Pages

Showing posts with label Orange juice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Orange juice. Show all posts

Tuesday, 10 December 2019

Study Suggests Drinking Orange Juice Reduces Dementia Risk By Almost 50 Percent

A new study suggests that if you drink one glass of orange juice on a daily basis it could greatly reduce your risk of acquiring dementia.

In this study, over a period of 16 years from 1986 to 2002, 28,000 US men were tracked regarding their daily eating and drinking of fruits and vegetables and the relationship to subjective cognitive function during that time. When the data was first collected the average age of the men was 51 years.
The outcome of the study revealed 47 percent of the men who drank a small glass of orange juice every day were less likely to develop poor cognitive abilities than the men who drank less than one serving per month.
The study also found that men experiencing less reduction in memory function were the men who ate the most vegetables and were 34 percent less likely to report cognitive loses.
“Fruits and vegetables are rich in vitamins and nutrients, including antioxidants, that can help protect the brain,” said Hannah Gardener, a researcher at the University of Miami who was not involved in the research, according to the Daily Mail.
“One of the most important factors in this study is that we were able to research and track such a large group of men over a 20-year period of time, allowing for very telling results,” said Changzheng Yuan, a research fellow at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and who was the study’s lead author as well.
Yuan suggests that it is generally best to consume no more than four to six ounces of fruit juices per day because fruit juices are normally high in calories from the high concentration of fructose sugars in them.
According to the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, “dementia is a usually progressive condition marked by the development of multiple cognitive deficits, such as memory impairment, aphasia (the loss of the power to use or comprehend words usually resulting from brain damage), and the inability to plan and initiate complex behavior.”
Also according to Merriam-Webster, dementia is also “diagnosed only when both memory and another cognitive function are each affected severely enough to interfere with a person’s ability to carry out routine daily activities.”
It is estimated that 46.8 million people lived with dementia in 2015 worldwide and the number will rise to 131.5 million by 2050, according to the London-based non-profit organization Alzheimer’s Disease International.
https://www.modernreaders.com/news/2018/12/15/study-suggests-drinking-orange-juice-reduces-dementia-risk-by-almost-50-percent.html

Saturday, 23 January 2016

The 10 fruit juices with more sugar than Coca-Cola

Sugar in fruit juice has been named as one of the main causes of tooth decay in young children by Public Health England. Here we list 10 fruit juices – all found in the chiller cabinet of a supermarket – that contain more sugar than Coca-Cola


11:16AM BST 30 Sep 2014

Fruit juices and fizzy drinks provide the largest source of sugar for children aged between four and 18
Some fruit juices have more sugar than Coca Cola and can be just as bad for children's teeth Photo: Alamy
Dr Sandra White, the Public Health England director of dental public health, said many parents were giving babies and toddlers fruit juices without realising they were packed with sugar. Her report found that one third of all children have tooth decay by the age of three.
She advised parents to only give milk or water to children until the age of three, and avoid using bottles or sipping cups for any drinks which contain sugar. Dr White said fruit juice was now “the biggest culprit” behind shocking levels of decay in many parts of the country.
Some drinks companies have started to cut down on the amount of sugar in drinks aimed at children. Britvic, the owner of Fruit Shoots, stopped making full-sugar versions of the drink during the summer of 2014.
However many consumers do not realise the high level of sugar in fruit juices, especially those found in the chiller cabinet of supermarkets. Here is a list of 10 juices that contain more than 10.6g of sugar per 100ml. This is the level found in full-sugar Coca Cola. This is only an illustrative list. There are many more fruit juices -- especially tropical drinks, those with apple juice concentrate and grape juices -- that contain more than 10.6g of sugar per 100ml. Most orange juices contain 10g of sugar per 100ml.

Sainsbury's 100% Pressed Red Grape Juice
16.3g per 100ml
Del Monte Mango & Papaya Juice Drink
14.1g per 100ml
Waitrose Essential Apple and Raspberry Juice Drink
13.9g per 100ml
Waitrose Pressed Apple & Mango Juice
12.6g per 100ml
Innocent Pure Fruit Smoothie Mangoes & Passion Fruits
12.2g per 100ml
Tymbark Multifruit Carrot Drink
11.5g per 100ml
Tesco Everyday Value Apple Juice
11.4g per 100ml
Aldi’s Del Rivo Apple Juice
11.33g per 100ml
Tesco Apple & Blackcurrant from concentrate
11.12g per 100ml
Libby's Tropical Juice Drink
10.9 per 100g

Monday, 30 June 2014

Ban fruit juice at dinner time

Healthwise

Health experts' warning to parents over danger of sweet drinks

  • . Children should be given only water or milk, government advisers say
  • . Many parents wrongly believe that fruit juice is healthy, they say
  • . A typical teenager consumes 40 per cent more sugar than they should


Parents should ban juice from the dinner table, experts warned yesterday.

Children should be given only water or milk and should not expect sweet drinks all the time, according to senior government advisers.

They point out that fruit juices are helping fuel sharp rises in obesity rates, type 2 diabetes and heart disease. 

A typical teenager consumes 40 per cent more sugar than they should. Adults take in 13 per cent too much.

The advisers say that, while most parents understand fizzy drinks are harmful, many wrongly believe that fruit juice is healthy.

