January 25, 2012, by Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz, Chicago Tribune

Confused about which carbohydrates you should be eating?

Welcome to the club.

“It’s the biggest lack-of-consensus issue in the U.S. diet today,” said Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, associate professor of epidemiology at Harvard School of Public Health. “We don’t have a standard method for assessing their quality.”

Carbohydrates, the most common of the three energy sources we get from food (the others are fat and protein), reside in the vast majority of our food, prominently in grains, vegetables, legumes and fruits. They are essential to good health — as long as you stick to the good sources and steer clear of the bad ones, which are linked to obesity and a host of chronic conditions, includingdiabetes and heart disease.

Most health experts agree that processed foods, sweetened beverages and refined grains such as white bread, pasta, flour and rice (which are stripped of their nutrients) are among the worst kinds of carbohydrate-rich foods you can eat.

Your digestive system breaks them down too easily, flooding the bloodstream with simple sugars (glucose), which in turn prompts a surge of the hormone insulin to carry the glucose into the body’s cells, said Michael Roizen, chairman of the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute and co-founder of realage.com. Too muchblood sugar and insulin for too long can be dangerous on several levels: more fat storage, less fat burning, malfunctioning proteins that eventually lead to organ damage, even cancer cell growth, Roizen said. Your brain also gets addicted to the high glucose levels, leaving you craving more.

What constitutes a good carb, however, can be trickier.

It’s not as basic as “simple” versus “complex,” as fruits contain simple sugars but are a highly desirable carb source.

Rather, four main factors determine the quality of a carb, Mozaffarian said: dietary fiber (the more the better); how fast it makes your blood sugar rise (aka glycemic index, the lower the better); whole-grain content (the more the better); and structure (if it’s liquid, milled or pulverized, it’s not as good).

January 16, 2012, Sean Poultier, DailyMail Online

Nutrition therapists have been condemned as quacks and accused of putting the health of the sick – including those suffering from breast cancer – at risk.

An industry has grown up based on the concept that ‘food doctor’ nutritionists can cure patients’ ills and allergies through diet.
However at least some of the practitioners, who charge up to £80 for a consultation, are providing advice that could harm health, a study by the consumer watchdog Which? found.

Healthy: But nutrition therapists’ recommendations could be harming patients, an undercover investigation by Which? has found
The group sent undercover researchers to pose as patients with a range of problems and visit 15 so-called nutritional therapists.
Which? said: ‘They found shocking examples of advice which could have put patients with real health problems at risk.’

All but one of the 15 offered either potentially dangerous or misleading advice. Six of the consultations were rated as ‘dangerous fails’ in terms of misinformation and bad advice. A further eight were rated as ‘fails’, and just one a ‘borderline pass’.

It said: ‘One researcher, posing as a breast cancer sufferer, was told by her therapist to delay radiotherapy treatment recommended by her oncologist, saying they could rid the body of cancer through diet.
‘The therapist advised her to follow a no-sugar diet for three to six months saying, “Cancer feeds off sugar. By cutting out sugar we have a better chance of the cancer going away.” ’

This was considered highly irresponsible and incorrect by a panel set up by Which? to assess the advice. It included Professor David Colquhoun, an expert in pharmacology at University College London and a GP, Dr Margaret McCartney.

Another researcher was told if the treatment prescribed for his severe tiredness started to make him feel unwell, it showed that it was working. The therapist advised him not to contact his GP as they ‘wouldn’t understand what was happening’.

Bizarre tests, including iridology, which involves examining patterns in the iris, and hair analysis were also used to ‘diagnose’ conditions.
A researcher who said she had been struggling to conceive was told after having her iris examined she had ‘bowel toxicity’ and a ‘leathery bowel’. Both are meaningless terms, the expert panel said.

Which? found the therapists often used these tests as a part of a sales talk to market unnecessary supplements costing up to £70 a month. Very few of the 15 addressed issues that would have had a positive impact on health, such as reducing alcohol intake.

Prof Colquhoun said: ‘Nutritional therapy is plagued by ‘diagnostic tests’ that are little more than quackery. Iridology and hair analysis simply don’t work.’ Dr McCartney said: ‘If you have symptoms see your GP, not someone who can’t diagnose accurately.’

