Thursday, June 30, 2011

Diet Soda Is Why You're Fat

 
 

Sent to you by rog via Google Reader:

 
 

via Fast Company by Ariel Schwartz on 6/30/11

Whoops. Diet soda might have no calories, but that doesn't keep it from growing your waistline. A new study finds that diet drinkers might be even worse off than regular soda drinkers.

diet coke

Diet soda is not, it turns out, a panacea for overeating. But it's not just because ordering a burger, fries, and a diet soda means you're still consuming too many calories; it's because diet soda itself may increase your waistline.

The news comes from a University of Texas study that examined data from 474 participants in the San Antonio Longitudinal Study of Aging, a continuing study of elderly Mexican and European Americans. The result: Diet soda drinkers saw a 70% increase in waist circumference compared with non-drinkers over the course of a decade. People who drank more than two diet sodas a day saw a staggering 500% greater waist circumference compared to non-drinkers.

Part of the problem may be traced back to aspartame, the artificial sweetener used in many diet sodas. According to a study from other researchers at the university, heavy exposure to aspartame may directly increase blood glucose levels, leading to an increase in diabetes risk. "Artificial sweeteners could have the effect of triggering appetite but unlike regular sugars they don't deliver something that will squelch the appetite," explained Sharon Fowler, an obesity researcher who co-authored both studies, in an interview with the Daily Mail. (If this sounds familiar, here's why.)

So what's the solution? Cut down on your soda intake--both diet and regular. And while you're at it, stop driving so much and exercise more at your job. Or get your employer to join Keas, where you'll get rewards, instead of just being scolded.

[Image by Flickr user "Cowboy" Ben Alman]

Reach Ariel Schwartz via Twitter or email.

Related: Your Mom Is Why You're Fat


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

In U.S., black members of Adventist Church defy health disparities, study shows

Cool! The dietary factors are likely universal!

 
 

Sent to you by rog via Google Reader:

 
 

via Adventist News Network by Ansel Oliver on 6/28/11

Health disparities between black Americans and the rest of the United States have been well documented in medical journals. But one study shows that blacks who identify as members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church actually report a better quality of life than the average American.

A Loma Linda University study shows that U.S. blacks who identify as members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church defy health disparities and report a better quality of life than the average American. Researchers point to certain lifestyle behaviors as a possible explanation for the difference.

black-health-480.jpg

Researchers point to certain lifestyle behaviors as a possible explanation for the difference. The research was conducted at Loma Linda University as part of the Adventist Religion and Health Study (ARHS), a study of nearly 11,000 Adventists, including more than 3,400 black Adventists.

The findings were drawn from an ARHS survey that included questions from SF-12v2 Physical and Mental Health composite scores, widely recognized among researchers to be accurate measures of quality of life. Examples of questions included are:

--"During the past four weeks, how much did pain interfere with your normal work?"

--"How much time during the past four weeks have you felt downhearted and depressed?"

ARHS results were then compared to results from a nationwide sample of people who took the SF-12v2 survey. Overall, black Adventist study participants reported better physical and mental quality of life than the U.S. norm, in some cases by as much as 4.5 percentage points.

"It is striking that, although in the general population blacks show poorer quality of life on a variety of measures, our results show that black Adventists have a significantly better quality of life than the average American," said Dr. Jerry Lee, principal investigator for ARHS.

"This difference is particularly pronounced in older age groups, who progressively demonstrate increased mental health -- lower depression, more energy, feeling more calm and peaceful -- relative to the general population," Lee said. "This could be a result of the healthy lifestyle choices that are built into the Adventist faith."

Compared to non-Adventist blacks and whites, rates of smoking, drinking, and meat consumption for Adventists were lower, and rates of vegetarianism and water consumption were higher. In addition, about 95 percent of the males and females in the black study cohort attended church weekly or more often, as compared to 30 percent of black males and 50 percent of black females in the General Social Survey -- a survey routinely conducted on a sample of the entire U.S. by the National Opinion Research Center.

Adventists, who advocate temperance, a plant-based diet, and setting aside Saturday for worship and family time, have received much coverage in recent years for their longevity and quality of life.

