Lethal Fructose - Teenagers Staggering Consumption

Back in 1977, average daily consumption of fructose was about 37 grams per person per day.

Recent surveys show that it's up to 54.7 grams, or about 10 percent of total caloric intake. And for teenagers- who consume a ton of sodas- fructose intake averages a whopping 72.8 grams, the equivalent of 18 spoonfuls of the stuff every single day.

Why should we care? It's deadly. Fructose is one of the worst sweeteners you can possibly consume.

Table sugar (sucrose) is made up of fructose and glucose. Studies that compare the effect of these two simple sugars (glucose and fructose) consistently show that it is the fructose part of table sugar that does the most damage, raising triglycerides and creating insulin resistance.

High-fructose corn syrup- while it's been demonized a lot recently- is only marginally worse than plain old sugar (high fructose corn syrup is about 55% fructose and 45% glucose while table sugar contains equal amounts of both).

Recently, researchers at the Department of Physiology at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland decided to investigate the effect of a high-fructose diet on the children of diabetic patients. Twenty-four healthy young men were enrolled in the study; 16 of them were children of diabetic parents, 8 were not.

In the first part of the study, all of the 24 young men were fed a "regular diet" and in the second part, they were switched to a diet that added 35% more calories from fructose.

The researchers expected that the children of diabetics might be more susceptible to disorders associated with insulin and fat metabolism, so there was reason to expect that the children of diabetic parents would be particularly vulnerable to the effects of a high fructose diet.

And indeed, the children of diabetic parents did start the study with higher levels of triglycerides and lower levels of insulin sensitivity. But the fructose caused havoc not only in the children of diabetics, but in the children of non-diabetics as well.

In other words, high fructose is bad for everyone.

The high-fructose diet decreased insulin sensitivity in both groups (by about 5%).

It also increased blood levels of triglycerides by a whopping 110 % in the children of diabetics. But the children of diabetics were not the only ones affected: the high-fructose diet increased triglycerides by a stunning 50% in the children of non-diabetic patients as well!

It gets worse. In both groups, deposits of fat in the liver increased by more than 75%.

To me, fructose is like fur. Fur looks great on its original owners- it belongs on the backs of animals where it looks just fine, thank you very much! On the backs of people at the opera…. Not so much..

It's the same thing with fructose!

Fructose belongs in fruit, where it is surrounded by fiber, phytochemicals, vitamins, minerals and other good stuff. Extracted from its natural source and concentrated as a sweetener, it's a metabolic disaster.

I have no problem with consuming fructose in fruit (unless you are a diabetic or very insulin resistant). I have a huge problem with extracting fructose from its normal sources, producing cheap fructose-based syrups made from corn, and then sticking it in every food and food product in the supermarket.

That's a recipe for disaster.

By the way, my personal favorite sweetener is Xylitol. It mixes great in hot beverages, stands up to heat, is sweeter than sugar, has a very very low glycemic impact, and actually has some health benefits, preventing bacterial adhesion to surfaces.

Save this week with 15% off Xylitol - read about it here

Reference:
J Clinical Nutrition 09; 89: 1760-1765

« Go Back to Newsletter

Eat Less, Live Longer? That's Right - A Secret of Longevity

It's a pretty good bet that a diet high in antioxidants, anti-inflammatory properties and Omega-3 fats will stack the odds in your favor when it comes to longevity. But, what about the amount of food you eat? Could that make a difference?

In 1982, some inventive research scientists decided to investigate the effect of a calorie-restricted diet on longevity and disease. They divided a few hundred male rats into two groups; one group was allowed to eat all the rat chow they desired and the other group was allowed to eat about two-thirds of what they would have normally consumed when left to their own devices.

The results set the stage for some of the most interesting anti-aging research of the past decade. Here's what happened to the rats -

The ones who received the normal diet lived their normal maximum life span of about 1,000 days usually dying from cancer, kidney disease or the deterioration of their hearts. That's a pretty typical story for a rat-nothing out of the ordinary.

However, rats fed the limited calorie diet were a whole different story. These rats lived 1,500 days on average, a whopping 50% percent increase in life span. Even better, they avoided much of what we would consider the accompaniments of aging-feebleness, low energy, sluggish behavior and grizzled appearance.

For example, their coats which normally turn gray after age two, stayed shiny and white for 3 and a half years and even longer! They performed better running mazes more successfully than their "normal eating" lab mates. Immune systems were stronger; their rates of diabetes and cancer were far lower and had fewer cataracts.

When they finally did die, most of them just expired.

Said Edward Masoro, Ph.D., a physiologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, "When we look inside them, they are completely clean."

Calorie restriction, at least in rodents, was shown to be a demonstrable anti-aging strategy.

There have now been more than two thousand animal studies confirming these results across species as varied as yeast cells, fruit flies, monkeys and mice. Scientists have produced these dramatic effects hundreds of times under all sorts of laboratory conditions.

Because humans live much longer than, say, rats or fruit flies, and because of the ethical and practical considerations, there are no long-term definitive studies on calorie restriction and humans - nevertheless, some people are voluntarily practicing calorie restriction (here's their website http://calorierestriction.org)

And here's the amazing part - those who do practice calorie restriction are showing the same effects as those seen in the animal studies-less disease, fewer "markers" of aging and much thinner bodies!

Remember last week's protein-packed diet plan with a goal of only losing 10% of your body weight? Now another great reason to shoot for that goal -- longevity and a far better quality to your health.

« Go Back to Newsletter

Let's Stop Dying, OK?

Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health, the University of Toronto and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington have just published the most comprehensive study ever done about how diet, lifestyle and metabolic risk factors for chronic disease contribute to mortality in the U.S.

Want to know what they found?

Here are some of the highlights. Remember, these are the numbers of preventable-repeat preventable- deaths each year in the U.S. directly caused by the following individual risk factors.

Get ready to be stunned.

• Low intake of dietary poly-unsaturated fatty acids: 15,000 deaths
  

• Low intake of fruits and vegetables: 58,000 deaths
  

• Alcohol use: 64,000 deaths. (Note: because moderate drinking reduces the risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes, alcohol use actually prevented 26,000 deaths, but these deaths were outweighed by the 90,000 alcohol-related deaths from traffic, violence, cancer and other diseases. Net loss, 64,000!)
  

• High intake of trans-fatty acids: 82,000
  

• Low intake of omega-3 fats: 84,000 (we'll be talking a lot more about this in the future!)
  

• High blood sugar: 190,000
  

• Sedentary lifestyle: 191,000
  

• Overweight/ obesity: 216,000
  

And the winner is...

Smoking: 467,000

These figures speak for themselves. I'm particularly stunned by the number of deaths specifically related to high blood sugar (!) and to lack of omega-3's, but all the numbers are sobering.

Now consider this: In another one of the largest ongoing studies of diet and health ever undertaken- the Nurses Health Study- it was found that five behaviors- five- could reduce the risk of heart disease by a whopping 83%. That percentage is higher than any drug has ever performed in the history of the world.

Ready for the five simple behaviors?

1. maintain a healthy weight
   
2. eat a Mediterranean diet (eat fish, omega-3's)
   
3. exercise every day
   
4. don't smoke
   
5. drink alcohol in moderation (if you drink it at all)
   

These same five behaviors will keep an awful lot of people from being swallowed up by the "health care" system, which is- let's be honest- really "sickness care"

Five simple behaviors.

It sure beats becoming a statistic.

« Go Back to Newsletter

"More Potassium" As Important As "Less Sodium"

New Research published in the Archives of Internal Medicine suggests that increasing potassium may be just as important as decreasing sodium.

For years, health professionals have known that not everyone is "salt sensitive"- the problem is that no one really knows who is and isn't sensitive to sodium, so the general recommendation has been to cut back on the stuff. But there's another part of the sodium equation that doesn't get enough attention.

The Sodium/Potassium Balancing Act

Sodium and potassium have an interdependent relationship in the body. Much like omega-3's and omega-6's, they need to be in balance. And much like omega-3's and omega-6's in our diet, they are anything but.

So maybe it's not so much our high intake of sodium that's the problem, it's our low intake of potassium!

How Much is Enough?

The "ideal" diet would pretty much contain more potassium than sodium. But our modern diet contains the exact opposite.

• The minimum daily requirement for sodium is only 500mg
  
• The "Adequate Intake" is set at 1500mg
  
• The Food and Nutrition Board recommends <2400 mg a day (the amount in one teaspoon of salt).
  

Of course, table salt isn't the real problem- it's the sodium contained in processed foods (and canned foods) that flies under the radar and increases our daily consumption into the stratosphere.

But here's the rub- the "Adequate Intake" level for potassium is 4700 mg a day, more than three times the "AI" for sodium. Potassium is found in fruits and vegetables.

A Recent Harvard Study

Recently researchers affiliated with Harvard Medical School examined data from more than 2,000 men and women with "pre-hypertension" who were monitored for 10-15 years. The researchers found that a higher sodium-to-potassium ratio was associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent cardiovascular disease. Interestingly, the effect of this ratio was stronger than the effect of absolute amounts of sodium or potassium.

What This Means to You

It is probably just as important to increase potassium intake from fruits and vegetables as it is to decrease sodium intake, at least if you want to protect your heart.

"Not all people should try to increase their potassium", says W. Gifford Jones, MD. "Patients with type 1 diabetes and those taking ACE inhibitor drugs, certain diuretics or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should consult their doctors. Some patients on these drugs cannot handle more potassium"

How to Get More Potassium and Less Sodium

The rest of us would do well to follow the "more potassium" advice. How can you best decrease the amount of sodium you're consuming while increasing potassium at the same time?

Simple. Think fresh and unprocessed:

Buy less:

• foods with bar codes
  
• less TV dinners
  
• less canned soups
  

Buy more:

• Fruits
  
• Vegetables
  
• Fish
  
• Beans
  
• Nuts
  
• Berries
  
• grass-fed meats and free-range poultry
  

Vitamin B6 May Lower Heart Attack Risk in Women

In an article published online on August 10, 2009 in the American Heart Association journal Circulation, Harvard researchers report an association between higher plasma levels of vitamin B6 and a reduction in the risk of myocardial infarction (heart attack) in women.

The study included 144 participants in the ongoing Nurses' Health Study who were diagnosed with myocardial infarction. The women were each matched for age, smoking status and other factors with two participants in the same study who did not have a history of heart attack at the time of the heart attack cases' diagnoses. Stored fasting blood samples were analyzed for plasma pyridoxal 5' phosphate (PLP), which is the predominant form of vitamin B6 that exists in circulation, and homocysteine, an amino acid which, when elevated, has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

Higher levels of PLP were correlated with greater dietary intake of vitamin B6, lower body mass index and lower levels of homocysteine. The researchers uncovered a significant association between plasma PLP levels and reduced heart attack risk. Women whose PLP levels were among the top one-fourth of participants at greater than 70 picomoles per milliliter had a 78 percent lower adjusted risk of undergoing a heart attack compared to those whose levels were lowest at less than 27.9 pmol/mL. When the women were analyzed according to age, those aged 60 and older whose PLP levels were among the top quarter were found to have a 64 percent lower risk than those in the lowest quarter, while those who were under 60 in the top fourth of PLP had a 95 percent lower risk.

The authors remark that the study's findings are consistent with the role of vitamin B6 as a cofactor in the conversion of homocysteine to cysteine. The vitamin also plays a role in the transport of important minerals such as magnesium across cell membranes. The authors observe that the results of some research suggest that factors other than diet that control vitamin B6 levels could eventually be found to be more important in reducing heart attack risk.

The current prospective study is the first, to the authors' knowledge, to examine the relationship of vitamin B6 levels with heart attack in postmenopausal women. "Our investigation revealed that a lower fasting concentration of PLP is significantly associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction in predominantly postmenopausal women, a relationship that may be causal," they write. "Future studies are needed to better understand both dietary and nondietary determinants of plasma and tissue vitamin B6 status and their role in the prevention of myocardial infarction and other chronic diseases."

If you want to supplement your diet with more B6 I recommend this brand of PLP Vitamin B6 which is similar to the kind used in the study but it also contains magnesium to help with PMS symptoms.

Fish Oil Rivals Antidepressants in Clinical Trial

by Craig Weatherby

The results of the largest-ever clinical trial found that omega-3 fish oil may significantly benefit half of all people diagnosed with depression.

Specifically, fish oil seemed to help the 50 percent of depression patients who are free from diagnosed anxiety disorders.

Fish oil appeared to help these people about as much as the leading class of antidepressant drugs ... that is, selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) such as Prozac and Paxil.

Participants for the trial were people diagnosed with moderate to severe unipolar (i.e., not bipolar) major depression who were unable to tolerate antidepressants, who refused them despite a physician's recommendation, or who were not helped by the drugs.

More than 430 patients with an episode of major depression were assigned to take either with omega-3 EPA from fish oil (1,050mg per day) for two months or an identical-looking placebo pill masked with fish odor.

Fish oil did not perform better than placebo, for the patients diagnosed with anxiety as well as depression.

More than 430 patients with an episode of major depression were assigned to take either with omega-3 EPA from fish oil (1,050mg per day) for two months or an identical-looking placebo pill masked with fish odor.

Omega-3 EPA from fish oil did not perform better than placebo among the patients diagnosed with anxiety as well as depression.

But among those diagnosed with major depression - but not anxiety - the patients who took omega-3 EPA had significantly better scores than the placebo group.

As lead author Francois Lesperance, M.D., told Medscape Psychiatry. "... the level of improvement we saw in this subgroup is on a par with what has typically been reported with pharmacologic treatments." (Stein J 2009)

Findings apply to the half of all depression patients not usually studied.

These findings are important because they carry implications for about one-half of all depressed patients ... those who do not also display anxiety disorders.

And these people are often excluded from placebo-controlled studies of antidepressant drugs.

Dr. Lesperance made a key point: "Many depressed patients prefer to avoid drug treatment because of the stigma associated with such therapy, not to mention potential treatment-related side effects, and thus it's nice to be able to offer patients an alternative treatment that is similarly effective but without the risks." (Stein J 2009)

Most population studies show links between higher levels of omega-3's and reduced depression risk, and/or link low levels of omega-3's - or an excess of omega-6's versus omega-3's - to higher levels of depression.

Besides supporting normal mood, research shows that omega-3's - and higher than average omega-3/omega-6 intake ratios - likely benefit cardiovascular, brain, bone, and metabolic health.

Note from Dr. Jonny:

My favorite sources of Omega-3's are:

• The Vital Choice brand of salmon is the ONLY fish I have discovered, via independent lab testing, to be free of harmful mercury and other toxins. Save 10% at Vital Choice when you use with the coupon code: DRJONNY
  
• High Potency Fresh Catch Fish Oil by Barlean's contains one of the highest amounts of EPA and DHA in a two capsule serving: 783 EPA and 400 DHA plus another 1/3 gram of other omega-3's. It's pharmaceutical grade and one of the purest products I know of.
  
• Omega Swirl by Barlean's looks and tastes like a smoothie but contains optimal levels of EPA/DHA. Your kids will have no idea they are eating a big dose of fish oil!
  

Sources

*Lesperance F et al. The efficacy of eicosapentaenoic acid for major depression: Results of the OMEGA-3D trial. 9th World Congress of Biological Psychiatry: Abstract FC-25-005. Presented July 1, 2009. Accessed at http://www.wfsbp-congress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/WFSBP_Final_Programme_090625.pdf

*Stein J. WCBP 2009: Omega-3 Supplements Provide Mixed Results as Antidepressant. Medscape Medical News, July 4, 20009. Accessed at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/705508

Berries Protect Your Brain

Strawberries are good for your brain, according to breaking news out of the 2009 Berry Health Symposium. Several of the latest studies, conducted by world-renowned researchers, consistently showed that strawberry consumption is a simple way to improve cognitive function.

For example, one study presented by researchers from the Chicago Healthy Aging Project (CHAP) showed that older adults who consume strawberries at least once per month have less cognitive decline. More specifically, women who consumed more than one serving of strawberries per month had a 16.2% slower rate of cognitive decline versus those who consumed less.

With increasing age, brain function diminishes. This has been conclusively shown in laboratory studies, by Drs. James Joseph and Barbara Shukitt-Hale of USDA Agricultural Research Service at Tufts University. Their latest research at the conference demonstrated that aging results in deficits in learning, memory and motor function, such as balance and walking speed - and concluded that strawberries and other berries improved both memory and motor function.

Berries Can Preserve Brain Function

So what is it about berries that seem to protect the brain?

Researchers from the 2009 Berry Health Symposium took a stab at answering that very question. Most disease processes in the body are believed to begin through inflammation and oxidation, two of the very processes I focus on in my forthcoming book "The Most Effective Ways to Live Longer". Both inflammation and oxidation damage cells. Healthy nerve cell membranes promote optimal communication within the brain and nervous system so preventing membrane damage from inflammation and oxidation is essential.

Since berries- and other fruits and vegetables- contain a ton of antioxidants and anti-inflammatories, it's easy to connect the dots and see why they might preserve brain function.

Prevention of Dementia in an Aging Population

Dementia is the loss of cognitive function of sufficient severity to interfere with everyday tasks. Alzheimer's disease is the most common form of dementia. It is estimated that one in eight persons, aged 65 and older have Alzheimer's. There is no cure for the disease and treatments are ineffective.

According to recently released census estimates, the world's 65-and-older population will triple by 2050 to make up 1 in 6 people. The number of senior citizens has already increased 23 percent since 2000 to 516 million, more than double the growth rate for the general population. As a result, the incidence of dementia is likely to rise.

The frequent consumption of berries is emerging as a potential simple dietary factor for prevention.

California strawberries are grown and available year-round in supermarkets across the country. Do remember- the Environmental Working Group lists strawberries as one of their "Dirty Dozen" (i.e. most contaminated crops). So when you do buy strawberries from the supermarket, be sure to get organic!

More information and the research abstracts from the 2009 Health Benefits Symposium can be found at www.berryhealth.org.

