Pomegranate Juice and Pom Wonderful

If juices were Hollywood actors, pomegranate juice would be on the cover of People Magazine. It's definitely the up-and-coming star of the juice hit parade, and with good reason.

Researchers at Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa suggest that long-term consumption of pomegranate juice may help slow aging and protect against heart disease. The lead researcher, Professor Michael Aviram, said that pomegranate juice contained the highest antioxidant capacity of any beverage they tested including other juices, red wine and even green tea.

A study presented at the American urological Association Annual Meeting looked at 48 men who had been treated for prostate cancer and were given 8 ounces of pomegranate juice to drink daily. Drinking the juice significantly lengthened the amount of time it took for the men's average PSA to double (PSA being a warning sign for prostate cancer). At least a half a dozen studies have shown positive effects of pomegranate on the heart.

I'm a big fan of pomegranate juice, and sang its praises in "The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth". So I read with great interest when my friend Mark Blumenthal, president of the American Botanical Council, sent me a new research monograph. The American Botanical Council is one of the premiere portals for serious, scientific research on herbs. They're my "go-to" source when I want to find out what the science really says on any herb, and their monographs are first rate.

The monograph in question was on Pom Wonderful, one of the most popular of the supermarket brands of pomegranate juice. (I was surprised to find out that "Wonderful" isn't just the manufacturers description of the product- it's actually a specific, California-grown variety of Pomegranates, much like "Delicious" is a kind of red apple.)

Before I tell you what the monograph said, a few words of background and full disclosure. I don't have any connection to Pom Wonderful, and in fact, was predisposed not to like it much, thinking it might be just another sweetened juice drink that was trying to capitalize on the well-documented health benefits of "real", pure pomegranate juice. I don't sell it, don't own stock in it, and don't benefit in any way financially if you go out and buy it.

Just wanted to get that out of the way.

But the fact is, this is really, really good stuff. (Truth be told, I was surprised.) In research reported in the monograph, POM Wonderful PJ was found, in antioxidant activity, to be 100 times more powerful than blueberry juice and 300 times more powerful than grape juice. Turns out there are a total of 6 published human clinical trials on POM Wonderful PJ, including 4 cardiovascular studies and one on erectile dysfunction.

Erectile dysfunction? Yup. Apparently the antioxidant properties of Pomegranate juice may increase nitric oxide production, improve smooth muscle relaxation and reduce atherosclerotic plaque, all of which can contribute to ED. Forty two of the fifty-three subjects who completed the ED study attributed an improvement to drinking the beverage.

A word of clarification. Great as it may be, Pom Wonderful still has 32 grams of sugar per 8 ounce serving, (a problem with virtually all fruit juices, not just Pom Wonderful ). If you're watching your sugar, if you're on a low-carb diet, or if you've got Diabetes or Metabolic Syndrome, this is something to be aware of, and this may not be a great food choice for you.

But if you drink juice and you don't have a problem with the sugar, Pom Wonderful is a rarity- a great supermarket brand, widely available, that seems to really deliver what it promises.

Addiction to Oil, Addiction to Sugar

It's impossible- for me anyway- to read the newspapers and follow the political talk shows without seeing some striking parallels between the gas crisis and the obesity crisis.

That we're "addicted to oil" doesn't seem to be much in question. What to do about it illustrates a divide that neatly parallels the divide over what to do about obesity.

Let's start here: We all feel the pain at the pump, and God knows, living in the car culture of Southern California, I'm no happier about it than you are. But clamoring for cheaper gas, offshore drilling (which no one seriously claims will do anything significant) is the equivalent of looking for a way to keep eating crap and not get fat. The fact is we don't need cheaper gas. We need more expensive gas. So expensive that we will finally be motivated to replace our addiction to oil with forms of energy that are better for the planet and for our pocketbooks.

