt: I’m afraid that a negative-calorie diet is, indeed, to good to be true.

via Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN, CNS: Can ‘Negative-Calorie’ Foods Help You Lose Weight?.

Canned Food’s Long-, Long-, Long-Lasting Impact | Rodale News

Well this article is a bit scary…..

The side effects of BPA could linger for generations, new research finds.

BY EMILY MAIN

A moment on your lips…forever changing your family’s genes?

A moment on your lips, forever in your family genetics? Bisphenol A (BPA), the chemical used in canned food linings—and in other consumer products too numerous to list—was just implicated in a new study as negatively affecting the health not just of those who ate it but also of four generations of their children. Considering that BPA is found in 90 percent of Americans’ blood, that’s a lot of children who could potentially be impacted by an innocent can of spaghetti ‘n’ meatballs.

The new study, published in the journal Endocrinology, was looking at the trans-generational effects of BPA on mice. The researchers fed BPA-laden food to one set of mouse mothers and regular food to another, then monitored the behavior of their pups and that of three subsequent generations. The scientists also submitted the animals to genetic testing.

The mice that were directly exposed to BPA in the womb were less social and more isolated than the other group. They spent less time exploring their cages and engaging with other mice. But by the third generation, the behavior had flipped. The BPA-exposed mice were more social and engaged than the other mice. While that may sound like a good thing, it isn’t. It simply means that the chemical continues to influence brain activity for generations, the authors wrote in their study. In fact, some of the behavioral issues they saw in the all generations of mice were similar to those seen in autistic children and children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. “Autism is characterized by a reduction in social interactions and we observed some declines in social interaction in the BPA exposed mice,” says Emilie F. Rissman, the study’s lead investigator and a professor of biochemistry and molecular genetics at the University of Virginia School of Medicine.

As for genetics, the researchers found in all four generations of BPA-exposed mice that the chemical changed how estrogen receptors were switched off and on. They also saw changes in the way that two other hormones acted in the mice’s brains—oxytocin, the “love hormone,” and vasopressin, which influences hostile behaviors and reactions to stress.

What was interesting—and disturbing—about this study was that the researchers exposed the rats to levels of BPA that humans would normally be exposed to in their diets. “Mouse behavior and human behavior are miles apart,” says Rissman. But because mouse and human genetics are so similar, the animals are a good laboratory model for what could be happening in people, she adds.

FDA: We Won’t Ban BPA (For Now)

Here are the best ways to keep BPA out of your family…for generations:

• Ditch canned food. Cans are lined with an epoxy resin that’s made with BPA, and that includes things like soup, canned beans, and soda. Look for aseptic cartons, glass jars, and frozen foods as alternatives.

• Swap to glass containers. Rather than store your leftovers in plastic tubs, use glass or ceramic containers and dishes. Stainless steel containers make great substitutes for plastic lunch bags and takeout clamshells.

• Don’t be duped by “BPA-free” plastics. A study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that those seemingly better plastics can contain BPA alternatives that are even more harmful.

• Decline receipts. They’re coated with a BPA-based coating that rubs off onto your fingers and whatever else it comes in contact with.

• Be wary of dental sealants. BPA is the most commonly used dental sealant material, and it’s used in composite fillings used to treat dental cavities. A recent study linked BPA in dental treatments to social problems in children, as well, prompting pediatricians to call on dentists to find other materials. However, because BPA is the most durable protective alternative in many dentists’ toolboxes, they’re currently reluctant to use other materials (and considering that the other primary filling alternative is mercury, the alternatives can be just as bad). Preventing cavities and tooth decay is your best bet here: Brush regularly and visit your dentist for regular cleanings.

via Canned Food’s Long-, Long-, Long-Lasting Impact | Rodale News.

Epigenetics: Mother’s nutrition — before pregnancy — may alter function of her children’s genes

ScienceDaily (Sep. 20, 2012) — Everyone knows that what mom eats when pregnant makes a huge difference in the health of her child. Now, new research in mice suggests that what she ate before pregnancy might be important too. According to a new research report published online in The FASEB Journal, what a group of female mice ate — before pregnancy — chemically altered their DNA and these changes were passed to her offspring. These DNA alterations, called “epigenetic” changes, drastically affected the pups’ metabolism of many essential fatty acids.

“As parents, we have to understand better that our responsibilities to our children are not only of a social, economical, or educational nature, but that our own biological status can contribute to the fate of our children, and this effect can be long-lasting,” said Mihai Niculescu, M.D., Ph.D., study author from Nutrition Research Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in Chapel Hill, N.C. “My hope is that, along with many other scientists, we will reveal this tight biological relationship between us as parents, and our children, and how we can improve the lives of our children using our own biological machinery.”