A Smarter Way to Reduce Heart Attack Risk

Think the best way to predict heart attacks is by knowing your cholesterol?

Think again.

Researchers from the Hanyang University in Seoul, matched 50 men and women who had experienced a non-fatal heart attack with 50 age and gender-matched controls who did not have a history of heart attack. The researchers analyzed the red blood cells of both groups and measured their levels of both trans-fatty acids and omega-3's. (As readers of this newsletter know, trans-fatty acids are those spawn-of-Satan fats made by hydrogenating or partially hydrogenating vegetable oil; omega-3's are the wonderful anti-inflammatory fatty acids EPA and DHA found in fish and ALA found in flax and hemp.)

The researchers wanted to see how well blood levels of trans-fatty acids and blood levels of omega-3's could predict heart attack. Specifically, they wanted to see if these two measures- trans-fats and omega 3's-- did any better in predicting cardiovascular disease than the "standard" Framingham risk scores.

Framingham risk scores- named after the famous study of adults in Framingham Massachusetts that began in 1948- are calculated using age, gender, smoking status, total cholesterol levels, HDL-cholesterol levels, diabetes history and hypertension history.

While an individual's Framingham score is 70 to 80 percent accurate in predicting coronary heart disease risk, it fails to take into account more recently recognized risk factors that could improve its predictive value.

The current research-- published online on June 9, 2009 in the British Journal of Nutrition-- found that the new measures did even better than the Framingham measures in predicting heart attacks. Those who had the lowest levels of omega-3's in their blood had the greatest risk of heart attack as did those who had the highest levels of trans-fats.

Specifically, the omega-3 fatty acid index-- which is the sum of red blood cell EPA and DHA-- was significantly lower in heart attack patients compared with controls, while total trans-fatty acids were significantly higher. Those whose omega-3 fatty acid index was among the top third of participants had an amazing 92 percent lower risk of heart attack than those whose levels were in the lowest third.

Meanwhile, when it came to trans-fats, the exact opposite was true. For those whose total trans-fatty acids were in the top third, the risk of heart attack was a whopping 72.67 percent higher than subjects in the lowest third.

The authors note that omega-3 fatty acids are associated with decreased blood viscosity, and have anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic, anti-arrhythmic, lipid lowering and vasodilatory effects. Conversely, trans-fatty acids have been associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease.

The researchers wrote that "the fatty acid profile is more powerful than the Framingham risk score for identifying patients" with non-fatal heart attacks.

There are two take-home points here:

1. keep your man-made trans-fat intake as close to zero as possible
   
2. keep your omega-3 intake nice and high. You can do this by eating cold-water fish (like the virtually toxin-free cold-water fish available frozen and in cans from Vital Choice) and/or by taking fish oil on a daily basis.
   

Vegetarians can get omega-3's from flaxseeds and flaxseed oil, but to make sure you're getting enough of the all-important EPA and DHA that were measured in the study (and that are found naturally in fish) be sure to take at least two tablespoons or more a day of flaxseed oil.

Cornflakes a Great Breakfast? Think again!

If any of you out there still think cornflakes are a great, wholesome breakfast, read on.

A landmark research study by Dr. Michael Shechter of Tel Aviv University's Sackler School of Medicine and the Heart Institute of Sheba Medical Center, with collaboration of the Endocrinology Institute, shows exactly how high carbohydrate foods increase the risk for heart problems.

Researchers looked at four groups of volunteers who were given different breakfasts:

• cornflake mush mixed with milk- not unlike the typical American breakfast
  
• a pure sugar mixture
  
• bran flakes
  
• a placebo (water).
  

Over four weeks, Dr. Shechter applied a test that allows researchers to visualize how the arteries are functioning. It's called "brachial reactive testing" and it uses a cuff on the arm, like those used to measure blood pressure, which can visualize arterial function in real time.

The results were dramatic. Before any of the patients ate, arterial function was essentially the same. After eating, except for the placebo group (who drank water), all had reduced functioning. Enormous peaks indicating arterial stress were found in the high glycemic index groups: the cornflakes and sugar group.

"We knew high glycemic foods were bad for the heart. Now we have a mechanism that shows how," says Dr. Shechter. "Foods like cornflakes, white bread, French fries, and sweetened soda all put undue stress on our arteries. We've explained for the first time how high glycemic carbs can affect the progression of heart disease."

During the consumption of foods high in sugar, there appears to be a temporary and sudden dysfunction in the endothelial walls of the arteries.

Endothelial health can be traced back to almost every disorder and disease in the body. It is "the riskiest of the risk factors," says Dr. Shechter.

Dr. Shechter recommends sticking to foods like oatmeal, fruits and vegetables, legumes and nuts, which have a low glycemic index. Exercising every day for at least 30 minutes, he adds, is an extra heart-smart action to take.

Weight Loss Myth #1: It's All About the Fat

This is a 3-minute excerpt from my DVD The Truth About Weight Loss which was filmed live at T. Harv Eker's Extreme Health event in Southern California. Normally $39.95, you can get it for just $24.95 in August when you use coupon code TRUTH25 during checkout. Watch more video clips »

"Calorie Restriction" Extends Life

Reducing calories by just 25-30% can not only help you lose weight but it can also extend your life.

We've known for a while that "calorie restriction" extends the life of every species studied in the lab, from yeast cells to worms to mice. But up to now, there's been some question as to whether those results apply to "higher" species like primates.

Twenty years ago, researchers began a study of rhesus monkeys to see if they would respond to a reduced calorie diet in the same way as mice and other species do. The first of those studies was published in the journal Science suggests that calorie restriction works just as well for primates as it does for mice. The hope is that it might work for humans as well.

The researchers allowed half of the monkeys to eat as much as they wanted, while the other half ate a nutrient-rich diet with about 30% less calories. Sixty-three percent of the animals eating the calorie restricted diet are still alive, compared to 45% of the "eat all you want" group. The unlimited calorie group died at about three times the rate of those on the lower calorie diet.

Reducing calories not only slowed aging in the monkeys but it also delayed cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer and brain atrophy.

You can see what the monkeys looked like here.

The conventional wisdom has always held that losing weight is simply a matter of reducing calories. While there's certainly truth in this, the fact is that staying on a reduced calorie diet is often difficult, especially when that diet is low in fat and high in carbs. High-sugar diets- even when calories are low- create their own cravings and make sticking to them very difficult, as anyone knows who ever tried to eat just one chocolate chip cookie.

While you can certainly lose weight (and hopefully extend life) by gritting your teeth and counting calories, proponents of lower carb diets- like me- have long argued that it's easier to stay on a diet higher in fat and protein and somewhat lower in carbohydrates. It's also a lot easier to get all your nutrition from less calories when your main source of carbs is vegetables and fruits, and it's a lot easier to stave off cravings when you're eating enough protein and fat.

That's the principle behind the Diet Boot Camp Program. Even though calories clearly count, you don't count calories on Diet Boot Camp. You simply knock out the foods that are highest in junk carbs, leading to an automatic reduction in calories (and sugar!) and a healthier diet all around.

Plus you lose weight!

The Okinawans have a saying called "hara hatchi bu" which means 'Eat until you're 80% full". Since they're among the longest lived (and healthiest) people on the planet, it might be a good idea to learn from their playbook.

You're less likely to have to worry about calories if you limit your food to what I call "the Jonny Bowden Four Food Groups": Food you could have hunted, gathered, fished for or plucked.

That's not only the foundation of the Diet Boot Camp eating plan, but it's also the best natural fuel for a healthy body!

Vegetables and Fruits Stave Off Alzheimer's?

Chemicals in fruit and vegetables, as well as tea and red wine, could help to protect the brain against Alzheimer's disease, according to information to be presented at the British Pharmacological Society's summer meeting in Edinburgh.

The chemicals in question are plant compounds known as flavonoids, which have long been studied for their beneficial effects on people's health. There is mounting evidence that certain flavonoids might help Alzheimer's patients.

Dr Robert Williams, a biochemist at King's College London, said: "There have been some intriguing epidemiological studies that the consumption of flavonoid-rich vegetables, fruit juices and red wine delays the onset of [Alzheimer's]."

"These reports, while not as powerful as controlled, randomized, clinical trials, have encouraged a number of research groups, including our own, to investigate the biology of flavonoids in more detail."

Flavonoids are powerful antioxidants - compounds capable of protecting body cells from damage - known to benefit the heart and possibly reduce the risk of cancer. But there is a question mark over their influence on the brain. Dr Williams said the lack of research and clinical trial results meant research into flavonoids had suffered from a lack of scientific credibility.

He said there was also skepticism because flavonoids were known antioxidants, yet clinical trials with other antioxidants, such as vitamin E, showed no benefit on symptoms or disease progression in dementia.

However, Dr Williams said an idea was emerging that flavonoids did not act simply as antioxidants, they exerted their biological effects through other mechanisms.

Recent studies have found green tea flavonoids or grape flavonoids could help the brain and improve mental skills. Dr Williams and colleagues have focused on the flavonoid epicatechin, which is abundant in foods, including cocoa.

He said: "We have found that epicatechin protects brain cells from damage, but through a mechanism unrelated to its antioxidant activity, and have shown in laboratory tests that it can also reduce some aspects of Alzheimer's disease pathology.

"This is interesting because epicatechin and its breakdown products are measurable in the bloodstream of humans for a number of hours after ingestion, and it is one of the few flavonoids known to access the brain, suggesting it has the potential to be bioactive in humans."

Alzheimer's development is linked to beta-amyloid peptide - a substance that is normally produced in the brain, but in Alzheimer's is deposited abnormally as amyloid plaques, leading to dementia.

Dr Williams has shown that flavonoids can protect brain cells against the toxic actions of beta-amyloid.

Though this has not been investigated yet, one mechanism by which flavonoids and other plant chemicals might have a role in the prevention or delay of Alzheimer's is through their anti-inflammatory activities. Inflammation is a major component of every degenerative disease, from dementia and Alzheimer's to diabetes and obesity. In my judgment, inflammation is way more important than cholesterol, and eating a diet high in anti-inflammatory compounds could be one of the best overall disease-prevention strategies on the planet.

Fish oil is one of the most anti-inflammatory substances on the planet, one of the countless reasons it's so important for human health. Quercetin, a flavonoid found in apples and onions, is also highly anti-inflammatory and seems to have some anti-cancer activity as well.

Fat is the New Normal

Retailers would like to help us remain in a state of denial about our ever expanding waistlines.

What?

It's simple, actually. We don't like facing up to the fact that we're becoming fatter by the minute, and most of us don't particularly like buying "fat clothes". We'd prefer not to notice that those size 8 dresses that used to fit no longer do, or that when we try on those 32" waist jeans that used to fit so well, they now feel like they were made for just one of our legs.

Retailers noticed and they have a solution.

They changed the sizes.

"In recent years", writes Elizabeth Landau on CNN.com, "brands from the luxury names to the mass retail chains have scaled down the size labels on their clothing". "You may actually be a size 14, and, according to whatever particular store you're in, you come out a size 10" says Natalie Nixon, associate professor of fashion industry management at Philadelphia University.

Why?

Simple. It makes the consumer- you and me- feel good.

Participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 1988-1994 and participants in the survey for 1999-2004 were asked to identify themselves as "underweight", "about right" or "overweight"; their answers were compared with the participants actual BMI, a measure of health risks associated with weight. (Calculate your BMI.)

Not surprisingly, the BMI of the general population increased from the early survey period to the later survey period, a good indication that as a population we're getting fatter. (No surprise there.) But the probability of people describing themselves as overweight decreased in the later survey. In other words, folks were significantly less likely to identify themselves as overweight even while they were packing on the pounds.

"Fat" is the new "normal".

Interestingly, women tended to have a slightly more realistic perception of themselves, but this may not reflect "healthy body image" campaigns. Rather, according to physician nutrition specialist Dr. Melina Jampolis, it's the relative increase in weight of the general population that makes people with high BMI feel more normal.

But feeling normal while being overweight- which seems to be the trend- may decrease a person's motivation to lose weight in the first place. And retailers subtly changing the size so that you don't "notice" that you're now a couple sizes larger than you were a few years ago, isn't exactly a good reality check. In fact, it helps keep everyone in denial. It's kind of like grading on a curve in school- if everyone in the class is getting 5 out of 10 questions wrong, the person scoring 6 right gets an A.

When it comes to weight, this kind of thinking doesn't do anyone any good. Smoking "only" a pack a day isn't any less of a health risk just because everyone around you is smoking 2 packs!

Weight loss may be one of the most challenging undertakings most of us can think of, but daunting or not, it's one of the best things we can do for our health, our well-being, our energy and our longevity.

The problem is, most of us see "dieting" only in terms of calories. Changing your lifestyle choices is a much deeper, more permanent (and more profoundly meaningful) enterprise, and it's about a lot more than just gritting your teeth and pushing away that second portion of dessert.

That's one reason why I designed Diet Boot Camp to be about much more than food. It's about believing in yourself, bucking the system, breaking the glass ceiling of your own expectations, and ultimately about transformation. People who just follow a "diet" for a while often don't do very well long term.

People who pursue strategies to improve their health, energy, and well-being are doing something a lot more than just "dieting"- they're changing their lives.

That's what Diet Boot Camp is about; creating the life you love in a body you love too.

Endocrine Disrupters, Anyone?

Animal lovers like me hate this well-known metaphor, but it's true nonetheless: if you put a frog in a pot of water and slowly boil the water, the frog will never notice. The temperature will simply climb until the unfortunate frog simply expires, never knowing what hit him.

Yet the metaphor is perfect for the kind of thing that's happening to our bodies on a daily basis. Flying beneath the radar of awareness, we're constantly being exposed to a witch's brew of chemicals, hormone mimics, toxins and industrial waste that may be changing our very makeup.

"It's scary, very scary", says Robert Lawrence, a professor of environmental health sciences at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg school of Public Health.

And the canary in the coal mine- the harbinger of things to come- is the aforementioned frog.

Let me explain.

Bizarre deformities in water animals (like frogs) are often the first eerie signs of a potential health catastrophe, reports Nicholas Kristoff in the New York Times. Frogs and salamanders, for example, have begun to sprout extra legs. In Lake Apoka, a heavily polluted lake in Florida, male alligators have developed stunted genitals. Male smallmouth bass in the Potamac are transforming into "intersex fish"' with female characteristics. Eighty percent of these male fish are now producing eggs.

Scientists suspect that the cause of these mutations are a class of chemicals called "endocrine disrupters". These chemicals "mimic" hormones and cause all manner of deformities. According to Kristoff, scientists are noticing large increases in the number of genital deformities among newborn boys. "These endocrine disrupters have complex effects on the human body, particularly during fetal development of males", writes Kristoff. They act as weak estrogens, which is one of the reasons that developing males tend to be more sensitive.

There's evidence that male sperm count is dropping and genital abnormalities are increasing in newborn boys. "Some studies show correlations between these abnormalities and mothers who have greater exposure to these chemicals during pregnancy, through everything from hair spray to the water they drink", reports Kristoff.

The Endocrine Society recently issued a 50 page statement on the problem:

"We present the evidence that endocrine disruptors have effects on male and female reproduction, breast development and cancer, prostate cancer, neuroendocrinology, thyroid, metabolism and obesity, and cardiovascular endocrinology."

Scary.

Interestingly, there may also be an obesity link. "The rise in the incidence in obesity matches the rise in the use and distribution of industrial chemicals that may be playing a role in generation of obesity" says the Endocrine Society report.

I wish I could tell you the solution is as simple as taking some vitamins and eating organic food. Unfortunately it's not. But it sure makes sense that we pay attention to our chemical exposure and try to limit it as much as possible. Eating organic food when possible- especially organic versions of the Environmental Working Groups "Dirty Dozen" foods- is a small start, but hardly enough.

And giving the liver- the organ that's ground zero for detoxification in the body- all the help it can get is certainly on the short list of things that make sense. Nutrients like milk thistle, selenium, alpha lipoic acid and N-Acetyl-Cysteine are top of the list for nutrient support of the liver. Freshly made vegetable juice (and/or green drinks like Barlean's Greens) make a lot of sense as well.

The real solution- if there is one- is probably more political than nutritional. We have to demand accountability from the companies polluting our water, air and planet with their chemical refuse. And at the very least, never take at face value the self-serving statements from polluters that there's "no evidence that these chemicals are dangerous".

If you believe that, I've got a nice bridge to sell you.

Pomegranate Juice May Slow Prostate Cancer

Pomegranate juice may slow the progression of prostate cancer, according to long-term research results recently presented at the 104^th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Urological Association.

One of the screening tests used for finding prostate cancer early is the PSA test. PSA stands for prostate-specific antigen, a protein that's produced by the prostate gland. Normally, men have a low level of PSA in their blood, but prostate cancer (as well as relatively benign conditions like benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) and prostatitis) can increase the levels substantially. Researchers frequently track the increase in PSA as an indicator of how quickly a cancer may be growing. "A very long doubling time is a good thing", explained Christopher Amling, MD, a spokesman for the American Urological Assocation. "A very rapid doubling time is a surrogate marker for mestatizing. The shorter the doubling time, the more rapidly the cancer is growing".

In this study, researchers studied men who had been treated for prostate cancer with either surgery or radiation and monitored the "success" of the treatment by watching how long it took for their PSA's to double. They studied 48 men who had an average "doubling time" of 15 months at the beginning of the study. The men were given 8 ounces of pomegranate juice daily.

The study began in 2003 and is now in its sixth year. When researchers recently compared men who dropped out of the study with men who are still participating, they found that the active patients now had an average doubling time of 54 months. An earlier paper (in Clinical Cancer Research, 2006(1)) showed that about 1/3 of the men treated with pomegranate juice actually experienced a decline in their PSA, while 83% of the men showed a lengthening of their PSA doubling time, indicating that the growth of the cancer had significantly slowed. The current paper presented at the Urological Society is an update of the ongoing research, and confirms the positive results. "The average doubling time is now closer to 60 months", Dr. Amling told me.