Professor Tom Sanders, head of diabetes and nutritional sciences at King’s College London, said smoothies should be given only as a treat.

‘It’s not a good idea to wean people on the habit of expecting sweet beverages all the time,’ he said. ‘Kids should be getting their fluid from drinking water.

‘We need to reintroduce the habit of people putting a jug of water on the table and drinking water with their food instead of some sort of fruity beverage. Don’t put pop on the table.’

In a study published in the Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology journal, researchers warned that orange juice is potentially as bad as sugary, sweetened drinks. 

A 250ml serving contains 115 calories – or seven teaspoons of sugar. 

A can of regular Coke has 139 calories.

Some experts want the Government to stop classing juice as one of our ‘five-a-day’ portions of fruit and vegetables.

Susan Jebb, an expert in diet and population health at Oxford University, said that parents should ban all sweetened drinks in favour of water and milk. 

The professor, who is the Government’s chief adviser on obesity, added: ‘I’d prefer to get sugar out of drinks altogether; a shift to low or no calorie drinks, and preferably water.

‘The main sources of sugar in the diet are sugar-sweetened beverages.

‘The very simple advice for parents is to encourage your children to drink water.

‘Once they’ve been weaned, children ought to be drinking water.’

The warnings come ahead of the publication tomorrow of a report by Public Health England that is expected to call for a tax on soft drinks.


overweight should diet graphic.jpg

The Government body responsible for tackling obesity is likely to recommend a levy of up to 20 per cent – raising the price of a 40p can of Coke to 48p and a 2.5litre carton of fruit juice from £2.50 to £3.

The Government is expected to reject this advice and last week the Health Secretary insisted there were no plans for a sugar tax. 

Jeremy Hunt said the food industry was successfully lowering sugar levels in products voluntarily under the Government’s responsibility deal with firms. 

But experts have criticised the scheme, saying it is not doing enough to combat rising obesity rates.

Nearly a quarter of adults are considered obese – a proportion that is expected to rise to a half by 2050.

Also tomorrow, the Government’s scientific advisory committee on nutrition will publish guidelines on sugar limits. 

Current recommendations state it should be no more than 12 and 13 teaspoons of sugar a day although the experts may conclude we should aim for much less.

Only last week the Government announced that school milk would be provided for all pupils in the hope of slashing consumption of fizzy drinks and fruit juice. It will be free for the under-fives but older pupils will be charged. 


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2669980/Ban-fruit-juice-dinner-time-Health-experts-warning-parents-danger-sweet-drinks.html

Sunday, 29 June 2014

How fruit juice has turned into junk food


Modern methods mean even 'not from concentrate' drinks can be stored for a year

. Juice was popularised after Second World War as cheap health supplement
. But mass production methods take away much of what makes it healthy
. Juices give many vitamins and minerals - but no fibre and a lot of sugar



Mass production: Orange juice has changed over the years
Mass production: Orange juice has changed over the years

There was a time when  it was marketed as the ultimate health drink, a glass of sunshine packed with vitamins and energy.

Generations were raised to believe orange juice fights off colds, boosts the immune system, tones the skin and protects against cancer. Yet in the topsy-turvy world of health advice, what’s good for you one day, turns out to be bad for you the next.

This week an influential body of Government scientists blamed Britain’s love affair with orange juice and other sugary drinks for fuelling a crisis of obesity and ill health.

The warning follows calls to remove fruit juice as one of the recommended ‘five a day’ portions of fruit or vegetables, and for parents to ban it from the meal table.

So if fruit juice turns out to be such a devil in disguise, why have we all been led to believe it was so healthy for so long?

The idea goes back to the 1920s, when American nutritionist Elmer McCollum blamed a condition called acidosis, an excess of acid in the blood, on diets rich in bread and meat.  

His bizarre solution was lots of lettuce and — paradoxically — acidic citrus fruits.

At the time orange juice was not hugely popular, but fruit growers leapt on the acidosis panic and sales rose.

Juice got an even bigger boost thanks to World War II when the U.S. Government wanted a new way to get a product rich in  vitamin C to troops overseas. It poured money into research.

In 1947 — just in time for the post-war consumer boom — scientists invented a way to remove water from juice and freeze the concentrate into a palatable product.

The blocks of this concentrate could be sold to the new fridge-owning U.S. consumers or stored by manufacturers for months at a time, and sales exploded.


Meanwhile in the UK, war babies had been given rose hip, blackcurrant and concentrated orange juice by the Government as a cheap nutrition supplement in the 1940s. This continued into the 1950s, seeding the idea in a generation of baby boomers that juice is healthy.

By the 1980s orange juice was being marketed not just as a health drink, but also as the key to a stylish, modern life  — a status it enjoys today.

But while the juice in the supermarket is often sold as ‘natural’ or ‘fresh’, it is usually anything but.

Concentrating juice doesn’t just remove water, it also removes the flavour. After it has been reconstituted, manufacturers add ‘flavour packs’ — cocktails of chemicals which restore ‘natural’ oranginess.

You may think ‘not from concentrate’ juice means a more authentic product. You’d be wrong.

Juice made that way is heated and stored in air-free tanks for up to a year. Again, the process strips the juice of flavour, which has to be added afterwards. But the flavour packs contain orange essence and orange oil so don’t have to appear separately on the ingredients list.


