Healthy Foods Category

Lets Get Nutty!

April 4th, 2012

U.S. study ranks walnuts as most healthy nuts

Xinhua News Agency – CEIS

LOS ANGELES, March 27 (Xinhua) — Walnuts have a combination of more healthful antioxidants and higher quality antioxidants than any other nut, U.S. researchers have found.

Walnuts 150x150 Lets Get Nutty!Study findings were presented on Sunday at the 241st National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS) in Anaheim, Southern California.

Nuts contain plenty of high-quality protein that can substitute for meat, vitamins and minerals, dietary fiber, and are dairy and gluten free, ACS researchers said in the study.

Moreover, nuts contain healthful polyunsaturated and monosaturated fats rather than artery-clogging saturated fat, according to the study.

The researchers based their conclusion on analysis of antioxidants in nine different types of nuts: walnuts, almonds, peanuts, pistachios, hazelnuts, Brazil nuts, cashews, macadamias and pecans.

They found that walnuts have the highest levels of antioxidants, with plenty of high-quality protein that can substitute for meat, vitamins and minerals, dietary fiber, and are dairy and gluten free.

The latest study adds more evidence that walnuts are top nuts for heart-healthy antioxidants, the researchers said.

Previous studies showed that regular consumption of small amounts of nuts or peanut butter can decrease the risk of heart disease, certain kinds of cancer, gallstones, Type 2 diabetes, and other health problems.

But the latest study is the first to compare both the amount and quality of antioxidants found in different nuts.

“Walnuts rank above peanuts, almonds, pecans, pistachios and other nuts,” said Joe Vinson, Ph.D., who led the latest study.

“A handful of walnuts contains almost twice as much antioxidants as an equivalent amount of any other commonly consumed nut. But unfortunately, people don’t eat a lot of them. This study suggests that consumers should eat more walnuts as part of a healthy diet.”

 

 

IS SUGAR AS DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH AS ALCOHOL AND CIGARETTES?

February 7th, 2012

Sugar Danger IS SUGAR AS DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH AS ALCOHOL AND CIGARETTES?Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco claim that excessive consumption of sugar not only contributes to climbing obesity rates but causes hypertension, disruption of hormones and liver damage.

The article, “The Toxic Truth About Sugar”, states that dietary sugar intake has tripled over the past 50 years and is responsible for “35 million deaths a year”.

When sugar is fermented (by yeast or bacteria) it is converted into ethanol (drinking alcohol) and carbon dioxide. Essentially the researchers claim that excessive sugar consumption causes many of the same effects as alcohol consumption. As reported by Dr. Robert Lustig, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco Center for Obesity Study, Treatment and Assessment.

“Excess sugar in the diet does not just add calories. Too much sugar has been linked with health problems and they occur even in people who are normal weight. This includes: Obesity, high blood pressure, liver problems, diabetes and elevated blood fats in the form of triglycerides”.

“It is known that sugar has an addiction-like action on the brain that encourages subsequent intake”.

It is important to realize that Dr. Lustig is not just talking about the sugar in candy, cakes and soda. He and many researchers, including myself, consider the fructose in fruits to be equally problematic when over consumed.

The American Heart Association recommends no more than 9 teaspoons of sugar a day for men and 6 for women. This compares to the average sugar intake in the U.S. of 22 teaspoons a day.

The study does not discuss an additional safety concern related to excessive sugar consumption. The “aging effects” of sugar on bodily tissues is associated with tissue damage, oxidative stress and chronic degenerative diseases.

Via a process known as glycation, sugar reacts with bodily proteins and fats to form AGE’s. (advance glycation endproducts). These AGE’s can cause excessive cellular damage by raising inflammation and levels of free radicals in our bodies.

AGE’s are implicated in:

• Cardiovascular disease

• Cancer

• Alzheimer’s

• Diabetes ( the test your Dr. does called HbA1c. measures the effect of sugar on your red blood cells)

• Nerve damage (neuropathies)

• Eye damage

• Weakening of blood vessels increasing the risk of aneurisms and strokes

Considering that just one glass of soda contains 22 teaspoons of sugar, isn’t it time to take steps to reduce your sugar consumption down to the levels recommended by the Heart Association?