The researchers don't know exactly what compounds found in pomegranate juice are responsible for the results. "We think it's the polyphenol antioxidants", Dr. Amling told me, "but we haven't tried to isolate any one compound". He told me that while some researchers are trying to isolate the active ingredients, the individual ingredients themselves don't seem to work as well as the actual juice which contains dozens of plant based chemicals that may have a synergistic effect.

Does this mean that pomegranate juice can prevent prostate cancer? That's a claim no responsible researcher is willing to make- yet- though it certainly appears to have anti-cancer activity. "Pomegranate juice looks very promising as a non-toxic strategy for slowing the progression of prostate cancer", Dr. Amling said. "For a significant number of people, the benefits are enormous and durable".

The study used Pom Wonderful, a widely available brand of Pomegranate Juice.

REFERENCES

1. Pantuck, et al "Phase ll Study of Pomegranate Juice for Men with Rising Prostate-Specific Antigen following Surgery or Radiation for Prostate Cancer", Clin Cancer Res 2006 Jul 1: 12 (13): 4018-26
   
2. 104^th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Urological Assocation, April 25-30, Chicago Ill (http://www.medscape.com/viewcollection/30211)
   

Green Tea and Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is one of the most common types of cancer found in American men and it is estimated that 1 man in 6 will get prostate cancer during his lifetime.

A new study investigated the effects of a botanical antioxidant in subjects with prostate cancer. The botanical antioxidant? Green tea extract.

In this new study, 26 men with confirmed prostate cancer were given a supplement of green tea constituents. The supplement contained a total of 1.3 grams of green tea polyphenols, which included 800 mg of epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) and lesser amounts of epicatechin, epigallocatechin, and epicatechin-3-gallate.

The men received the green tea supplement until the time of their radical prostatectomy surgery, averaging a supplementation period of 34.5 days.

Blood tests were performed at the beginning of the study and again on the day of surgery. The blood tests included:

• prostate-specific antigen (PSA), a test commonly performed to monitor prostate health
  
• hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) which is a factor that regulates cell and tumor growth
  
• vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) which is a signaling protein believed to influence cancer progression
  
• insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I which is a protein that has been shown to play a role in the development of cancers
  
• IGF binding protein-3 which regulates the activity of IGF
  
• liver function tests to monitor possible toxicity.
  
• In addition, cancer-associated cells known as fibroblasts were treated in vitro with EGCG and were tested for HGF and VEGF.
  

The study showed a significant reduction in the levels of the serum cancer biomarkers HGF, VEGF, PSA, and liver enzymes in the test subjects after treatment with the green tea supplement. Additionally, some patients demonstrated reductions in levels of these biomarkers greater than 30 percent. The in vitro study of the fibroblasts showed a decrease in the production of HGF and VEGF as well.

The researchers concluded that the findings support a potential role for green tea "in the treatment or prevention of prostate cancer."

Reference:

McLarty J, Bigelow RL, Smith M, Elmajian D, Ankem M, Cardelli JA. Tea Polyphenols Decrease Serum Levels of Prostate-Specific Antigen, Hepatocyte Growth Factor, and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor in Prostate Cancer Patients and Inhibit Production of Hepatocyte Growth Factor and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor In vitro. Cancer Prev Res (Phila Pa). 2009 Jun 19. Published Online Ahead of Print.

Vitamin K - The Forgotten Vitamin

It's often called the forgotten vitamin. It was I discovered in 1934 by a Danish scientist and the letter "K" stands for the Danish spelling of "Koagulation."

Vitamin K is typically the first nutritional supplement that most American children receive as newborn; It helps the liver produce several proteins that control blood clotting. In more recent years, additional benefits have been identified as well. Among those new benefits:

• The Heart. In a study of 4,800 people over age 55, researchers in the Netherlands compared those with the lowest and highest intake of vitamin K. Those in the highest intake group were 52 percent less likely to have severe calcification of the aorta, the major artery leading to the heart. The research was published in the international journal of "Nutrition, Metabolism & Cardiovascular Disease" and is summarized on www.healthyfellow.com/138/vitamin-K-and-heart-disease
  

• The Liver. The "Journal of the American Medical Association" reported a Japanese study that found vitamin K may help control the progression of liver cancer and may lower the risk of liver cancer significantly. See www.docguide.com. Search for vitamin K and liver disease research.
  

• Arthritis. Research published in the April 2006 journal "Arthritis & Rheumatism" found that higher blood levels of dietary vitamin K were associated with a lower risk for osteoarthritis of the hand and knee. For more information: use any search engine and enter the keywords "vitamin K deficiency linked to osteoarthritis."
  

• Osteoporosis. Studies at the Harvard Medical School and also in England have found that women with the highest dietary intake of vitamin K had a 30 percent decreased risk for hip fracture. A British researcher analyzing data from 13 Japanese clinical trials found the rate of spinal fractures reduced by 40 percent and hip fractures by 13 percent. Search online for "Harvard and Tufts vitamin K research."
  

How much is enough? There's no specific RDA for vitamin K for healthy adults. The suggestion is 90 micrograms (mcg) for adult women and 120 for adult men to prevent deficiency. But that's "minimum wage nutrition". Some of the best formulas for bone health contain a lot more than that. OsteoPrime Forte for example, contains 300 mcg.

To maximize your intake, do as you were told as a child: Eat your vegetables-especially the green, leafy variety. The best food sources are collard greens (440 mcg per 100 gram serving) and spinach (380 mcg per 100 gram serving); salad greens are a close third (315 mcg per 100 gram serving).

I think it's interesting that the standard advice from the conventional medical establishment is to avoid vitamin K if you're on blood clotting meds like Coumadin (also affectionately known as "rat poison"). To me, this is another example of the prevailing "wisdom": nothing must interfere with the drugs.

But vitamin K is enormously important for bone health, and the foods containing vitamin K have multiple benefits. Wouldn't it be wiser to simply adjust the medication, rather than eliminating the vitamin and the foods that contain it? Just a thought.

That said, anyone on blood thinning medication should still talk to their doctor. Supplemental vitamin K- or even a diet high in vitamin K containing foods (like salads) - can affect the required dose of blood thinners.

Vitamin D Boosts Weight Loss Efforts

According to a new study, people whose vitamin D levels test high before they go on a diet experience significantly better results on that diet than people with low levels of vitamin D. The study suggests that vitamin D plays a part in weight loss and that increasing your intake of this incredibly important nutrient just might help you drop additional pounds.

We already know that vitamin D deficiency is associated with obesity, but it's not clear which comes first- are people obese because of inadequate vitamin D... or does obesity cause vitamin D levels in the body to somehow drop?

In the current study, presented at the Endocrine Society's 91^st annual meeting in Washington DC, researchers measured blood levels of vitamin D in 38 overweight men and women before putting them on a calorie restricted diet for 11 weeks.

Here's what they found: Higher levels of vitamin D predicted greater success on the weight-loss diet.

In general, most of the subjects had insufficient levels of vitamin D in the first place. But for each 1-ng/mL increase in the active form of vitamin D, subjects lost nearly 1/4 pound more weight. Baseline levels of vitamin D- the levels measured before the subjects went on a diet- actually predicted how much weight they would lose on the diet itself, with those with the least amount of vitamin D losing the least amount of weight on the diet, and those with the most amount of vitamin D losing the most amount of weight.

Most nutritionally aware health professionals- including doctors who know anything about this stuff at all- recommend that you get a 25-hydroxy vitamin D test, which is the most accurate form of testing for blood levels of vitamin D. They also recommend that ideal levels be in the 50-80 range. Less than 20 is considered severely deficient, and under 50 is less than optimal, even though lab values for "normal" start at 30.

In addition, the researchers measured body fat distribution on all the subjects using a DXA (bone densitometry) scan. Higher baseline levels of vitamin D also predicted greater loss in troublesome (and more dangerous) abdominal fat.

"Our results suggest the possibility that the addition of vitamin D to a reduced-calorie diet will lead to better weight loss," said Shalamar Sibley, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota.

So now in addition to helping people improve physical performance, strengthening bones, improving mood and possibly fighting cancer, we can add weight loss to the resume of this amazing little vitamin. Don't wait for the doctors to catch up with the science. I recommend 2,000 IUs a day of vitamin D, a very safe amount for this inexpensive (and easy to swallow) vitamin!

Modest Carb Reduction May Facilitate Weight Loss

A new study from the Department of Nutrition Sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham shows that even a modest reduction in carb intake was enough to stabilize blood sugar, reduce insulin and, in the long-run, facilitate weight loss.

Barbara Gower, PhD, the coauthor of the study, said "There has been great public interest in low-carbohydrate diets for weight loss, but they are difficult to maintain, in part because of the drastic reduction in carbohydrates".

Well, we can quibble about the difficult to maintain part- many low-carbers feel it's the easiest program they've ever been on once they get used to it- but let's admit that many people do find the idea of giving up high-carb foods daunting to say the least.

This study shows that even a partial reduction in high sugar (high-glycemic) carbs can make a huge difference to your health and your weight.

The researchers studied two groups of people. One group was given a "standard" diet of about 55% carbohydrates, 18% protein and 27% fat. The second group was given a diet of 43% carbs, 18% protein, and 39% fat.

Calories were identical in both groups, and the calorie level was set at just the amount needed to maintain weight.

The results showed that even when weight loss was not the goal, the group eating slightly lower carbs stayed fuller longer and were more satisfied. They also had healthier blood sugar levels and lower levels of insulin, the fat-storage hormone.

Commenting on the study, which was presented at the 91^st Annual Meeting of the Endocrine Society in Washington DC, Dr. Gower said this: "Over the long run, a sustained modest reduction in carbohydrate intake may help to reduce [calorie consumption] and facilitate weight loss".

Amen to that.

If you'd like a structured low-carb diet plan designed to stabilize blood sugar levels and lower levels of insulin (the fat-storage hormone) check out Diet Boot Camp. It includes a healthy shopping list, quick and tasty recipes, and a food almanac.

Carbohydrate Restriction May Slow Prostate Tumor Growth

Restricting carbohydrates, regardless of weight loss, appears to slow the growth of prostate tumors, according to an animal study recently published by researchers in the Duke Prostate Center.

"Previous work here and elsewhere has shown that a diet light in carbohydrates could slow tumor growth, but the animals in those studies also lost weight, and because we know that weight loss can restrict the amount of energy feeding tumors, we weren't able to tell just how big an impact the pure carbohydrate restriction was having, until now," said Stephen Freedland, M.D., a urologist in the Duke Prostate Center and lead investigator on this study.

The researchers believe that insulin and insulin-like growth factor contribute to the growth and proliferation of prostate cancer, and that a diet devoid of carbohydrates lowers serum insulin levels in the bodies of the mice, thereby slowing tumor growth, Freedland said.

The findings appear in the May 26, 2009 online edition of the journal Cancer Prevention Research.

Animals in the study were fed one of three diets:

1. a very high fat/no carbohydrate diet
   


2. a low-fat/high carbohydrate diet
   


3. and a high fat/moderate-carbohydrate diet, which is most similar to the "Western" diet most Americans eat, Freedland said.
   

They were then injected with prostate tumors at the same time.

"The mice that were fed a no-carbohydrate diet experienced a 40 to 50 percent prolonged survival over the other mice," Freedland said.

Mice on the no-carbohydrate diet consumed more calories in order to keep body weights consistent with mice on the other study arms.

The researchers plan to begin recruiting patients at two sites – Duke and the University of California - Los Angeles - for a clinical trial to determine if restricting carbohydrate intake in patients with prostate cancer can similarly slow tumor growth. The trial should begin within a few weeks.

"It's very exciting - this is a potential new mechanism to fight prostate cancer growth and help patients live longer with their disease," Freedland said.

Love Your Liver!

Environmental pollution may be contributing to the growing problem of liver disease in U.S. adults, according to a new U.S. study.

Matthew Cave of the University of Louisville and colleagues studied the role of environmental pollutants in liver disease in 4,500 people who take part in the so-called 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

They examined chronic low-level exposure to 111 common pollutants including lead, mercury, PCBs and pesticides, and their association with otherwise unexplained liver disease in adults.

These pollutants, the researchers said, were detectable in 60 percent or more of the study subjects.

"Our study found that greater than one in three U.S. adults had liver disease, even after excluding those with traditional risk factors such as alcoholism and viral hepatitis," Cave said in a statement.

"Our study shows that some of these cases may be attributable to environmental pollution, even after adjusting for obesity, which is another major risk factor for liver disease," he said.

Cave is presenting his findings this weekend at the Digestive Disease Week conference in Chicago, the largest international gathering of physicians and researchers in the fields of gastroenterology, hepatology, endoscopy and gastrointestinal surgery.

Given the load our poor liver has to contend with, I consider liver support supplements to be more important than ever. My favorites are milk thistle (400-900mg daily), selenium (200-400mcg daily) and alpha lipoic acid (100-600 mg daily), which I personally take every day. A great formula for general use is Vital Nutrients Liver Support which contains herbs like dandelion root, artichoke leaf extract and curcumin known to be very liver-friendly. Freshly made vegetable juices- especially with beet and beet greens- are also great for that poor liver.

Take Two Walks and Call Me in the Morning

It's no secret that many people don't exercise, even though they know they should. (Not you of course- but maybe someone you know.) Recent studies show that a written prescription for exercise from a doctor might just help motivate people to get off the couch and start moving!

Professor Miriam Morey led the most recent study on prescribing exercise, which was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. She focused on cancer survivors like Joe Collie, who had surgery for prostate cancer. "The operation was in July of '93, so it's been 16 years since I had that procedure," explains Collie.

Collie and more than 600 other cancer survivors went on diets and exercise programs tailored to their needs. They also spoke with counselors over the telephone on a regular basis.

After 12 months, researchers were surprised to find that those who participated in the diet and exercise program increased their physical activity, lost weight and reported less physical decline than those in a control group.

Professor Morey says the study's results should help change patient care. "We can deliver this intervention to your home. You don't have to go anywhere. You can be on a mountaintop living by yourself, or in another country, and we can deliver this intervention," she said.

Professor Loretta DiPietro heads George Washington University's Department of Exercise Science. She says she was not surprised by the results of Morey's study. "We've been working with physicians for years and years to get them to discuss exercise with their patients," DiPietro states.

She says it is easier to prevent disease with exercise than it is to use exercise as part of treatment after the illness is diagnosed.

"Exercise has its greatest benefits on the prevention end of the equation," PiPietro adds. "It's much more effective in preventing excessive weight gain or excessive rises in blood sugar and cholesterol."

But she also says different exercises can help people with different diseases. For example, people at risk for osteoporosis benefit from weight bearing exercise. People with high blood sugar benefit the most when they exercise after a meal.

And Professor Morey says her study proves that cancer survivors suffer less decline in mobility when they get exercise tailored to their needs.

Joe Collie sums it up like this: "You've got to be able to get up and move around."

Researchers are not only discovering which exercises are best, but how often, how intense and how much time per week exercises should be done to maximize the benefit.

But you don't have to wait while they figure out all the details, which would be like waiting for a study to show that water puts out fire.

Exercise is the single best predictor of good health outcomes that I know of. It almost doesn't matter what you do-- just do something. In my book, The Most Effective Natural Cures on Earth I had to give "exercise" a special place simply because I was unable to find any "treatment" or "intervention" or "supplement" or "diet" that had as far-ranging and profound effects on human health and longevity.

Great if doctors start "prescribing" this info for their patients, just as other health professionals have been doing for decades.

Even better if we start listening to them!

Vegetable Juice May Help to Lose Weight

(United Press International) Drinking at least one glass of low-sodium vegetable juice daily may help overweight people with metabolic syndrome lose weight, U.S. researchers say.

Metabolic syndrome is defined by a cluster of risk factors, including excess body fat in the midsection, high blood pressure, high blood sugar and abnormal blood lipids. If left uncontrolled it can increase risk for both diabetes and heart disease.

Study author John Foreyt of the Baylor College of Medicine said the 81 participants in the study were primarily African-American and Hispanic adults -- populations that typically have a higher incidence of metabolic syndrome.

Each group followed a Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension diet that emphasizes eating lean meat, lower fat dairy, whole grains, vegetables and fruit daily, and keeping saturated fat, total fat, cholesterol and sodium in check.

Two of the groups were given Low Sodium V8 100 percent vegetable juice and instructed to drink one or two cups every day for 12 weeks, while the third group was not given any vegetable juice.

The researchers found that participants who drank at least 8 ounces of low-sodium vegetable juice as part of a calorie-controlled Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension diet lost four pounds over 12 weeks, while those who followed the same diet but drank no juice lost 1 pound.

The findings were presented at Experimental Biology meeting in New Orleans.

Dr. Jonny's comment: There could be several reasons why the vegetable juice helped these folks lose weight:

One, it may have cut appetite, causing those on the juice to eat a bit less even though "technically" they were following the same diet. In these experiments, it's fiendishly difficult to track every calorie of every participant, so even though both the juice group and the no-juice group got the same instructions, the juice drinkers may have eaten less.

Two, as we're finding more and more, fruits and vegetables (and their juices) may have an indirect effect on weight loss, simply by virtue of how anti-inflammatory they are. Inflammation is a component of obesity, and reducing inflammation always helps everything- and may also help with weight loss.

In any case, I've been touting fresh made vegetable (and some fruit) juice for as long as I've been writing this newsletter. And if nothing else is around, a V-8 might be a very good way to get some (though not all) of the benefits of freshly made juice. And regular consumption- along with a reduced calorie, low-sugar eating program- might even help you lose weight.

Pomegranate: Superstar of the Food Kingdom

Researchers have found that pomegranate juice contains more antioxidants than any other juice or drink (including red wine and green tea). Test subjects also exhibited increased blood flood to the heart when they drink this "natural Viagra."

Vitamins Harmful?

Many of you have written to me asking me to comment on a recent study that seemed to show that taking antioxidants prevents some of the health-promoting effects of physical exercise.