Manufacturers say they help give their product a consistent flavour. They also explain why juice in cartons doesn’t taste like fresh juice.

‘Naturalness’ isn’t the only dubious claim made for juice. For decades, health gurus, and some doctors, have claimed the vitamin C in juice fights common colds.

But while the immune system needs vitamin C, there’s little evidence that regularly taking the stuff prevents colds.

Research shows that the best that can be claimed for vitamin C is that it might shorten colds by a day or two. Given that most of us get two colds a year, worrying about vitamin C every day seems an over-reaction.

There’s another myth about vitamin C, that citrus fruits are the best source. Yet plenty of vegetables, including broccoli, potatoes, kale and peppers, have doses comparable to those in fruit.
Hidden sugar in food

What you will get from juice is sugar. Lots and lots of it.

The new advice this week from the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition is that men should have a maximum of 35g of sugar a day — seven to eight teaspoons — while women should not exceed 25g — five to six teaspoons. A single 330ml glass of orange juice has eight teaspoons.

Helen Bond, spokeswoman for the British Dietetic Association, says: ‘People have lost sight of how much sugar is in food and portion sizes have got bigger. A 150ml glass provides one of your five a day and anything more than that doesn’t count. But measure people’s glasses and they are often 250ml.

‘Juice provides a lot of vitamins and minerals, but unlike fresh fruit you don’t get the healthy fibre.’

Doctors say the huge volume of sugar in our diet is contributing to the obesity epidemic, causing heart disease, cancer and diabetes.

There is growing concern that not all sugars are the same — and that fructose, the type found in fruit, may be more harmful than table sugar. American hormone scientist Robert Lustig argues that it does more damage to the liver and cells than glucose or sucrose. He says excessive fructose intake is key to rising obesity and diabetes levels.

There is even evidence that fructose may contribute to higher uric acid levels in the blood — and increase the risk of gout, an excruciatingly painful condition that is becoming ever more common.

Orange juice can also rot your teeth. Around half of five-year-olds have signs of damage to their tooth enamel, and too much fruit juice is thought to be a key cause.

There have been signs this year, however, that the tide is turning.

Schools have been leading the way. In January, Elizabeth Chaplin, the head of Valence Primary School in Dagenham, London, told parents that pupils would not be allowed juice in their lunch boxes. Instead, they had to drink water.

Around that time, Professor Susan Jebb, the Government’s obesity tsar, said juice shouldn’t count towards your five a day.

‘Fruit juice is absorbed very fast,’ she said, ‘so by the time it gets to your stomach, your body doesn’t know whether it’s Coca-Cola or orange juice, frankly. I have to say it is a relatively easy thing to give up. If you are going to drink it, you should dilute it.’

Weaning Britain off fruit juice may be difficult. Market research firm Mintel says 83 per cent of us drink fruit juice or a smoothie at least once a week, while 76 per cent believe fruit juice to be healthy.

But if you need motivation when you sit down to breakfast, remember this: there is more sugar in a 250ml glass of fruit juice than in a large bowl of Frosties with milk.

And that’s food for thought.

Healthwise

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2671635/How-fruit-juice-turned-junk-food-Modern-methods-mean-not-concentrate-drinks-stored-year.html

Wednesday, 29 January 2014

Beer Busts Kidney Stones



Best and Worst Drinks for Preventing Kidney Stones

BeeJanuary 15, 2014

4090.jpgMention kidney stones and everyone within earshot winces—because we’ve all heard how painful these stones can be. So if you want to be stone-free, you’re probably following the common advice to drink lots of liquids. But instead of focusing on how much you drink, the crucial question is what you drink, a new study reveals. Certain beverages—including some very surprising ones, such as beer!—are particularly helpful in protecting against stones, while other drinks do more harm than good.
Unfortunately, kidney stones are common, plaguing 19% of men and 9% of women in the US at least once in their lifetimes—and recurrences are quite common. Drinking plenty of water helps prevent stones from forming…but actually, there are other fluids that can be even more effective.