But this is as painful as giving up sugar and junk food- (at least at the beginning of the tunnel- the rewards at the end are priceless)! Most of America- at least if you judge by the endless infomercials at 3 in the morning- is still looking for a way to lose weight "painlessly", without "deprivation" without effort. (Never underestimate the ability of a pill that promises easy, effortless weight loss to make millions for its creators.).

The real solution- like the real solution to the oil crisis- is painful.

But it's the truth. To get and stay healthy, we've got to give up some of (if not most of) the stuff we're addicted to. And that's not particularly welcome information.

The response to this information about food parallels the response to this information about oil. The oil companies deny that there's a problem, and if there is one, it's not their fault. They simply try to rebrand themselves as purveyors of clean energy, which is as silly as believing that Phillip Morris really wants you to give up cigarettes and is actively seeking ways to cut down smoking. Come on. The oil companies' loyalty is- as it should be- to their shareholders, not to the planet.

And the loyalties of the big food companies are to their shareholders as well, not to the health of America. So they'll take whatever marketing buzzword seems to have a patina of "wholesomeness" (from "organic" to "whole grains" to "omegas") slap it on the same old junk and pretend that they're doing something about the obesity crisis. Truth be told, if we did what we needed to do to really fight obesity, diabetes and ill health, we'd put them out of business.

And they know this.

This is where the parallels between the political and nutritional landscape intersect. It's hard for government agencies to give advice that will undermine the very pillars of the economy. That's why tax breaks for companies developing wind and solar energy have gone nowhere in Congress and why you'll never hear the USDA issue a recommendation for us to stop eating sugar and corn syrup. When industries are foundational to our GDP, "cutting back" has huge economic consequences.

What to do, what to do?

Solving difficult and arcane political problems is beyond my pay scale. What I do know is that the truth is sometimes tough to hear and even tougher to act on. But if you want to lose weight, if you want to get healthy and if you want to live long, there isn't a "simple" and "painless" and "effortless" way to do it. You have to give up your addictions.

It's not easy at first. But having given up more than my share of addictions myself, I know it can be done.

And most important of all: it works.

You just have to be willing to tell the truth about it.

Poison Alert! (Did that get your attention?)

What if there was a substance in the environment that you were exposed to on a daily basis that could shorten your life, shrink your brain and make you fat in the bargain? You can bet there'd be a million e mails circulating about it, it would be lighting up the blogosphere and it would be the headline subject in at least a dozen consumer health newsletters. I mean, look at the brouhaha over cell phones, irradiated food and plastics recently.

Well the "thing" I'm talking about is worse than any of them. And every one of us is exposed to a ton of it on a daily basis.

I'm talking about... stress.

The granddaddy of the stress hormones- cortisol- has been written about extensively, by me and by many other health professionals. You probably already know how it works. Nature designed us with a "fight or flight" apparatus in place that allowed us to turn up the gas anytime we were in danger. So when your Paleolithic ancestors happened to come upon a wooly mammoth, the adrenals would jump into action, shoot a load of cortisol into the bloodstream and make it a lot easier for you to either run up a tree or pick up a club(hence "fight or flight").

Problem is, the gas pedal on cortisol was never meant to be locked in the "on" position 24/7.

Now new research from the University of California, published in the May 2008 issue of Brain, Behavior and immunity, has illustrated one of the many mechanisms by which excess cortisol ages the body. The key is in something called telomeres, which are the little "caps" at the end of chromosomes that help stabilize them. As we age- and each time a cell divides- those telomeres lose a little length. We even have an enzyme- called telomerase- that helps prevent shortening, maintaining the cells healthy ability to keep dividing.

In this research study, scientists took some white blood cells from healthy people and treated them with different amounts of cortisol. After only 72 hours, the cultures treated with cortisol had less cells than the control cultures. While normal amounts of cortisol had no negative effects, the concentrations of cortisol that are comparable to that found in a typical human under typical stress was a different story. That amount of cortisol reduced the activity of the telomere protecting enzyme (telomerase) by up to 50 percent.