Which? has decided not to name the therapists involved. However, it has reported its findings to the British Association for Applied Nutrition & Nutritional Therapy (BANT), where a number are registered.

BANT declined to comment.

The British Dietetic Association was keen to make clear its trained dietitians are very different from nutrition therapists such as those visited by Which? BDA said: ‘Anybody can set up shop as a nutrition therapist, with no qualifications. Registered dieticians working in the UK are educated to degree level and must be registered with the Health Professions Council.’

Read more via Nutrition therapists condemned as quacks who put patients health at risk | Mail Online.

January 10, 2012, CNN, Health.com, Anne Harding

[...] People tend to overeat in restaurants, but how can people fend off these extra calories? We can stay away from restaurants altogether, of course, but for most of us that’s not a viable — or particularly appealing — option.

A small new study, led by Timmerman and published this week in the Journal of Nutrition and Education Behavior, offers another potential strategy: mindful eating, a series of dining techniques that stress close attention to the enjoyment of eating and feelings of hunger and fullness.

The study included 35 middle-aged women who ate out at least three times per week and ranged in body size from slim to morbidly obese. (Roughly 30% of the women were dieting when they enrolled in the study, and another 23% were actively trying to maintain their weight.) The researchers randomly selected about half of the women to serve as a control group, and assigned the other half to a six-week mindful eating program.

The program consisted of weekly two-hour sessions in which an instructor taught the women how to limit overeating and make healthy food choices in different settings — choosing steamed rice instead of fried in Chinese restaurants, for example, or black beans instead of refried in Mexican restaurants. Then, at the end of each session, the women completed a mindful eating exercise, such as focusing on their feelings of hunger while eating cheese and crackers, or on their sensations of fullness while eating chocolate.

At the end of the program, the women were eating in restaurants (or ordering takeout) just as often as they had before — nearly six times a week, on average. Yet they’d lost an average of 3.75 pounds and were eating about 300 fewer calories per day. (Weight and calorie intake didn’t change in the control group.) What’s more, restaurant meals accounted for just 124 of those daily calories, suggesting that the participants were eating less at home, too.

Susan Albers, Psy.D., a psychologist at the Cleveland Clinic and the author of “Eating Mindfully,” isn’t surprised that changes in eating behavior seemed to carry over from restaurants into the home, since she’s seen a similar transformation after teaching her patients mindful eating techniques.

“Once you’ve learned mindful eating skills, you tend to use them whether you are eating at your own kitchen table or at a five-star restaurant,” she says.

Mindful eating is an offshoot of “mindfulness,” a meditative frame of mind that involves practicing a concentrated, nonjudgmental awareness of one’s body and thoughts. Mindfulness belongs to the Buddhist tradition and has more recently been applied to Western psychology, stress and pain management, and the treatment of depression and anxiety.

When applied to eating, mindfulness is intended to correct Americans’ tendency to eat too fast, often while doing something else at the same time (such as watching TV). Not only do people tend to eat more when they’re not paying attention, but some evidence suggests that we even digest food less effectively.

“In general, we’ve lost the art of savoring food,” says Albers, who did not participate in Timmerman’s study. “We can eat an entire plate of food and not taste one bite. Mindful eating skills teach you how to eat less but enjoy it more.”

Read the entire article at Can mindfulness curb overeating? – CNN.com.

New Zealand, January 10, 2012, Voxy.co.nz

The national nutrition policy formulated by Labour and National-led Governments favours the food industry over public health according to new research from the University of Otago, Wellington.

The new findings result from a study of the 313 submissions to the Health Select Committee Inquiry into Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes held in 2006. This study compared the positions taken by submitters from the food industry and public health groups, such as the National Heart Foundation.

These positions were then compared with the 2007 Labour Government’s response to the committee’s recommendations and the resulting national nutrition policy.

The research focused on 19 recommendations in four areas of nutrition policy: the national obesity strategy; regulation of the food industry; regulation of marketing and advertising; and school environments.