DRINK THIS, NOT THAT

Using data from three large studies, researchers followed 194,095 people, none of whom had a history of kidney stones, for more than eight years. Participants periodically completed questionnaires about their diet and overall health. During the course of the study, there were 4,462 cases of kidney stones.
Researchers adjusted for health factors (age, body mass index, diabetes, medications, blood pressure) as well as various dietary factors (including intake of meat, calcium and potassium) known to affect kidney stone risk. Then they calculated the stone risk associated with various types of beverages.
How the comparison was done: For each analysis, the effects of drinking an average of one or more servings per day were compared with drinking less than one serving per week. Because data from three different studies were used, serving sizes were not necessarily alike across the board. But in general, a serving was considered to be 12 ounces of soda or beer…eight ounces of coffee, tea, milk or fruit punch…five ounces of wine…and four to six ounces of juice. The researchers’ findings were eye-opening.
Kidney stone risk boosters…
  • Sugar-sweetened noncola sodas increased kidney stone risk by 33%.
  • Sugar-sweetened colas increased risk by 23%.
  • Fruit punch increased risk by 18%.
  • Diet noncola sodas (but, surprisingly, not diet colas) increased risk by 17%.
Kidney stone risk reducers…
  • Beer reduced kidney stone risk by 41%.
  • White wine reduced risk by 33%.
  • Red wine reduced risk by 31%.
  • Caffeinated coffee reduced kidney stone risk by 26%.
  • Decaf coffee reduced risk by 16%.
  • Orange juice reduced risk by 12%.
  • Tea reduced risk by 11%.
Consumption of milk and juices other than orange juice did not significantly affect the likelihood of developing kidney stones.
Theories behind the findings: Because sugar-sweetened sodas and fruit punch are associated with higher risk, researchers suspect that their high fructose concentration may increase the amount of calcium, oxalate and uric acid in the urine—and those substances contribute to kidney stone formation. So how to explain the beneficial effects of orange juice, which is also high in fructose? Perhaps orange juice’s high concentration of potassium citrate offsets the fructose and favorably changes the composition of urine.
Regarding the beneficial effects of coffee and tea, it could be that their caffeine acts as adiuretic that promotes urine production and thus helps prevent stones. Tea and coffee, including decaf, also contain antioxidants that may help combat stone formation. Alcohol, too, is a diuretic, and wine and beer contain antioxidants as well—though of course, with any type of alcoholic beverage, moderation is important.
Source: Pietro Manuel Ferraro, MD, physician, department of internal medicine and medical specialties, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. His study was published in Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

http://www.bottomlinepublications.com/content/article/health-a-healing/best-and-worst-drinks-for-preventing-kidney-stones

Tuesday, 17 September 2013

UK: We're all sugar junkies now

We're all sugar junkies now: Britons now wolf down an almost unimaginable 160 teaspoons of it a week - and the even worse news? It really IS addictive
  • Research show we consume 60 grams added sugars a day
  • Including naturally provided sugars the daily total is 93.5 grams
 
By Rosie Boycott
PUBLISHED: 22:42 GMT, 14 September 2013 | UPDATED: 22:42 GMT, 14 September 2013


Put a cake in front of  me – chocolate, sponge, carrot – and, if I let myself, I’ll start eating it. One slice or two. Perhaps three. There have been days when I’ve munched my way through well over half, maybe even the entire cake. The lunacy is that often when I start eating, I am not even hungry.

Replace the cake with a plain  bowl of porridge, no sugar or honey, and I am not interested.

Does that make me a sugar addict? New scientific research suggests that perhaps it does. French researchers in Bordeaux recently reported that laboratory rats chose sugar over cocaine – despite the fact that they were addicted to cocaine.

Overload: Sugar is addictive and Britain is hooked on the white stuff with an average consumption of 160 teaspoons a week
Overload: Sugar is addictive and Britain is hooked on the white
stuff with an average consumption of 160 teaspoons a week

I am not alone. Much has  been made recently of how the food industry has turned us all into ‘sugar junkies’.


In the US, there is a whole genre of literature devoted to the subject. Endocrinologist Robert Lustig’s lecture Sugar: The Bitter Truth has been viewed almost four million times on YouTube – quite unprecedented for a rather dry medical lecture.

It’s often casually mentioned, as if it’s fact, that manufacturers secretly spike everyday foods with sugar to keep us hooked and that this is what is behind the spiralling number of obese Britons.

Half of us are overweight, and a quarter so overweight there is a risk of a host of illnesses from cancer to heart disease. But the truth is far more complex.

According to the National Diet And Nutrition Survey, a rolling research programme that aims to give a yearly snapshot of our eating habits, we are now eating fewer sugary snacks than we were when the project began in 2007, taking in 13g of sugar in this way a day, down from 22g then.


Hidden sweets: Even a fruit salad will contribute to your daily intake as it contains fructose

Hidden sweets: Even a fruit salad will contribute to your daily intake as it contains fructose

It still means that in a week, the average Briton consumes 91g – about 22 teaspoonsful, going by the generally accepted 4.2g in a spoon.

The reduction in junk could be in part down to repeated public health warnings about fizzy drinks, which seem to have had some effect. The 2013 British Soft Drinks Association’s report shows we are consuming fewer high-sugar sodas than we were ten years ago. But again this isn’t the whole story.

‘We have swapped sodas for smoothies and fruit juice and this  is one of the worst things you can  do in terms of sugar consumption,’ says Anna Raymond, spokesman for the British Dietetic Association. ‘Even worse, children account for almost half the market.’

She adds: ‘People often have fruit juice or a diet drink, and then eat as much high-sugar and high-GI food as they like. It’s as though they believe a low-calorie drink counteracts the unhealthy food.’

Take Tropicana Orange Juice. It contains an astonishing 30g of sugar per 330ml serving, almost the same as a can of Coke. And an Innocent smoothie (interestingly, the company is now owned by Coca-Cola) has 26.3g, about six teaspoons, in one tiny bottle.

This is confusing, as surely a smoothie is just blitzed fruit – part of our five a day – and maybe some milk or yogurt? Nutrition expert  Dr Adam Carey, CEO of Corperformance, explains: ‘Shop-bought smoothies are almost undoubtedly sweetened with extra apple juice. 
 
Although they may contain some whole fruit, usually there will be further extracted fruit juice from other ingredients, such as lemon, or grapes, basically sugar and water. They are lower-fibre and higher-sugar.