That's one way stress accelerates aging. Another is by wearing down the immune system. And a third is by shrinking an important area of the brain critical for memory and thinking (called the hippocampus).

Wouldn't it be great if there were a supplement that could reduce cortisol?

Unfortunately there isn't.

While Phosphatidyl Serine has been shown to reduce cortisol in athletes (and is a great supplement for the brain), the fact is that nothing- including supplements- have been found to be as effective in bringing down cortisol as a simple, free, low-tech activity: meditation. And as someone who hasn't personally taken to meditation like the proverbial duck to water, I'm happy to report that even five minutes a day of focused deep breathing can produce similar results (though actually this is one of those cases where more really is better).

I mention this because it's important to remember that living well- and healthy- and having what we're now calling "the Youngevity Lifestyle" is about more than just taking supplements, or even eating well. Sure those are important things to do, and I wouldn't have a career if they weren't.

But let's remember that there are plenty of things we can do to increase both the length of time we're on the planet and the quality of the time we are blessed with. Connecting with other people is one. Deep breathing and relaxing is another. Getting plenty of sleep is a third. Spending some time in the sun is a fourth. Making a contribution to the world and 'giving back' is a fifth.

The best part is that you don't have to spend a penny to do any of the above.

And the payoff is greater than almost anything else I can think of.

Your "telomeres" will thank you. And so will your health.

Omega-3's and Stroke

In a related study, researchers reporting in a recent issue of Neurology found that older adults whose diets include three or more weekly helpings of baked or broiled fish high in omega-3 fatty acids are less likely to develop "silent" brain lesions that can lead to cognitive decline and vascular stroke.

In my fathers' final years of life he was suffering from vascular dementia (which looks and feels exactly like Alzheimers). Docs suspected he had suffered many "mini-strokes" without knowing it, a diagnosis I came to find out was far more common than I had suspected. In a news release related to the current study in Neurology, Jyrki Virtanen, PhD, RD said the following: "Previous findings have shown that fish and fish oil can help prevent stroke, but this is one of the only studies that looks at fish's effect on silent brain infarcts (strokes) in healthy older people"

In the current study, eating just one serving of fish had a protective effect, resulting in a 13% reduction in risk of silent brain lesions. But those eating three servings or more had a nearly 26% lower risk! This comes on the heels of massive research on the beneficial properties of omega-3's on the brain, the heart, blood pressure, and just about anything else you can think of.

I strongly recommend daily supplements of Omega-3's for all the reasons we keep hearing about. I think it's one of the smartest things you can do for yourself.

And here's something exciting..

For years, I've been eating (and recommending) wild salmon and other fish products from my favorite fishing company in the world, Vital Choice in Alaska. This week I'll be announcing to you in a separate e mail a brand new collaboration between myself and this wonderful company. Quick preview: Vital Choice now offers a "Dr. Christiane Northrup", a "Dr. Andrew Weil" and a "Dr. Nicholas Perricone" package of products, and I will now be joining that elite group with the Dr. Jonny Bowden Healthiest Foods Starter Pack. Stay tuned!

Belly Fat and Stroke Risk and Waist Measurement

You'd have to be living under a rock to have not heard that carrying excess weight around your middle increases the risk for diabetes, metabolic syndrome and heart disease. But did you know that it also increases the risk for stroke?

Well it can, and it does.

A new study from the University of Heidelberg found that while BMI was not independently associated with an increased risk of stroke, belly fat was. Women with waists greater than 35" and men with waists greater than 40" had four times the risk of stroke compared to people with more "typical" waistlines. The researchers also calculated a common metric called "Waist-to-Hip Ratio" (found by dividing the circumference of the widest part of the hips by the circumference of the waist). Those with the highest Waist-to-Hip ratio had nearly eight times the risk of stroke when compared to those with the lowest ratios!