The research found that the Labour Government supported the food industry position in 13 of the 19 recommendations, against 5 where they supported the public health position. Importantly, the Government sided with industry in rejecting key committee recommendations for front-of-pack labelling and restrictions on TV advertising of unhealthy food. Only in the area of school environments did the Labour Government agree with the public health position by requiring schools to sell and promote only healthy foods.

This school nutrition policy was subsequently overturned by the National-led Government, suggesting a strengthening of industry’s influence on our national nutrition policy, says study lead author Dr Gabrielle Jenkin.

“Allowing schools to profit from the sale of unhealthy foods to their students is personally concerning to me as a parent, and should send alarm bells to other parents,” says Dr Jenkin.

She says that the public needs to consider who benefits from the current epidemic in obesity.

“The continuing trend of policy favouring the food industry is dangerous as we’re now the third most obese country in the developed world according to the OECD, with 63% of adults either overweight or obese.”

Like many developed nations such as the USA, New Zealand has a multi-million dollar health problem with increasing type 2 diabetes, directly related to an energy-dense (high fat and high sugar) diet associated with highly processed and fast foods.

International research indicates that many governments support the commercial interests of major industrial sectors like the food industry, over strategies to improve public health. These industries are often large investors and employers, and in New Zealand, central to the economy.

However this does not take into account collateral damage, the huge future health costs for diabetes, and indirect costs due to lost productivity. The study notes that current policy tends to be based on industry self regulation, leaving the responsibility of good nutrition up to the individual, but in an environment which encourages obesity and weight gain (‘obesogenic’).

“It’s obvious this self-regulatory model is a failure. The food industry continues to make large profits on the back of deteriorating public health, with the subsequent burden on the taxpayer to fund the health system. An effective public health strategy to address the obesogenic environment is needed if we are to control the escalating health costs,” says Dr Jenkin.

The study concludes that solutions lie in regulating the food industry, regulating the advertising and marketing industries, and limiting the involvement of the food industry in policy making to ensure fair treatment of public health concerns.

This study has been published in the international journal Public Health Nutrition and was funded by the Health Research Council.

via Nutrition policy favours food industry, not public health – study | Voxy.co.nz.

Health Department Launches New Ad Campaign Spotlighting Increasing Portion Sizes and Their Devastating Consequences

New York City subway posters encourage New Yorkers to cut their portions to reduce their risk of health problems

The Health Department today launched a new hard-hitting ad campaign urging New Yorkers to be more aware of portion sizes – and how they have increased – when choosing what to eat or drink. The quantity of food served in a “medium” or “large” order is significantly greater today than in previous years.

In the last 50 years, for example, the serving sizes of sugary drinks quadrupled and french fries nearly tripled. With a few casual selections, a single meal could balloon to contain many more calories than the amount an adult needs for an entire day. This new campaign, along with the City’s ongoing requirement that chain restaurants post calorie counts, will continue to provide New Yorkers with the information they need to make healthier choices.

“The portion sizes that are marketed are often much more than humans need,” said Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley “We are warning people about the risks of super-size portions so they can make more informed choices about what they eat. Consuming too many calories can lead to weight gain, which greatly increases the risk of type 2 diabetes. If New Yorkers cut their portions, they can cut their risk of these health problems.”

In one of the new posters, available in English and Spanish, a man with type 2 diabetes and an amputated leg sits behind a graphic showing how soda portions have increased over time. “Cut your portions. Cut your risk,” the text reads below, providing New Yorkers with a clear strategy for preventing obesity and its health consequences.

While the City has made strides in combating the nationwide trend of growing obesity, the majority of adult New Yorkers (nearly 57%) and two out of every five New York City elementary school children remain overweight or obese and the health consequences are dire, ranging from hypertension to type 2 diabetes. Nearly 10% of New Yorkers have been told they have type 2 diabetes, which can lead to blindness, kidney failure and amputations. In 2006, nearly 3,000 New Yorkers with diabetes were hospitalized for amputations. Obese children and adolescents also are more likely to become obese adults. Even while young, they are more likely to develop obesity-related conditions such as high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and type 2 diabetes.