If you didn't read about the study, here's the New York Times article on it, which was one of the most e-mailed articles of the week.

Here's what happened: Michael Ristow, MD and his colleagues took 40 healthy young men, half of whom were known to be exercisers ("Previously trained") and half of whom were not ("Previously untrained"). Half of each group were randomly assigned to receive antioxidants-- 1000mg of vitamin C and 400 IUs of vitamin E--while the other half of each group received no supplementation.

All subjects then underwent a 4 week exercise training program.

What the researchers found was that taking the antioxidants seemed to prevent some of the benefits of exercise, regardless of whether the subjects were experienced exercisers or novices.

As you can imagine, this was disturbing.

But before you buy into the media headlines ("Vitamins Harmful!") let's look a little more closely at what happened.

We've known for a long time that exercise increases insulin sensitivity-- the ability of the cells to respond to insulin. When the cells are sensitive to insulin, they "open up their doors" and allow insulin to deposit sugar from the bloodstream into the cells where it can be used for energy. This is a good thing, and one of the many ways exercise benefits people. Insulin resistance- the opposite of insulin sensitivity- is when the cells kind of "lock their doors" and don't pay attention to insulin. When that happens, both sugar and insulin remain high in the bloodstream- a very bad situation and one which can lead to metabolic syndrome and diabetes. You don't want insulin resistance- you want insulin sensitivity.

The researchers in the study determined insulin sensitivity by using a measure called GIR (glucose infusion rate). They also measured a hormone called adiponectin, which helps make the body more sensitive to insulin.

Normally, when you exercise, both GIR and adiponectin would increase.

But for the folks taking the antioxidants, they did not.

In this study, GIR and adiponectin only increased in the group that did not take the antioxidants.

How and why might this be?

Dr. Ristow has a theory, and it goes something like this: When you exercise, you produce increased numbers of free radicals. (This is undisputed and well-known; exercisers consume a lot of oxygen, and free radicals come from oxygen.) But according to Dr. Ristow, these free radicals act something like a chicken pox vaccine- by introducing a small amount of a "poison" to the body, the body counters with defenses that have significant benefits to you. In other words, small amounts of a "bad" thing- like stress or free radicals- can actually stimulate defenses that wind up being protective and healthful. Ristow reasons that perhaps "disabling" these free radicals with antioxidants prevents the body from mounting its own defense operation.

Specifically, he suggests that perhaps the free radicals generated by exercise are required for the insulin-sensitizing capabilities of physical exercise in healthy humans. And that by "neutralizing" those radicals with antioxidants, we prevent that insulin-sensitizing response.

One reader of this newsletter- David Langford-- summed it up quite well: "Dr. Ristow believes that if you spare your body of the normal consequences for, say, a hard workout, then it won't respond as favorably, at least as far as glucose metabolism is concerned" he wrote me. "Ristow seems to be saying that if you stress your body to instruct it to respond, but then save it from the stressors, you've defeated something. You may improve your strength, your endurance, your health in many ways, but not your insulin resistance."

OK, maybe. But before you go throwing out your antioxidants, consider a few things:

1. This is a four week study of healthy young men who, presumably, were not insulin resistant in the first place.
   
2. The study didn't address the dozens of other benefits of exercise which presumably were unaffected by taking antioxidants (i.e. mood elevation, improved circulation, strengthening of the heart and bones and muscles)
   
3. While this study appears to be very well done, let's not forget the hundreds- if not thousands- of other studies on the beneficial effects of antioxidants on protecting cells and DNA.
   
4. The researchers admit that high intakes of fruits and vegetables- which have a ton of antioxidants in them- don't have any of the negative effects seen in this 4 week study.
   
5. The study does not discount the value of vitamins, nutrients and phytochemicals that can be helpful for a variety of health conditions, prevention of disease and maintenance of health.
   

While I'd hardly say this study is definitive, I admit it raises some very interesting questions about antioxidants and exercise that will almost definitely stimulate further research. It'll be interesting to see the comments of some of my respected colleagues as they analyze the data. You can be sure I'll report those comments to you as soon as they come in.

Conflict of Interest in Cancer Studies

WASHINGTON, May 11, 2009 (Xinhua via COMTEX) -- A U.S. study have found that nearly one third of cancer research articles published in medical journals have financial ties with pharmaceutical companies.

As the great comedian Lenny Bruce might have deadpanned- "I'm so shocked".

The study, published online on Monday in the journal Cancer, indicates that conflicts of interest may cause some researchers to report biased results that are favorable to pharmaceutical companies.

Reshma Jagsi of the University of Michigan and her colleagues reviewed 1,534 cancer studies published on eight medical journals, including Cancer, the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet.

According to the researchers, 17 percent of the studies declared industry funding while 12 percent had a study author who was an industry employee. Randomized trials with reported conflicts of interest were more likely to have positive findings.

"It's becoming increasingly clear that we need to look more at how we can disentangle cancer research from industry ties," said Jagsi. "If we wish to minimize the potential for bias, we need to increase other sources of support."

"Medical research is ultimately a common endeavor that benefits all of society, so it seems only appropriate that we should be funding it through general revenues rather than expecting the market to provide," she said.

Many medical journals now require researchers to disclose potential conflicts of interest in the articles they submit for publication, but the researchers urged that "journals should embrace both rigorous standards of disclosure and heightened scrutiny when conflicts exist."

Waist Size Predicts Heart Failure

The main reason people over 65 wind up in the hospital is heart failure, also known as "congestive heart failure". And the very best predictor of whether or not you're likely to get heart failure might surprise you.

It's waist size.

A new study published in the journal Circulation tracked data from two Swedish population based studies that together included 80,000 men and women aged 45-83. All participants filled in questionnaires about their height, weight, waist circumference and other vital statistics. They were then followed for seven years.

The researchers found- not surprisingly- that weight was linked to risk for heart failure. But they also found that even within the normal weight range (BMI 25 or less), those who had an extra 10cm (about 4 inches) on their waist had about 15% higher risk of heart failure. This went up to 18% for those who were heavier (BMI of 30 or more).

The researchers measured waist size, waist-to-hip ratio, waist-to-height ration and BMI (body mass index). All four measures were associated with heart disease, but waist circumference alone predicted heart disease risk regardless of other measures.

I've written before about the importance of waist size and of the waist-to-hip ratio. Nutritionists and smart doctors have long known that 35" for women and 40" for men represent a danger point for insulin resistance (which is the cornerstone of Metabolic Syndrome, also known as pre-diabetes). Metabolic Syndrome significantly increases the risk for heart disease.

If your waist is over 35" (women) or 40" (men) it's time to start doing something. I've found that a low-carb diet is one of the most effective ways to combat belly fat and reduce the size of your waist.

Diabetes Type 2 Rant

In the following guest article, my friend nutritionist Bernard Rosen, PhD, takes on the Diabetes Establishment! Visit Bernard at www.brwellness.com.

The current issue of Diabetes Forecast was so loaded that I need to vent.

It starts with page 9 and The Wake Up Call - What's Your Diagnosis Story? by the Editorial Director. And I quote, "If you're diagnosed relatively young, as I was, you've got a lot of years of disease management ahead of you, and a lot of years to worry about screwing up." How about, "If you're diagnosed young, you have a great opportunity to look at your life style, change it, and perhaps allow your body to heal itself." The attitude - I'm in disease management mold for the rest of my life. That's not going to get you better.

On page 11 we hear from "a dietician for more than 25 years" about feeling the pinch at the grocery store. So we get the great advice to "shop for canned or frozen foods to save money. Look for lower-sodium canned vegetables..Buy canned fruit that has no added sugar." Canned fruits and vegetables? Come on. Look for lower-sodium and no added sugar? Canned vegetables have very little nutritional value. How about look at the junk food you are buying and spend the money on the healthy food.

On page 20 we learn that "Gastric bypass surgery seems to be a powerful treatment for type 2 diabetes in some obese adults, and now a study suggests the procedure may work for teens, too." Great news. "Within a year, the blood glucose levels of all but one (of 11) teen who had surgery were normal without medication..." Well what about in two years or five years? What will that body be able to do without normal functioning of processing and absorbing nutrients? Perhaps there was/is a better answer than to "cure" type 2 diabetes with gastric bypass surgery?

On page 37 we learn then when you need to raise your blood glucose in a hurry, there are some sources suggested: glucose tablets, regular soda, orange juice, life savers, jelly beans (large), gum drops, sugar, honey, raisins, and SKIM MILK!!! Yes, skim milk. That food they tell you drink. Have low fat or non-fat products. Missing the connection? Skim milk causes a fast rise in blood glucose levels! So why drink it with your cereal in the morning??? UGH!!!

On page 44 begins the article titled "So, What Can I Eat?" It starts off great - "For most people who are new to diabetes, the one thing that seems clear is that sugar is off limits, right? Think again: It turns out that a diabetes diagnosis doesn't mean your sweet tooth has to go cold turkey. In fact, you can eat many of the foods you love - yes, even desserts..." Great advice. Don't change any habits. Permission to "cheat". A great way never to get better. There is the usual advice for "low-fat versions, such as skim milk". Isn't that the same skim milk that will raise your blood glucose levels in a hurry????? The ongoing lie that "both saturated fats and trans fat up your risk for heart disease and stroke...replace butter…"And" protein from lean meat, fish, or soy products like tofu." Guess they haven't read the latest about the dangers of soy either.

But the best is on page 48 where "free foods" are discussed. They contain fewer than 20 calories or 5 grams of carbs. Suppose they don't add up quickly - examples are "a quarter cup of salsa, a tablespoon of fat-free cream cheese...and as much as you'd like of sugar-free gelatin, sugar substitutes..." UGH, or did I already say that?

This advice is really sad and I feel bad for the honest people who want to live healthier and follow this advice. I guess that's why the magazine contains all the advertisements for medical equipment. Follow the advice and you will definitely need all the advertised products.

Want some good ideas about diabetes. Go to www.westonaprice.org and do a search on diabetes. Read the work of Dr. Thomas Cowan. He helps people to get blood sugar under control. He recommends that the diet contain 60 carbs per day. What is in this magazine - 60 carbs per meal. See the difference?

Well, I feel better. I hope you find this educational. Rant over.

- Bernard Rosen, PhD

Got Stress

If you're alive and breathing right now, I probably don't have to tell you about stress.

This is probably one of the most stressful times in our history. And you can't afford to ignore the significant impact stress can have on your health.

I'm just completing my 2010 book on living well and long, and one thing I can tell you is that stress is the enemy of a long and healthy life. The major stress hormones- like cortisol and adrenaline- serve important purposes in our body. In fact, we couldn't live without them. Without the signals they send to our body, we wouldn't be able to respond to emergencies. The stress hormones make it possible to run from a bear or fight off a wildebeest; they alert us when the teenager who's texting in the next lane is about to swerve into our car; they serve as an early warning system for danger, and prepare our bodies to either fight off an enemy or to run the other way. They're integrally related to our survival.

But our stress hormones were never meant to be "turned on" 24/7. While they're perfect for a quick response to an emergency, they also take a huge toll on our bodies when they're locked into the "on" position all the time. Cortisol, for example, sends signals to the body to break down muscle and store fat around the middle. Cortisol also shrinks an important part of the brain called the hippocampus, which is essential for memory and thinking. Stress can depress your immune system, make recovery from illness longer and more difficult, and can aggravate symptoms of a wide range of diseases.

Probably the single most effective way to bring down stress hormones is to meditate. Even deep breathing exercises, such as the Relaxation Response pioneered by Herbert Benson, MD at Harvard, can make a huge difference in lowering your stress hormones. (I discuss the Relaxation Response and how to do it in both "The Most Effective Natural cures on Earth" and in my latest book, "The 150 Most Effective Ways to Boost Your Energy".) A few carefully selected supplements may help as well.

One product recently introduced by Integrative Therapeutics is called Cortisol Manager, and it is an elegant formulation of herbs known to have stress reducing properties. Ashwaganda, for example, is known as a "vitalizer" or energizer for the body, and can be very helpful in fighting fatigue and exhaustion. Magnolia bark contains compounds that have demonstrated anti-anxiety properties, and L-theanine is the amino acid found in green tea that's known to be a great stress reliver.

One herb that has a terrific resume for stress is rhodiola rosea. A number of studies have demonstrated that rhodiola has an antifatigue effect, and it's also been shown to improve endurance exercise capacity. The prestigious (and conservative!) Physicans Desk Reference for Herbal Medicines says of rhodiola, "Most users find that it improves their mood, energy level and mental clarity". Rhodiola should be taken early in the day because it can interfere with sleep. Between 50-200 mg a day is recommended for clinical effectiveness.

Remember that stress eats up B vitamins and vitamin C. The adrenal glands require vitamin B5 (pantothenic acid) to do their job properly, so if you're under a lot of continual stress, you may feel better by supplementing with extra B and also with vitamin C.

Blueberries May Help Banish Belly Fat

You've probably heard me rant and rave about blueberries. I eat them about six out of seven days a week, I gave them a "star" in my book "The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth", and I've spoken at length about their high antioxidant content, their low sugar content, and their ability to boost memory.

Well, get ready for some hot news: Blueberries may also help banish belly fat.

A new study by researcher E. Mitchell Seymour, MS, of the University of Michigan shows that rats that ate a diet high in blueberries lost abdominal fat- the kind linked to increased waist size and increased risk for diabetes and heart disease. This happened even when the rats ate a high-fat diet. As an extra added bonus, the blueberry eating rats also had improved glucose control (meaning their blood sugar was more stable).

The researchers suggest that blueberries- with their high antioxidant content- may somehow alter the way the body stores and processes sugar, great news for those at risk for both heart disease and diabetes. "Our findings in regard to blueberries show the naturally occurring chemicals they contain, such as anthocyanins, show promise in mitigating these health conditions," said researcher Steven Bolling, MD, of the University of Michigan,

In the current study- presented at Experimental Biology 2009- rats were bred to become obese were fed either a low-fat diet or a high-carb diet, both of which were enriched with whole blueberry powder (about 2% of their total caloric intake).

After three months the rats fed the blueberries had improved glucose control and improved insulin sensitivity. Better glucose control and improved insulin sensitivity are both strongly related to lowering the risk for diabetes.

I find blueberries one of the easiest foods to incorporate into your diet. In season or not, you can always get them frozen, and I like to eat them right out of the freezer (mixed with frozen cherries). I put some FACE 2% yogurt on them, sprinkle with some slivered almonds, flaked unsweetened coconut and some probiotic powder and have them as a nightly "dessert". It's the ultimate "anti-aging" treat!

Are Hidden Food Allergies Making You Fat?

Patients unable to achieve goal weight loss just by cutting calories were significantly aided in their attempts when they avoided foods that had been shown by a unique lab test to excite their immune response, according to a new study from Dubai.

The authors, led by Dr. M. Akmal of the Dubai Specialized Medical Centre, pointed out that hidden food allergies, or food sensitivities, are unique to each individual and can cause inflammatory diseases, and an inability to lose weight.

Food sensitivities often provoke delayed and chronic symptoms, like IBS, migraine and arthritis that are not as obvious as the dramatic and immediate onset of "true" food allergies, such as peanut anaphylaxis, but, over the long term, can be just as devastating and are more difficult to detect.

The patients were all tested on a well known system called the ALCAT test which I've written about in "The Most Effective Natural Cures on Earth". The ALCAT test shows which foods activate your immune system, even if you're not "technically" allergic. The only "treatment" the patients underwent during the 12 week study was to avoid all foods that showed up in the test as being problematic.

The results were pretty impressive.

By just eliminating the foods to which they were sensitive, the study participants dropped an average of 37 pounds in 12 weeks- a very impressive amount. They also dropped an average of 6 points on their BMI (body mass index) and a reduced their body fat by a stunning 30%.

My friend Fred Pescatore, MD, author of "The Hamptons Diet" (and former Medical Director of the Atkins Center) commented: "I'm not surprised by these results, dramatic as they may appear. I've used the ALCAT test with my difficult patients time and time again, and it always works".

Other studies based on the elimination of food sensitivities had previously been reported. In a Baylor Medical College study 98% of subjects also displayed significant improved body composition and/or scale weight following an ALCAT test-based food elimination diet within four weeks. A matched control group that followed calorie restriction alone actually became fatter.

Roger Deutsch, co-author of the excellent book, "Your Hidden Food Allergies Are Making You Fat" had this to say: "Now we know that chronic inflammation, caused primarily by exposure to incompatible foods, is at the root of metabolic problems like diabetes, cardiovascular disease and obesity. The immune system chemicals block insulin receptors; so, guess what happens to the sugars we eat? - they get stored as fat. Cut the inflammation, cut the fat storage."

So if nothing's worked for you, perhaps it's time to try some experimentation. A rotation diet or an elimination diet is one low-tech way to see if certain foods are contributing to weight loss resistance (or even to vague symptoms like headaches, fogginess, aches and pains and low energy). I explain how to do it in "The Most Effective Natural Cures on Earth".

And if you want to go all the way and actually take the ALCAT test yourself, you can find out more at www.alcat.com.

The Undiscovered Superfood

With all the marketing hooplah over superfoods like acai, goji and noni, we tend to foget that some of the best superfoods on the planet are right under our noses and don't cost an arm and a leg (like some of these overpriced multi-level marketed juice drinks do).

The latest hero to emerge on the superstar galaxy is... get ready for this-plums.

Yup, plums.

Food scientist Dr. Luis Cisneros and plant breeder David Byrne judged more than 100 varieties of plums, peaches and nectarines and found them to match (or even exceed) the highly valued blueberries in antioxidants and phytonutrients. According to Byrne, one inexpensive plum contains about the same amount of antioxidants as a handful of blueberries.

"People tend to eat just a few blueberries at a time - a few on the cereal or as an ingredient mixed with lots of sugar," Cisneros said. "But people will eat a whole plum at once and get the full benefit."