This is really interesting because we nutritionists and nutritionally minded docs have long used the "rule of thumb" that a waist measurement of greater than 35" for women or 40" for men is a very likely indicator of insulin resistance.

An interesting sideline on waist to hip ratio: It correlates strongly with general health (and with fertility). Women within the .07 range and men within the .9 range seem to be less susceptible to all sorts of major diseases from diabetes to heart disease to cancer. And if obesity is redefined using Waist-to-Hip measurement instead of the more common BMI (Body Mass Index), the proportion of people categorized as "at risk" for a heart attack triples!

Meanwhile, another recent study in the journal Circulation isolated five basic lifestyle factors that can significantly reduce your risk of stroke. Here are what the researchers call a "low-risk" lifestyle:

• Not currently smoking (let's file that under "duh"!)


• Maintaining a BMI of less than 25 (although in light of the above, a good Waist to Hip ratio is probably even more important!)


• Moderate to vigorous activity for a half-hour every day!


• A diet rich in vegetables, fruits, chicken, fish, fiber, nuts and legumes


• Moderate alcohol intake (for women, up to one drink a day, for men, up to two)

These lifestyle factors reduced total stroke risk in men by 35% and ischemic stroke by 52%; for women, the effect was even more dramatic: 54% reduction in ischemic stroke and 47% reduction in total stroke.

Considering that these are the same five lifestyle habits that seem to reduce coronary heart disease by 80% and diabetes by 90%, it's hard to see any reason not to follow this basic, easy program!

Common Spices Inhibit "AGE"-ing

When I wrote "The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth", I made sure to give ample space to the category of spices. I think they're some of the most underused health foods on the planet, and virtually every day new research shows up confirming my hunch.

Just recently, researchers at the University of Georgia published a study in the Journal of Medicinal Food showing that common spices not only contain antioxidants, but also protect against the formation of a really nasty compound in the body aptly nicknamed AGEs (for Advanced Glycolytic End-products). Advanced glycolated end-products are what results when sugar gloms onto protein molecules (a process called glycation)- this is a frequent effect of too much sugar in the diet (and in the blood stream). AGEs not only literally age your body, but they also activate the immune system, leading to inflammation and tissue damage. And if this damage happens in the blood vessel walls, it can contribute to heart disease.

The researchers tested extracts from two dozen common herbs and spices and found high levels of inflammation-inhibiting antioxidants called polyphenols. Top scorers in the antioxidant sweepstakes were clove (number one) and cinnamon (number two). An early study by Richard Anderson of the USDA showed that as little as a half teaspoon of cinnamon a day significantly reduced blood sugar in people with diabetes, but other studies have not lived up to the promise. This study, however, shows that there are benefits to cinnamon (and to the other spices) that go beyond "just" reducing blood sugar.

Among the herbs tested, oregano, marjoram and sage had the highest level of antioxidant polyphenols, followed by thyme, Italian seasoning, tarragon, mint and rosemary. Spices tended to have even higher levels of polyphenols than the dried herbs. Researcher Diane Hartle, PhD, commenting on the study, suggested that different polyphenols have different mechanisms of action within the body. "If you set up a good herb and spice cabinet and season your food liberally, you could double or even triple the medicinal value of your meal without increasing the calorie content", she told Medicine.Net.

Amen to that!

Free Vitamin D Until September 1st

I know I've been harping on the need for vitamin D supplements for a while now, but the evidence just keeps mounting that this is one of the most important supplements to take on a regular basis, and it doesn't seem to be getting the attention it deserves.

The current issue of The Archives of Internal Medicine now reports that very low levels of vitamin D are linked to an increased risk of death.

Did that get your attention? It sure did mine.

We already know that vitamin D helps protect against certain cancers, contributes to strong bones, improves mood and increases physical performance in older people. It may also help fight diabetes and Crohn's Disease. Now we find out it may help lower your risk of an early death!