Hidden agenda: Ketchup contains a lot of added sugar, and let's not forget that tomatoes are fruits, not vegetables
Hidden agenda: Ketchup contains a lot
of added sugar, and let's not forget that
tomatoes are fruits, not vegetables
‘A home-made smoothie (or one made in front of you) hopefully contains the whole fruit – so you get the benefits of the fibre and much less sugar.

'I think of fruit as being vegetables with added sugar. Ideally limit it to one or two pieces. And make home smoothies from veg.’

Worries about sugar intake may be behind the recent proliferation of alternatives. People often believe honey, maple or agave syrup are ‘healthier’.

But they are all essentially liquid sugars. Some low-fat products, including yogurts, spreads and sauces, are higher in sugar than the normal versions.

It seems that, far from being kept secret, sugar is hiding in plain sight.

So how much do we actually consume? The National Diet And Nutrition Survey – based on self-reported consumption – is the nearest we can get to the truth.

The research indicates we consume 60g of added sugars daily from all sources (including fruit juice, and the junk food mentioned before).

But though we know roughly how much sugar a banana, or tomato or milk, contains naturally, prepared foods such as bread or ready meals don’t differentiate between sugar provided naturally by ingredients and that which has been added. So just how accurate can the survey be?

Perhaps more reliable is the figure for total sugars: 96.5g per day – almost 23 teaspoons a day, or 160 a week. 
 
It means we are still eating more than the 90g daily – or 22 teaspoons – that the UK Food Standards Agency says is acceptable.

To add to the confusion, doctors now say this limit – used to create the ‘traffic light’ food labels that show ingredient amounts as a percentage of our daily intake – is too high anyway.

Dr Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist leading a UK task force looking at sugar, says: ‘The FSA advice is outdated. A limit of 22 teaspoons is way too high.

Studies show this level of intake is strongly linked to type-2 diabetes and obesity.’
In January the British Medical Journal published World Health Organisation-commissioned research that proved high-sugar diets lead to weight gain.

Although this might seem rather obvious, it does give us a tangible cause for the problem of obesity, when weight becomes directly implicated in cardiovascular disease, cancers, type-2 diabetes, osteoarthritis and hypertension, disability and decreased life expectancy. 
 
It is horrifying that these days almost 30 per cent of children are obese when they enter secondary school. So how did our food system get taken over by sugar?

For the answer we have to go back to the 1950s. As we prospered, it was relatively easy for the new industrial barons to figure how to sell us more clothes, shoes and jewellery, for example. They could all be advertised as ‘aspirational’.

But one product proved resistant: food. Then the chemistry of processed food began to develop, with a growing understanding of how our palates and senses work.

Manufacturers realised that by putting sugars directly into processed foods, they could manipulate the amount we ate and make our desire for sweetness override our ‘full’ button.

Over decades, the tiny amounts of sugar in bread, savoury ready meals and sauces crept up – an indicator of our growing sweet tooth.

But, perhaps more importantly, how and where we eat has changed. When I was a child, I’d have three meals a day, with an apple in the middle of the morning and perhaps a slice of cake with my tea.

At the end of the 1970s, though, a slew of new products appeared on our shelves which were not associated with any particular meal and which, indeed, would have barely been recognisable as ‘food’ to my mother. When are we meant to eat the hundreds of different flavours of crisps that occupy whole supermarket aisles? Newsagents and corner stores boast arrays of bars made of cereals, sugars, nuts, yogurts, all stacked up by the tills.

Now we eat throughout the day: at our desks, in the car, on the bus. We eat for fun. And so I end up eating cake when I am not hungry.


HOW THE FOOD INDUSTRY IS KEEPING US SWEET

 
 
Experts say it’s not hidden sugar we have to worry about – it’s the obvious stuff that we’re simply not recognising. But many pre-prepared foods today do contain more sugar than they did a generation ago.

Paul Finglas, head of food databanks at the Institute of Food Research, says: ‘Manufacturers respond to demand. If sweeter food sells, then that’s what they’ll make.’

Using the food professionals’ bible – McCance and Widdowson’s The Composition Of Foods, containing accurate, lab-tested nutritional breakdowns for about 1,200  of the most commonly consumed foods in the UK –  we compared the sugar content of some of today’s most commonly bought supermarket products with those listed in the 1978 edition (when often no brand names were given)...

food
 
Kelly Brownell, a Yale professor and director of the Rudd Centre for Food Policy and Obesity in the US, draws links between the behaviour of the big food companies and the post-war tobacco industry.

Recently, the Advertising Standards Authority banned a Coca-Cola television advertisement showing a variety of activities including dog-walking, dancing and laughing, activities that it claims would burn off the ‘139 happy calories’ in a single serving of the soft drink.

What the advert didn’t make clear – according to the ASA – is that all of the activities needed to be done in combination in order to get rid of them. Some viewers thought that doing one would be enough.

When the Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, tried to ban the sale of mega-sized sodas (780 calories in a single serving), the industry took out a full-page advert showing the mayor in a long dress and scarf under the headline: ‘The Nanny. You only thought you lived in the land of the free.’

Just as the tobacco industry once maintained that there was no link with cancer, food companies say there is no proof that sugar causes illness.
Yet research is now showing that refined carbohydrate foods – things like sweets, cakes, white bread, pastry, pasta and chips – have an effect far beyond simple weight gain caused by more calories consumed than energy expended.