The researchers didn't stop after measuring the considerable antioxidant content of plums, which- by the way- has been noted in other tests, where plums consistently score near the top of the list of high-antioxidant foods. They also tested the effect of the compounds found in the fruit on breast cancer cells.

One benefit the team found was that the phytonutrients in plums inhibited in vitro (test tube) breast cancer growth without adversely affecting normal cell growth.

"We suggest that consumers take seriously the recommendation to eat at least five servings of fruits and vegetables - or even more - every day and to make sure that plums are part of that," Byrne said.

Brown Fat, White Fat - What's it All About?

Recently there has been a spate of articles and news reports about something called "brown fat". Though you may never have heard of it, scientists have been intrigued by it for years- they just never thought we humans had any of it.

Now they do.

Why should you care?

My friend Shari Lieberman, PhD, explains it perfectly. "Brown fat keeps bodies warms by functioning as a built-in heater, burning fuel and raising body temperature", she says. In other words, brown fat is metabolically active- it burns calories. And that, of course, is the holy grail of weight loss programs.

Problem is, brown fat is common in rodents, but in humans... not so much.

At least that's what everyone- except forward thinking nutritionists like Lieberman and Ann Louise Gittleman- thought.

Not any more.

Three studies appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine indicate that we humans have the stuff too. Why are they just figuring this out now? Because they were looking in the wrong place. In rats, the brown fat is mostly between the shoulder blades, and in human infants it's a sheet of cells covering the back. But the latest studies show that human adults have brown fat in the upper back, on the side of the neck, in the dip between the collarbone and shoulder, and along the spine.

Unlike white fat which just sits there and annoys you- all the while pumping out chemicals and hormones that interfere with your health and your ability to fit into your Frankie B's—brown fat is like a little furnace, burning calories. If we could only stimulate that brown fat- and believe me, the drug companies are already working on the problem- we'd be able to burn more calories without eating differently or even exercising.

I'm not sure that's a good thing, but that's another story. The point is, if you were eating well, and exercising regularly, stimulating your brown fat might help move things along nicely.

Since Lieberman and Gittleman were both ahead of the curve on this one, it might be worth it to hear their recommendations on natural ways to stimulate brown fat. Gittleman is a fan of evening primrose oil (active ingredient GLA) for just that purpose. And there's even stronger evidence for green tea extract- also known as EGCG.

"Green tea specifically stimulates your body's ability to burn fat in addition to overall calories and stimulates brown fat", says Lieberman. "Studies show that using green tea even without dieting causes weight loss- so using it with a weight-loss eating plan should give you excellent results".

Why You Can't Lose Weight

WEB MD recently published a piece with the eye-catching title "Why You Can't Lose Weight". And indeed, a number of the reasons they listed were pretty interesting. In case you missed it, here's the executive summary:

1. Low resting metabolic rate combined with high metabolic efficiency. What this basically means is you "burn" fuel (calories) at a lower rate while resting, and are efficient at using calories while exercising (meaning it "costs" you fewer calories to run on a treadmill than your neighbor). According to Victoria Catenacci, MD, a University of Colorado researcher, this can account for up to 22 pounds of weight gain!
   


2. You are female. Because women have less muscle then men, they burn less calories (remember you burn calories in your muscle cells, not in your fat cells)


3. You experience hunger, satisfaction and stress differently than others. We're just beginning to scratch the surface of understanding this one, but It's pretty obvious that some people struggle with appetite and stress a lot more than others.


4. You don't like to exercise. This could be considered a big eye-rolling "duh", but some people seem to be genetically adapted to more activity than others. Mice that are bred for wheel running take to it like a surfer dude to the Malibu coastline. Others prefer the mouse equivalent of sunbathing.


5. Your mother ate a high-fat diet while pregnant. Emerging- and disturbing- research has been showing that what both your mother- and even your grandmother- ate may have an effect on you and your body weight.


6. What you ate as a toddler affects how easily you gain as an adult. This is one reason why people like me are so adamant about teaching parents how important it is to shape tastes and habits early on while you still have some control over things!

All this is fine and dandy, but I fear that a lot of people reading the WebMD piece might be forgiven for throwing up their hands and saying, "See, there's not much I can do about it! Let's go to McDonald's!"

The fact is that there's a ton of reasons why it's harder for some people than others. I say- who cares? The cards you're dealt are the cards you're dealt, but that's just the beginning of the game. It's how you play those cards that determines the result. Just ask any player on the World Poker Tour.

If you're one of the thousands- perhaps hundreds of thousands- of people for whom weight loss is difficult, I'd like to offer you a list of things you can actually do something about.

1. Eat less calories. Cutting portions by 1/4 - 1/3 is a great place to begin.


2. Don't believe the calorie counters on exercise machines. If they told you the truth about how many calories you're really burning, no one would buy them. You burn about 300 calories in a half hour of moderate to hard exercise no matter what the treadmill says.


3. Reduce carbs and sugar. You may be one of those people who "experience hunger and appetite" more acutely than most, but don't make matters worse by eating foods that produce their own cravings for more! It's pretty hard to overeat spinach and steak. Pasta and bread... not so much.


4. Exercise harder and smarter. Walking 30 minutes a day is an amazing strategy for extending life, but it won't cause you to lose weight. Begin interval training and up the ante.


5. Build muscle with weights. And women, listen up. You won't look like the cover of a muscle magazine just because you're pumping some iron. But you will build some calorie burning tissue that will help raise your metabolism, not to mention make you look better in a bathing suit!

And finally, if nothing "works", try focusing on health rather than just the scale. Studies show that you can be "fat and fit" and fit people who are overweight can live just as long and successfully as thin people who aren't fit. Just ask Steven Blair, PhD, Research Director at the Cooper Institute of Aerobics. Blair runs over 15 miles every week and is in the best shape of his life. But by his own admission, he happens to be fat.

He's also healthy as a horse.

Omega-3's and Obesity

I've been preaching about the benefits of Omega-3 fatty acids for so long I'm hoarse. But up to now, there hasn't been much research on omega-3's and obesity. We know for a fact that omega 3's benefit the heart and the brain. But might they also be helpful in a weight loss program?

Off the record, a number of top trainers and nutritionists have been recommending omega-3's for their overweight clients for years. Why? Every overweight person has some degree of inflammation and omega-3's are anti-inflammatory. Many health professionals suspect that lowering inflammation may make weight loss easier- they just haven't been able to prove it yet in a study.

Now new research seems to confirm what we've long suspected. Spanish researchers found that animals fed omega-3s deposited significantly less fat in their fat tissue and livers, and had much lower production of inflammatory substances. This suggests that increased consumption of omega-3s by obese humans might discourage fat gain and promote healthier fat tissue and liver metabolism.

Another study from Spain, Ireland and Iceland found that higher omega-3 intakes by obese individuals on a weight-loss diet might help control their appetite and satiety, promote weight loss and reduce the likelihood of developing insulin resistance.

Fish oil is the second most important supplement besides a good multi-vitamin. Everyone should be taking it! If fish oil is not already part of your daily routine I recommend Barlean's High Potency Fresh Catch Fish Oil.

New Research: Vitamin D May Lower Heart Disease Risk

Medical researchers are discovering a greater relationship between heart disease and vitamin D -- a nutrient already linked to reducing certain cancers.

Studies announced Wednesday at an American Heart Association's conference on cardiovascular health showed an increased association between people with high levels of vitamin D and a lower risk of heart disease.

Adolescents in particular could face long-term implications if they don't get enough of the vitamin, which can be absorbed through exposure to the sun and is found in certain fishes and in popular fortified foods, including milk and cereal.

One study found that American teens with low levels of vitamin D in their blood were almost four times more likely to have metabolic syndrome, a cluster of heart disease risk factors such as high blood pressure and abdominal fat.

"If you have other risk factors like obesity, you should be hyper-vigilant," said Jared Reis, a post-doctoral research fellow at The Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health in Baltimore. His study, presented at the conference at the Innisbrook Resort, looked at health data of more than 3,500 American teens from 2001-2004.

Although cardiovascular research about the nutrient is still evolving, previous studies have linked vitamin D intake to lower risks of colon, prostate and breast cancers, according to the National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements. Together with calcium, it also has been historically used to supplement bone health.

This news comes at a time when Americans appear to be decreasing their vitamin D intake. The percentage of Americans deficient in the nutrient increased to 9.2 percent in 2005-06, from 2.6 percent in 1988-94, said researcher Sandy Saintonge of the New York Hospital Queens.

If you aren't taking vitamin D I recommend at least 1000 IUs daily, preferably 2000IUs. Carlson's Vitamin D is cheap ($5.50) and easy to take, so why wouldn't you?

(Acknowledgments: McClatchy-Tribune Information Services and Mary Shedden of the Tampa Tribune)

Sugar as a Health Food?

Sugar's about to show up on food labels, all dressed up as a new "natural ingredient" and a better alternative to the demon d'jour, high-fructose corn syrup.

Never let it be said that there are no "second acts" in the marketing of junk food.

OK, in case you haven't been paying attention, high-fructose corn syrup has gotten quite a whipping in the press. The Corn Refiners Association tried fighting back, most notably with a series of commercial showing a clueless mother unable to explain why the stuff was so "bad", but even the best PR campaign wasn't able to put out the fire. And the coup d'grace was sounded recently by Michelle Obama who declared any product with high-fructose corn syrup to be off-limits at the White House.

So now sugar- plain old white, table sugar, the poor little guy that got displaced by HFCS- is ready for its reinvention, this time as the "natural" healthy alternative to HFCS.

Oh, brother.

Let's recap for a moment. Sugar is one part glucose one part fructose (50/50).. High fructose corn syrup is very close to the same formula, marginally higher in fructose- 55% fructose, 45% glucose- but probably not enough to make that much difference (or at least that's what the proponents of HFCS claim).

But the point is moot and the argument about which is "better" diverts our attention from the real problem.

Which is this: The more damaging half of this dastardly duo of glucose and fructose- regardless of whether it occurs in table sugar or HFCS- is clearly fructose. Numerous studies have shown it raises insulin resistance, raises triglycerides in the bloodstream and contributes to fatty liver disease. Pure refined fructose is bad news, whether it comes from HFCS or from sugar.

The big problem with HFCS is the fact that it's so cheap and widely available that it's now in products that were never sweetened before. And that fact that it's so cheap means that manufacturers can use a ton of it, sweetening everything in sight. The result is that we now consume more fructose than we ever did when manufacturers used plain old sugar.

Going back to "natural" (give me a break) white sugar accomplishes exactly nothing. Refined fructose is metabolic poison, and whether we get it from the old fashioned sugar or the cheap and abundant HFCS matters not a whit. We're eating too much of the stuff.

And less there be any confusion let me add that I'm quite aware that fructose is found naturally in fruits. But fructose in fruits- surrounded by fiber, vitamins, phytochemicals and other good stuff- is a very different "animal" than refined fructose, as different as an animal's fur is from a fur coat in the store window.

You don't need to avoid fructose when it occurs (in small amounts) in whole foods.

When it occurs in refined sweeteners- be they "natural" sugar or high-fructose corn syrup- run the other way.

High Fat Diet Causes Cancer? Not so fast...

A recently published study in the journal BMC Cancer found some interesting associations between dietary fat and cancer. Unfortunately the way these findings were reported in the press were highly misleading.

First, the headlines. Science Daily, a generally reliable source of info for folks like me, reported this: "Excessive Dietary Fat Caused 300 Percent Increase in Metastasizing Tumor Cells in Animal Models".

Now- tell the truth- what immediately came to mind when you read that?

Let me guess: "Another study "confirming" how bad saturated fat is, and how low-fat eating can help prevent cancer".

Wrong, grasshopper.

The researchers didn't even investigate saturated fat.

Here's what they did: They implanted tumor cells in mice. Then they fed one group a "high-fat" diet and the other group a "lean" diet. Then, using a number of sophisticated measuring techniques, they looked to see how the diets impacted the ability of cancer cells to metastasize (spread from one part of the body to another).

Here's what they found: Oleic acid- the kind of (monounsaturated) fat found in olive oil- had precisely no effect on the spreading of the cancer. Linoleic acid, however, had a big effect- the rate of metastasis rose a dramatic 300 percent!

Linoleic acid is Omega-6: it's the fat found in all those vegetable oils that everyone tells you are so good for you. Corn oil, safflower oil, sunflower oil, etc.

This information was buried in the 15^th paragraph (of a 19 paragraph article).

There's been mounting evidence that overconsumption of omega-6 fats may not be such a great thing. I've been saying for a long time that the balance between omega 6 and omega 3 fats in the diet is an extremely important one for human health. The ideal ratio is between 1:1 and 4:1. More typically, those consuming a Western diet get between 15:1 and 25:1.

You can shift this balance to a more healthy one by cutting back on high omega-6 vegetable oils (which are generally inferior to begin with) and increasing your intake of omega 3's.

You shouldn't cut omega-6's out of your diet completely- they're good for you in the right amounts. Be sure to get a high quality omega-6, like GLA found in evening primrose oil, and stay away from the commercial processed vegetable oils.

Save 10%: When you order this special EPA/DHA + GLA bundle (normally $52.94) for just $47.65

Cut Calories, Improve Memory!

There've been a ton of studies on "calorie restriction" as an anti-aging strategy. Cutting calories- even by 25%- 33%- has been shown to extend life of every life form tested so far, from fruit flies and yeast to monkeys. Now a new study (published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) shows that in addition to extending life, calorie cutting may also improve your memory.

Researchers took 50 men and women ages 50-72 who ranged from normal weight to overweight. One group was told to cut calories by 30 percent, mainly by eating smaller portions. A second group was told to leave their calories the same but change the proportion coming from fat, and a third group was told to make no dietary changes.

After three months, the subjects took tests involving memorizing words.

The calorie-cutting group averaged a respectable 20% improvement in memory performance. (The second and the third group showed no change whatsoever.)

Lead researcher Agnes Floel of the University of Munster in Germany said that the memory improvement might be linked to a decrease in insulin and inflammation in the reduced- calorie group.

Changes in insulin levels have also been postulated as one of the reasons calorie restriction may extend life. One 1992 study investigated people who were both mentally and physically fit and were at least 100 years old. The three factors they all had in common were: high HDL cholesterol, low triglycerides and… wait for it… low levels of fasting insulin!

Dr. Floel also said that lower insulin levels might "increase the sensitivity of receptors" in the brain and improve insulin signaling, allowing memories to be maintained longer. The reduced calorie diet also seemed to improve inflammation, a known robber of brain function and a contributing factor to every major disease.

In my DVD program The 7 Pillars of Longevity I talk about hara hachi bu, a saying in Okinawa inspired by Confucious. Okinawas believe hara hachi bu is one of the secrets to a long healthy life.

Want to know what it means?

"Eat until you are 80% full".

Wise advice, not only if you want to live long, but also if you want to keep your brain sharp and your memory intact!

Exercise Lowers Breast Cancer Risk

A new study by University of South Carolina researchers indicates aerobically fit women are three times less likely to die of breast cancer than those who seldom exercise.

The latest addition to the growing evidence on the benefits of aerobic exercise is reported in the April issue of the scientific journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

Researchers from USC's Arnold School of Public Health studied 14,000 women who were given preventive medical exams and treadmill tests at the Cooper Clinic in Houston from 1970-2001. At the time of their exams, the women, ages 20 through 83, had no history of breast cancer.

Based on the treadmill tests, the women's fitness was classified as low, moderate or high. Researchers compared the fitness levels of the 68 women in the study group who had died of breast cancer through 2003.

"Women in the study's lowest fitness category were nearly three times more likely to die from breast cancer than women in the most fit group," said Dr. Steve Blair, a USC researcher and a past president of the American College of Sports Medicine.

To reach the moderate fitness category, women need to exercise about 150 minutes per week. High fitness translates to 300 minutes per week.

"With more than 40,000 women dying each year from this disease, finding a strong association between fitness, which can be improved by the relatively inexpensive lifestyle intervention of regular physical activity, such as walking, is exciting," Blair said.

Exercise should be a standard part of preventive treatment for a number of health problems, according to the American College of Sports Medicine.

The new study also backed up previous findings that exercise helps control cholesterol levels, lowers blood pressure and lessens the likelihood for diabetes and heart disease.

Fast Food Diet May Raise Alzheimer's Risk

Guest article by Craig Weatherby

An estimated 5.2 million Americans suffer from Alzheimer's disease, and the toll it takes on their families may well exceed the patients' own suffering.

The results of a study from Sweden heighten suspicions that diets dominated by junky fast food meals damages brains, in addition to harming heart and overall health.

By "fast food meals" we mean ones high in sugars, starches, and bad fat but low in colorful, fiber- and antioxidant-rich plant foods. Sugary, starchy foods tend to promote generation of pro-oxidant, pro-inflammatory free radicals, as do fried and browned foods. The damage done to brain (and other) cells by free radicals and the inflammation they induce raise the risk of Alzheimer's.

Population studies link diets rich in antioxidants (and omega-3s) to reduced rates of Alzheimer's, and studies in dogs with Alzheimer's-like disease show clear improvements after increasing their intake of dietary antioxidants.

There's a genetic component to Alzheimer's though it's far from the whole story.

About one in five Americans possesses a gene that raises their risk of developing Alzheimer's disease ... which is by far the most common form of dementia. The risky gene, called apoE4, is a variant of the gene that governs the production of a cholesterol-transport protein called apolipoprotein E. People who carry the apoE4 gene are more likely to develop the brain abnormalities characteristic of Alzheimer's disease, and to later show symptoms of Alzheimer's.

But once again, genes "load the gun" but environment pulls the trigger.

A doctoral student at Stockholm's famed Karolinska Institute tested the effects of fast-food-like diets in mice genetically at risk for Alzheimer's- these mice had been specifically bred to carry the risky apoE4 variant of the apolipoprotein E gene. Researcher Susanne Akterin fed the Alzheimer's-prone mice a simulated fast-food diet for nine months.The mice developed brain abnormalities like those seen in Alzheimer's patients.