In this study, a research team analyzed a large sample of approximately 13,000 men and women and compared the risk of death between those with the lowest levels of vitamin D in their blood and those with the highest. They found a 26% increase of death from any cause whatsoever for those in the lowest quartile of vitamin D levels compared with those in the highest quartile.

Study after study has shown that we just don't get optimal levels of vitamin D. We've become a nation of sun phobics, slathering on 45 SPF every time we go outdoors thus significantly reducing our ability to make this important vitamin (which is actually a hormone more than it is a vitamin anyway). It's found in very few foods in any appreciable amount, except perhaps for cod liver oil, a supplement most of us aren't exactly scarfing down by the gallon.

The best advice: take supplements, even during the summer. We're just not getting enough of this important nutrient.

I strongly recommend a minimum of 1000 IUs of vitamin D daily as a supplement, and truth be told I'd much rather you take 2000IUs. In that amount (and very possibly higher) it is absolutely safe. The best form is vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol).

For the rest of this month I will add one bottle of Carlson's vitamin D with absolutely every vitamin order.

When I'm Wrong I'm Wrong: Cooking with Olive Oil

One of the drawbacks of being in the public eye is that all your statements are there for posterity- in books, videos, TV shows, YouTube. So when your opinions evolve or change over the years, you've still got to contend with the fact that you've gone "on record" as saying something that might be a lot different from what you believe today.

For years and years I've been recommending extra virgin olive oil as a great oil to cook with because it stands up to heat, is heart healthy and has a lot of great stuff in it (from monounsaturated fat to the- probably more important- olive phenols).

But a sharp eyed reader of my blog (Xenia) recently commented that extra virgin olive oil was a delicate oil that would be damaged by heat. After all, "extra-virgin" means it's cold pressed- by definition, that means it wasn't exposed to high heat in processing. Why spend all that money for the nutrient-saving "extra virgin" processing if you're going to destroy it by heating?, she asked.

A fair question.

So I did some digging.

First thing I found is that the "smoke point" of extra virgin olive oil is all over the map, depending on which manufacturer's information you read. Some olive oil websites say it's 410-450 (very high) but some manufacturers say it's only in the 200's.

It actually has to do with the processing. One of the reasons for refining any oil is to increase the smoke point. (Unrefined oils have a lower smoke point in general.) Really good extra virgin olive oil could be as low as in the 200's, where as the much less nutritious highly processed oil could be in the mid 400's.

Now if you're using extra-virgin olive oil at low heat, or if you're adding it to foods right before the end of cooking, no problem. But if you're really turning up the heat, it's not such a great idea.

My go-to guy for all things oil is Fred Pescatore, MD who knows more about this than almost anyone. I asked him, and he agrees- don't overheat olive oil. Fred recommends higher heat cooking with macadamia nut oil, avocado oil or hazlenut oil all of which naturally have higher smoke points without having to be refined and all of which contain many healthful compounds.

I'd add to that list my own favorite for cooking, Barlean's extra-virgin coconut oil, which has a whole host of health properties that I covered in my book The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth, not to mention that it's absolutely delicious.

So bottom line: I certainly wouldn't give up my extra virgin olive oil, which is a rich source of protective olive phenols.

But from now on, I'll think twice about turning up the heat too high and too long.

Bar-B-Q Precautions for Summer Season

As you probably know, I'm not against eating meat in principle. (I am against animal cruelty and factory farms, not to mention low quality supermarket meat filled with antibiotics, steroids and growth hormones, but that's a different story.)

But whether you have strong views on meat (and its provenance) or not, there's some important information you need to know about preparing it, particularly during summer grilling season.

During grilling at high temperatures (or frying for that matter), compounds known as HCAs- heterocyclic amines- are formed, and most researchers believe that these are human carcinogens. Some research shows that eating more heterocyclic amines increase the risk for colorectal, stomach, lung, pancreatic, breast and prostate cancer. The better done and more "burned to a crisp" the food is- and unfortunately this includes "blackened" varieties of fish- the worse it is from a heterocyclic amine point of view.