Try to use products that have substituted all or some of their sugar content with natural sweeteners like Stevia extract or erythritol.

The good news is that stopping our addiction to sugar, is not very hard. Unlike drugs or even caffeine which can have withdrawal side-effects, withdrawing from sugar does not. In fact, most people report that after a week or two, their cravings are substantially reduced.

 

Curt Hendrix, B.S. M.S. C.C.N. C.N.S.

 

FLAXSEEDS….ONE OF THE HEALTHIEST FOODS YOU CAN ADD TO YOUR DIET! CHECK OUT THE HEALTH BENEFITS THAT HAVE BEEN DEMONSTRATED IN HUMAN STUDIES.

January 26th, 2012

flaxseed2 187x300 FLAXSEEDS….ONE OF THE HEALTHIEST FOODS YOU CAN ADD TO YOUR DIET!  CHECK OUT THE HEALTH BENEFITS THAT HAVE BEEN DEMONSTRATED IN HUMAN STUDIES.I have been adding flaxseeds to my morning protein shake for years, not only do they taste quite good, (sort of nutty) but take a look at the documented health benefits of flaxseeds.

  • • 2012 Journal APPETITE, Jan.5 – Consumption of flaxseed reduces appetite and food intake• Journal PLOS-1 Flaxseed has therapeutic value in type 2 diabetes• J Ren Nutr – Flaxseed improves symptoms of enlarged prostate in men• J Clin Cancer Res. 2005 – Flaxseed reduces tumor growth in patients with breast cancer• Eur J Clin Nutr -2007 – Flaxseed lowers blood pressure in people with high cholesterol

    • Am J Clin Nutr -2009 – Flaxseed lowers circulating total and LDL cholesterol

    • J Urology -2004- Flaxseed reduces prostate growth and PSA (a prostate cancer marker)

    • J Cancer Epidem Biomarkers -2008 – Flaxseed reduces prostate cancer proliferation pre-surgery in men

    • J Soc Integ Onc – 2007 – Flaxseed helps control hot flashes in women not on hormone therapy

    • J Nat Cancer Inst. – Plant lignans (like those in flaxseed) reduced the risk of developing estrogen and progesterone positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women

    Just add one or two heaping tablespoons of ground flaxseeds to shakes, or salads or cereals to get the impressive health benefits described.

    Curt Hendrix, M.S., C.C.N., C.N.S.

 

ARE SWEET AND FATTY FOODS AS ADDICTIVE AS DRUGS LIKE COCAINE? READ WHAT THE RESEARCH HAS TO SAY, IT MAY SURPRISE YOU

November 8th, 2011

emma watson eating chocolate cupcake22 ARE SWEET AND FATTY FOODS AS ADDICTIVE AS DRUGS LIKE COCAINE?  READ WHAT THE RESEARCH HAS TO SAY, IT MAY SURPRISE YOU An article written by reporters at Bloomberg.net discusses the data studying just how addictive certain foods can be to our brains.

They state that “Cupcakes may be addictive, just like cocaine.” The article goes on to say that “The data is so overwhelming the field has to accept it” said Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. “We are finding tremendous overlap between drugs in the brain and food in the brain.”

MODERN PROCESSED FOODS MAY BE CHANGING THE WAY OUR BRAIN IS WIRED

The article states that “Brain scans of obese people and compulsive eaters reveal brain disturbances similar to those experienced by drug abusers.” It then goes on to say that “Sugars and fats, of course, have always been present in the human diet and our bodies are programmed to crave them.” What has changed is modern processing that creates food with concentrated levels of sugars, unhealthy fats and refined flour, without redeeming levels of fiber or nutrients, obesity experts said. Consumption of large quantities of those processed foods may be changing the way the brain is wired.