The issue is that sugar, say some experts, brings about chemical changes in the body. Prof Lustig says: ‘The number of calories you consume is irrelevant. When people ate 150 calories more every day, the rate of diabetes went up 0.1 per cent. But if those calories came from a can of fizzy drink, the rate went up 1.1 per cent. Added sugar is 11 times more potent at causing diabetes than general calories.’

The evidence is there. I’d like to see a ban on adverts for junk food before the watershed, a tax on  fizzy drinks and an end to allowing sugary drinks – including those made from fruit – to associate themselves in any way with health. It’s not much to ask to try to ensure a healthy future for our children.

The treats that give your brain a hit like heroin



Lifelong addiction: Sugar has been compared to drugs
Lifelong addiction: Sugar has been compared to drugs

To say that sugar – or, rather, added sugar in pre-prepared  junk food and snacks – is ‘the next tobacco’ in terms of the harm it causes to our bodies is a bold statement.
 
No one is suggesting it is cancer-causing, but evidence indicates that sugar is far more damaging to health than we ever could have imagined.

Here consultant cardiologist Dr Laura Corr explains why we need to  be sensible.


The most recent surveys show we are eating FEWER sugary snacks these days than we were decades ago, and  that added sugar in pre-prepared foods has remained basically the same. What is all the fuss about?


Not all sugars are the same – and it’s probably more  helpful to look at the Glycaemic Index (GI) of foods. 
 
Carbohydrates are made up of chains of molecules known as monosaccharides (also known as simple sugars) such a glucose, fructose and sucrose.

The GI score is a measure of how quickly carbohydrates in a food are broken down by the digestive system into these basic building blocks, and then absorbed into the blood.

Foods with a high GI, such as  fizzy drinks, sweets, white bread, crisps and other processed junk foods, release their sugar rapidly into the bloodstream.

In a small study this year from Harvard Medical School, men were given the same calories but in the form of either high or low-GI food.

Four hours after the high-GI food was consumed, MRI imaging revealed selective stimulation of the ‘reward and craving’ centre of the brain – the same area that would be affected by taking cocaine or heroin.

This may be why people say they can’t resist the temptation to snack on junk food even when they desperately want to lose weight.

Also, it has to be pointed out that the National Diet And Nutrition Survey which has been carried out each year, and has found we are eating less sugary food, is based  on self-reported surveys. Research has repeatedly backed up the common-sense hypothesis about these kinds of studies: that people underestimate their intake.


WORRIED? SEVEN QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF

 
 
If sugary foods can be addictive, how do we know when our eating habits are a cause for concern?

Researchers at the Rudd Center helped formulate the Yale Food Addiction Scale which is used to diagnose eating disorders. Read the following seven statements.

If you answer ‘yes, more than three times a week’ to the first five, and simply ‘yes’ to the rest, you might need to think about speaking to a doctor about your eating habits...

1. Eat certain foods even if I am no longer hungry.

2. Feel sluggish or fatigued from overeating.

3. My behaviour with respect  to food causes me distress.

4. I have had physical withdrawal symptoms such as agitation and anxiety when I cut down on certain foods (not including coffee and tea).

5. I have spent time dealing with negative feelings from overeating, instead of spending time with family, friends, work  or recreation.

6. I am consuming the same  types or amounts of food despite significant emotional  or physical problems related to  my eating.

7. Over time, I have found that I need to eat more and more to get the feeling I want, such as reduced negative emotions or increased pleasure.
 

Still, it seems ridiculous to liken food to hard drugs – is it an overstatement?

There is evidence that sweet foods do hit the pleasure and reward centres in the brain rather like hard drugs.

In some people who binge-eat, sugar may produce a true addiction. The more they eat, the more they want, and it is the same mechanism as craving a drug.


OK, so we can get ‘hooked’  on biscuits .  .  . what’s the big problem, aside from eventually having to buy bigger clothes?

Research shows that  prolonged high-GI food intake is associated with fatty changes in the liver.

This leads to insulin resistance (where insulin becomes less effective), high blood pressure, diabetes and unhealthy cholesterol levels – all risk factors for cardiac disease.

You don’t even have to be overweight for this to occur.

In large surveys, high GI diets are strongly associated with cardiovascular conditions leading to strokes, heart attacks and death.


I’m a bit big round the middle, but I’m not fat. I’m OK, right?

An expanding waistline is a concern. If you are skinny with a big belly, you are at higher risk of cardiovascular disease than someone just as heavy but with more even fat distribution.

This abdominal fat comes from the different metabolic processes. The good news is that low-carb diets in this case can be more effective for weight loss than low-fat diets.


So I have a bit of cake or a biscuit most evenings – are you saying I have to give up?

Ideally, we wouldn’t eat refined sugar at all, but it’s obviously unrealistic to think this might happen. However, we all need to be aware of our consumption of high-GI foods. Avoid white bread and pasta as well as biscuits and cakes.

Read labels – there is often more hidden added sugar than you’d think. I tell my patients to be cautious about foods labelled ‘low-fat’ as they are often packed with sugars instead.

Also, take fruit sugars into account when considering your overall consumption: a smoothie may have the same amount of sugar as three or four doughnuts.