So besides grilling at lower temperatures, cooking slower and avoiding the splash back of fat onto the meat or fish and the formation of "blackened" crusts, what can we do?

Actually, quite a lot.

Researchers at Kansas State University and the Food Science Institute now believe that marinades may hold the key to healthier grilling.

These scientists marinated steaks for an hour in ordinary store-bought marinades. They coated the meat on all sides and turned it a few times before grilling at 400 degrees for five minutes per side. They then compared similar steaks that had been made without marinade.

The steaks made with marinade had between 57% and 88% less carcinogenic compounds (some marinades, like the "Caribbean" one, performed better than others, but all reduced HCAs by at least half!)

The common ingredients in all marinades were spices and herbs with high antioxidant properties. The best performing marinade was made with thyme, allspice, rosemary, chives, red and black pepper.

So if you're grilling this summer, consider using a marinade, be generous with the spices, and cook slowly at lower temperatures.

And consider washing it down with some red wine or other high antioxidant food or beverage (Pomegranate juice, red grapes, green vegetables).

How Much Exercise is Enough?

Before you can answer the question, "how much exercise is enough?" you have to first answer another question: enough for what?

For improving your heart health?
Or for losing weight?

The answer is going to be different depending on which one you're talking about.

See, health professionals know darn well that some exercise is better than no exercise. And it actually doesn't take all that much to move people from the "most at risk for heart disease" category to the "much less at risk" category, and only a little more to move them to "very little risk".

Yet we also know from our own experience that if we scare the public too much they wind up doing nothing.

Take exercise and weight loss. It's a nasty little secret- albeit one I've talked about for years- that exercise is not the most effective way to lose weight. (It is, however, the only way to maintain weight loss.)

And, if that weren't bad enough, the amount of exercise we typically do doesn't come close in either length or intensity to really knock the pounds off.

But if we tell the public that, many people won't even bother to go for a walk. Or garden. Or do anything moderate that could still extend their life and improve their well-being. They'll just give up ("it doesn't make a difference anyway, right?")

What to do, what to do?

I opt for truth telling. And the truth is this: if you're using exercise to lose weight- the primary motivation for most people- you've got to do a lot more of it than you think.

A new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, released July 28, tells the story plainly. It's headline:

"Current Exercise Recommendations May Not Be Sufficient for Overweight Women to Sustain Weight Loss".

Here's the executive summary: In addition to limiting calories, overweight (and obese) women need to exercise almost an hour a day for five days a week if they are to have any hope of sustaining a weight loss of 10 percent over two years.

This comes as no surprise to those of us who have been following the National Weight Control Registry, a database of thousands of people who have successfully lost substantial weight (at least 30 pounds, typically more) and kept It off (at least a year, typically five).

These folks typically exercise an hour a day.

Think about it. Our Paleolithic ancestors typically traveled around 20 miles a day; much of it spent hauling stuff around. We were meant to move- a lot. Twenty minutes three times a week on the Stairmaster is helping your heart quite a bit- but it doesn't begin to undo the damage to your waistline of a couple of meals at McDonald's. Sorry, but that's the truth.

In the current study, the almost 25% of people who were successful at losing weight and keeping it off reported burning up an average of 1835 calories per week more than those who lost less weight. That came to about 275 minutes per week more than "baseline" levels of activity.

Interestingly, that's not all they did- they also completed more telephone calls with the researchers, showing once again that accountability and connection and partnering is a powerful tool in the weight loss journey (one reason I'm so hot on coaching programs.

This JAMA study didn't address the issue of the efficacy of various forms of exercise, but I continue to believe that short burst training, interval training, circuit training and the like is a far more effective way to burn calories and fat than long slow aerobics. That said, a number of studies do show that even 30 minutes a day of walking can improve overall health, lower the risk for mortality and even help you grow more brain cells.

So which kind of exercise should you do?