To make this discovery, Niculescu and colleagues split mouse females into two groups before gestation, and fed them either a control diet, or a diet deficient in alpha-linolenic acid or ALA. Continue reading

Animal Study Links GMOs To Cancer – Prevention.com

By Leah Zerbe

Part of the problem with genetically engineered food, or GMOs, in the food system is that there aren’t a whole lot of GMO studies investigating their safety. That reason alone has sparked dozens of health experts to call for a GMO ban or to at least require labeling of GMO ingredients.

But a new study published this week in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology deals a major blow to biotech and chemical company giants. In a first-of-its-kind animal study, French researchers discovered that rats fed genetically engineered corn or exposed to the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup over a long period died early, suffered mammary tumors, and also had kidney and liver damage. The GMO corn used in the study was Monsanto’s NK603 seed, a variety created to live through heavy dousings of Roundup.

Roundup is a systemic pesticide, meaning it’s taken up inside of the plant. It winds up in nonorganic food, particularly processed foods, at levels that many toxicologists say could cause harm to humans.

In the study, researchers fed rats GMO corn or gave them water laced with Roundup at levels allowed in the United States. Compared to the control group, exposed rats developed significantly more mammary tumors and suffered organ damage, and 20% of the males and 50% of females died early. Previous studies linked GMOs—which have been infiltrating the US food system since the 1990s—to allergies and digestive disease.

Surveys have shown that labeling GMOs earns broad bipartisan support among voters. Regardless of political party, about 90% of the population believes GMOs should be labeled. Currently, the only ways to know if your food is GMO- and pesticide-free is to buy organic food. (Want to support labeling efforts? See How You Can Stand Up Against GMOs.)

via Animal Study Links GMOs To Cancer – Prevention.com.

Fish Oil’s Heart Benefits May Be Overstated

Takeaway – don’t just pop supplements. Change how you eat.

September 11, 2012 | By Amanda Gardner

fish-oil-heart-benefits

Getty Images

Fish oil supplements, widely touted for their ability to improve heart health, may not be as useful in protecting the heart as once thought, according to a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Fish oil supplements contain omega-3 fatty acids, which are found in salmon and other cold-water fish. These healthy fats have been shown to lower blood pressure, reduce triglycerides, and prevent heart rhythm abnormalities, but clinical trials investigating whether these properties translate into a lower risk of heart attack and stroke have had mixed results.

In the new study, researchers sought to resolve these inconsistent findings by re-examining data from 20 previous clinical trials involving nearly 70,000 patients. Overall, they concluded, fish oil supplements were no more effective than placebo at preventing premature death or serious cardiovascular problems.

“Omega-3 supplementation did not statistically significantly reduce all-cause mortality, sudden and cardiac death, [heart attack], or stroke,” says Moses Elisaf, M.D., the senior author of the study and a professor of internal medicine at the University of Ioannina Medical School, in Greece.

The study isn’t the first to cast doubt on the benefits of fish oil. In April, a similar analysis of previous research found that the supplements did not help prevent second heart attacks or strokes in people with cardiovascular disease.

Diets rich in fish and omega-3s have been linked to a lower risk of heart attack, so what accounts for the disappointing results from supplement trials? Inconsistencies in the trial details—such as the dosage used and the participants’ preexisting conditions—may be partly responsible, but it could also be that fish oil doesn’t provide the same benefits as omega-3s in their natural state.

In theory, the omega-3s found on drugstore shelves are no different than those found in fish and other dietary sources, such as flaxseed. In reality, however, the concentrated dose provided by supplements may behave differently in the body than the slow and steady intake that comes with food. Continue reading

Truth About A New Study Questioning Organics’ Value – Prevention.com

(Another) article about organics vs that recent study.

Are Organics A Waste Of Money?

The skinny on a controversial new study

By Leah Zerbe

Is organic better? Many consumers swear by it but a team of Stanford researchers made headlines recently with their finding that, after looking at data from 250 studies, there wasn’t a big difference in nutrient levels of organic and conventional food. The media jumped on it, flooding the news with headlines like, Organic Food Is Just A Crock and Organic Foods No Better For You.

But the research, published in the journal the Annals of Internal Medicine, is facing strong criticism from experts who say studies that fail to look at the big picture  end up confusing people—rather than helping them make healthy choices.

“Nutrition studies miss the point,” says Charlotte Vallaeys, director of farm and food policy for The Cornucopia Institute, an organic watchdog group. “Consumers should not lose sight of the important impacts of organic agriculture, which produces foods without the use of toxic pesticides that have been linked to an array of health problems, including ADHD in children and cancer.”