Most adults only need to eat 2,000 calories per day, and children need even fewer. But with Americans eating out more often than they did 40 years ago, staying within these recommendations has become more difficult. A beverage at a fast food chain has increased fourfold since 1955, from 7 ounces to 32 ounces. During the same time, french fry portions have more than doubled, from 2.4 ounces to 5.4 ounces. As a result, recent studies show that one-third of New Yorkers eating at chain restaurants consume more than 1,000 calories at lunchtime alone.

A packet of materials containing valuable information on portion control, along with other tips for making healthy choices, is available by calling 311 and asking for the Healthy Eating Packet, which includes:

• Counting Calories? Read ‘Em Before You Eat ‘Em brochure: provides information on daily calorie needs and tips for making healthy choices
• Are You Pouring on the Pounds? Health Bulletin: provides tips on how to cut back on soda, juice and other sugary drinks

• Make New York City Your GymHealth Bulletin: provides information on the importance of being physically active and gives tips on how to incorporate free or low-cost exercise into daily routines
• Eating Out, Eating WellHealth Bulletin: provides information on making smart choices when eating out

• My Plate Planner placemat and magnets: provides guidance on creating a healthy and balanced meal for both adults and children

via Health Department Launches New Ad Campaign Spotlighting Increasing Portion Sizes and Their Devastating Consequences.

January 4, 2012, Fox News, Chris Kilham

Americans are living longer than ever before. As a result of greatly improved sanitation, hygiene, nutrition, life-saving drugs and medical care, lifespan has increased significantly.

At the time of the American Revolution in 1776, the average life expectancy in the United States was a paltry 30 years of age. Back then, you had to make your mark early, because your stay in this world was likely to be brief.

Today, the average American life expectancy is close to 80, and the fastest growing segment of the American population is adults 85 years or older.

Whereas age 65 was once considered old, now it’s just upper middle age.

The population group that will live longer than any other thus far is the baby boomer generation, which accounts for a whopping 76 million adults and represents 42 percent of all Americans over 21. This generation initiated a gerontological explosion in the year 2011, as its earliest members turned 65.

While there may not be an actual fountain of youth, we are continually re-defining old age and pushing the limits of lifespan further and further.

And now the bad news
Increased lifespan may sound like a dream come true. But it may be a nightmare in progress. Unless we assume far greater responsibility for our health, current increases in longevity spell decrepitude and financial disaster for millions of Americans.

If rates of disease and disability continue at their current levels, America will become a nation of sick, senile, disenfranchised, impoverished seniors, with too few resources to care for them and astronomical medical costs that will cripple our economy.

Consider the following: The average American over the age of 65 suffers multiple chronic conditions, including hypertension, diabetes, arthritis, hearing and vision disorders. This group accounts for one third of all health care spending, one third of prescription drug use and 40 percent of doctor visits.

Over 25 percent of those 85 or older require institutional care. Unless the economic structure of the nation is substantially re-vamped, Medicare will run out of funds by 2029. Suddenly, the idea of living 100 years or more loses some of its luster.
Sobering health figures

The following figures underscore the serious health challenges we face as we age.

Cardiovascular disease
-According to the American Heart Association, approximately 1 million American adults die annually of heart attack.
-An estimated half million Americans suffer strokes annually, thirty percent of which result in death.

Cancer
-According to the American Cancer Society, 1 out of every 3 Americans (more than 86 million Americans alive today, will get cancer.
-1.35 million Americans will be diagnosed with cancer this year.
-538,000 Americans will die of cancer this year.

Arthritis
-Arthritis is the number one cause of disability in the US.
-According to the Arthritis Foundation, 40 million Americans have arthritis.
-According to the Centers for Disease Control, by 2020, 59.4 million Americans will have arthritis.

Diabetes
-According to the American Diabetes Association, 16 million Americans have diabetes.
-800,000 diabetics are insulin – dependent.
-400,000 people die each year from diabetes.
-Each year 625,000 new cases of diabetes are diagnosed.

Obesity
-According to national health statistics, 62 percent of Americans are overweight. Many are obese, exceeding recommended weights by 25 percent or more.