Having spent decades studying nutrition and the impact of what we ingest on our body functions and health, there is no doubt in my mind that sugar is addictive. The more you eat, the more you need to continue eating it. The good news is that I have found that just by avoiding sugary products and drinks for as little as 5-7 days, can decrease cravings in many people.

The article goes on to describe the effects of daily feeding of 10% sugar water (similar to soda) to rats and how they begin to abandon their regular, healthy food, to satisfy the craving they develop for the sugar.

And the experiments don’t stop with rats. Read about the measurable effects just a picture of a milk shake can have on people’s brain waves.

We all know about the negative health effects (diabetes, arthritis, heart disease) that eating too much sugar and fat can cause. Now when you couple that knowledge with the fact that addiction to the foods is very likely possible, it may be easier for you to just say “NO” and start cutting these foods and snacks out of your diet for good.

To read the entire article, (which I strongly suggest that you do), please go to:

“Fatty Foods Addictive as Cocaine in Growing Body of Science Research”     SEE PART OF ARTICLE BELOW:

~ Curt Hendrix, M.S., C.C.N., C.N.S.

*****
A growing body of medical research at leading universities and government laboratories suggests that processed foods and sugary drinks made by the likes of PepsiCo Inc. and Kraft Foods Inc. (KFT) aren’t simply unhealthy. They can hijack the brain in ways that resemble addictions to cocaine, nicotine and other drugs.

The idea that food may be addictive was barely on scientists’ radar a decade ago. Now the field is heating up. Lab studies have found sugary drinks and fatty foods can produce addictive behavior in animals. Brain scans of obese people and compulsive eaters meanwhile reveal disturbances in brain reward circuits similar to those experienced by drug abusers.

Twenty-eight scientific studies and papers on food addiction have been published this year, according to a National Library of Medicine database. As the evidence expands, the science of addiction could become a game changer for the 1 trillion food and beverage industries.

If fatty foods, snacks and drinks sweetened with sugar and high fructose corn syrup are proven to be addictive, food companies may face the most drawn-out consumer safety battle since the anti-smoking movement took on the tobacco industry a generation ago.

Fun-for-You

“This could change the legal landscape,” said Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity and a proponent of anti-obesity regulation. “People knew for a long time cigarettes were killing people, but it was only later they learned about nicotine and the intentional manipulation of it.”

Food company executives and lobbyists are quick to counter that nothing has been proven, that nothing is wrong with what PepsiCo Chief Executive Officer Indra Nooyi calls “fun-for-you” foods, if eaten in moderation. In fact, the companies say they’re making big strides toward offering consumers a wide range of healthier snacking options. Nooyi, for one, is well known for calling attention to PepsiCo’s progress offering healthier fare as she is for driving sales.

Coca-Cola Co. (KO), PepsiCo, Northfield, Illinois-based Kraft and Kellogg Co. of Battle Creek, Michigan, declined to grant interviews with their scientists.

No one disputes that obesity is a fast growing global problem. In the U.S., a third of adults and 17 percent of teens and children are obese, and those numbers are increasing. Across the globe, from Latin America, to Europe to Pacific Island nations, obesity rates are also climbing.

Cost to Society

The cost to society is enormous. A 2009 study of 900,000 people, published in The Lancet, found that moderate obesity reduces life expectancy by two to four years, while severe obesity shortens life expectancy by as much as 10 years. Obesity has been shown to boost the risk of heart disease, diabetes, some cancers, osteoarthritis, sleep apnea and stroke, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The costs of treating illnesses associated with obesity were estimated at $147 billion in 2008, according to a 2009 study in Health Affairs.

Sugars and fats, of course have always been present in the human diet and our bodies are programmed to crave them. What has changed is modern processing that creates food with concentrated levels of sugars, unhealthy fats and refined flour, without redeeming levels of fiber or nutrients, obesity experts said. Consumption of large quantities of those processed foods may be changing the way the brain is wired.

A Lot Like Addiction

Those changes look a lot like addiction to some experts. Addiction “is a loaded term, but there are aspects of the modern diet that can elicit behavior that resembles addiction, “said David Ludwig, a Harvard researcher and director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Children’s Hospital Boston. Highly processed foods may cause rapid spikes and declines in blood sugar, increasing cravings, his research has found.

Education, diets and drugs to treat obesity have proven largely ineffective and the new science of obesity may explain why, proponents say. Constant stimulation with tasty, calorie-laden foods may desensitize the brain’s circuitry, leading people to consume greater quantities of junk food to maintain a constant state of pleasure.

In one 2010 study, scientists at Scripps Research Institute in Jupiter, Florida, fed rats an array of fatty and sugary products including Hormel Foods Corp. (HRL) bacon, Sara Lee Corp. (SLE) pound cake, The Cheesecake Factory Inc. (CAKE) cheesecake and Pillsbury Co. Creamy Supreme cake frosting. The study measured activity in regions of the brain involved in registering reward and pleasure through electrodes implanted in the rats.

Binge-Eating Rats

The rats that had access to these foods for one hour a day started binge eating, even when more nutritious food was available all day long. Other groups of rats that had access to the sweets and fatty foods for 18 to 23 hours per day became obese, Paul Kenny, the Scripps scientist heading the study wrote in the journal Nature Neuroscience. The results produced the same brain pattern that occurs with escalating intake of cocaine, he wrote.

“To see food do the same thing was mind-boggling,” Kenny later said in an interview.

Researchers are finding that damage to the brain’s reward centers may occur when people eat excessive quantities of food.

Sweet Rewards

In one 2010 study conducted by researchers at the University of Texas in Austin and the Oregon Research Institute, a nonprofit group that studies human behavior, 26 overweight young women were given magnetic resonance imaging scans as they got sips of a milkshake made with Haagen-Dazs ice cream and Hershey Co. (HSY)’s chocolate syrup.

The same women got repeat MRI scans six months later. Those who had gained weight showed reduced activity in the striatum, a region of the brain that registers reward, when they sipped milkshakes the second time, according to the study results, published last year in the Journal of Neuroscience.

“A career of overeating causes blunted reward receipt, and this is exactly what you see with chronic drug abuse,” said Eric Stice, a researcher at the Oregon Research Institute.

Scientists studying food addiction have had to overcome skepticism, even from their peers. In the late 1990s, NIDA’s Volkow, then a drug addiction researcher at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, applied for a National Institute of Health grant to scan obese people to see whether their brain reward centers were affected. Her grant proposal was turned down.

Finding Evidence

“I couldn’t get it funded,” she said in an interview. “The response was, there is no evidence that food produces addictive-like behaviors in the brain.”

Volkow, working with Brookhaven researcher Gene-Jack Wang, cobbled together funding from another government agency to conduct a study using a brain scanning device capable of measuring chemical activity inside the body using radioactive tracers.

Researchers were able to map dopamine receptor levels in the brains of 10 obese volunteers. Dopamine is a chemical produced in the brain that signals reward. Natural boosters of dopamine include exercise and sexual activity, but drugs such as cocaine and heroin also stimulate the chemical in large quantities.

In drug abusers, brain receptors that receive the dopamine signal may become unresponsive with increased drug usage, causing drug abusers to steadily increase their dosage in search of the same high. The Brookhaven study found that the obese people also had lowered levels of dopamine receptors compared with a lean control group.


Addicted to Sugar

The same year, psychologists at Princeton University began studying whether lab rats could become addicted to a 10 percent solution of sugar water, about the same percentage of sugar contained in most soft drinks.

An occasional drink caused no problems for the lab animals. Yet the researchers found dramatic effects when the rats were allowed to drink sugar-water every day. Over time they drank more and more and more while eating less of their usual diet, said Nicole Avena, who began the work as a graduate student at Princeton and is now a neuroscientist at the University of Florida.

The animals also showed withdrawal symptoms, including anxiety, shakes and tremors, when the effect of the sugar was blocked with a drug. The scientists, moreover, were able to determine changes in the levels of dopamine in the brain, similar to those seen in animals on addictive drugs.

Similar Behavior

“We consistently found that the changes we were observing in the rats binging on sugar were like what we would see if the animals were addicted to drugs,” said Avena, who for years worked closely with the late Princeton psychologist, Bartley Hoebel, who died this year.

While the animals didn’t become obese on sugar water alone, they became overweight when Avena and her colleagues offered them water sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup.

A 2007 French experiment stunned researchers when it showed that rats prefer water sweetened with saccharine or sugar to hits of cocaine — exactly the opposite of what existing dogma would have suggested.

“It was a big surprise,” said Serge Ahmed, a neuroscientist who led the research for the French National Research Council at the University of Bordeaux.

Yale’s Brownell helped organize one of the first conferences on food addiction in 2007. Since then, a protégé, Ashley Gearhardt, devised a 25-question survey to help researcher’s spot people with eating habits that resemble addictive behavior.

Pictures of Milkshakes

She and her colleagues used magnetic resonance imaging to examine brain activity of women scoring high on the survey. Pictures of milkshakes lit up the same brain regions that become hyperactive in alcoholics anticipating a drink, according to results published in the Archives of General Psychiatry in April.

Food addiction research may reinvigorate the search for effective obesity drugs, said Mark Gold, who chairs the psychiatry department at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Gold said the treatments he is working on seek to alter food preferences without suppressing overall appetite.


Developing Treatments

“We are trying to develop treatments that interfere with pathological food preferences,” he said. “Let’s say you are addicted to ice cream, you might come up with a treatment that blocked your interest in ice cream, but doesn’t affect your interest in meat.”

In related work, Shire Plc (SHP), a Dublin-based drug maker, is testing its Vyvanse hyperactivity drug in patients with binge-eating problems.

Not everyone is convinced. Swansea University psychologist David Benton recently published a 16-page rebuttal to sugar addiction studies. The paper, partly funded by the World Sugar Research Organization, which includes Atlanta-based Coca-Cola, the world’s largest soft-drink maker, argues that food doesn’t produce the same kind of intense dopamine release seen with drugs and that blocking certain brain receptors doesn’t produce withdrawal symptoms in binge-eaters as it does in drug abusers.

Industry Response

What’s still unknown is whether the science of food addition has begun to change the thinking among food and beverage companies, which are, after all, primarily in the business of selling the Doritos, Twinkies and other fare people crave.

About 80 percent of New York-based PepsiCo’s marketing budget, for instance, is directed toward pushing salty snacks and sodas. Although companies are quick to point to their healthier offerings, their top executives are constantly called upon to reassure investors those sales of snack foods and sodas are showing steady growth.

“We want to see profit growth and revenue growth,” said Tim Hoyle, director of research at Haverford Trust Co. in Radnor, Pennsylvania, an investor in PepsiCo, the world’s largest snack-food maker. “The health foods are good for headlines but when it gets down to it, the growth drivers are the comfort foods, the Tostitos and the Pepsi-Cola.”

Little wonder that the food industry is pushing hard on the idea that the best way to get a handle on obesity is through voluntary measures and by offering healthier choices. The same tactic worked for awhile, decades ago, for the tobacco industry, which deflected attention from the health risks and addictive nature of cigarettes with “low tar and nicotine” marketing.

Food industry lobbyists don’t buy that argument — or even the idea that food addiction may exist. Said Richard Adamson, a pharmacologist and consultant for the American Beverage Association: “I have never heard of anyone robbing a bank to get money to buy a candy bar or ice cream or pop.”

 

Consumption of Sugary Beverages For Just 3 Weeks Can Increase Cardivascular Risk Factor

July 2nd, 2011

Sugary drinks 150x150 Consumption of Sugary Beverages For Just 3 Weeks Can Increase Cardivascular Risk FactorRead about how even short-term consumption of sugary beverages cause well-known heart risk factors to head in the wrong direction.
(link below)

And the answer isn’t to drink artificially sweetened beverages because they too have recently been shown to result in larger waistline increases in people who consume them.

The answer is to drink water and get used to drinking healthy unsweetened teas or beverages naturally sweetened with either stevia extract or erythritol.
Nutritionists estimate that 40% of the extra 570 calories a day that we consume vs. people in the 1950’s, come from these sugary beverages.

Do yourself a huge favor, switch over to these healthier drinks and protect yourself from heart disease, diabetes, obesity and possible cancer as well.

(Read article below)

 

Curt Hendrix, M.S., C.C.N., C.N.S

 

 

SUGARY DRINKS INCREASE CARDIOVASCULAR RISK

June 30, 2011 — A small study of men younger than 50 years found that even moderate consumption of soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) produces an increase in markers of cardiovascular risk.

After just 3 weeks of sugary drinks, healthy, normal weight (body mass index range, 19 – 25 kg/m) men between the ages of 20 and 50 years saw harmful effects to low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles, fasting glucose, and C-reactive protein, according to the study published online June 15 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

The researchers, led by Isabelle Aeberli, PhD, from the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Clinical Nutrition, University Hospital Zurich, and the Human Nutrition Laboratory, Institute of Food, Nutrition, and Health, ETH Zurich, Switzerland, launched the study because it is known that sugary drinks interfere with glucose and lipid metabolism in obese people. However, the effect of lower doses of SSBs in people of normal weight “is less clear.”

One of the goals of the study was to measure the effect of sugar dosages similar to the amount found in commercially available sodas and sweetened drinks, “thereby allowing us to draw clinically relevant conclusions.”

The prospective, randomized controlled trial looked at risk markers in 29 men who consumed drinks with varying amounts of fructose and glucose (which are derived from fruit) and sucrose (which makes up common table sugar). The researchers measured LDL, fasting glucose, and C-reactive protein at baseline and after 3 week-long interventions.

The study involved 6 interventions that ranged from drinks with 40 g of the sweeteners fructose or glucose to beverages with 80 g of fructose, glucose, or sucrose. One group was advised to consume low amounts of fructose.

At all of the levels, fasting glucose and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein increased significantly (by 4% – 9% and 60% – 109%, respectively; P < .05). LDL particle size was reduced in the higher-fructose group by .51 nm (95% confidence interval, −.19 to −.82 nm), and in the higher-sucrose group by .43 nm (95% confidence interval, −.12 to −.74; P < .05 for both). “Similarly, a more atherogenic LDL subclass distribution was seen when fructose-containing SSBs were consumed,” the authors write.

The researchers concluded that even with lower doses (40 g sugar/day), which provided just 6.5% of daily energy in the form of SSBs, adverse effects could be observed with regard to LDL particle size and distribution, waist-to-hip ratio, fasting glucose, and inflammatory markers.

Although the study showed the short-term effect of SSB consumption, it was limited, in that 3 weeks “may not have been long enough to observe significant effects in parameters such as lipoprotein concentrations, insulin resistance, adipokines, body weight, and blood pressure.”

The research will not solve the debate over the health effects of high-fructose corn syrup, which is used in everything from soft drinks to cereals in the United States. Despite the name, high-fructose corn syrup is chemically similar to other sweeteners: All contain glucose and fructose in roughly equal amounts.

Am J Clin Nutr. Published online June 15, 2011. Abstract

 

We could learn from gorillas how to avoid obesity and have bodies with more muscle and less fat.

June 24th, 2011

Gorilla eating1 We could learn from gorillas how to avoid obesity and have bodies with more muscle and less fat.

Too many carbs can lead to diabetes. Too much of the wrong kind of fats may lead to heart disease. Could gorilla eating habits (which nutritionally, in many ways are similar to human needs) be the answer to the obesity epidemic we are experiencing.

Could shifting your dietary intake of nutrient sources be the answer to not only having the body/figure you want but avoiding the diseases associated with being over-weight or obese?