Eating whole fruit has other benefits – a fruit salad for breakfast contains vital Vitamin C and fibre. Don’t be draconian, be sensible.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2420713/Were-sugar-junkies-Britons-wolf-unimaginable-160-teaspoons-week--worse-news-It-really-IS-addictive.html

Friday, 19 July 2013

Best and Worst Drinks for Preventing Kidney Stones

July 16, 2013



4090.jpgMention kidney stones and everyone within earshot winces—because we’ve all heard how painful these stones can be. So if you want to be stone-free, you’re probably following the common advice to drink lots of liquids. But instead of focusing on how much you drink, the crucial question is what you drink, a new study reveals. Certain beverages—including some very surprising ones, such as beer!—are particularly helpful in protecting against stones, while other drinks do more harm than good.

Unfortunately, kidney stones are common, plaguing 19% of men and 9% of women in the US at least once in their lifetimes—and recurrences are quite common. Drinking plenty of water helps prevent stones from forming…but actually, there are other fluids that can be even more effective.

DRINK THIS, NOT THAT


Using data from three large studies, researchers followed 194,095 people, none of whom had a history of kidney stones, for more than eight years. Participants periodically completed questionnaires about their diet and overall health. During the course of the study, there were 4,462 cases of kidney stones.

Researchers adjusted for health factors (age, body mass index, diabetes, medications, blood pressure) as well as various dietary factors (including intake of meat, calcium and potassium) known to affect kidney stone risk. Then they calculated the stone risk associated with various types of beverages.

How the comparison was done: For each analysis, the effects of drinking an average of one or more servings per day were compared with drinking less than one serving per week. Because data from three different studies were used, serving sizes were not necessarily alike across the board. But in general, a serving was considered to be 12 ounces of soda or beer…eight ounces of coffee, tea, milk or fruit punch…five ounces of wine…and four to six ounces of juice. The researchers’ findings were eye-opening.

Kidney stone risk boosters…
  • Sugar-sweetened noncola sodas increased kidney stone risk by 33%.
  • Sugar-sweetened colas increased risk by 23%.
  • Fruit punch increased risk by 18%.
  • Diet noncola sodas (but, surprisingly, not diet colas) increased risk by 17%.
Kidney stone risk reducers…
  • Beer reduced kidney stone risk by 41%.
  • White wine reduced risk by 33%.
  • Red wine reduced risk by 31%.
  • Caffeinated coffee reduced kidney stone risk by 26%.
  • Decaf coffee reduced risk by 16%.
  • Orange juice reduced risk by 12%.
  • Tea reduced risk by 11%.
Consumption of milk and juices other than orange juice did not significantly affect the likelihood of developing kidney stones

Theories behind the findings: Because sugar-sweetened sodas and fruit punch are associated with higher risk, researchers suspect that their high fructose concentration may increase the amount of calcium, oxalate and uric acid in the urine—and those substances contribute to kidney stone formation. So how to explain the beneficial effects of orange juice, which is also high in fructose? Perhaps orange juice’s high concentration of potassium citrate offsets the fructose and favorably changes the composition of urine.

Regarding the beneficial effects of coffee and tea, it could be that their caffeine acts as a diuretic that promotes urine production and thus helps prevent stones. Tea and coffee, including decaf, also contain antioxidants that may help combat stone formation. Alcohol, too, is a diuretic, and wine and beer contain antioxidants as well—though of course, with any type of alcoholic beverage, moderation is important.

Source: Pietro Manuel Ferraro, MD, physician, department of internal medicine and medical specialties, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. His study was published in Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

http://www.bottomlinepublications.com/content/article/health-a-healing/best-and-worst-drinks-for-preventing-kidney-stones

Wednesday, 15 August 2012

Improve your Immunity - Fruit Juice, Alarm Clocks, etc





Little-Known Risk Factors for Cancer: Fruit Juice, Alarm Clocks, Heavy Traffic and More


1073.jpgWhat if you were told that your bedside alarm clock—or even your morning glass of orange juice—could possibly increase your risk for cancer?

That would sound pretty far-fetched, right? Believe it or not, scientists in many parts of the world are now making intriguing new discoveries about such surprising and little-known factors that may increase your likelihood of developing, or dying from, cancer.


For example…

 

FRUIT JUICE


Fruit is loaded with cancer-preventing antioxidants and fiber. But when you remove the fiber and drink the juice, which is high in sugar, you trigger greater spikes in blood sugar (glucose) and the glucose-regulating hormone insulin. High levels of glucose and insulin, acting as a growth stimulant, can promote more rapid cellular growth and division, which may increase one’s risk of developing cancer or promote existing disease.

Scientific evidence: In a study of nearly 1,800 people, those who drank the most fruit juice (more than three glasses a day) were 74% more likely to develop colorectal cancer than those who drank the least, reported researchers in the October 2011 issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.

Cancer self-defense: This study, which was based on responses to food-frequency questionnaires, is not definitive, but I believe that the evidence is strong enough to advise people to avoid fruit juice and eat the whole fruit instead. If you don’t want to give up fruit juice, mix three ounces of pure fruit juice with three ounces of water. Drink no more than two to three servings of the diluted fruit juice mixture a day.