Alzheimer’s disease
-According to the Alzheimer’s Foundation, 4 million Americans suffer from Alzheimer’s disease.
-14 million Americans are expected to have Alzheimer’s by the year 2050.
-One in 10 persons over 65 develops Alzheimer’s.
-50 percent of those over 85 develop Alzheimer’s.

Faced with the magnitude of such a great aging explosion, we can’t expect our medical system to catch us as we fall.

Health care in the U.S. is currently in crisis, and many people have lost confidence in medicine. Medical services are expensive, and insurance is becoming prohibitively costly.

The great majority of doctors are specialists in disease care, not in prevention and are primarily familiar with drugs and surgery. Thus preventing disease and designing programs to keep people fit for life are largely enterprises outside of the medical realm.

Health is not a medical condition, and physicians are not the gatekeepers of fitness and wellness. We are our own gatekeepers.

Large numbers of people are venturing outside of the conventional medical establishment in a quest to manage and promote their own health, fitness and well being. They are becoming much more active in finding ways to deal with common ailments on their own.

This signifies a profound shift toward self directed health care. In response to this shift, medical educators are beginning to grapple with wellness and prevention as areas of medical specialty. This is critically important, for if physicians are going to play any significant future role in keeping our aging population healthy, they must be become astute specialists in prevention, fitness and wellness.

Increasing fitness span
The shape of the future is ours to determine. Will we live to be energetic, healthy centenarians, or will we spend the last decades of our lives sick, incapacitated and institutionalized? The issue is one of fitness span.

Lifespan is how long you live. Fitness span is how long you stay fit and healthy. Getting fit is a necessity, not an option.

Health and fitness begin to decline at around age 40 when age-related degenerative conditions begin to take their toll. Our task is to extend fitness span to match life span, so we stay fit and healthy until we die.
In the quest for health, millions of Americans are turning to alternative and complementary therapies and products, including supplements, herbs, and homeopathic medicines.

News media are now promoting the safety, efficacy and overall wellness benefits of these programs and products, and scientists continue to affirm that these approaches impart real health benefits that treat ailments ranging from indigestion to allergies.

True fitness is a state of wellness, abundant energy and a feeling of being whole and intact. It is a dynamic, vital condition which must be managed daily. Since this is an inalterable fact of life, you might as well dive into this endeavor wholeheartedly, with a galvanized and enthusiastic determination to stay fit for as long as you live.

Read more: Health Challenges Facing Baby Boomers | Fox News.

December 15, 2011, Huffington Post

When the USDA revised its official dietary guidelines for optimum health in June, nutrition experts generally agreed that MyPlate was better than the Food Pyramid that preceded it. Some, includingMarion Nestle and researchers from Harvard, had quibbles with MyPlates’ exact specifications — some said that meat and dairy were over-emphasized — few said that following the guidelines, especially on fruit and vegetable consumption, would be a bad thing.

But even if it’s healthy, it doesn’t look easy. The recommendations call for Americans to eat around three cups of vegetables and two cups of fruits every day. That’s a lot! Almost two whole cups of produce per meal. It always seems like eating as many whole grains, fruits and vegetables would necessitate eating a lot more food than normally seems wise — if not more calories.

And, indeed, a new study from the NPD Group shows that, even if MyPlate’s recommendations are healthy and easy to understand, they aren’t being followed by many Americans. The Group looked at long-term data on American eating habits and found that most surveyed individuals came close to meeting the USDA’s nutritional guidelines on only 2% of days in a year. That’s about a week out of the year.

The group’s threshold for “came close to meeting the nutritional guidelines” wasn’t even that high: someone had to eat just 70% of the guidelines to count as a yes. Moreover, the days on which the guidelines were met were also those on which the Americans ate the most.

via MyPlate Recommendations Actually Followed By Americans Just 2% Of Time.

Parents have good reason to worry about the sugar content of children’s breakfast cereals, according to an Environmental Working Group review of 84 popular brands.