Please read :  Gorilla Diet Could Explain Human Obesity Study

Fruit1 150x150 We could learn from gorillas how to avoid obesity and have bodies with more muscle and less fat.

Whole Foods and Organic Foods…Is it Worth the Extra Money?

June 19th, 2011

Organic words Whole Foods and Organic Foods...Is it Worth the Extra Money?There is no exact, “one-size fit all” definition for value, except when you are  comparing two exact same things and the only difference is the price…then the lower priced offer is clearly better value!

Unfortunately, this is not the case when trying to compare organically grown products vs. conventionally grown products, and whether or not they are worth, the sometimes substantial, increased cost.

First let’s look at the facts as they exist now:

1- Studies have shown that organic foods, in general, do not have greater “nutritional” values than conventionally grown foods (i.e. do not have larger amounts of nutrients like vitamins and minerals)

2-  Studies have shown that organic foods do have lower numbers and amounts of pesticide residues

3-  Surveys as to whether or not organic foods taste better are mixed and non-conclusive.

From a health perspective (eliminating other motivating economic or long term environmental concerns, if any), the most likely benefit of eating organic food products would be derived due to reduced exposure to pesticide residues.

It is important to remember that the term “organic” does not mean “NO” pesticide levels, it assures reduced pesticide levels. (pesticides can remain in the soil and enter foods even when no synthetic pesticides are used).

We are also making the “pretty good” but not guaranteed assumption, that the natural pesticides used are safer than the synthetic pesticides .

The government sets what it considers to be safe levels of pesticides allowable in food products, whether they are organic or not.  So if measuring safety via the government’s definition, most food products like fruits and vegetables, whether organic or not, are safe.

The question that arises is:  “If organic food products have lower numbers of different pesticides and lower amounts of each of these pesticides, aren’t they safer?”

The answer to this question is:  “Probably, Maybe,…..We really don’t know!”

A frustrating answer…I know, but there just aren’t any long term studies in humans demonstrating that groups of people who are long term consumers of organic food products have less diseases like cancer.  Common sense says that less of a “bad” thing is “good” and I agree with this logic but it, alas, is just an opinion.  We all know that sugar is not great for health but does eliminating it completely from your diet reduce disease risk vs. someone who just consumes modest amounts of it?.  We just don’t know.

So to get back to our original question:  “Are organic products worth the extra money they cost?”

If the whole concept of organic farming appeals to you and you like the idea of consuming less pesticides, even though it may or may not provide any meaningful extra health benefits, then the extra money is worth the peace of mind.

On the other hand, if you are on a budget and need to watch your dollars, then BY ALL MEANS, BUY REGULARLY GROWN FRUITS AND VEGETABLE.  THEIR HEALTH BENEFITS FAR OUT WEIGHT ANY POTENTIAL RISK FROM HIGHER PESTICIDE LEVELS!

Curt Hendrix, M.S., C.C.N., C.N.S.

Good News for Coffee Lovers with Heart Disease (Well at least for women)

June 15th, 2011

Coffee Cup with Heart Good News for Coffee Lovers with Heart Disease (Well at least for women) It is no surprise that more people drink coffee than those who don’t. According to the National Coffee association over 50% of Americans drink coffee and average 3 cups a day.

Heart disease is the number one killer of men and women and many heart patients have wondered whether or not their “coffee” habit was dangerous because of their condition.

Well a new study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, shows that women with heart disease or a previous heart attack, who continued to drink coffee, lived just as long as women with heart disease who didn’t consume coffee.

 The new study followed nearly 12,000 U.S. nurses with a history of heart disease or stroke.  It found that those who regularly drank caffeinated coffee were no more likely to die than non-drinkers during the study period, which for some, lasted more than 20 years. (the findings held true for women who even drank 4 or more cups of coffee a day.

The take away from this study, is that if you love coffee and already have diagnosed heart disease or have already had a heart attack, continuing to drink coffee, at least in moderate amounts, does not seem to add any addition risk to women. 