The moral of the story: You can't do much about your genes, but you can sure increase the odds of keeping your brain healthy by staying away from fast food and making sure you stock up on antioxidants.

Another Great Reason to Eat Egg Yolks

I know most of you are not pregnant, but there's a lesson in this that can be useful to you anyway- and of course if you know someone who is pregnant (or planning to be), pass it on!

New research suggests that what a woman eats during pregnancy may offer her offspring protection against breast cancer. Researchers at Boston University studied female rats whose mothers were given different amounts of choline, a nutrient found in eggs, during pregnancy. The rats were given either no choline, normal amounts of choline, or extra choline during pregnancy, and, after birth, their female offspring were treated with a chemical that causes breast cancer.

Whilst all of the female offspring went on to develop breast cancer, the results showed that offspring of the rats that had received extra choline during pregnancy had slow growing tumors whereas the offspring of rats that consumed no choline during pregnancy had fast growing tumors.

Furthermore, the slow growing tumors in the offspring of rats fed extra choline had a genetic pattern similar to those seen in breast cancers of women who are considered to have a good prognosis, whereas the genetic changes that occurred in the fast growing tumors were similar to those seen in women with very aggressive forms of breast cancer that are associated with a poor prognosis.

So what's the lesson?

Well, first of all, guess where choline is found? In the yolks of eggs. The very part that the idiot wing of the American Dietetic Association has been cautioning against, leading to the epidemic of "healthy" egg-white omlettes our low-fat friends are so fond of. I've been preaching that this is a bad idea for so long now that my voice is getting hoarse! Stop with the egg-white omlettes already! The good stuff is in the yolks (not that there's not good stuff in the whites as well, but nature put them together for a reason!)

And that's the lesson for all of us, not just those who are pregnant. Low-fat (or no-fat) versions of whole foods are rarely an improvement over the way they were "designed". Fat is not what we need to fear in the American diet (sugar is, but that's another story)

This research comes on the heels of recent studies by Jeff Volek, PhD, RD showing that eggs can also lower inflammation, a silent killer if there ever was one.

Choline is an undiscovered superstar in the nutrient galaxy, and is truly a "brain food". The best food source of choline is (unfortunately) beef liver, but the second best is a whole egg. Beef, cauliflower and navy beans also have some as well.

Choline is in the B-vitamin family. A single capsule of B-Supreme contains 200mg of choline, more than an entire egg. I also recommend the Choline Punch created by my good friend and colleague Dr. Al Sears.

Gastric Bypass Patients Need Nutritional Supplements

If you're contemplating gastric bypass- or if you've already had it- you'd be wise to bone up on your nutritional supplements. A recent review of all the literature on bariatric surgery found that of all the surgical procedures used to reduce weight, gastric bypass resulted in the most serious post-surgical nutritional deficiencies. The authors conclude that nutritional supplementation is absolutely necessary.

The most common micronutrients found to be deficient were:

• vitamin B12
  
• calcium
  
• vitamin D
  
• thiamine (vitamin B1)
  
• folic acid
  
• iron
  
• zinc
  
• magnesium
  

Gastric bypass is the most popular weight loss surgery in America but it is a double edged sword. While it can reduce some of the risks associated with obesity, it also presents a whole new set of health challenges, and is hardly without side effects or complications including blood clots, leaking, hernia and a fairly high rate of death (1 per 200-300 surgeries). It's not a decision that should be made lightly.

Since you'll have to eat very differently after the surgery, why not try eating that way first? Reduce calories to target weight times 10, trim your nutritional budget of all "non-essential" items (like processed carbs, sugar, soda, and junk foods) and fill your plate with protein and vegetables. You might be surprised at the results!

And if you do have the surgery- or if you've already had it- make sure you're supplementing with vitamins, omega-3 fats and that every calorie you do consume gives you the most nutritional bang for the buck.

Correction: Cardio is NOT a Waste of Time

OK, I admit it: When it comes to weight loss, I'm not a big fan of long, mindless cardio. And recently I wrote a piece- "The Problem with Cardio" that might have led you to believe I think cardio is a waste of time.

That's not actually true. I think that aerobic exercise is way oversold as a weight-loss strategy, and that most people could get the positive calorie burning effects in a much shorter time with high-intensity interval training. But just because jogging an hour a day may not be the most effective way to lose weight doesn't mean you should abandon your cardio work.

Not long ago, scientists at McMaster University Department of Medicine, Health Sciences and Rheumatology Division compared the findings of 17 studies that examined the effect of exercise on anti-aging and the immune system. They were looking to answer the following question: "What, if any, are the effects of regular aerobic and/ or resistance exercise on the immune system in healthy older adults?"

They looked at these studies with a very critical eye, extracting only results that met very rigorous critera. Their conclusion: Aerobic exercise appears to be a friend of the immune system".

OK, remember these guys are scientists and tend to couch their findings in very conservative terms. But considering the incredibly rigorous standards they applied to their review of the research, that conclusion is pretty impressive. Coupled with all the other benefits we know even moderate aerobic exercise can confer- on the brain, for example, as well as on blood pressure, mood, well-being and the circulatory system- there's no reason to abandon those 30 minute a day walks, just because they may not be the best way to go when it comes to losing weight.

And by the way- though daily moderate-intensity exercise (like walking) may not be the best way to lose weight, it may be an essential component to keeping weight off. Findings from the National Weight Control Registry that follows people who've successfully lost a minimum of 30 pounds and successfully kept it off for a minimum of a year show that approximately an hour a day of moderate intensity exercise is one of the key strategies for weight maintenance.

Senior Moment? Maybe it's Your Blood Sugar!

Is the phrase "I'm having one of those senior moments" becoming an increasingly common utterance?

New research suggests it might be related to your sugar levels.

The new research, published in the December 2008 Annals of Neurology focused on a particular section of the hippocampus- an area of the brain associated with memory and learning. This section- the dentate gyrus- is typically affected by changes seen with aging.

"In this study, we were able to show the specific area of the brain that is impacted by rising blood sugar", said Scott Small, MD, the lead researcher on the study which was partly funded by the National Institute on Aging. Using special high-resolution brain imaging, Small and his team found that rising blood sugar was directly associated with decreased activity in the dentate gyrus.

The result: you forget where you put your keys!

The important point here is that the research strongly suggests that keeping blood sugar under control could be the key to preventing "senior moments" and lapses in memory, even in healthy individuals with no hint of diabetes!

"Our findings suggest that maintaining blood sugar levels, even in the absence of diabetes, could help maintain aspects of cognitive health", said Small.

Two of the most effective measures to manage blood sugar are and a controlled-carb diet!

Yet another reason to not eat high-carb, high-sugar foods.

Make Your Genes Behave

Insulin resistance is a condition in which the body doesn't process sugar well, and it often leads to diabetes or heart disease. But with all the talk of finding "genes" for diabetes, what often gets overlooked is the fact that genes interact with the environment. According to a new study, lifestyle choices have a lot more to do with insulin resistance than heredity does. What you do- or don't do- can actually "turn on" these genes (or render them inactive).

A new study from the University of Helsinki found that a sedentary lifestyle actually impairs the functions of certain genes that are related to insulin resistance in obese people. The study looked at pairs of identical twins in which only one twin was obese. In every single case, the obese twin had greater insulin resistance-- and was less fit. The twin who was more fit- even though he or she had identical genes- had far better insulin sensitivity, and wasn't obese.

Remember: genes loads the gun, but environment pulls the trigger. Lifestyle and diet choices actually impact what your genes do. In many cases- if not most- you have the choice to "turn them on" or "turn them off".

More on Water for Weight Loss

Want to lose an extra 6.6 pounds a year without even trying?

That's the amount you might be able to lose just by drinking a half liter of water before breakfast.

According to researchers at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, drinking water before a meal appears to curb the appetite.

Researchers compared two groups overweight and obese people. One group was given instructions to drink a half liter of water before breakfast (about 16 ounces), the other was not. They found that the subjects drinking the water consumed an average of 75 less calories at breakfast than those who didn't drink up first. They didn't make any effort to eat less- they may not even have been aware of doing so.

But they did.

Think that's no big deal?

Consider that 75 calories a day adds up to... let's see now... 27,375 calories a year. By traditional computation (3500 calories per pound) that adds up to just under 8 pounds.

This is important because it adds to the growing body of research showing that small behavioral changes that don't seem to be a big deal can actually translate into different eating behaviors. Drinking water before breakfast is one of those small changes. Eating on a smaller plate is another. Leaving the chicken wings at the table after you've eaten them (instead of having the waitress remove them) is a third. All have been shown to unconsciously influence how much you eat.

All take just about zero effort or willpower!

And if you think 8 pounds a year is bupkus, consider that there are weight loss drug studies that don't produce results much better than that. Plus the fact that drinking water before breakfast is only one of many different strategies you can use to curb your appetite and cravings- put them together and before you know you're looking pretty good!

Cognitive Impairment Linked To Low Vitamin D Levels

If you've been reading this newsletter for the past year, you probably already know at least a half-dozen reasons why you should be taking vitamin D supplements. Bone health. Mood improvement. Physical performance. It's demonstrated anti-cancer effects. But if all that weren't enough, a new study adds another benefit of vitamin D to that rapidly expanding resume: cognitive performance.

In a new study to be published in the Journal of Geriatric Psychology and Neurology, researchers from the University of Cambridge and the University of Michigan report an association between the risk of cognitive impairment in older folks and low levels of vitamin D.

Over 1,750 men and women 65 years or older who participated in a study called The Healthy Survey for England, were given neurocognitive tests. The testing revealed that 212 of the participants had cognitive impairment. The researchers then compared the vitamin D levels of those without cognitive impairment and those with cognitive impairment and found that the risk of impairment significantly increased as vitamin D levels declined.

In fact, participants whose vitamin D levels were in the lowest 25% of the group had a whopping 2.28 times greater risk of cognitive impairment than those of the men and women whose levels were in the top 25%.

Cognitive impairment is a major risk factor for developing dementia.

"This is the first large-scale study to identify a relationship between vitamin D and cognitive impairment in later life," said study coauthor Iain A. Lang, PhD, of Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, England. "Dementia is a growing problem for health services everywhere, and people who have cognitive impairment are at higher risk of going on to develop dementia."

"For those of us who live in countries where there are dark winters without much sunlight, like the UK, getting enough Vitamin D can be a real problem - particularly for older people, who absorb less vitamin D from sunlight.," Dr Lang observed. "One way to address this might be to provide older adults with vitamin D supplements. This has been proposed in the past as a way of improving bone health in older people, but our results suggest it might also have other benefits."

I recommend at least 1000 IUs daily (preferably 2000IUs) of Vitamin D.

Overeating Triggers Overeating

Want a terrific example of the proverbial "vicious circle" when it comes to diet?

Check this out:

Overeating can actually stimulate a metabolic response in the brain that induces cravings to eat more. The result? A vicious cycle of elevated calorie consumption that can lead to obesity, diabetes and insulin resistance.

We've long known that inflammation is a huge part of every degenerative disease from Alzheimer's to heart disease, and it's a big part of obesity as well.

Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and University of California-San Diego found that overeating can induce inflammatory responses that underlie Type ll Diabetes and obesity.

Here's how it works. There's a structure in your brain called the hypothalamus which is like the command center for regulating appetite, feeding behavior, energy and body-weight balance. And there's a hormone in the body called leptin which has a lot to do with regulating appetite. Leptin talks to the hypothalamus, but when communication lines are down and the hypothalamus doesn't get the message that "we don't need any more food", the hypothalamus can promote or induce either obesity or type ll Diabetes (or both).

Overeating turns on a (normally inactive) protein in the hypothalamus that screws up the communication that would normally keep obesity and associated metabolic problems at bay. When you eat "normally", this protein keeps its mouth shut. When you overeat, the protein acts like a drunk at a Karaoke bar.

So what's the big news? We've known that eating too much makes you fat since forever.

The news is that it's not just that excess calories go right to your butt and thighs. That would be bad enough. But those excess calories actually upset and inflame metabolic processes that underlie disease.

There's a Confucian-inspired adage used by the long-lived healthy people in Okinawa: Hara hachi bu.

It means- eat till you're 80% full.

In other words, push away from the table before you're stuffed. You won't get fat, you might just live longer, and you'll probably protect yourself from some really nasty metabolic consequences.

The Problem With Cardio Training

We all know cardio training is great for the heart.

But for weight loss... maybe not so much.

As my friend Craig Ballantyne, CSCS, MS says, "Cardio exercise is such a strange thing. In theory, it should work perfectly well for all men and women, but as anyone who has tried it knows, the practicality of it just doesn't add up".

A recent study in the International Journal of Obesity illustrates the point perfectly.

The researchers had people exercise 5 times a week for 3 months. The average weight loss was a respectable 8.2 pounds. So far so good.

But when the researchers looked at the actual individuals in the study, a different picture emerged.

The best subject lost an amazing 32 pounds! The worst one actually gained almost 4. The individual variance was enormous. In other words, it was good for some people.. for others, not so much.

The researchers think they know why. They classified the exercisers into two groups which they named "compensators" and "non-compensators".

The compensators got hungry as a result of their exercise and consumed a whopping 268 additional calories a day, thereby basically wiping out their exercise efforts at least as far as weight loss was concerned.

The compensators- not surprisingly- lost the least amount of weight.

"If your cardio program is not working for you, check your appetite and calorie intake to see if you are "compensating" for your efforts', suggests Ballantyne.

And if you are, you might be better off with a high-intensity interval program!

The Most Effective Weight Loss Technique Ever

Imagine that you found yourself somehow wide awake at 3 AM and staring at the infomercial channel (OK I know it's a stretch, but work with me here.)

A totally believable pitchman tells you about a new weight loss product that, in clinical trials, produced twice as much weight loss in the group that used it. (That's twice as much- as in 200%. Am I making myself clear?)

Before I tell you the price, are you interested?

Of course you are. And steer yourself for the punch line, because the price is....

Free.

In fact, I'm about to reveal that weight loss secret to you in a minute. But first let me whet your appetite even more by describing the clinical trial.

Nearly 1,700 overweight or obese adults at least 25 years old participated in the study and were tracked over the course of 6 months. All of them were encouraged to use the standard weight-loss tools: reducing calories, moderate exercise, you know the drill. (The study was published in the August issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.)

They were also told- and get ready now for the secret- to keep a food diary.

Not all of them did.

But the ones that kept a food diary lost literally twice as much weight as those who didn't keep a food diary.

There's the secret. Free of charge. No muss no fuss no operators standing by. Just buy a notebook and write everything down. And I mean everything! It increases consciousness, helps you become mindful of triggers, and helps you identify the problem areas you need to work on. And we have scientific proof that it works.

Just remember: using that one tool (a conscientious food diary) will double the results you'd get without using it.

Think it's worth it?

Withdrawn: Advice on Low-Fat diets for Obesity!

Have you heard that a low-fat diet is the way to go for weight loss?

Of course you have. Who hasn't? And like much "conventional" advice, it's turning out to be bogus.

Recently, researchers combed through hundreds of previously published studies that investigated low-fat diets in comparison to other weight loss strategies. They looked at the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, all sources of rigorously controlled published trials. They were interested in the ability of people to actually sustain weight loss over a long period of time, so they investigated the studies in which people were given specific dietary advice (like eat a low-fat diet, or reduce calories). Three independent reviewers poured over the studies that met the criteria for inclusion.

Guess what they concluded?

"Fat-restricted diets are no better than calorie restricted diets in achieving long term weight loss in overweight or obese people".

The title of their research paper- published in the prestigious Cochrane Database System Review was "Withdrawn: Advice on Low-Fat Diets for Obesity".

That kind of says it all, doesn't it?

You can lose weight on a low-fat diet, you can lose weight on a low-carb diet, and you can lose weight on a calorie-restricted diet. The choice should be based on what makes you feel better, reduces your cravings and increases your energy.

There's absolutely no advantage of a low-fat approach over any other, and in fact, there may be some disadvantages.

One disadvantage of a low-fat approach is that people eat more processed carbohydrates when they reduce fat too much. Another may be lower intake of valuable and healthy fats like omega-3's.

And a third disadvantage of low-fat diets is the constant cravings that frequently accompany them! I've never heard of anyone binging on buttered broccoli and steak, but I've sure heard of binging on cereal and bread!

7 Foods That Reduce Heart Disease by Double Digits

A few years ago some researchers published a paper in the British Medical Journal with an interesting hypothesis. They postulated that if we could somehow combine six or seven basic medications into one pill and get everybody to take it we could wipe out about an impressive percentage of heart disease and add about nine years to everybody's life.

They called this mythical combo pill the polypill.

The six basic medications in the polypill were various blood pressure medications, plus folic acid, a statin drug, and aspirin. Theoretically, if everyone were to take those six medications a day, voila, major reduction in heart disease.

Well, these guys were traditional doctors and to them, the only way to impact the rate of heart disease (and dying) was to use drugs. (If the only tool you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.)

But some other researchers took a different approach.

These researchers said Okay, that polypill thing, sounds like a good idea, but dudes, medicine and pharmaceuticals are not the only way to accomplish this. They took a different approach, examining all the research that showed that people who eat certain foods had significantly lower rates of various degenerative diseases.

Using this research and some very sophisticated statistical projections, they put together what they called a polymeal-consisting of seven foods that had been well-studied for their effects on longevity and disease. And they postulated that if we could get everyone in the world to eat that meal a few times a week, we could reduce cardiovascular disease by more than 75 percent!

The polymeal was the basis of the recipes in my book, "The Healthiest Meals on Earth". And the polymeal looks, tastes and sounds an awful lot better than a bunch of medicines- and has a lot less side effects (unless you count satisfaction as a side effect!)

What are these seven "magic" ingredients that- if we consumed them regularly- could reduce heart disease by double digits?

1. fish,
2. garlic,
3. vegetables,
4. nuts,
5. fruit,
6. red wine, and
7. dark chocolate.

Why these seven?

Because they each contribute certain vital nutrients that can extend your life, improve your health, and contribute mightily to your overall well-being and Youngevity.