Kellogg’s Honey Smacks, at nearly 56 percent sugar by weight, leads the list of the 10 worst children’s cereals, according to EWG’s analysis. In fact, a one-cup serving of the brand packs more sugar than a Hostess Twinkie, and one cup of any of the 44 other children’s cereals has more sugar than three Chips Ahoy! cookies.

In response to the exploding childhood obesity epidemic and aggressive food company advertising pitches to kids, Congress formed the federal Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children to propose standards to Congress to curb marketing of kids’ foods with too much sugar, salt and fat.

But EWG has found that only one in four children’s cereals meets the government panel’s voluntary proposed guidelines, which recommend no more than 26 percent added sugar by weight. EWG has been calling for an even lower cap on the maximum amount of sugar in children’s cereals.

“When I went to medical school in the 1960s, the consensus view was sugar provided ‘empty calories’ devoid of vitamins, minerals or fiber,” said health expert Dr. Andrew Weil. “Aside from that, it was not deemed harmful. But 50 years of nutrition research has confirmed that sugar is actually the single most health-destructive component of the standard American diet. The fact that a children’s breakfast cereal is 56 percent sugar by weight – and many others are not far behind – should cause national outrage.”

“Cereal companies have spent fortunes on convincing parents that a kid’s breakfast means cereal, and that sugary cereals are fun, benign, and all kids will eat,” said noted NYU nutrition professor Marion Nestle. “The cereals on the EWG highest-sugar list are among the most profitable for their makers, who back up their investment with advertising budgets of $20 million a year or more. No public health agency has anywhere near the education budget equivalent to that spent on a single cereal. Kids should not be eating sugar for breakfast. They should be eating real food.”

“As a mom of two, I was stunned to discover just how much sugar comes in a box of children’s cereal,” said Jane Houlihan, EWG’s Senior Vice President of Research. “The bottom line: most parents would never serve dessert for breakfast, but many children’s cereals have just as much sugar, or more.”

Studies suggest that children who eat breakfasts that are high in sugar have more problems at school. They become more frustrated and have a harder time working independently than kids who eat lower-sugar breakfasts. By lunchtime they have less energy, are hungrier, show attention deficits and make more mistakes on their work.

About one in five American children is obese, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has reported that childhood obesity has tripled over the past 30 years.

“It has been said that exploding rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes in today’s children will lead them to be the first in American history to have shorter lifespans than their parents,” Weil said. “That tragedy strikes me as a real possibility unless parents make some dramatic changes in their children’s lives.”

“Nearly 20 percent of our children and one-third of adults in this country are obese. Our children face a future of declining health, and may be the first generation to have a shorter lifespan than their parents. We must provide consumers with the information they need to make healthier choices and prevent misleading claims about the nutritional contents of food,” said Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT). “Cereal is a prime example of this—we know that children do better in school if they have breakfast. But we also know that the type of breakfast matters. And yet, as the Environment Working Group’s report shows, many children’s cereals have sugar content levels that are above 40 percent by weight. Our children deserve better, and it is critical that we take action to combat America’s obesity epidemic.” Congresswoman DeLauro serves on the appropriations subcommittee responsible for the Food and Drug Administration and agriculture, where she oversees drug and food safety.

10 Worst Children’s Cereals
Based on percent sugar by weight

1.) Kellogg’s Honey Smacks 55.6%

2.) Post Golden Crisp 51.9%

3.)Kellogg’s Froot Loops Marshmallow 48.3%

4.) Quaker Oats Cap’n Crunch’s OOPS! All Berries 46.9%

5.)Quaker Oats Cap’n Crunch Original 44.4%

6.) Quaker Oats Oh!s 44.4%

7.) Kellogg’s Smorz 43.3%

8.)Kellogg’s Apple Jacks 42.9%

9.) Quaker Oats Cap’n Crunch’s Crunch Berries 42.3%

10.) Kellogg’s Froot Loops Original 41.4%

Some cereals are better than others. Nutrition expert Marion Nestle recommends:

1. Cereals with a short ingredient list (added vitamins and minerals are okay).
2. Cereals high in fiber.
3. Cereals with little or no added sugars (added sugars are ingredients such as honey, molasses, fruit juice concentrate, brown sugar, corn sweetener, sucrose, lactose, glucose, high-fructose corn syrup and malt syrup).