Unfortunately, the researchers had no data to report on men.

The “health” pros and cons of coffee seem to indicate that moderate coffee consumption does not seem to pose much of a health risk to most people.  If you would like to read an article discussing the Pros and Cons of coffee consumption please go to my recent blog post:  “Caffeine…Is It Good or Bad For You-The Low Down on Caffeine”

To the best of health,

Curt Hendrix, M.S., C.C.N., C.N.S

Caffeine…Is it Good or Bad for You? The Lowdown on Caffeine

June 15th, 2011

caffeine Caffeine...Is it Good or Bad for You?  The Lowdown on CaffeineNine out of 10 people consume caffeine every day. The main sources of this caffeine are: coffee, tea, chocolate and sodas.  The average person gets about 280 mg/day of caffeine from the sources, which is the equivalent of 2 cups of coffee.

Most of us have heard conflicting information as to whether or not caffeine is “good or bad” for us.  After reading this article, you will learn that the health “benefits” of caffeine seem to far out-weight any negative things you may have read about it.*

*It should be noted that the benefits described below were associated with, coffee, as the source of caffeine.  Therefore it is possible that some of the benefits described below come about as a result of “other” compounds found in coffee and not the caffeine. This seems to be the case for Type 2 diabetes decreased risk.  Both caffeinated and non-caffeinated coffees seem to have helped.

The Good:

1-    Caffeine is a central nervous system stimulant.  It increase your metabolic rate and the number of calories your burn (but not near as much as exercise.)

2-   Short-term it can increase your mental focus.

3-    Can help asthma patients to breathe better

4-   Taken before exercise, can enhance performance

5-    Men have a 40% reduced risk of developing gallstones when ingesting caffeine

6-   May reduce risk of developing Parkinson’s disease

7-    May reduce risk of colon cancer

8-     May reduce risk of liver cirrhosis

9-     May reduce risk of tooth decay

10-  May reduce risk of developing Type 2 diabetes but it may be another ingredient in the coffee and not the caffeine that conveys this benefit

11-  May reduce the risk of developing dementia

12-  May improve heart artery function and increased blood flow

 

The Bad:

1-    Caffeine can increase blood pressure for several hours after ingestion

2-   Can cause nervousness

3-    May increase the number of migraines experienced in chronic sufferers

4-   Cause or worsen heartburn

5-    May cause insomnia

6-   May increase risk of arthritis (rheumatoid)

7-    Though other compounds in coffee may reduce the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, for people already diagnosed, the caffeine can increase blood sugar levels.

The Bottom Line:

The health benefits of “moderate caffeine” consumption (250-400 mg/day) are potentially significant.  By keeping your caffeine ingestion at this level you get all of the potential health benefits and reduce the risk of some of the negative side-effects from occurring.

But, for those of you suffering with chronic migraines, caffeine presents a real problem!  Many sufferers report that ingesting caffeine actually helps with their current, short-term, migraine pain.  But, the problem with using caffeine is that it is known to cause an increase in the number of migraines you experience.

Though it is controversial if one can become “addicted” to caffeine,  it is clear that many people become dependent upon it and that there are definite withdrawal symptoms that occur when people try to eliminate it, after using it for a long time.

The symptoms of caffeine withdrawal are:

  • Headache
  • Fatigue
  • Drowsiness
  • Irritability
  • Difficultly concentrating
  • Nausea
  • Muscle pain or stiffness

Chronic migraine sufferers will experience a significant improvement in their migraines if they withdraw caffeine from their diets. But to get this benefit you have to be willing to deal with the symptoms of caffeine withdrawal.  THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT THESE SYMPTOMS WILL LAST FOR ONLY 2-9 DAYS AND THAT IF YOU WITHDRAW GRADUALLY, YOU MAY NOT EXPERIENCE THEM AT ALL OR ONLY SLIGHTLY.

Curt Hendrix, M.S., C.C.N, C.N.S.,

For more information about chronic migraines and preventing their occurrence, please go to  http://www.migrelief.com/