Also avoid other fast-digesting, glucose-spiking carbohydrates (such as sugar and white flour). Emphasize foods that stabilize blood sugar and insulin, such as whole grains, legumes and vegetables. If you regularly eat pasta, cook it al dente (to minimize blood sugar increases). Choose whole-wheat pasta or brown rice pasta.

LIGHT AT NIGHT


Fascinating research is now being conducted on possible cancer risks associated with a phenomenon known as “light at night” (LAN)—that is, any type of light exposure at night…even from a bedside alarm clock.

Research on the health effects of light exposure began more than two decades ago when scientists first identified an increased risk for breast, prostate, colorectal and other cancers in night-shift workers. Researchers theorize that night-shift work disrupts the body’s natural circadian rhythm of daytime activity and nighttime rest, leading to imbalances in the hormones melatonin, estrogen and cortisol, which may play a role in triggering cancer. Now the research extends far beyond night-shift work.

Scientific evidence: Researchers at the University of Haifa in Israel measured light levels in the “sleeping habitats” of 1,679 women. They found that those with the highest “bedroom-light intensity” had a 22% higher risk for breast cancer. A 2009 study discovered that risk for prostate cancer increased as the exposure to LAN increased.

To help protect yourself…

Use an alarm clock with a red light. An alarm clock that’s too close to your head and illuminated with any color other than red generates light in the blue spectrum, which may be associated with disruption in sleep and cut the production of melatonin, the circadian-regulating-hormone.

In addition, if you need a light to help you find your way to the bathroom, use a dim nightlight. Avoid direct exposure to light.

Helpful: Use a sleep “mask” to cover your eyes when you’re sleeping.

HEAVY TRAFFIC


It’s logical that breathing air pollution from traffic might increase the risk for lung cancer.

Recent unexpected finding: Research published in various peer-reviewed journals in the last year links air pollution from traffic to a higher risk for ovarian, cervical, brain and stomach cancers. Researchers are still studying the association, but it may be due to volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other toxic substances in car exhaust that cause cellular damage not just in the lungs but throughout the body. To avoid exposure to pollution from automobiles…

When driving, maintain a reasonable distance from the car in front of you. Use the rule of thumb from safety experts—at least one car length for every 10 miles per hour (mph) of speed. So if you’re driving 60 mph, there should be at least six car lengths between your car and the one in front of you. And in stop-and-go traffic or at a stoplight, leave one car length of space between your car and the one in front of you.

Turn on the air-recirculation system in your car—and leave it on when you are in heavier traffic. This helps ensure that no outdoor air is circulating in your car.

If you live near a busy road, close your home’s windows during peak traffic hours and place one or two air filters in appropriate locations in your home.

Avoid driving, bicycling or walking in or near rush-hour traffic whenever possible.

Wear a breathing mask, often used by motorists, joggers and cyclists to filter out noxious odors and fumes, if you can’t avoid areas with high levels of pollution from traffic. Examples: Filt-R Reusable Neoprene Commuter Pollution Mask (about $30) and Respro Techno Face Mask (about $40)—both are available online. Or, if you can’t wear a mask, breathe through your nose instead of your mouth. Breathing through the nose helps filter out particles that get trapped in the mucous membranes. When breathing through your mouth, pollutants may directly enter the lungs.

Eat an antioxidant-rich diet with leafy greens, melons and dark-colored fruits such as plums and berries (for example, blueberries and blackberries)—these protect your body’s cells from harmful pollutants.

Check the Web site www.AirNow.gov for air quality in your area, and avoid going outside when the air-quality index is higher than the “moderate” range.

VITAMIN E


Research investigating vitamin E’s effect on prostate cancer has been mixed. At one time, it was reported that vitamin E could reduce men’s risk for prostate cancer.

However, a recent study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, which analyzed existing data, found that men who took vitamin E alone had a 17% increase in prostate cancer compared with men who took a placebo. Men who took vitamin E and selenium (a supplement with cancer-suppressing properties) had no increased risk for prostate cancer.

What’s now been discovered: In the research linking vitamin E use to increased prostate cancer risk, men took a form of vitamin E called alpha-tocopherol, which has several drawbacks.

For example, it is synthetic (not natural), and it does not include the vitamin’s seven other compounds—three tocopherols (gamma, beta and delta) and four tocotrienols.

Many experts now think that gamma-tocopherol—not alpha-tocopherol, which was shown in research to increase prostate cancer risk—is the type of vitamin E with the greatest cancer-fighting activity.

Cancer self-defense: If you take vitamin E, look for a supplement that contains mixed tocopherols (including gamma-tocopherol) and tocotrienols.

All people, especially those with a history of cancer, should consult a doctor who is experienced in nutrition and the use of dietary supplements before starting a supplement regimen. Also, be sure to make a varied antioxidant-rich diet part of your cancer-fighting defense.

Source: Keith I. Block, MD, medical director of the Block Center for Integrative Cancer Treatment in Skokie, Illinois, which combines advanced conventional medicine with research-based complementary therapies. He is the founding editor-in-chief of Integrative Cancer Therapies, a peer-reviewed journal. In 2005, he was appointed to the National Cancer Institute’s Physician Data Query (PDQ) Cancer CAM Editorial Board, on which he continues to serve. He is the author of Life Over Cancer (Bantam). www.BlockMD.com
 

Listing Details


Publication
Bottom Line Health
Original publication date
June 1, 2012