Among the best simple-to-prepare breakfasts for children are fresh fruit and high-fiber, lower-sugar cereals. Better yet, pair fruit with homemade oatmeal.

Top 10 Cereals that will Rot Your Kids Teeth Out.

EurekaAlert, November 28, 2011

Large disparities exist in obesity and other chronic diseases across racial/ethnic groups in the United States. Are racial differences in diet, exercise, and weight status related to better knowledge about healthy eating and awareness of food-related health risks? Or are they more closely related to differences in socioeconomic status (SES)? A new study published in the December issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association finds that people with a lower socioeconomic status are more likely to be overweight, regardless of racial/ethnic background, and that the level of nutritional knowledge and health awareness did not lead to significant racial differences in weight and diet.

“Our findings suggest that disparities in obesity in the United States may be more affected by the broader social environment,” said authors Youfa Wang, MD, PhD, MS, director of the Johns Hopkins Global Center for Childhood Obesity and associate professor of International Health and Epidemiology, and Xialoi Chen, MD, PhD, MPH, assistant scientist in the Department of International Health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD. “Poor quality retail food environments in disadvantaged neighborhoods, in conjunction with limited individual economic resources, contribute to increased risk of obesity within ethnic minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations.”

The authors hypothesized that between-group differences in nutrition- and health-related psychosocial factors, including nutrition knowledge and beliefs, are important contributors to the large racial/ethnic and socioeconomic differences observed in U.S. adults’ dietary intakes, exercise, and obesity. They analyzed nationally representative data collected from 4,356 individuals who had participated in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Continuing Survey of Individual Food Intakes, and who had completed the Diet and Health Knowledge Survey, which asks about self-perceptions of nutritional intake, awareness of the relationship between diet and health, perceived importance of following nutritional guidelines, and other questions related to health and diet.

Each participant was asked 24 questions to evaluate nutrition and health-related psychosocial factors (NHRPF). SES was assessed using education and household income. The authors analyzed the relationship between NHRPF and SES with self-reported dietary intake, diet quality (measured by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Healthy Eating Index [HEI]), exercise participation, body mass index (BMI), and overweight or obesity. Changes in racial/ethnic differences in weight status were compared with diet and exercise participation.

In general, compared to non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks had higher BMI and scored lower on the HEI, and were less likely to participate in exercise. Hispanics scored higher on the HEI. The racial and ethnic differences in diet and BMI changed little after controlling for NHRPF. But when SES was controlled for, the black–white differences in HEI became smaller and the white–Hispanic differences became greater.

“Our study shows several important findings that could help enhance the understanding of the complex factors that affect disparities in diet, exercise, and obesity across ethnic and SES groups,” commented Dr. Wang. “Different from what we expected, few of the racial/ethnic differences in diet, exercise, and weight status were explained by health- and nutrition-related psychosocial factors. But SES explained a considerable portion of the disparities.”

“The underlying causes of ethnic disparities in eating, exercise, and obesity in the United States are complicated. More well-designed studies with vigorous and comprehensive assessment of related factors are needed to help advance understanding.”

###
The article is “How Much of Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Dietary Intakes, Exercise, and Weight Status Can Be Explained by Nutrition- and Health-Related Psychosocial Factors and Socioeconomic Status among US Adults?” by Y. Wang and X. Chen. It appears in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Volume 111, Issue 12 (December 2012) published by Elsevier.

via Socioeconomic status may explain racial disparities in diet, exercise, and weight.

Via Yahoo News, AP, Mary Clare Jalonick

Who needs leafy greens and carrots when pizza and french fries will do?

In an effort many 9-year-olds will cheer, Congress wants pizza and french fries to stay on school lunch lines and is fighting the Obama administration’s efforts to take unhealthy foods out of schools.
The final version of a spending bill released late Monday would unravel school lunch standards the Agriculture Department proposed earlier this year. These include limiting the use of potatoes on the lunch line, putting new restrictions on sodium and boosting the use of whole grains. The legislation would block or delay all of those efforts.