That's a no brainer: Why not do both?

As I talk about in The Most Effective Natural Cures on Earth, and at much greater length in the forthcoming book on Energy (jan 2009), you can do burst training a number of different ways. You can use a terrific home machine like the Xiser, or you can do it with no equipment at all- just alternate a minute or two of "normal" aerobic walking with a much higher intensity jog or fast walk for 30 seconds. Repeat 4-10 times. Even if you're just beginning, you can do your own version of burst training. Start with what's comfortable- say a 5 on a scale of 1-10- and then do a 7 for 30 seconds.

Your heart, brain and waistline will all thank you profusely!

Newsletters (like this) and Internet Marketing: A personal note

I hope you know how much I value each one of you and my relationship with each of you. You take the time to read my newsletter, my "unsubscribe" rate is one of the lowest in the business, and I appreciate that enormously. So I take the job of writing this newsletter every week very seriously, and try to give you the best information I can find while keeping it useful and (hopefully) entertaining.

What I'd like you to know is that on average of twice a week I get approached to do what's called in Internet Marketing a "joint venture". People ask me to email my mailing list about a product or service they're selling (I ask others to do that from time to time as well). I turn down about 95% of these requests. Either I don't absolutely believe in the product or service (in which case I don't care how much money I could make from it) or I think it wouldn't be something of great use or interest to my readers and I don't want to burden your inbox with more sales letters.

Once in a while though, there is something that I really do believe in that I really do think could be of enormous value to you. There are a few companies I truly endorse which I'll tell you about in coming weeks and months. One makes the amazing Infared Sauna I have in my house that I use every day. Another markets what I believe is the best wild salmon and organic fruit I've ever eaten, stuff I've been ordering on a regular basis for at least four years. Once in a while a colleague develops a product I really think could be useful and helpful or a friend like Chicken Soup for the Soul author Mark Victor Hansen puts on a seminar that I think you'd really like. When that happens, I'll let you know about it with a separate email.

What I want to let you know is that you won't get a lot of "dedicated" emails on products or services from me during the course of a year. But when you do, rest assured that they're products or services that I either use personally or have checked out thoroughly and really believe in. I won't waste your time or squander my credibility with you on anything less. That's my promise to you and you can be sure I'll keep it.

Cell Phones and Driving Don't Mix, even with Headsets

(My thanks to Katharine Mieszkowski for an excellent article in Salon magazine from which this report is adapted)

Seven states now have laws banning drivers from holding a cell phone to your ear while driving, and many more will probably follow suit.

So naturally, everyone (in LA, at least) is running out to buy a headset.

But it's questionable whether this will accomplish anything. Switching to "hands free" isn't really a solution to the problem. "The impairments aren't because your hands aren't on the wheel", says David Strayer, professor of psychology at the University of Utah. Strayer's research has found that driving while talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as driving drunk. "The overtaxed driver's poor brain doesn't distinguish between a conversation that takes place on an iPhone or a Bluetooth headset", reports Mieszkowski. "In both cases the chatting driver is distracted".

Neuroscience backs her up. "Say there's an 18 wheeler to your right and suddenly a call comes in from that motor mouth client in Kansas City", she says. "As the client's voice starts buzzing in your ear, the activity in the parts of your brain keeping your car in your lane declines".

Marcel Just, PhD, a psychologist who directs the Center for Cognitive Brain Imaging at Carnegie Mellon says "Forty percent of your attention is drawn away when you're on the phone". That goes for a phone that's held to your ear, or one that's connected to it by a headset.

Researchers can actually see the parts of the brain devoted to driving in brain imaging studies, and those brain areas- specifically the parietal lobe- get wildly distracted when you're talking on the phone. There's a similar reduction in activity in the visual cortex. According to Just, if you're in a tough driving situation and someone talks to you, the processing of language kicks in whether you like it or not, and that processing distracts from your attention (whether you like it or not). You can't "will" yourself to not pay attention.