Here’s what the study did find to support the argument for eating organic:

It can reduce infections. Choosing organic meat, particularly organic pork and chicken, reduces your risk of coming in contact with potentially deadly antibiotic-resistant super-germs by more than 30%.

Organics reduce your exposure to pesticides. Organic produce was shown to have a 30% lower risk of contamination with pesticides than conventional produce. “A growing body of evidence suggests that dietary exposures to pesticides, particularly neurotoxic insecticides, causes lasting damage to developing fetuses and young children,” says Sonya Lunder, a senior research analyst at Environmental Working Group, an environmental and human health watchdog group.

Organic milk is a smart choice. Organic milk contained more heart- and brain-healthy omega-3 fatty acids.

Produce that’s organically grown is healthier. Organic produce boosted higher levels of cancer-preventing micronutrients known as plant phenols.

And here’s what the study missed:

GMO threats: The study didn’t include potential health impacts of eating genetically engineered material commonly found in nonorganic food, particularly processed foods. The jury’s still out on the safety of GMOs in the food supply due to a lack of long-term studies, but preliminary research suggests it could be linked to a whole host of health concerns, such as digestive diseases and food allergies.

The true cost of conventional agriculture: US farmers spray so many pesticides—particularly glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup—that it’s now evaporating and raining back down on us. Glyphosate is implicated in hormone disruption, infertility, and cell damage. Scientists don’t know yet how such widespread exposure is affecting humans, or what the ultimate environmental and human health toll will be.

Processed food threats: Organic processed foods are free of questionable artificial sweeteners, food dyes, and chemical preservatives that have been linked to everything from ADHD, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome to brain cell damage, autism, and obesity.

Bottom line: Don’t let catchy headlines fool you into forgoing organics. See the Top 10 Reasons To Go Organic and What To Buy Organic—And What To Skip.

via Truth About A New Study Questioning Organics’ Value – Prevention.com.

13 Reasons Tea Is (Healthy and) Awesome: Greatist.com | Healthland | TIME.com

http://greatist.com/health/why-coffee-and-tea-are-amazing-for-you/

Put down those saucer cups and get chugging — tea is officially awesome for your health. But before loading up on Red Zinger, make sure that your “tea” is actually tea. Real tea is derived from a particular plant (Camellia sinensis) and includes only four varieties: green, black, white, and oolong. Anything else (like herbal “tea”) is an infusion of a different plant and isn’t technically tea.

But what real tea lacks in variety, it makes up for with some serious health benefits. Researchers attribute tea’s health properties to polyphenols (a type of antioxidant) and phytochemicals. Though most studies have focused on the better-known green and black teas, white and oolong also bring benefits to the table. Read on to find out why coffee’s little cousin rocks your health.

Tea can boost exercise endurance. Scientists have found that the catechins (antioxidants) in green tea extract increase the body’s ability to burn fat as fuel, which accounts for improved muscle endurance.

Drinking tea could help reduce the risk of heart attack. Tea might also help protect against cardiovascular and degenerative diseases.

The antioxidants in tea might help protect against a boatload of cancers, including breast, colon, colorectal, skin, lung, esophagus, stomach, small intestine, pancreas, liver, ovarian, prostate and oral cancers. But don’t rely solely on tea to keep a healthy body — tea is not a miracle cure, after all. While more studies than not suggest that tea has cancer-fighting benefits, the current research is mixed.

Tea helps fight free radicals. Tea is high in oxygen radical absorbance capacity (“ORAC” to its friends), which is a fancy way of saying that it helps destroy free radicals (which can damage DNA) in the body. … Continue reading

All about Iron!

Here’s a great NYTimes Blog post I’m reading right now for anatomy and phys 2.

August 13, 2012, 12:01 am

A Host of Ills When Iron’s Out of Balance

By JANE E. BRODY

Iron, an essential nutrient, has long been the nation’s most common nutritional deficiency. In decades past, many parents worried that children who were picky eaters would develop iron-deficiency anemia. My mother boiled meat I refused to eat and fed me the concentrated broth in hopes I’d get some of its iron.

Now baby foods, infant formula and many other child-friendly foods, like breakfast cereals, breads, rice and pasta, are fortified with iron. Today iron deficiency is more likely in infants who are exclusively breast-fed, young children who consume too much milk, menstruating and pregnant women, vegans and strict vegetarians, and people who take medications that cause internal bleeding or interfere with iron absorption.

These days, more attention is being paid to the opposite problem: iron overload, which studies indicate can damage internal organs and may increase the risk of diabetes, heart attack and cancer, particularly in older people.

In examining more than 1,000 white Americans ages 67 to 96 participating in the Framingham Heart Study, researchers found that only about 3 percent had deficient levels of iron in their blood or stored in their bodies, but 13 percent had levels considered too high. Continue reading