The bill also would allow tomato paste on pizzas to be counted as a vegetable, as it is now. USDA had wanted to only count a half-cup of tomato paste or more as a vegetable, and a serving of pizza has less than that.

Nutritionists say the whole effort is reminiscent of the Reagan administration’s much-ridiculed attempt 30 years ago to classify ketchup as a vegetable to cut costs. This time around, food companies that produce frozen pizzas for schools, the salt industry and potato growers requested the changes and lobbied Congress.

School meals that are subsidized by the federal government must include a certain amount of vegetables, and USDA’s proposal could have pushed pizza-makers and potato growers out of the school lunch business.

Piling on to the companies’ opposition, some conservatives argue that the federal government shouldn’t tell children what to eat. In a summary of the bill, Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee said the changes would “prevent overly burdensome and costly regulations and …provide greater flexibility for local school districts to improve the nutritional quality of meals.”

School districts have said some of the USDA proposals go too far and cost too much when budgets are extremely tight. Schools have long taken broad instructions from the government on what they can serve in the federally subsidized meals that are given free or at reduced price to low-income children. But some schools have balked at government attempts to tell them exactly what foods they can’t serve.

Reacting to that criticism, House Republicans had urged USDA to rewrite the standards in a bill passed in June. The Senate last month voted to block the potato limits in its version, with opposition to the restrictions led by potato-growing states. Neither version of the bill included the latest provisions on tomato paste, sodium or whole grains; House and Senate negotiators added those in the last two weeks as they put finishing touches on the legislation.

The school lunch proposal is based on 2009 recommendations by the Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said they are necessary to reduce childhood obesity and future health care costs.
USDA spokeswoman Courtney Rowe said Tuesday that the department will continue its efforts to make lunches healthier.
“While it’s unfortunate that some members of Congress continue to put special interests ahead of the health of America’s children, USDA remains committed to practical, science-based standards for school meals,” she said in a statement.

Nutrition advocate Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest said Congress’s proposed changes will keep schools from serving a wider array of vegetables. Children already get enough pizza and potatoes, she says. It also would slow efforts to make pizzas — a longtime standby on school lunch lines — healthier, with whole grain crusts and lower sodium levels.

“They are making sure that two of the biggest problems in the school lunch program, pizza and french fries, are untouched,” she said.
A group of retired generals advocating for healthier school lunches also criticized the spending bill. The group, called Mission: Readiness, has called poor nutrition in school lunches a national security issue because obesity is the leading medical disqualifier for military service.

“We are outraged that Congress is seriously considering language that would effectively categorize pizza as a vegetable in the school lunch program,” Amy Dawson Taggart, the director of the group, said in a letter to lawmakers before the final bill was released. “It doesn’t take an advanced degree in nutrition to call this a national disgrace.”
Specifically, the bill would:

• Block the Agriculture Department from limiting starchy vegetables, including corn and peas, to two servings a week. The rule was intended to cut down on french fries, which many schools serve daily.
• Allow USDA to count two tablespoons of tomato paste as a vegetable, as it does now. The department had attempted to require that only a half-cup of tomato paste could be considered a vegetable. Federally subsidized lunches must have a certain number of vegetables to be served.
• Require further study on long-term sodium reduction requirements set forth by the USDA guidelines.
• Require USDA to define “whole grains” before they regulate them. The USDA rules require schools to use more whole grains.

Food companies who have fought the USDA standards say they were too strict and neglected the nutrients that potatoes, other starchy vegetables and tomato paste do offer.

“This agreement ensures that nutrient-rich vegetables such as potatoes, corn and peas will remain part of a balanced, healthy diet in federally funded school meals and recognizes the significant amounts of potassium, fiber and vitamins A and C provided by tomato paste, ensuring that students may continue to enjoy healthy meals such as pizza and pasta,” said Kraig Naasz, president of the American Frozen Food Institute.

The school lunch provisions are part of a final House-Senate compromise on a $182 billion measure that would fund the day-to-day operations of the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. Both the House and the Senate are expected to vote on the bill this week and send it to President Barack Obama.

Congress pushes back on healthier school lunches – Yahoo! News.