This article in an excerpt from my latest project that reveals how baby boomers can live a longer, better, healthier, more exciting life than ever thought possible.

Our parents' generation succeeded in increasing the life span of the average person. Now our generation has the chance to improve upon their work by making longer lives into better lives.

Learn more»

Atkins Induction Diet improves Glycemic Control in Diabetics

Diabetes is a disease of uncontrolled sugar. In a nutshell, uncontrolled sugar is also a huge contributing factor to obesity and heart disease. When your blood sugar goes too high, insulin comes in to escort that extra blood sugar into the cells where it can be burned for energy. But if insulin doesn't work effectively, you wind up with too much blood sugar and high levels of insulin, and you're on your way to big health problems down the road.

The technical name for this ability of the body to regulate sugar effectively and efficiently is glycemic control.

So what's the number one thing that raises blood sugar anyway? Clearly it's carbohydrates. And study after study has shown that low-carb diets improve the ability of the body to effectively deal with sugar.

Previous research has shown that a low-glycemic diet (i.e. one high in beans, lentils and breads made with flaxseeds) does much better at managing glycemic control for Type ll diabetes than the "traditional" high fiber diet based on whole grain breads and breakfast cereals (which are often loaded with extra sugar).

Now a new study shows that when it comes to controlling blood sugar, the Atkins Induction phase program does even better.

Eric Westman, MD and his research team put 84 community volunteers with with obesity and type 2 diabetes on one of two diets- the very-low carb Atkins Induction Phase Diet or a low-glycemic, reduced calorie diet. After 6 months, there was improvement in both groups in glycemic control. But the Atkins Induction group improved more.

The main measure of improvement was a blood test called hemoglobin A1c, which is a kind of "Rolls Royce" of blood sugar measurement. While blood sugar levels at any given time fluctuate, Hemoglobin A1c gives us a much more realistic reading of the overall effectiveness of blood sugar control over an extended period of time. Since red blood cells basically live for about 3 months before dying, when sugar sticks to these cells it's possible to tell just how much sugar has been around for the past three months.

Both diets- Atkins Induction and low-glycemic- improved Hemoglobin A1c as well as fasting glucose, fasting insulin and even weight loss. But the Atkins Induction diet did slightly better on all four counts.

Both groups were also able to reduce their diabetic medication. But in patients taking insulin, the effects of the Atkins Induction diet were really quite powerful. Participants taking from 40-90 units of insulin before the study were able to eliminate their insulin use after starting the Atkins Induction Diet, sometimes so quickly that the study researchers had to issue the warning that subjects with type 2 diabetes who are unable to adjust their own medication shouldn't make these dietary changes without close medical supervision!

Does this study mean that an Induction diet is preferable to a low-glycemic diet, which in other studies has been shown to be very useful for glycemic control. No. "A low-carbohydrate, (Atkins Induction) diet combines two approaches that, on their own, improve blood glucose control: weight loss and a reduced glycemic index diet", wrote the researchers. Because low-glycemic diets typically contain from 40-60% of calories from carbohydrate, it's possible that the beneficial effect of low-glycemic diets could be augmented even further by the reduction of the absolute amount of carbs- or by a reduction in calories", said Dr. Westman.

Four Life-Extending Eating Strategies

I've spent an awful lot of time over the years talking about the food we eat and how it impacts your health, your weight and your life. But there are eating strategies that don't have anything to do with what you eat- instead they have to do with how you eat. And these strategies can extend your life and increase your well-being just as surely as the choices you make about what's on your plate.

Sit down! The multitasking thing isn't working out so well- and research is showing it's a really bad idea. There are studies now showing areas of the brain that light up when you do different tasks and when you're doing more than one thing, there's conflicting messages being sent. You don't really have your attention on any one of them and that goes doubly true when you're eating and you actually need your attention to be on your food. And when you're attending to your food, you enjoy it more, you digest it better and- guess what- you eat less of it. Without even trying!

Eat with your family. Every single study shows that families who eat together do better on measures of well-being. The kids who dine with the folks are healthier, happier, and better students. Conversation anchors the family and actually protects kids from all kinds of harm Studies show that the more often families eat together the less likely kids are to smoke, to drink, to do drugs, to get depressed, to develop eating disorders, and to consider suicide. And the more likely they are to do well in school, delay having sex, eat their vegetables, learn big words, and know which fork to use. So eating together as a family is really a very powerful strategy for doing a lot of things.

Eat earlier in the day. Adele Davis used to say, "Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, and dinner like a pauper." We do the exact opposite in this country. And a lot of us say "Well, I'll save up the calories for dinner". Very, very bad move hormonally on every possible level. With calories eaten earlier in the day, you have a little bit better insulin response, you have more chance at burning it off. Eat less at night. It makes a very, very big difference to your health and Youngevity.

Hara hachi bu. Don't know what that means? Well, it's a beautiful saying that the people in Okinawa have and it means this: push away from the table when you're 80 percent full. The one strategy that seems to have extended life in every species its been studied is calorie reduction. If you eat about 25 percent less, which is exactly what the hara hachi bu mandate would prescribe-if you eat until your 75-80 percent full-- you will extend your life and improve your health.

Discover My Secret for Staying Young:

This article in an excerpt from my latest project that reveals how baby boomers can live a longer, better, healthier, more exciting life than ever thought possible.

Our parents' generation succeeded in increasing the life span of the average person. Now our generation has the chance to improve upon their work by making longer lives into better lives.

Learn more»

Improve Your Metabolism in Just Two Weeks

A new study out of the Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, Scotland found that high-intensity exercise for brief periods of time may help reduce the risk of diabetes.

It's hardly news that exercise is good for you- we know that it can help keep weight off, build a bigger brain, improve mood and lower the risk for cancer and heart disease. But many people continue to be put off to the idea of exercise because of time constraints. This study demonstrates- as this newsletter has argued for years- you don't have to spend an hour in the gym or on the track in order to get the significant health benefits that exercise has to offer.

In the study, published in the journal BMC Endocrine Disorders, researchers had young healthy male volunteers use exercise bikes to perform quick, rigorous 30 second sprints. Over the course of two weeks, the subjects performed 30 of these sprints (about 2 or 3 a day) for a grand total of 15 minutes total exercise.

You read that right- fifteen minutes. Over the course of two weeks.

The researchers found that this low-volume high-intensity training substantially improved both insulin action and blood sugar control.

"Doing a few intense muscle exercises, each lasting only about 30 seconds each, dramatically improves your metabolism in just two weeks", said James Timmons, a professor at the University and one of the researchers.

We've argued for the benefits of short, high-intensity training for years now. The Xiser is a great way to get this kind of training, right in your home, and as little as 4 minutes of intense exercise on that nifty machine provides significant benefits. Studies have shown that interval training- which is the kind of high-intensity, short burst training used in this current study- improves cardiovascular fitness and is an effective way to burn fat. This study shows that this same kind of exercise may be an effective weapon in the fight against diabetes.

This is an important study because it helps make the case that there's a lot you can actually accomplish for your health in very little time- that is, if you train smart. While walking 30 minutes a day is terrific, and weight training and spin class and all the other terrific ways to exercise the body still have their place, it's nice to know that you can still get a lot accomplished even if all you have to work out is a few minutes a day.

"This (short burst, high-intensity) approach (to exercise) may help people to lead a healthier life, improve the future health of the population, and save (millions of dollars) simply by making it easier for people to find the time to exercise", said Professor Timmons.

Nutrient Combining: Eat This with That!

The thing about nutrients is that they're like a great rock and roll band.

Just as most great bands play better as a group than they do as soloists, most nutrients rely on supporting nutrients to give you all the health benefits they're capable of delivering.

This may be one reason why so many (badly designed) studies have shown disappointing results when investigating the health benefits of a specific nutrient (like for example vitamin E or beta carotene).

But I digress.

The point is that whole foods often deliver combinations of nutrients that work best synergistically, and combinations of whole foods often turbo charge that health benefit many times over.

Take tomatoes and broccoli. According to University of Illinois researchers, these two foods together have even more powerful cancer-fighting power when eaten at the same time than they do when they're eaten alone. And the valuable carotenoids in foods like spinach and tomatoes aren't well absorbed unless they're eaten with some fat.

"It's not that one nutrient doesn't work", says Elaine Magee, author of Food Synergy, it's that two or three work better". Kind of like a one-plus-one equals four effect.

That's one reason a "no-fat" salad is a silly idea. Important nutrients like the lutein in green peppers, the cancer-fighting lycopene in tomatoes, the capsanthin in red peppers, all need fat to be best absorbed by the body. (I even add a spoonful of Barleans flaxseed oil to my fresh vegetable and fruit juices for just that reason. Fish oil would work very well also, but it's harder to disguise the taste.) When making a salad, dump the fat-free dressing (which is usually loaded with sugar and chemicals anyway) and use some olive oil! Or combine spinach with eggs (complete with egg yolks) or with some avocado or nuts. That fat will make the powerful nutrients in the greens a lot more bioavailable.

And it's not just nutrients that benefit from pairing. Adding vinegar to sushi rice knocks the glycemic index of the rice down by as much as 35%.

Here are some combinations that work particularly well. Remember, this list is by no means complete!

• Broccoli and Tomatoes: According to Professor John Erdman of the University of Illinois, the combo may provide more powerful cancer protection than just eating either vegetable by itself, maybe because "different bioactive compounds in each food work on different anti-cancer pathways". (Pasta primavera with broccoli and tomato sauce does the trick. Just go easy on the pasta and use a whole-grain kind, cooked al dente!)
  
• Vitamin C and Iron: Vitamin C helps the body to absorb iron, so throw mix some high vitamin C fruits (like mandarin oranges) with some high-iron greens (like spinach or kale)
  
• Grass-fed Meat with Herbs and Spices. Studies show that marinating in high-antioxidant mixes of spices and herbs can significantly lower the levels of any carcinogenic compounds caused by grilling. (And for added protection, don't grill on a super-high flame. Slow cooking is best!)

Eating Breakfast is Only Half the Story

For what seems like forever nutritionists have been urging people not to skip breakfast. A number of studies show that skipping breakfast is directly correlated to weight gain- breakfast-skippers are far more likely to be overweight or obese than those who eat breakfast on a regular basis.

Eating breakfast also correlates with better performance and concentration at school and work, better energy and improved well-being.

But God is in the details, and those of us who have been on the breakfast bandwagon seemed to have left out one of the most important of those details: what's on the breakfast menu.

Because all bets are off if you choose the wrong foods, breakfast or no-breakfast.

In a new study just published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, researchers did indeed confirm once again that breakfast-eaters in general eat less calories during the day, and that women breakfast -eaters (but not men) have lower BMIs (a measure of overweight).

But the study also showed that when you eat a really high-calorie breakfast you're more likely to eat more calories during the day, not less- and that the average intake of important nutrients like calcium falls!

When you think about it, this makes sense.

Really high-calorie breakfasts are almost certain to include junk like pastries, donuts, super-calorie lattes and other "foods" that have nothing to do with reaping the benefits of a solid, high-protein, low-calorie breakfast that's been shown to moderate cravings and weight gain. In fact a high calorie junk food breakfast is far more likely to lead to cravings and overeating during the day- exactly the opposite of what you want.

The moral of the story: Don't skip breakfast. But do skip the donuts.

Low-Carb Diets Cause Memory Loss? Not so fast!

Recently the media had a field day reporting a Tufts University study that supposedly showed that low-carb diets have a negative effect on memory. Once again, the media got it wrong, and in two critical ways. First, they reported conclusions that were not found by the study and two, they omitted findings that were critically important to understanding what was found.

In the study, half the people were put on a low-calorie high-carbohydrate diet and the other half were put on a low-carb diet. The researchers then gave the participants tests for long and short-term memory and attention after one, two and three weeks on their respective programs.

The first thing to note is that the low-carb group was on a basically no-carb diet, at least for the first week. And they did indeed score slightly worse on the reaction time part of the test that week. (What the media buried deeply in their reporting was that the low-carbers performed better than the other group in tests that measured attention and the ability to stay on task!)

Also buried deep in the reporting- when it was reported at all- was that the low-carbers quickly improved on the tests by the second week.

These results are really exactly as expected. There is a short period of adaptation when the brain and body switches over to ketones as a fuel source, which most certainly was happening in this situation as the dieters were consuming no carbohydrates whatsoever. This adaptation period is natural and mental and physical performance returns as soon as the adaptation period is over. Stephen Phinney, PhD has even done research showing that, after a brief period of adaptation, world-class cyclists on a ketogenic diet are back to cycling at their previous levels of intensity and endurance within a month!

The second detail that was omitted was that limited carbohydrates were introduced in the second week and the performance on the memory tests went right back up.

While the researchers put out a news release saying "diets low in carbohydrates can be detrimental to learning, memory and thinking", this was not what the research showed at all. Larry McCleary, MD, one of the country's top neurosurgeons and author of "The Brain Trust Program" says "There is a groundswell of medical evidence that documents how too much sugar can make the brain shrink, wither, atrophy and just plain work badly".

Last year I told you about a study in the September issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that compared low-fat to low-carb dieters and found improvements in mood and memory in both groups of dieters. And it's also worth noting that a Colorado biotech company called Accera is currently working on a drug to help the liver create more ketones because their Phase ll studies showed rapid and significant cognitive improvements in Alzheimers when patients were provided with this alternative fuel source.

Let's remember that no one is seriously recommending a no-carb diet. We recommend a controlled carb diet where you reduce the amount of your diet that comes from processed carbs and sugar- as much as possible.

And dangerous as far as memory goes? "If you want to age your brain, just eat the typical diet most Americans consume", says Dr. McCleary.

Triglycerides: What you Need to Know

As I get older, I find myself becoming scarily more like my parents, who were known to roll their eyes each time I would finally "discover" something that they had been telling me for years-- as if to silently say, "so you finally figured it out!"

Of course, in my version, it's me rolling my eyes every time the medical profession "discovers" something nutritionists have been saying for years. In this case, they're finally getting wise to the fact that triglycerides are an important risk factor for heart disease. Possibly- gasp- even more than cholesterol.

And the best news is, you can lower triglycerides without any expensive drugs.

Triglycerides are in the news a lot these days because recent 30-year analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (HANES) data by the National Lipid Association shows that the percentage of adults with high triglycerides has doubled. The study also showed an alarming increase among people over 60.

Why should we care? "Studies have shown that unhealthy levels of triglycerides and HDL can lead to heart attack and stroke", said Jerome Cohen, MD, professor emeritus of internal medicine and cardiology at the St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Increased risk of heart disease and stroke seems like a good reason to pay attention. (In my not-so-humble opinion, I'd worry way more about high triglycerides than I would high cholesterol.)

So if you've got high triglycerides, what can you do about it? Simple. Eat a low-carb diet.

Triglycerides are the most common l form of fat found in your both food and in your body. They're in your bloodstream, your diet and your tissues and organs. Most of what you don't like about the way you look in jeans is adipose tissue (fat cells) filled with, yup, triglycerides. When your doctor gives you a blood test, the test invariably measures triglycerides in the blood. (The National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines for normal triglycerides are under 150, though most cutting edge docs and nutritionists would prefer to see a more optimal level like under 100.)

High triglycerides are a strong independent risk factor for heart disease, and they also correlate with obesity, and with low levels of HDL (the so-called "good cholesterol"). High triglycerides are also one of the five signs of Metabolic Syndrome, (also called pre-diabetes), a major risk factor for heart disease.

A low-carb diet will bring triglycerides down 100 per cent of the time (and that's regardless of whether or not you lose much weight on the diet). You read that right. Not 90 percent, not 95%, but 100 percent of the time. There are very, very few strategies in nutrition that have 100 percent success rate, but when it comes to lowering triglycerides, low-carb diets do in fact have that enviable track record.

Conversely, when you replace fat in your diet with carbohydrates- especially the kind that do not come from vegetables and fruits- your triglycerides go up!(3,4,5) So a low-fat diet is not necessarily the answer to high triglycerides.

In fact, one particular form of fat- omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil and flaxseed- have been shown to help lower triglycerides, particularly in combination with vitamin C!
Obviously, you're going to get better overall results if you couple that low-carb diet with exercise and a few other healthy habits, but low-carb is a great beginning.

One reason low-carb works so well to lower triglycerides is that the liver manufactures triglycerides out of fat and excess sugar. The more sugar in your diet the more the liver converts that sugar into the little packages we call triglycerides. Give the body less sugar- (and less processed carbs that convert quickly to sugar in the body)- and guess what? Triglycerides return to a nice, healthy, (low) level.

The best prescription for high triglycerides is a very moderate calorie diet of whole foods with plenty of healthy protein and fat, no sugar, a ton of vegetables, some fruit and nuts and very limited starchy carbs (or not- you can leave out the starchy carbs if you like).

For reducing triglycerides, that diet will work as well as any drug, and has no side effects to boot-- (unless you call weight loss a side-effect).

And that's a very good reason to get the extraneous carbs- white bread, desserts, sugar, soda- out of your diet for good.

Attack of the Killer Carbs!

Ever wonder why you're so often hungry for more not long after you eat a high-carb snack or meal?

New research may help explain it.

Scientists at Monash University identified key appetite control cells in the human brain. These cells are attacked after eating, but the attack is bigger and stronger following a meal rich in sugar and carbohydrates.

"The more carbs and sugars you eat, the more your appetite-control cells are damaged", said Zane Andrews, MD, the lead researcher on the study. The result? You eat more.

The forces that compel you to eat and the forces that tell the brain "hey, this dude is full!" are constantly at war. When your stomach is empty, it triggers the release of a hunger hormone called ghrelin. When you're full, a set of neurons known as POMC's kick in.

Free radicals normally created in the body attack both the "hunger" neurons and the "anti-hunger" neurons, but the "hunger" neurons are naturally protected. This tips the scale in the direction of hunger and cravings.

And carbs create the most damage of all.

According to Andrews, people in the age group of 25 to 50 are most at risk. "The neurons that tell people in that crucial age range not to overeat are being killed off".

Yet another reason to limit your sugar and processed carbs if you don't want to be the victim of constant cravings.

A Weight Loss Strategy That Really Works!

Are you one of those people who's been told that "diets don't work" and that "95% of people who lose weight gain it all back"?

If so, you're not being told the whole truth.

Fact is, the word "diet" comes from the Greek word meaning "a way of life"-- and if you indeed change your way of life, diets work just fine. For example: The National Weight Control Registry tracks thousands of people who have successfully lost at least 30 pounds and kept if off for a year. The average member of the Registry has done way better than that- 60 pounds average weight loss, kept off for five years.

Hardly sounds like failure to me.

What we've learned over all these years is that there are certain habits and behaviors that predict success in the weight loss arena. And one of the best is keeping a food diary.

You've probably heard about food diaries a million times, since every nutritionist I know pushes them. And let's face it, people hate them. A food diary causes you to be aware of everything you eat, something many people- myself included- would prefer not to do. It's a pain in the neck. And it's uncomfortable.

But it works.

New research backs this up. A recent study from the Center for Health Research at Kaiser Permanente Northwest attempted to identify what weight loss strategies work and what behaviors are associated with successful weight loss. At the top of the list was keeping a food diary. In fact, keeping a food diary was such a powerful strategy that those in the study who kept food diaries lost twice as much weight as those who didn't.

Hey, if there was an infomercial selling a pill that actually produced 100% more weight loss in those who took it, the operators "standing by" wouldn't be able to keep up with the calls.

In the Kaiser study, researchers enrolled 1685 overweight or obese adults and offered 20 group weight-loss sessions over the course of 6 months. During that time, participants were also given instructions on the right number of calories for their target weight as well as how to follow a basic diet low in sodium, and high in fruits, vegetables, lean protein and low-fat dairy. They were also encouraged to complete 180 minutes a week of moderate exercise, and, of course, to keep a food diary.

At the end of the 6 months, 70% of the participants had lost at least 8.8 pounds, an amount considered to be clinically significant- (8.8 pounds or more of weight loss has been shown in other research to lower blood pressure). And the average amount of weight lost in the study was even better- about 13 pounds!

A successful food diary is about more than just writing down what you eat. The participants were encouraged to measure as much as possible (using simple things like teaspoons and cups) and to approximate calories based on a calorie book or info available on the web. This calorie-estimating was an important part of the success of the program. (Note: it's not nearly as hard as you might think since most of us eat the same dozen foods over and over again.)

Other behaviors that predicted weight loss success were attending the group meetings and number of minutes of exercise a week.

Bottom line: losing weight may be a challenge, but it's very far from impossible. An old saying around 12 step programs is "learn from the winners"- in other words look at what people who are already successful at what you're trying to do and then copy what they're doing!

There's a strategy that works well in all areas of life, and definitely in the weight loss arena.

Low-Glycemic Diet and Diabetes

Low-glycemic foods - beans, peas, lentils, pasta, rice boiled briefly and breads like pumpernickel and flaxseed - do a better job of managing glycemic control for Type-2 diabetes and risk factors for coronary heart disease than diets based around the "traditional" high-fiber foods such as whole grain breads, crackers and breakfast cereals.

That's the finding of a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. And it doesn't surprise me one bit.

Although the god-awful American Dietetic Association continues to mindlessly parrot the "conventional" wisdom about whole grain breads and cereals, truth is that most of these whole grain products are fiber lightweights. (Read the label- typically 1-2 grams of fiber at best compared to say, 11-17 in a cup of beans.) And if you check the glycemic index/ glycemic load tables, you find that the difference between a processed grain like white rice and its whole grain counterpart (brown rice) is- from a blood sugar point of view- almost negligible.

Obviously whole grains are better than white junk, but only because they contain slightly more vitamins and other nutrients. From a blood sugar point of view- and from a food sensitivity or allergy point of view- they're not that much of an improvement. If you've got gluten sensitivity- which is way more common than you might think- whole grains are just as much a problem for you as the processed kind.

In the JAMA study, researchers found that hemoglobin A1C- a very important marker for diabetes- decreased significantly more in subjects on the low-glycemic diet than it did for people eating the "traditional high-fiber" choices with cereal fiber. The low-glycemic group also saw a significant increase in HDL (the so-called "good" cholesterol) as well as a significant reduction in LDL (the so-called "bad" cholesterol).

The low-glycemic diet group did eat some breads- like pumpernickel, rye pita and quinoa bread with flaxseed- and some cereals- like real oatmeal- but they were all low-glycemic.

Bottom line: just because a cereal or bread product says "made with whole grains" doesn't mean it's the best food for you. Many of these products raise your blood sugar way too high, and manufacturers are notorious at trading on the "whole grain" buzz to create ridiculous products like "whole grain Cocoa Captain Sugar Krispies" (I made that one up, but you know what I'm talking about).

Glycemic impact is very important and should be paid attention to by anyone interested in his or her health. And you don't have to walk around with a bunch of scientific formulas to figure out whether a food has high or low glycemic impact. Just look for foods that have minimum processing, maximum color (exception is oatmeal and cauliflower) and as much fiber as possible.

Calcium / Vitamin D May Reduce Colon Cancer

Research presented at the American Association for Cancer Research in San Diego this year suggests that vitamin D and calcium supplements may reduce colon cancer risk.

Veronika Fedirko of Emory University presented research showing that giving patients with polyps 2 grams of calcium, 800 IUs of vitamin D or a combination of the two for six months was associated with an increase in a protein that controls programmed cell death (called apotosis). The protein is called Bax. Fedirko found that by increasing Bax in the tissue of the colon, a greater number of precancerous cells- like those found in polyps- may make like those old Mission Impossible tapes and self-destruct. There was the greatest effect in those that received both the calcium and vitamin D which seem to work synergistically in a number of applications.

In a related study presented at the same meeting, Robert Bostick, MD, MPH and colleagues found that individuals who consume high amounts of vitamin D and calcium have increased levels of a protein that moderates the movement and proliferation of colon cells.

The current studies contribute more evidence for a protective role for calcium and vitamin D in colorectal cancer. Dr. Bostick's team is involved in a ten year study at several centers which will evaluate the effects of increased calcium and vitamin D on the recurrence of colon cancer.

One of the best selling supplements on our website has been the Douglas Labs Cal-6-Mag, an inexpensive and effective blend of calcium, magnesium and vitamin D.

Vitamins No Help in Heart Disease?

If you'd like a perfect example of the way the media reports on vitamins-- and why it makes me crazy-- look no further than the recent headlines proclaiming "Vitamins No Help in Heart Disease".

First here's what happened, as reported in the Nov 12 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Researchers enrolled 14,641 male physicians in the study, all of whom were at very low risk for cardiovascular disease. The men were divided into four groups.

1. The first group took 400 IUs of vitamin E every other day and 500 mg of vitamin C every day.
2. The second took vitamin E and a placebo vitamin C.
3. The third, real vitamin C and a placebo vitamin E.
4. The fourth group took 2 placebos.

After 8 years the researchers found no difference among the groups in the incidence of heart attack, stroke, or congestive heart failure.

"There are no compelling reasons to take either vitamin E or C for cardiovascular disease prevention" said the lead author, Howard D. Sesso.

OK read that over carefully and see if you can spot the problems.

Number one, we have no idea what kind of vitamin E was given. From past experience, doctors- who know absolutely nothing about this stuff- tend to give alpha-tocopherol, the least effective of the 8 components of vitamin E. Number two, look at the dose. Four hundred IUs taken every other day. And if previous experience is any guide, they probably used an synthetic source, which is about half as effective as a natural source. On what planet do you dismiss any possible benefit from vitamin E based on a low dose of an ineffective form of the vitamin given to a population that wasn't at risk in the first place?

And while vitamin C at 500mg is a nice basic dose, no one seriously thinks that's enough to make a therapeutic difference.

So the first thing that's wrong here is that it's a lousy study that seems almost pre-destined to show little effect. In fact the cards were so loaded against the vitamins that they would have to be miracle pills- literally preventing any cases of heart disease at these low doses- before the researchers would give them any credit.

The second thing is that the press unanimously reported this study as another case showing that vitamins are "ineffective".

Never mind that just last year multivitamin and vitamin E use was found to be associated with lower mortality from cerebrovascular disease (CVD) in the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study for Evaluation of Cancer. Never mind that vitamin E is the most potent fat-soluble anti-oxidant in the plasma and the tissues. And never mind that no less a source than the Physicians Desk Reference states that "The results of a very large number of studies, including in vitro and animal studies, epidemiological and intervention trails, support a role for vitamin E in the prevention of cardiovascular disease". And don't even get me started on the multiple benefits of vitamin C.

Look, I admit that some studies of single nutrients have been disappointing. And I'm certainly not saying that such studies shouldn't be reported. But is the message we really want to send here that vitamins are "ineffective"? Is that really what this study shows?

The moral of the story is this: Look a little deeper than the headlines. That's probably good advice in general, but it's certainly good advice in the field of health reporting.

Think the "Little Purple Pill" is Harmless? Think again..

Buried deep in the Nov 12 edition of the Wall Street Journal was an interesting report on a study done on the best-selling drug Plavix which contains a lesson we should all be paying attention to.

First a tiny bit of back story. Back in the days when I was practicing one-on-one nutrition, a very famous composer was brought to see me. (He had written some of the most famous musicals of all time, and every one of you can sing the words and music to at least three of his songs.) He walked in haltingly. He had a mild case of the shakes. He looked feeble and old even though he was in his early 70's. We discussed some of his issues and he took out a yellow pad on which he had written the list of medications he was currently on.

The list almost covered a full sheet of the pad.

Blood pressure medication. Anti-depressants. Sleeping meds. Cholesterol lowering drugs (2 of them). Stuff to make him sleep. You get the picture.

He had been to a number of doctors for different conditions, and each one had put him on different meds. I thought then- as I think now- does anyone have any idea what the long term effects of mixing all this stuff together is??

The answer- then as now- is absolutely not.

When a medication is researched, it's tested by itself, usually for a relatively short period of time. Often the true long-term side effects don't reveal themselves till the pill has been on the market for a few years and been taken by thousands and thousands of people (Vioxx, anyone?). It would be literally impossible to test every pill in combination with every other pill to see what possible interactions there might be, not to mention testing those combinations for the years- sometimes decades- that people stay on them.

So this guy- like hundreds of thousands of other people- was a walking experiment.

Back to the study on Plavix.

A new 16,690 person study by Medco Health Solutions Inc suggested that people who combine a heartburn pill like Nexium or Prilosec with Plavix- on their doctor's order, by the way- have a 50% higher risk of heart attack or other cardiac event compared with those taking Plavix by itself.

Folks, this is the tip- the absolute ittsy bittsy tip- of an enormous iceberg.

These are just two popular drugs. Suppose we add into the mix an anti-depressant, a statin and an ACE inhibitor, just to mention a few. The possibilities are endless. These combinations are rarely investigated--- this study is an exception- but just it's hard to imagine that the negative interaction effects found with just these two innocuous drugs are an isolated case.

This is why I've stated over and over again that my "default" position on drugs is- try to take as few as possible. It's not that they're always bad- clearly they're not- nor that they don't save lives (sometimes they do). But it's my strong feeling that the more you can avoid medicating each and every symptom with a pharmaceutical drug, the better off you'll be.

Especially when there are so many equally effective natural things you can do to accomplish similar results (see "The Most Effective Natural Cures on Earth").

For example- the "heartburn" that Prilosec "treats" can be easily impacted much more successfully (and with no side effects like preventing the valuable secretion of stomach acid) with some dietary changes. And before going right to Plavix, why not use omega-3 fats to help thin the blood or Nattokinase to help prevent clots?

I'm not taking a strong "drugs are Satan" position here- just cautioning that using a bunch of drugs (even two in the case of this study) on a long-term basis may have consequences no one ever thought of because such combinations have never been studied.

And by the way- I've yet to see ever a well-designed study saying that combining any vitamins or minerals or omega fats has led to an increase in cardiovascular death.

Just something to think about.

Belly Fat Doubles Death Risk

Belly fat is in the news again, big time.

First some background: A ton of stuff has been written about the difference between "apples" and "pears", apples being folks who store their fat around the middle and "pears" being those who store it on the hips butt and thighs. Fact is, all fat is not created equal. The fat stored around the butt hips and thighs- also known as subcutaneous fat since it's right below the skin- might drive you crazy and make it hard to put on your jeans, but it's not nearly as dangerous as the other kind. The fat stored around the middle- also called VAT or visceral abdominal fat- is a metabolic nightmare. Stored deep inside the abdominal walls, it is metabolically active fat that directly increases the risk for all sorts of health problems from metabolic syndrome to diabetes.

OK, now on to the study.

Researchers looked at data from almost 360,000 Europeans who had been enrolled in a larger study called the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. They followed these folks for ten years, during which 14,723 of the participants died. What they found was that men and women with the largest waists had virtually twice the risk for premature death as those with the smallest ones.

According to Tobias Pischon, MD, MPH, the lead author of the study, the single most important finding in their study was that it the distribution of body fat affected the risk of premature death. Where you store your fat is even more important than what you weigh. And this was true even when weight is normal. "There aren't many simple individual characteristics that can increase a person's risk of premature death to this extent, independent of smoking and drinking" said Pischon.

For years we nutritionists have been using a "low-tech" shorthand for insulin resistance: a 40 inch (or greater) waist for men, a 35 inch (or greater) waist for women. Interestingly, that was exactly the number that correlated with a doubled risk for death when compared with smaller waists (less than 34 inches for men, less than 28 inches for women). Each 2 inch increase in waist circumference added about 17% increased risk for mortality in men and about 13% increased mortality in women.

Earlier this year I reported research showing that these numbers (40 inch waist for men, 35 for women) also indicated an increased risk for stroke.

Bottom line: reduce your belly fat. If you're an apple, chances are you're also insulin resistant, and would benefit from a diet low in carbohydrates. In my opinion, that's the absolute best "nutritional intervention" to reduce the most dangerous kind of fat on the body (as well as the plain old garden variety "unsightly" kind).

Just remember that low-carb doesn't mean unlimited calories. The absolute best way to go is lower calorie combined with controlled carb eating. For a good calorie goal take your target weight and multiply by 10. That's a great starting point.

And remember also that you'll not only be reducing your belly fat- you'll also be reducing the risk of stroke, heart disease, diabetes, dementia, some cancers and... oh yes, just plain dying.

Seems to me those are pretty good reasons to start eating differently!

The Truth About the Recent Cholesterol Drug Study

Last week, the results of a new study on a cholesterol-lowering drug were released generating a ton of press attention. The study (the JUPITER study) made the front page of the NY Times, was featured on just about every television news show, and generally created a lot of buzz. Even if you weren't paying too much attention- and it was hard not to- you might have heard that the study showed that a cholesterol-lowering medication (Crestor) lowered the risk for heart disease by over 40% in people who did not have high cholesterol in the first place!

The Wall Street Journal was practically salivating in its predictions. "The findings could substantially broaden the market for statins, the world's best-selling class of medicines", they panted. "Morgan Stanley analysts predicted Crestor revenue could rise to as much as 8 billion and 18% of the global statin market in 2014".

OK let's take a look at what actually happened before we start putting statins in the water supply.

Approximately 17,000 participants were enrolled in the study, all at "prime heart attack age" (over 50 for men, over 60 for women). But none had either high cholesterol levels nor evidence of serious heart disease. By all traditional measures, they were a healthy men and women.

What they did have was elevated inflammation.

We know this because the researchers measured their blood levels for CRP (C-Reactive Protein) an excellent marker for inflammation in the body. For years and years I- and many other nutritionists and doctors- have been warning that inflammation is the real danger for heart disease and that cholesterol is a red herring. Inflammation is the silent killer. Inflammation is what we should be paying attention to. C-Reactive Protein is an important measure to know, even though most docs have scoffed at it and told us it's not that important. (Besides, they were too busy focusing on cholesterol.)

For years I've also been saying that any benefit that might be had by taking statin drugs has nothing to do with lowering cholesterol. But statin drugs have an interesting little "side effect": they happen to lower inflammation.

So here's this study when people with completely normal cholesterol (but elevated inflammation) benefit from a statin drug. Think they'd figure out that maybe cholesterol wasn't the issue in the first place?

Oh no. What you'll probably see is a movement to lower the "normal" cholesterol levels even further down so that even more people can be put on these drugs.

Which, by the way, are far from perfectly safe. Though the mainstream establishment downplays their side effects, most knowledgeable clinicians will tell you that side effects like muscle pain and fatigue are far more common than widely believed and that they see these side effects in about 15% of patients. And the drug costs $3.50 a day, if you care.

So what we have here is a study that showed a very very modest reduction in risk for heart disease, using a drug that accomplished that not by lowering cholesterol but by lowering inflammation. The benefit of the drug-- such as it was (and it was modest to say the least)--- clearly had nothing to do whatsoever with lowering cholesterol.

By the way, how can I say that the benefit was modest when it was reported as a whopping 44% reduction in risk?

Simple. Because the percentages don't tell the whole story.

The real numbers were as follows: In the non-treated group, about 14 in 1000 developed cardiovascular disease (in other words 1.4 percent of the group). In the treated group, only 8 in 1000 developed cardiovascular disease (.8 percent). Tiny numbers- but reducing 14 to 8 does produce a "44% reduction" (just as reducing 3-in-a-million to 2-in-a-million produces a 33% reduction!)

Inflammation truly is an important health issue, and anything that reduces inflammation should be paid attention to. The sad part of all this is that there are so many ways to reduce inflammation naturally without drugs. Fish oil is one of the most anti-inflammatory substances on the plant. So are the myriad of natural anti-inflammatories (like the quercetin found in apples and onions, and the hundreds of other flavonoids in the plant kingdom).

But of course none of those are 20 billion dollar-a-year businesses.