I wrote about the energy draining properties of multitasking in a book on Energy which will be out in January of 2009. I really feel multitasking is one of the biggest energy drainers on the planet. In the case of driving, it may also prove to be one of the most lethal.

An Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study found that drivers chatting on cell phones were four times more likely to get in an accident serious enough to injure themselves. My advice: When you're driving, drive. Put the cellphone away. It's a great way to practice mindfulness, a valuable skill that will serve you well in everything from weight loss to personal relationships.

Resveratrol: Fountain of Youth?

You've probably heard- from me and a ton of other nutritionists- that red wine is on the short list of things you can consume with known health properties. (Red wine is actually one of the seven ingredients in the "polymeal", a concept I discuss at length in my new book The Healthiest Meals on Earth. Executive Summary: The polymeal is a meal of seven ingredients that, if eaten regularly, could reduce heart disease by double digit percentages and could extend life an average of nine years.)

One of the major reasons red wine is considered so healthy is a compound called resveratrol, which is found in the skins of dark grapes. In every species studied- from yeast cells to fruit flies to mice- resveratrol seems to extend life. Research by Harvard Medical School Professor of Pathology David Sinclair, MD has shown that resveratrol extends the life span of mice by up to 24 percent and the life span of other animals by as much as 59%.

It's believed that resveratrol exerts its magic by turning on genes from a family of genes called the SIRT genes which are involved in longevity. (Some SIRT genes are turned on by caloric restriction, another well-known age extending strategy, albeit a difficult one to follow.) Scientists are hard at work to develop a drug which turns on the SIRT genes, which, if successful, may be the pharmaceutical equivalent of the Fountain of Youth.

But there's been some controversy (as usual). Some argue that you'd have to drink gallons of red wine to get enough resveratrol to produce the anti-aging effect (I don't buy it). Others say that the anti-aging properties of resveratrol remain just a hypothesis and more research is needed.

Now an interesting new study has illuminated more about resveratrol's benefits, and it's interesting not just because of what it tells us about resveratrol itself, but for what it tells us about the problems in "proving" the healthful effects of many compounds found in food.

Here's what happened. It's long been known that the digestion of certain foods such as red meat releases oxidating toxins, in particular one called malondialdehyde which is implicated in arteriosclerosis, cancer, diabetes and a host of other really bad diseases. Joseph Kanner, MD, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem fed one group of rats red meat and another the same meat mixed with red-wine concentrate. An hour and a half after eating, the rats were killed and their stomach contents analyzed. The wine concentrate had actually seriously reduced the formation of malondialdehyde and also cut the level of hydroperoxides, another group of agents that cause cell damage.

Kramer argued that looking for antioxidants from wine in the bloodstream was a mistake- they don't need to be there to be useful. He believes that if the polyphenols from wine arrive in the stomach at the moment when malondialdehyde and it's cousins are being released, the red wine compounds might stop these toxic materials from getting further in the body.

This underscores an important point. Sometimes you can't see the benefit of a food compound by looking at it in isolation. You have to look at how it works in the body in tandem with other foods, compounds and metabolic by-products. In the case of resveratrol (and red wine polyphenols) you have to look at the genes it turns on, the compounds it neutralizes, and .. well, the whole picture.

One good take home point from this research- the habit of eating fruit at the end of a meal is a healthy one!

Many fruits are rich in polyphenols and by treating them as dessert, these fruits arrive in the stomach at the point when meat digestion might conceivably do any potential damage, damage which appears to be seriously blunted by the polyphenols (either in red wine or fruit). When you look at it this way, it becomes clear why some studies show meat eaters to be perfectly healthy, others not so much. If your "meat eater" is someone who's only eating ballpark hot dogs and deli meats, no fiber, no fruit, no vegetables, you're going to get one set of results.
When you look at meat eaters eating grass fed meat and plenty of fruits and vegetables and red wine, it's a whole different story.