Loma Linda, California, a city with a high concentration of Adventists, was the only U.S. locale featured in the book The Blue Zones, by Dan Buettner. The book examined five areas of the world where life spans often noticeably exceed the norms. Loma Linda Adventist subjects of the book have been featured on many national TV spots, including a heart surgeon practicing at 94 years old, interviewed on The Oprah Winfrey Show, and a piano teacher giving lessons at 97, interviewed on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360.

ARHS is a sub-study of the Adventist Health Study-2 (AHS-2), a long-term health study of more than 96,000 Adventists, including 26,000 black Adventists, across the U.S. and Canada.

Research shows that lifestyle diseases disproportionately affect blacks. Part of AHS-2's goal has been to determine why this is the case by exploring the links between diet, lifestyle, and disease. Researchers at the study's outset said the results of ARHS would be in important step toward learning practices that may help eliminate health disparities between blacks and the general population.

As analysis of data continues, researchers say they expect more results that will have far-reaching implications for improving the health of the black community.

AHS-2 is conducted by researchers at Loma Linda University School of Public Health. For more information, visit www.adventisthealthstudy.org.

Click HERE for a PDF of a graph with more specific information from the study


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

The Case For Test-Tube Steaks: Harvesting Artificial Meat Would Save Tons Of...

This sounds udderly disgusting! It's not going to end up on my vegan table for sure! Wow! Wonder what the long-term implications of this will be....

 
 

Sent to you by rog via Google Reader:

 
 

via Fast Company by Ariel Schwartz on 6/21/11

And so would trading beef for chicken. According to a new study, cultured meat production generates up to 96% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than conventional meat production, though it's still second to poultry in terms of energy efficiency.

artificial meat

Lab-grown meat is going to be on your table someday. It's cheaper than dealing with whole animals, there are none of the ethical issues associated with factory farms, it can help prevent the spread of animal-borne diseases, and according to a new study, cultured meat production generates up to 96% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than conventional meat production. Except for chicken, which is the most energy efficient of all meats. You may be seeing a test-tube steak well before a test-tube chicken breast.

The Stanford and Amsterdam University-authored study, Environmental Impact of Cultured Meat Production, contends that the overall environmental impact of cultured meat production is significantly lower than conventionally produced meat. This is largely because of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with raising livestock (i.e. methane emissions from cow burps and farts), manure management, nitrous oxide from soil, and the conversion of forests to grassland.

In almost all cases, growing animal muscle tissue in vitro makes more sense for the environment than having actual animals. But it requires more energy than conventionally produced poultry, which has relatively few CO2 emissions when conventionally grown and requires less energy than it would to run an in-vitro meat lab. The study's authors argue that cultured poultry production still may make more sense, because the emissions numbers don't take into account that biofuel crops could be put on the land where chicken coops now stand:

Energy input alone does not necessarily provide a sufficient indicator about the energy performance if the opportunity costs of land use are not taken into account. Cultured meat production requires only a fraction of the land area that is used for producing the same mass of conventionally produced poultry meat. Therefore, more land could be used for bioenergy production, and it can be argued that the overall energy efficiency of cultured meat would be more favorable.

And since most of the greenhouse gas emissions from cultured meat production come from fuel and electricity use, using renewable energy sources could cut down on emissions even further. There's another (slightly creepy) energy bonus: Cultured meat might require less refrigeration than conventional meat because of a lack of excess bones, fat, and blood.

Large-scale cultured meat production is still far from reality. The study's authors estimate that it would cost $160 million in research to bring artificial meat to mass production. And there is still the cultural acceptance issue to work out--who will actually eat this stuff?

But the study makes an excellent point: "Cultured meat consists of similar muscle tissue to conventionally produced meat, but only the production technique differs. It can also be argued that many current meat production systems are far from natural systems."

Reach Ariel Schwartz via Twitter or email.

[Image: Flickr user FotoosVanRobin]



 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Friday, June 3, 2011

OHSU research points to high-fat diet as culprit in some birth defects

Wow, mainstream is beginning to get it too! Amazing.

 
 

Sent to you by rog via Google Reader:

 
 


The typical high-fat American diet may be responsible for increased stillborns and serious birth defects regardless of whether pregnant women are themselves obese or slender, according to a new animal study at Oregon Health & Science University's National Primate Research Center. The ...

 
 

Things you can do from here: