Healthy Food & Healthy Living by Dr. Ayala

Are we exercising less or eating more?

There are many compelling reasons to exercise. Regular physical activity has been shown to reduce the incidence of heart disease, diabetes and hypertension. It improves mental health, fosters strong muscles and strong bones. It also makes most participants happier and improves our looks.

Physical activity also burns calories. In the past few decades exercise has therefore become one arm of the two pronged approach to combat overweight and obesity. Exercise is the calories expended in the equation; food intake is the calories we take in. Any change in the balance of calories in and calories out that leaves us calorie depleted would, assumingly, lead to weight loss. The best approaches to overall health and weight maintenance employ both increased exercise and calorie restriction.

Inactivity has also been blamed for our weight gain. Our life has indeed become much more sedentary, as the car replaced walking, as convenience and mechanization crept into every aspect of our lives and as we started spending hours without end watching TV.

But blaming inactivity has also become a way for the fast food and processed food industry to escape any responsibility for the highly palatable and calorie-dense foods they produce and promote. It’s of course inconvenient for food manufacturers and for us individually to admit that we’re eating too much; it seems we’d all like to believe that we can just burn a lot more calories through physical activity and allow the party to go on.

Blame games are generally useless, but if we are to address the obesity crisis rationally perhaps it's worthwhile to look at the relative contribution of inactivity and overeating to our weight gain.

Surprisingly enough, there are now serious questions emerging about whether inactivity has contributed to the expanding American waistline in any significant way.

A new study in Obesity Reviews looked at adolescents’ activity levels and asked two questions:

Are American adolescents getting enough physical activity?

And

Have adolescents become less active over the past fifteen years or so?

The reviewers examined nationally representative Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Surveys taken since 1991, which provide information on adolescents’ physical activity (such as swimming, soccer, running, etc.), physical education at school and sedentary behaviors, such as watching TV and playing video games. Sample sizes were large, ranging from about 11,000 to 16,000 participants each year.

Let’s start with the not-so-great news:

• Only a minority—about a third—of our adolescents met the recommended daily levels for physical activity. (Optimal physical activity is any activity that makes a person increase their heart rate and breathe hard for at least 60 minutes, at least five days a week.) More boys met these criteria than girls, as did more Caucasians compared to minority youths.

• Most participants—about two-thirds of the study population—reported what this study defines as “sufficient vigorous physical activity”—activity that makes a person increase their heart rate and breathe hard for at least 20 minutes, at least three days a week.

On the other hand, the data shows that American adolescents have not decreased their level of physical activity; physical activity levels have been quite stable over the past 17 years. During the same period of time studies show that obesity rates in kids had more or less doubled.

There were also a few encouraging trends:

• Physical education class attendance and engagement have improved.

• TV viewing time had decreased significantly in the past few years (although that doesn’t mean TV hasn’t been replaced by other media, such as the Internet and computers).

The authors, led by Youfa Wang, summarize by saying: “Reduced PE (physical activity) is not likely the major explanation of the recent increase in obesity among U.S. adolescents.”

Another recent study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition looked at the relative contributions of food and exercise habits to the development of the obesity epidemic, and concluded that the rise in obesity in the United States in the last three decades was virtually all due to increased energy intake.

These studies, and several others, suggest that the main driver of the obesity epidemic is increased food intake. Increasing physical activity has to be part of the solution because exercise is so very good for health and helps us lose weight, but in order to address the obesity crisis head-on, we have to face the fact that the main target of our efforts needs to be reducing our caloric intake.

We probably can’t—as a society—increase our energy expenditure to compensate for our levels of food consumption. We’d better be realistic about this.

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition study cited above suggests that to get U.S. kids back to the mean weights we saw in the 1970s, kids would need to decrease their average daily intake by 350 calories/day, or walk an extra two and a half hours daily (while eating the same amount, which is no easy task since exercise drives hunger). Both options seem difficult, but the latter appears totally implausible.

Please don’t misunderstand me; I know the importance of physical activity and truly believe in its critical value. Exercise does help in weight loss and improves health, even if no weight is lost.

But I don’t think physical activity without a serious look at what and how we eat will likely get us and our kids out of the obesity crisis.

Dr. Ayala

Reposted as part of Food Renegate's Fight Back Fridays--go join the food fight!

Healthy neighborhoods can reduce the risk of diabetes

Do you live in a healthy neighborhood?

Is there such a thing as an unhealthy neighborhood?

Personal choice has a big impact on many aspects of our health, but do we really have the wherewithal to choose our lifestyle, or do most of us fall into a pattern determined by what’s easy to do and what everyone else is doing? Sure, there are a few motivated individuals who swim against the stream and set their own trend. Most of us don’t. Whether we realize it or not, we follow the lead of our parents and friends and do what’s easy along a path of least resistance.

There’s no doubt that our collective lifestyles have changed dramatically in the past decades. Convenience is everywhere—we do less physical work around the house, we drive a lot, and cheap highly processed calorie dense foods are everywhere.

But as I’m sure anyone driving through urban and suburban neighborhoods observes, there are great differences between regions. Some neighborhoods have green spaces, joggers, bikers, kids playing outside and farmer's markets and supermarkets with colorful inviting fresh produce. Not far away there are neighborhoods where all life is within four walls, fresh food sources are limited and corner and convenience stores are the sole resource for food.

Can a neighborhood influence health?

That’s a question researchers headed by Amy Auchincloss set out to answer in a recent paper in the Archives of Internal Medicine. They wanted to see if neighborhood’s physical attributes and the availability of healthy food affected the incidence of type 2 diabetes.

The researchers followed 2,285 people, aged 45-84 years at baseline, from three different regions in the US for five years for the development of diabetes. Among the data collected was income, assets, educational level, family history, smoking status, body mass index (BMI), exercise level and dietary measurements.

The data on neighborhood resources was obtained from an independent sample of the participants’ locales (not from the study population). The residents were asked if their neighborhood was easy or pleasurable to walk in, has ample opportunity for physical activity, or if they see other people jog or play sports. The food environment was determined by asking whether there’s a large selection of fresh fruits and vegetables available, whether produce is high quality, and whether there’s a large selection of low-fat products available.

During follow-up, 233 of the study participants (about 10 percent) developed type 2 diabetes.

And the result: Better neighborhood resources for food and exercise were associated with lower incidence of type 2 diabetes

• Participants living in great neighborhoods for activity and healthy food had 36% less chance of developing type 2 diabetes than their counterparts living in neighborhoods with poor resources for activity and healthy food.

• After adjusting for individual variables—such as age, family history of diabetes, socioeconomic status, smoking, physical activity and dietary factors—the environmental association persisted.

• The association was slightly reduced after also adjusting also for BMI.

The authors conclude:

“The prevalence of type 2 diabetes has increased substantially in the past 30 years. This makes it all the more urgent to identify environmental features that may mitigate risk of type 2 diabetes. Our results are consistent with the hypotheses that improving environmental features—such as having nearby, pleasant, safe destinations within walking distance and improving the availability of healthy foods—may halt increases in type 2 diabetes incidence. Many urban environments have developed with insufficient consideration for the ways that environments can promote or discourage healthy behaviors.
Current efforts to foster health-promoting environments include designing and modifying physical environments, such as zoning residential neighborhoods to require safe sidewalks, creating parks and attractive public green spaces, and improving public transportation so that residents rely less on their cars; supporting fresh-food farmers' markets in low-income, urban neighborhoods; and assisting stores in those neighborhoods in improving their selection of healthy foods.
There is unlikely to be a panacea for the obesity epidemic and rising epidemic of type 2 diabetes. However, altering our environments so that healthier behaviors and lifestyles can be easily chosen may be one of the key steps in arresting and reversing these epidemics.”

An accompanying editorial by Mitchell Katz discusses how hard it is to tease apart environmental and individual behavior influences on health. This study is by no means the last word on this complicated issue. But Katz sees us all as participants in a huge multinational study of the impact of the structural environment on diabetes.

In the past 50 years we in the developing world have stopped walking, our household chores are now reduced to pushing a button, fast food and super-sized meals replaced our food, and processed foods are easier to find than fresh fruits, vegetables and whole grains. And while a cause and effect is hard to prove, Katz sees this grand experiment going really badly—these environmental changes coincide with skyrocketing rates of obesity and diabetes all around the developed world.

Katz calls for a change in our environment, one that would make exercise and eating right much easier and more routine.

A closer look at an unhealthy neighborhood

From my home town, Philadelphia, comes a new study in Pediatrics led by Kelley Borradaile which investigates one aspect of an unhealthy neighborhood—the corner store and its impact on kids’ snacking habits.

The study looked at kids’ purchase patterns in urban corner stores, the small stores readily found in Philadelphia’s low-income neighborhoods. These stores carry high-profit less perishable items, which tend to be packaged foods low in nutrients and high in calories. These stores are very close to schools, and in some neighborhoods are the only convenient store, as supermarkets are absent.

As it looked at what kids in the fourth to sixth grade bought at the corner store next to their school on the way to or back from school, the study found that:

• Kids stop at the corner store frequently: More than half of the shoppers stop by daily; almost 30 percent reported stopping by twice a day.

• The average purchase supplies kids with about 360 calories.

• The most frequently bought items were (no surprise) chips, sugary drinks and candy.

• These calories are real cheap—360 calories cost a little over a dollar! For 25 cents, you get a bag of chips or a sugary drink at the corner store.

As the authors discuss, having a corner store next to school qualifies as an environmental and behavioral risk factor for obesity.

These inequity issues are deeply troubling to me. While we have to accept that there are inborn inequities we cannot change—such as the genetic risk for disease—can’t we work toward more of an equal opportunity for a healthy lifestyle for all of us?

A community with walkable, safe streets, safe and pleasant playgrounds and green spaces, and fresh produce for a reasonable price should be accessible to everyone. It should be a basic human right. It’s also likely to save a lot of healthcare dollars and make us happier.
Dr. Ayala

Related posts: When Healthy Food is Hard to Find

Reposted as part of Food Renegate's Fight Back Fridays--go join the food fight!

Coke did make America fat

Coca-Cola’s CEO Muhtar Kent recently wrote a much viewed op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled “Coke Didn't Make America Fat,” in which he claims Americans need more exercise, not another tax, and should “enjoy the simple pleasures of a Coca-Cola.”

While it’s perfectly understandable that Mr. Kent would fight the soda tax idea—not because it threatens American’s freedom to choose, but because it will undermine soda companies’ profits and image—the article includes so many untruths and misleading statements that it begs a fact check and a response.

First off, I’ve read many of the proposals for a soda tax, and nowhere have I seen them selling it as “the solution” to our obesity issues. But it is one tool in what needs to be a very large tool box.

(Full disclosure: I’m vice president of product development for Herbal Water, where we make organic herb-infused waters that have zero calories and no sugar or artificial ingredients. I’m also a pediatrician and have been promoting good nutrition and healthy lifestyle for many years.)

Now, let's look at a few of Mr. Kent's points:

Kent: “Sugar-sweetened beverages have been singled out in spite of the fact that soft drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and sweetened bottled water combined contribute 5.5% of the calories in the average American diet, according to the National Cancer Institute."

Not true! Sugary drinks are a major contributor of calories in American’s diet. The caloric contribution of added sugar from soft drinks in the average American's diet is much greater than what Mr. Kent cites. We can only wish the average American consumed 5.5% of their calories from sugary drinks. Studies show that they take in 2-3 times that!

A recent study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition shows that the number of adults consuming sugar-sweetened beverages has increased dramatically in the past two decades. Two-thirds of adults now consume sugar-sweetened beverages, with an average daily intake from sugary drinks of almost 300 calories, or 15% of the 2,000 calories/day recommended for the typical diet.

Another recent study in Obesity paints an even grimmer picture: The average American gets twice as many calories from beverages as they did in the 1960's. The study quantified trends and patterns in beverage consumption among 46,576 American adults using nationally representative surveys of food intake, and over the past four decades total daily intake of calories from beverages increased by 94 percent.

I’m not sure where Mr. Kent found the 5.5% figure. What’s easier to find and ever present in the National Cancer Institute’s materials is a recommendation to stick to unsweetened beverages—such as water—in order to control weight and prevent obesity, which is an important risk factor for many types of cancer.

Perhaps an even better cancer-prevention resource is the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research report, which looked at huge amounts of research and advises clearly: “Limit the Consumption of Energy-Dense Foods and Avoid Sugary Drinks.” Sugary drinks were targeted specifically in one of their recent reports where they wrote, “Such beverages appear to exert little influence on total daily self-selected energy intakes and their habitual consumption can lead to rapid and sustained weight gain even in the face of restricted solid food intake”.

Sugary drinks are different from other caloric dense foods

Kent: “It's difficult to understand why the beverages we and others provide are being targeted as the primary cause of weight gain when 94.5% of caloric intake comes from other foods and beverages.”

This is not difficult to understand at all! Some eating patterns are more conducive to overeating and overconsumption. Paramount among the foods that lead to an overconsumption pattern are sugary drinks.

There’s mounting evidence showing that when we drink beverages with calories we don’t compensate by eating less food (we might even eat more food), and that calories in liquid form produce less satiety than solid calories.

There are many studies to prove this point: In the cute Jelly bean study, researchers gave men and women 450 calories a day of either soda or jelly beans for a month, then switched them for the next month and kept track of total consumption. Candy eaters ate less food to compensate for the extra calories. Soda drinkers didn’t; they ate more calories than usual. Nutritionist Barbara Rolls from Penn State gave women water, diet soda, regular soda, orange juice, milk or no drink before lunch. Those given caloric beverages consumed about 100 calories more than those given diet soda, water or no beverage at the meal, without significantly affecting satiety ratings.

There’s also little question that sugary drinks are not just randomly associated with obesity, but actually contribute to it in a big way. Dozens of studies prove a connection between sugary drink consumption and obesity, and the only so-called “research” that tries to introduce doubt about this sad conclusion is industry-sponsored.

Taxing soda may very well change behavior

Kent: “Will a soft drink tax change behavior? Two states currently have a tax on sodas—West Virginia and Arkansas—and they are among the states with the highest rates of obesity in the nation.”

Actually, dozens of states impose some type of sales tax on sodas or snack products exceeding the standard state sales tax for food. The additional tax on soda is usually rather small.

Looking at The Kaiser Family foundation’s map of states with additional sales tax on soft drinks paints a clearer picture of which states have higher taxes on soda; neither West Virginia (2 percent tax) nor Arkansas (0 percent tax) are one of them.

The states with the highest soft drink tax are Rhode Island (7 percent), New Jersey (7 percent), Washington (6.5 percent) and Minnesota (6.5 percent). I’m not suggesting correlating soda taxation and obesity makes any sense—there are many other confounding variables—but since Mr. Kent suggested the method, lets humor ourselves and see how the high soda tax states rank in obesity rates (a scope of “1” would be the most obese state; “50” the thinnest) Rhode Island scores 46, New Jersey-42, Washington-32 and Minnesota-30. Eerie, isn’t it? The higher the soda tax the thinner the people!

Here’s a more scientific way to look for a correlation: A study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine looked at the association between the presence of a soft drink/snack tax in the years 1991-1998 and the increase in obesity rates for those years at the state level. Adjusting for age, income, race on other variables, they found that states without a soft drink tax were more than four times as likely to have a high increase in obesity prevalence, and that states that repealed a soda/snack tax between 1991-1998 were more than 13 times more likely to see a high increase in obesity.

This data doesn’t prove that a tax reduces consumption—there can be other explanations: Maybe states in which a tax policy could be passed are those in which social norms act against obesogenic behaviors anyway. But it is encouraging data.

I’m sure that Mr. Kent predicts the tax will reduce consumption; that’s why the beverage industry opposes this idea so vehemently.

Lack of exercise didn’t make us fat; more exercise without cutting calories won’t make us thin

Kent: “If we're genuinely interested in curbing obesity, we need to take a hard look in the mirror and acknowledge that it's not just about calories in. It's also about calories out.”

Kent is right in his encouragement to be more active and spend less time in front of the TV. Exercise is very important to health, but won’t get us anywhere near an energy balance.

New research in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition looked at the relative contributions of food and exercise habits to the development of the obesity epidemic and concluded that the rise in obesity in the United States in the last three decades was virtually all due to increased energy intake.

We need to be more active—no doubt about that—but that won’t exempt us from having to change our dietary habits. Even if we all met the recommendation of thirty minutes of vigorous exercise every day, we’d still need to cut our intake of sugary drinks and make them an infrequent special treat. Exercise just isn’t enough of an answer to our caloric imbalance. In order to reverse the obesity epidemic we’d need to add more than two hours of exercise every day; it’s much more realistic and logical to just cut out the soda and French fries.

The American Heart Association, American Academy of Pediatrics and many other medical authorities call for a severe reduction in the amounts of added sugar in our diet regardless of activity levels; high amounts of sugars have been linked not only to obesity and overconsumption, but also to high blood pressure, high triglycerides, diabetes and shortfalls of essential nutrients.

Many solutions are needed to address the obesity crisis--curbing the soda habit is an excellent way to start

Kent: “But a number of public-health advocates have already come up with what they think is the solution: heavy taxes on some routine foods and beverages that they have decided are high in calories.”

As noted earlier, I’ve not seen a soda tax being sold as “the solution” anywhere.

Wendell Berry said “Great problems call for many small solutions.” Obesity’s a big problem, and taxing sugary drinks can be one of the solutions.

Tax or no tax, drinking less soda has to be part of the solution—soda and sugary drinks are the number one source of added sugar in the American diet. Perhaps just talking about the soda tax informs more people about the adverse effects sugary drinks have on our waistlines and health. The conversation alone might be enough to motivate a change in habits.

But drinking fewer sugary drinks won’t be enough. Increasing physical activity also needs to be one of the solutions. On that point, Mr. Kent and I agree 100%.

Who wouldn’t?

Dr. Ayala

Related posts:
Health experts favor taxing sugary drinks in new report

Could a tax on junk food drive healthier choices?

Can super-sizing fruits help you shed weight?

I’m very skeptical of promises that sound too good to be true.

No field is as rife with these as the diet industry, where new dream diets are invented daily and claim to have found a magic trick allowing us to eat as much as we want yet lose weight.

But here’s one worth checking out: Can eating more fruit help you shed weight?

This diet is worth a second look because we have many other good reasons to increase our fruit consumption—fruit and vegetables are an important component of a healthy diet and have a protective effect against many chronic diseases, such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes.

There’s also a plausible explanation for why eating fruit may protect against weight gain: Fruits have a relatively low-energy density, they have a lot of water and dietary fiber, and add lots of bulk. Studies show that food intake may be regulated by the weight of the food, and how long it takes to consume, therefore filling your plate with fruits would lead to greater satiety and less consumption of other foods.

A recent paper in Obesity Reviews analyzes the published studies on the association of fruits and weight loss. The authors specifically sought studies which look at fruit only, and not fruit and vegetables as one category (there are many studies showing that fruit and vegetable intake has an inverse relationship with overweight and obesity).

Of the sixteen human studies that met the inclusion criteria, eleven showed that increased fruit intake facilitated a significant reduction in body weight, decreased the risk of overweight or obesity or was associated with less overweight. The remaining five studies found no significant association, and no studies showed increased weight related to increased fruit consumption.

The studies included in this review were of three different types: Intervention studies, in which a study group is randomly assigned to receive an intervention—in this case increased fruit—and compared to a control group which receives a placebo or no intervention, prospective observational studies, in which a cohort with known exposures (in this case fruit intake) is followed for a health outcome over time (in this case weight), and cross-sectional studies, in which a population is observed at a certain point in time, looking for possible connections between, in this case, fruit consumption and weight. Each kind of study has its strengths and weaknesses.

Results from all three types of studies pointed towards an association between high fruit intake and lower weight. The authors call for large behavioral, randomized, controlled intervention studies to further clarify this issue.

Can supersizing the fruit serving increase fruit intake?

I think we’re all sold on the idea of including more fruit in our daily diet for a multitude of reasons, but many parents struggle with just how to do it—less than ten percent of kids consume their daily recommended number of fruit and veggie servings.

This brings me to another recent fruitful study, this one from the scientific journal Obesity.

Many studies show that increasing the size of the serving of food—entrees, snacks or soda—leads to increased intake, and supersizing the portion leads to supersized eating and supersized people. The authors asked the interesting question: Will supersizing the fruit and vegetables portion lead to higher intake of those in kids?

Forty-three Philadelphia-area kids aged five and six years were included in the study. They were twice fed dinner consisting of pasta with tomato sauce, broccoli, carrots, unsweetened applesauce and milk, with the portions of broccoli, carrots and unsweetened applesauce doubled in one of the meals randomly, while the pasta and milk portions stayed the same.
The results are pretty interesting:

Doubling the portion of fruit and vegetables side dishes resulted in a significant increase of 43 percent in the intake of the fruit—applesauce—but not the vegetables.

Doubling the portion of fruit and vegetables side dishes resulted in a significant decrease in the intake of the pasta dish, with the extra fruit displacing the more energy-dense pasta.

Overweight kids showed a bigger response to over-sizing the fruit and vegetables portion than normal weight kids; they ate more of the fruit and vegetables offered.

The study shows doubling the size of fruit and vegetables portions as a valid method for increasing fruit intake, but also maybe of controlling weight gain, as the fruit displaced a higher calorie food (pasta).

What about the vegetables?

A more careful look at how the vegetables were presented might offer an explanation: the broccoli and carrots were thawed from a frozen pack and served plain, with no seasoning or fat. I think even the most ardent vegetable lovers wouldn’t get too excited by those. Perhaps a more appealing preparation (broccoli sautéed with some olive oil, garlic, fresh ground pepper and salt anyone?) would have gotten a different result.

I think that if you’re plating a meal for yourself or for others increasing the size of the vegetable and fruit component is worth trying. It may very well be that the most obvious way to increase fruit and vegetables consumption is by making them show up in plenty! If they’re on the table, prepared in an appealing way, ready to eat and constantly available they’ll be what we eat when we’re hungry. That’s part of the way manufacturers of sugary drinks and junk foods make sure we consume more—they’re just everywhere and in plenty.

Food for thought!

Dr. Ayala

How can “cutting added sugar” drive better health?

The American Heart Association’s (AHA) new guidelines published in late August were a refreshing point of clarity contrasting with the vagueness typical of nutrition advice designed not to offend any major food lobby.

The new statement, published in Circulation, replaces AHA’s hazier 2006 one to “minimize the intake of beverages and foods with added sugars,” and provides detailed guidance by recommending an upper limit on added-sugars intake.

Let’s start with the AHA guidelines and look at the numbers:

• The upper limit for added sugars should be no more than half our discretionary calories. (Discretionary calories are at the very tip of the food pyramid, an area that’s small but fun; this is what we can allow ourselves to eat once we’ve eaten a nutritious diet; luxuries such as solid (saturated) fats, added sugars, and alcohol fall into this category, all of which should be consumed sparingly.)

• Most American women should consume no more than 100 calories of added sugars per day (6 teaspoons of added sugars); most men, no more than 150 calories (9 teaspoons of added sugars).

For an average adult woman, who needs about 1,800 calories to maintain her weight, there are about 200 calories in the discretionary budget, and the AHA advises her to spend no more than 100 of these on added sugar. Alas, it’s not that easy to know how much added sugar there is in prepared foods, as the food label lists all sugars—both innate carbs and added sugar —in the sugar component of the label. The sugar content on the nutrition label of fresh fruit looks quite similar to that of a cookie, even though only the cookie has added sugar, and fruits have naturally occurring sugars that act quite differently in our body.

Many prepared foods have lots of added sugar in them—sugar increases palatability, appetite and really “sells” the product. To get an idea of how much sugar is added to common foods you can glimpse into the USDA database, where you’ll see that significant amounts of sugar are added not only to drinks and desserts, but also to many breads, salad dressings, condiments and even baby food. Added sugar even comprises about half of the carbohydrates of many breakfast cereals! Your meager six allotted teaspoons of sugar may very well be already spent with sugar added to cereal, ketchup and yogurt well before you’re thinking about a dessert.

Primary source

Now on to the number one source of added sugar.

(Full disclosure: I’m vice president of product development for Herbal Water, where we make organic herb-infused waters that have zero calories and no sugar or artificial ingredients. I’m also a pediatrician and have been promoting good nutrition and healthy lifestyle for many years.)

The article states quite clearly that “Soft drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages are the primary source of added sugars in Americans’ diets,” and provides a chart showing that soft drinks and fruit drinks combined make up over 42 percent of an average American’s added sugar. Just one 12-ounce can of Coke contains 130 calories in added sugars, which will put you over the AHA recommendation. The new guidelines, therefore, really spell out a recommendation that practically takes these sugary drinks out of the equation—unless one eliminates all other sweets and desserts altogether (and what’s life without an occasional dessert?)

I don’t want to leave the Circulation paper without providing some of the reasoning behind its cautious advice. To summarize, it states that:

“Excessive consumption of sugars has been linked with several metabolic abnormalities and adverse health conditions, as well as shortfalls of essential nutrients. Although trial data are limited, evidence from observational studies indicates that a higher intake of soft drinks is associated with greater energy intake, higher body weight, and lower intake of essential nutrients. National survey data also indicate that excessive consumption of added sugars is contributing to overconsumption of discretionary calories by Americans.”

The article reviews evidence showing that added dietary sugar:

• May raise blood pressure,
• Can elevate blood triglycerides levels (a risk factor for heart disease),
• Contributes to obesity and its many consequences, and
• Can undermine normal satiety levels, motivating us to eat more than we need and create food cravings.

Agreement from other authorities

The AHA statement joins that of many other influential medical authorities.

The American Academy of Pediatrics’ dietary recommendations for kids follow the same guidelines as those of the AHA and say that, “For young sedentary children, the amount of total energy intake that can come from foods used purely as a source of energy, 100 to 150 calories, is less than that provided by a usual portion size of most low-nutrient-dense snacks and beverages.” It has been calling to eliminate all sweetened drinks in schools for years.
The World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research report calls to “limit the consumption of energy-dense foods and avoid sugary drinks.”

Yet, the average American still takes in about 300 calories from added sugar a day from sugary drinks alone. We clearly have a long way to go to come close to meeting the recommendations.

To build awareness, the New York City Health Department’s new ad campaign confronts New Yorkers with a bold question posted on subway billboards and print media: Are you pouring on the pounds? “Sugary drinks shouldn’t be a part of our everyday diet,” says New York City Health Commissioner Thomas A. Farley. “Drinking beverages loaded with sugars increases the risk of obesity and associated problems, particularly diabetes but also heart disease, stroke, arthritis and cancer.”

What do you think of this image?

It’s encouraging to see that more and more independent bodies recommend moving away from all sugary drinks and minimizing highly processed foods. Whether it’s the sugar or the calories, the message is becoming clearer all the time. I hope more and more people are listening.

My concern is that the upper limit for sugar intake suggested by the AHA is shockingly low to most; I don’t know many people that can easily adhere to it. We all wish we could have more discretionary calories, just as it would be great if we could have more discretionary spending money and discretionary leisure time. (There is, however, a way to get more discretionary calories: by increasing our energy expenditure significantly through a greater level of physical activity.)

But for many of us, moderation in eating has to be spelt out, and moderation in sugar intake is one of the important messages we can act on to combat obesity.
Dr. Ayala

This entry has been posted as part of The Kathleen Show's Prevention not Prescriptions

Back to school -- five easy tips to improve your kids’ health this school year

I can’t believe the summer vacation is over and kids will be going back to school this week. This summer went by way too fast!

I was happy to get a letter from my daughter’s elementary school announcing new snack policies—the school will not be giving out any more snacks, will not give food as incentives, prizes or rewards, and birthday celebrations at school will become "food free." Parents are being encouraged to send healthy snacks from home, including fresh fruit, cut-up vegetables, dry fruit and trail mix (with no candy).

The reasons cited for this change of policy are dual—better nutrition to prevent childhood obesity and a precaution taken because many kids suffer food allergies.

I’m greatly encouraged to see that change in the way we feed our kids is indeed coming!
And to this hopeful note I’d like to add a few suggestions for simple steps that can add up to better health this coming school year. These steps are indeed small, certainly doable, and can have real impact, especially if they lead to the next small step towards wellness:

• Eat breakfast - Many know that breakfast may be the most important meal in the day. Studies show that eating breakfast is not only associated with better nutrition, better concentration and performance in school but also with less obesity. Yet up to a third of teenagers skip breakfast regularly. Make sure your kids leave home after they’ve had a nutritious breakfast! I’ve written more about the importance of eating breakfast in my post here.

• Teach your kids how to cook - Preparing simple healthy meals is a life skill that is a gift that keeps on giving. Give your kids age-appropriate healthy shopping and healthy cooking lessons, and if you feel you’re in need of a few lessons yourself, you can learn together from books, websites and cooking shows.

• Take the junk-food out - While a little junk every once in a while will probably do no harm, having it available at home on a regular basis enables bad habits and teaches the wrong lesson. Make home a safe haven of healthy, nutritious food. Take the soda, sweet drinks, fatty sweet and salty highly processed snacks out, and replace them with readily accessible fruits, vegetables, nuts and other healthy snacks.

• Find out what’s served in the school cafeteria - Unfortunately, the school lunch in many schools is not a healthy one. What’s more, competing with the school lunch are junk foods sold through vending machines and other sources. Find out what is served in your kids’ school, and if it doesn’t meet your standards, do something about it: Send your kids to school with a lunchbox and healthy snacks from home; speak up and try to effect change in the school lunch program in a practical and positive way.

• Get them moving! - A third of our kids are overweight or obese, childhood obesity has tripled in the past thirty years, and although these skyrocketing rates are mostly a result of the food environment we live in, kids’ inactivity also plays a role. If your kids aren’t getting their daily dose of vigorous exercise, encourage them to join a sports team, pick a new hobby that will get them moving, and incorporate more movement in daily life. If school and other activities are close to home, consider walking rather than driving when weather and time permits. Choose family activities that are active, and get the whole family exercising and out in the fresh air! Many neighborhoods are quite safe, yet kids don’t play outdoors often enough; find a way to get the kids on your block back in the playground or on the open field playing unorganized sports the old fashioned way, with supervision if you see the need, or without.

A happy, healthy start to the new school year to all of us!
Dr. Ayala

Poor nutrition driving rise in kidney stones—in adults and kids

A recent study in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, found that a high intake of fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes, low-fat dairy products, and whole grains and low intake of sodium, sweetened beverages, and red and processed meats was associated with reduced risk of kidney stones. This study, which analyzed data from more than a quarter million participants, led me to repost a piece I wrote last year. It's just one more argument to make for healthy nutrition. Enjoy the rest of your summer, Dr. Ayala

Kidney stones are becoming more common at an alarming rate, and this is one trend you should absolutely try to avoid.

If you’ve ever had one, you know they’re no fun. In fact, women who’ve experienced both kidney stones and child labor describe the pain associated with the passage of a stone as comparable in intensity to that of labor (without an epidural), with much less satisfying rewards.

Diet plays an important role in the development of kidney stones, especially in people who are predisposed to the condition. The incidence of stone disease tends to rise during periods of affluence, and many experts have concluded that kidney stone is—at least in part—a nutritional disease.

A recent article by Laurie Tarkan in the New York Times reports on the alarming rise in the incidence of kidney stones not just in adults, but also in children. Tarkan says that kidney stones in kids—once considered rare—are now becoming a fairly common condition and are seen in ever-younger ages. As with other diseases related to poor diet—such as type 2 diabetes and obesity—there’s a disturbing shift underway in the age of presentation of the condition.

The article interviews several leading urologists, and explores reasons for the rising incidence (emphasis is mine):

"Though most of the research on kidney stones comes from adult studies, experts believe it can be applied to children. Those studies have found that dietary factors are the leading cause of kidney stones, which are crystallizations of several substances in the urine. Stones form when these substances become too concentrated.

Forty to 65 percent of kidney stones are formed when oxalate, a byproduct of certain foods, binds to calcium in the urine. (Other common types include calcium phosphate stones and uric acid stones.) And the two biggest risk factors for this binding process are not drinking enough fluids and eating too much salt; both increase the amount of calcium and oxalate in the urine.

Excess salt has to be excreted through the kidneys, but salt binds to calcium on its way out, creating a greater concentration of calcium in the urine and the kidneys.
“What we’ve really seen is an increase in the salt load in children’s diet,” said Dr. Bruce L. Slaughenhoupt, co-director of pediatric urology and of the pediatric kidney stone clinic at the University of Wisconsin. He and other experts mentioned not just salty chips and French fries, but also processed foods like sandwich meats; canned soups; packaged meals; and even sports drinks like Gatorade, which are so popular among schoolchildren they are now sold in child-friendly juice boxes.

Children also tend not to drink enough water. “They don’t want to go to the bathroom at school; they don’t have time, so they drink less,” said Dr. Alicia Neu, medical director of pediatric nephrology and the pediatric stone clinic at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center in Baltimore. Instead, they are likely to drink only once they’re thirsty—but that may be too little, too late, especially for children who play sports or are just active.

“Drinking more water is the most important step in the prevention of kidney stones,” Dr. Neu said."

Other contributing factors examined in this article are obesity, which experts tie to the formation of kidney stones in children as well as adults, and sugary drinks:

“There is also evidence that sucrose, found in sodas, can also increase risk of stones, as can high-protein weight-loss diets, which are growing in popularity among teenagers.”

I’d like to add one more to the list of suspects responsible for the rise in stones: Vitamin C.

High doses of Vitamin C can result in high levels of oxalate (a type of salt) in the urine and therefore increase the risk for kidney stones. Since high doses of Vitamin C are not proven to prevent or treat the common cold, or aid your health in any way, there’s no good reason to take them.

By no means am I suggesting that parents should worry about kidney stones and devise special diets to decrease their kids’ risk of stones. The experts’ dietary advice for avoiding kidney stones consists of guidelines one should already be following for a multitude of health reasons, and is quite simple:

• Drink adequate amounts of water. Sugar and high-fructose corn syrup-laden juices and sodas don’t count as healthy hydration.


• Avoid excess salt and highly processed foods. The diet that promotes kidney stone disease is high in sodium, animal protein and sugar, and low in fiber, vegetable protein and unrefined carbohydrates. Another way to describe this diet is a processed-food diet.

The sport drink industry has tricked us into thinking that we need electrolyte infusions on a regular basis, for recreational sports as well as everyday life. The fact is that as long as people are consuming food, which contains ample amounts of electrolytes (really just salts) there’s no need to worry about electrolytes.

And wherever electrolytes are added, sweetener is added too, to mask the taste of the electrolytes. That’s a good recipe for stones for those who already are susceptible to stone formation. I’ve written more about sports drinks here.

Dr. Ayala

This entry has been posted as part of The Kathleen Show's Prevention not Prescriptions

Are “functional” foods healthy foods?

I was disturbed by a short exchange I had with my ten-year-old daughter today. I told her we would be cooking a cholesterol-free dinner tonight, because one of our guests is trying to lower her cholesterol without medication, to which my dear daughter replied, “She should eat Cheerios.”

Apparently General Mills’ health claims—prominently displayed on every box—have reached my daughter, and she accepts them as fact.

Skimming through the New York Times later in the day, I read an Associated Press article, reporting on a Pricewaterhouse Coopers research paper just released, showing that even in a struggling economy America’s appetite for “functional foods” has not diminished. In fact, this category—accounting for more than $27 billion in sales a year of vitamin-, fiber-, calcium- and omega 3 fatty acids-fortified foods—is growing, and the report estimates a future growth range of from 8.5 to 20 percent per year—far more than the 1 to 4 percent forecast for the food industry as a whole.

The AP article cites nutrition experts who openly criticizing this trend, such as New York University nutrition professor Marion Nestle who says: "Functional foods are about marketing, not health. They delude people into thinking that these things are healthy,” while David Schardt, nutritionist for the consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest, says: ''It's really a junk food dressed up to look prettier than it is. People are going to be deceived into thinking a lot of these products are especially healthy for them when there's little evidence they are. There's more hype to these products than there is reality.''

The article also warns against simplistic thinking, such as if a nutrient is good for you, then more is better, and that eating the nutrient in isolation, and not contained in the whole food it typically is part of, is just as beneficial. All too often the opposite is true. Indeed, studies have shown that several vitamins—such as vitamin A and E in excess—are actually harmful, and the benefits of eating fruits, vegetables and whole grains are not observed if vitamins and fiber come only from supplements.

Back to Cheerios—is it indeed a wonder drug? The package, website and ads claim that Cheerios can reduce "bad" cholesterol levels by four percent in just six weeks and ward off heart disease and cancers of the colon and stomach. The FDA authorized health claim, which General Mills (producer of Cheerios) is allowed to post (because the cereal is a food that contains whole grain), is: “Eating diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol, and high in fiber-containing fruit, vegetable, and grain products may reduce the risk of heart disease.” Big difference!

The FDA in fact issued a letter of warning to General Mills in May this year, informing the company the claims on the box make Cheerios 'an Unapproved Drug.'
I think that if a study performed on the stairs of a building proved that climbing up and down for thirty minutes a day lowered cholesterol and improved heart health, the take home message—provided the study was well preformed and backed by other evidence—would be that exercise is beneficial to heart health and lowering cholesterol, and perhaps that we should take the stairs at work. I can hardly see crowds forming at the research building queuing–up to climb the stairs used in the specific study—as if there’s anything unique about them.

But many people are humbled and confused by nutrition science, and it’s easy to leap to erroneous conclusions. The reality is that if a study on a certain berry shows benefits, that doesn’t mean that only this berry has the alleged benefit—perhaps all fruit do—and it certainly doesn’t mean that the micronutrients in that berry in isolation will be beneficial as well. Also, if a certain nutrient shows promise in rodents or a cell culture, it’s certainly exciting for the scientific community, which will further study the issue, but it’s hardly actionable news for consumers.

Many studies show that whole grain is indeed an important component of a healthy diet. Replacing refined grains with whole grains is a very good idea. There are many ways to add whole grains to your diet, and the best way is to add them through whole foods—using whole wheat or whole wheat flour, brown rice, whole oats and quinoa for instance.

If you’re shopping for breakfast cereal, look for the ones that are made with whole grain (and less sugar)—morning cereals are a practical way for many kids to eat a good breakfast. But don’t for a second be confused about which food is better for you: the fruit is better than the fruit drink with a health claim on it, and the corn on the cob you cooked is better that the corn flakes, despite the health claims.

So while moving from sausage, egg and cheese biscuits and triple chocolate muffins to Cheerios is a move in the right direction (and I’ll admit I have Cheerios at home), the health claims and “functionality” of these cereals is very misleading. Indeed, it’s all about marketing, and not about health.

So what’s on my no-cholesterol menu for tonight? Very simple—I’ll be cooking a vegan meal. No animal products—no cholesterol. I’ll be making some baked tofu, with wild mushroom and garlic whole-wheat pasta (with grated parmesan cheese on the side), an herbed fennel and zucchini gratin, a big green salad and a fruit sorbet for dessert. No cholesterol, lots of fruits veggies, whole grains and fiber.

But I won’t put a health claim on it; that could be confusing.

In case you’re interested in my recipes for whole grain foods here a few links (1, 2)

What do you think about health claims and functional foods?
Dr. Ayala

This entry has been posted as part of The Kathleen Show's Prevention not Prescriptions

New evidence that simple healthy lifestyle choices can thwart chronic illness

With healthcare reform on many people’s minds, and awareness of the rising and overwhelming costs of chronic disease, I want to bring to your attention two recent articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), both of which study the effects of lifestyle factors on two all-too-common chronic illnesses in two different populations.

The first study by Forman et al looks at the relationship between six modifiable lifestyle factors and the lifetime risk of heart failure. Heart failure is a very serious situation in which the heart structure or function is impaired, and cannot keep up with the body’s blood supply needs. The most common causes of heart failure in the U.S. are coronary artery disease and hypertension.

The study included 20,900 physicians, all apparently healthy, and with an average age of 53.6 years at the baseline. The six healthy lifestyle factors were: Normal weight (body mass index, or BMI of 25 as the cutting point), not smoking, exercise (fitness in this study defined as exercising five or more times a week), moderate alcohol consumption (5-12 drinks a week), fruit and vegetable consumption (more than four servings a day) and breakfast cereal consumption (more than one serving a week).

The group was followed for an average of 22.4 years. During that time 1,200 men developed heart failure. The lifetime risk of developing heart failure in the general population is 20 percent; overall, it was 13.8 percent for this group of physicians.
Here’s what the study found:

• Each healthy lifestyle behavior was individually and jointly associated with lower lifetime risk of heart failure; in other words, there was a clear inverse relation between the number of healthy lifestyle factors and the risk of heart failure.

• Men who adhered to none of the healthy lifestyle factors had a lifetime risk of about 21 percent.

• Men who adhered to four or more of the healthy lifestyle factors had a lifetime risk of about 10 percent.

• When looking at only three of the healthy lifestyle factors—normal weight, not smoking and exercise—the lifestyle factors’ protection persisted.

These numbers show quite nicely that having a higher education is not enough to lower the risk of heart failure; the physicians who didn’t adhere to any healthy habits had as high a risk as that of the general population. It’s probably the physicians’ healthier habits and modifiable lifestyle factors that lower their overall risk of this chronic disease.

Not to neglect us women, the second study by Djoussé et al was conducted in more than 80,000 female nurses, aged 27-44 years, who were free of hypertension at the baseline, and were followed over 14 years, looking at the association between diet and lifestyle.
The healthy lifestyle factors in this study were:

• Normal weight (BMI of less than 25).

• A healthy diet: This was assessed by a looking at the foods prescribed in the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) trial. The DASH score is based on a high intake of fruit, veggies, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy, whole grains, and low intake of red and processed meats, sweetened beverages and sodium.

• Daily vigorous exercise, lasting an average of 30 minutes a day.

• Modest alcohol intake: This amounts to intake of more than zero, but less than one alcoholic beverage a day—which seem to be protective for hypertension. Larger amounts of alcohol are associated with a higher risk of hypertension.

• Infrequent use of non-narcotic analgesics: Non-narcotic analgesic drugs (Tylenol, aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) have been associated with hypertension.

• Folic acid supplementation: Studies show women with low dietary folic acid intake are at higher risk of hypertension and benefit from supplementation.

The results involve some pretty complicated statistics, but here are the main findings:

• During follow-up, 12,319, or 15 percent, of the women developed hypertension.

• The strongest risk factor was overweight or obesity: Obese women had a risk five times higher than that of women with a BMI of under 23, and 40 percent of new hypertension cases can be hypothetically attributed to overweight or obesity.

• The other five healthy lifestyle variables were also associated with lower risk of hypertension, but are less influential than overweight and obesity.

• Women who had several healthy lifestyle factors had progressively lower risk: A combination of normal weight (BMI less than 25), exercise and a good diet reduced risk by about 50 percent!

For those of us that fear that family history puts us at a high risk no matter how well we take care of ourselves, this study repeated the analysis after taking into account a family history of hypertension, and showed that women with a family history had almost as low a risk as those without it, when they adhered to a combination of low-risk behaviors. In other words, family history is much less of a risk than is being overweight.

The results of these studies join a large body of evidence—some of which I’ve mentioned in previous posts—supporting the conviction that there’s a lot we can do to keep healthy.

In a fascinating editorial accompanying these studies Mayo Clinic researcher Véronique L. Roger discussed, among other things, the role of public health policy on lifestyle. The argument she makes is that a healthy lifestyle can’t be just an individual choice—there needs to be a social climate that enables people to make healthy choices more easily, and lifestyle is an interplay between individuals and the society they live in. Examples given in the editorial are the effects of smoke-free workplaces and interventions eliminating trans-fats from restaurants have on the public’s cardiovascular health, regardless of individual initiatives to choose a healthier lifestyle.

Roger writes:

“At this point, the national cost of treating cardiovascular diseases cannot be sustained, and prevention is urgent. Because prevention can benefit from policies aimed at creating a healthier environment, this approach must be expanded, with obvious targets being school-based meals provided to children, which still do not meet national dietary recommendations for good health, and the conceptualization and restructuring of the environment to promote physical activity. These and other public health measures should be envisioned as complementary and synergistic with clinical care, because unhealthy societal choices that lead to illness result in unsustainable strain on health care systems.”

I, for one, really would like to see steps taken to ensure healthy choices are easier to make, and aren’t prohibitively expensive in a way that makes them accessible only to those with both will and means.

Sure enough, when unhealthy food is cheap (and subsidized), and healthy foods—such as fruits and vegetables—are expensive, and one needs a gym membership to keep fit, it’s going to take a lot of individual determination to acquire the healthy habits and healthy weight we need to avoid cardiovascular disease.

I wonder what you think about government’s role in ensuring that a healthy lifestyle is an easier choice for everyone.

Dr. Ayala

This entry has been posted as part of The Kathleen Show's Prevention not Prescriptions

Can Pac-Man help kids make healthier choices?

One-third of American kids are overweight or obese. Obesity rates among kids have tripled in the past thirty years. Many experts blame not only the food environment we live in—comprised of endless opportunities to eat foods of minimal nutritional value—but also the massive bombardment of advertising our kids are exposed to, baiting them to consume these foods.

According to the Federal Trade Commission, the largest U.S. food and beverage companies spent about $1.6 billion (!) in 2006 marketing their products to kids—$492 million for soda ads alone—and I’m sure they wouldn’t be spending this kind of money unless they saw real results.

Most parents are aware of how abundant junk food ads are on kids’ TV programming, but ads lurk in every corner. Media consumption habits have changed, and marketers are keeping up as they find new ways to get their message to kids in new outlets, including social media, product placement in TV shows and movies, sports sponsorships, mobile phones and kids’ favorite websites.

A recent article in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine reported on a study done by the Children’s Digital Media Center at Georgetown University that examined how “advergames” (advertising that appears in computer games) affect kids’ choices of snacks.

The Internet is a favorite pastime for many kids, and most major food and beverage websites have links to special pages designed exclusively for kids, many of them with fun digital games to play online. These games are a relatively inexpensive marketing tool, but are they effective in selling the product? Does playing a game affect food choices?

The Georgetown study included thirty low-income African American third- and fourth-graders from the Washington D.C. area. The researchers created two versions of a Pac-Man-type game, in which a digital character moves through a maze and eats or avoids the foods he encounters on his journey.

In the healthy-food version, the player was awarded 10 points for each nutritious snack eaten by Pac-Man, and penalized 10 points for every less-nutritious snack eaten by the digital consumer. In the less-healthy version, the player was awarded 10 points for each non-nutritious snack eaten by Pac-Man, and penalized 10 points for every nutritious snack he gobbled up. The foods featured in the game were a small banana and a small orange juice on the healthy side, and a small bag of chips and a small can of soda as the less-healthy options.

The kids were randomized to play one of the game versions or to act as the control. After completing the game—which took an average of less than 10 minutes—the kids were asked to select one food and one beverage from the foods that were featured in the game.

The results of this small study are very clear:

• Five of the ten kids who played the healthier version chose two healthy snacks, compared to only one kid making healthy choices from the unhealthy-snack game group.

• Four kids in the healthy-game version selected one healthy snack, compared to none in the less healthy game group.

• Only one kid who played the healthier game version chose no healthy snacks (he picked two unhealthy snacks) compared to nine out of the ten kids playing the unhealthy snack game group.

Ten minutes of exposure affected these kids’ selections and they ate whatever snacks were being marketed by the advergame!

The authors, Tiffany Pempek and Sandra Calvert, write:

“Our findings also suggest that public concerns about online advergames that market less healthy foods and beverages to children are justified. Children selected and ate snacks that were of poor nutritional quality after exposure to the advergame that promoted less healthy foods and beverages. However, as demonstrated by this study, advergames may be used just as easily to promote healthier snacks, an approach recommended by the Institute of Medicine report as a way to help curb the obesity epidemic in the United States. In particular, because so many children play online games, health-promoting advergames can be part of a cost-effective social marketing campaign. Indeed, the children in this study reported liking our advergame. Our advergame had only 2 levels and lacked the "bells and whistles" of most commercial video games, indicating that even simple games can be effective in bringing about behavioral change. More sophisticated games with even more levels of challenge that are played over an extended time may yield even stronger effects.”

The journal also includes an advice for patients piece with their study report, in which parents are encouraged to moderate their kids’ media use. Here are their recommendations:

"Reduce Your Child’s Media Use

• One way to reduce the impact of media on your child's nutrition choices is to reduce the time your child spends interacting with media. This can benefit your child by decreasing the unhealthy messages that media, such as television, can send, as well as giving more time for your child to do other healthy activities, such as playing outside or time spent with friends.

• Avoid having a television in your child's room or watching television during meals.

Media Literacy

• Media literacy means teaching young people how to understand and interpret advertisements.

• Parents can talk to their children about what advertisements they see and how that ad may influence their choices. This interaction helps children understand that not everything seen in the media is real and how media advertisements try to influence behaviors.

• There is evidence that media literacy may protect against some behaviors that the media promote, such as smoking.

Countermarketing

• This technique refers to promoting healthy messages through the media.

• Examples include advertisements for healthy foods and games that promote healthy behaviors."

As a parent, I’ve been attempting to find middle ground and a sensible way to minimize my kids’ screen time while not forbidding it (and in that way inadvertently increasing its desirability).

I find that kids are quick to understand and develop some healthy skepticism when advertising techniques are explained to them. I remember the first ad I watched and explained to them: It was an ad for a cleaning product, featuring a joyful gorgeous mom cleaning a kitchen.
I asked them, “Why do you think she’s so happy?” and we went through the possibilities, concluding that this woman looks so happy because she’s an actress, and she’s paid to look happy, and while this cleaning product may help you clean, it certainly doesn’t make you happy or gorgeous. Indeed most moms (and dads) don’t particularly enjoy cleaning—unless they’re paid handsomely to do it on TV.

Taking junk-food ads apart isn’t difficult—so many of them show kids gaining superpowers, having over–the-top fun, and are associated with sporting heroes and favorite cartoons, while the sad truth is these “eat less of” foods will give you less power, aren’t much fun in the long run, and certainly have nothing to do with the admired basketball star or cartoon character.

But does explaining this take away the powerful repetitious visual message? I doubt we can completely undo the effect of advertising on our kids' preferences.

Do you have media guidelines in your home? How do you deal with your kids’ exposure to ads? Please share!

Dr. Ayala

The gluten-free health fad: the good and the bad-part 2

In the previous post I reflected on the rapid expansion of the gluten-free market share and the rising popularity of the gluten-free diet, and said I'm glad to see the growing awareness of celiac disease, and also happy that keeping a gluten-free diet is becoming easier.

But is there a downside of the gluten-free fad? Are we replacing lack of awareness of celiac disease with confusion?

There are now several categories of gluten-free people: Genuine celiac patients, people who suspect they may have celiac and have gone gluten-free without a doctor’s diagnosis, and gluten-free lifestyle adopters, who joined in for perceived health benefits or as treatment for ailments that are not proven to be aided by a gluten-free diet.

The first group, celiac patients, needs to adhere to a very strict gluten-free diet for life. How strict? Very! Even small amounts are forbidden. Gluten sometimes hides in unexpected places, and can cross contaminate food. Although many celiac patients will not experience discomfort after eating some gluten their bowel will feel it and there are long-term consequences to non-adherence.

The second group needs to be evaluated by a doctor, and the diagnosis of celiac confirmed or excluded. Without a clear diagnosis and treatment plan they may be doing themselves harm, or alternately, putting themselves through unnecessary restrictions.

As to the third group they may adhere to the gluten free regimen loosely or strictly, and may feel better on it--we cannot argue with success. But the different degrees of adherence to gluten avoidance is a source of much confusion as we’ll cease to identify a gluten free diet as the extremely strict--not a bread crumb to touch that food--that a celiac patient needs.

Perhaps it's time to give the diet concentrating on gluten avoidance of those without celiac a unique name, such as "low-gluten" or "reduced-gluten" diet. This way it will be clear both to those on it and those cooking for them that they don't have to be extremely strict, and on the other hand it'll be clear to the public that unlike other diets and food preferences a celiac patient's shouldn't be on just a low-gluten diet, but rather on a truly a gluten-free one.

If we don’t understand gluten-free as a medical entity, we won’t treat is with the seriousness it deserves. Gluten-free will have more than one meaning, and there will be gluten-free for celiac and for hobbyists.

Who’s making gluten-free food?

The FDA has a proposed draft that will allow the “gluten-free” claim for voluntary use on products if:

“food does not contain any of the following: An ingredient that is any species of the grains wheat, rye, barley, or a crossbred hybrid of these grains (all noted grains are collectively referred to as ”prohibited grains”); an ingredient that is derived from a prohibited grain and that has not been processed to remove gluten (e.g., wheat flour); an ingredient that is derived from a prohibited grain and that has been processed to remove gluten (e.g., wheat starch), if the use of that ingredient results in the presence of 20 parts per million (ppm) or more gluten in the food; or 20 ppm or more gluten.”

The amount of gluten accepted in a gluten-free product is minute: 20 parts per million, so you can see that contamination by even tiny amounts of wheat flour, which has about 80,000 ppm, brings a gluten-free food to unacceptable levels.

At this point it’s up to the manufacturers of gluten-free food items to guarantee such a claim.

Now it’s one thing to manufacture gluten-free packaged goods in a controlled production facility, and quite another to offer gluten-free options in a busy restaurant.

The growing gluten-free demand is encouraging many restaurants to offer gluten-free options. I believe they mean well, but could they really guarantee a meal is gluten-free? It takes much more than using special gluten-free pasta to make a meal fit for a celiac patient.

My daughter has a close friend who has celiac disease. When I cook a meal for her and her family I will usually skip any gluten-containing food for the entire meal for everyone because it makes cross contamination less likely. If I’m going to still make bread or use any other flour-based recipe, I will do so hours before making the rest of the meal, then completely clean-up the kitchen, store the flour, put my apron in the wash, and cook gluten-free.

Many parents of kids with celiac opt for a gluten-free kitchen because it’s so difficult to avoid contamination. I find it quite hard to imagine that a restaurant kitchen—with many people working under intense pressure using lots of shared equipment—can really make sure the flour from the pasta maker doesn’t touch the rice and that the spoon stirring the gluten-free soup didn’t also go into the barley soup. I think that, try as a restaurant might, it’s very hard to keep menu items truely gluten-free, and the best advice to patients with celiac is to eat at restaurants as little as possible.

Gluten-free junk

While there are a few really wonderful and innovative new gluten-free foods, there’s also a proliferation of gluten-free junk. One of the advantages celiac patients used to have was that they were somewhat protected from our fast- and junk-food environment, and ate home-made naturally gluten-free foods. Do they really need dozens of new processed foods reformulated without gluten?

The take-home message about the gluten-free label

Gluten-free should not read as “healthy” or “pure.” Gluten-free should be read like allergen information (celiac is not an allergy to gluten, but in terms of how strictly the diet needs to be kept, a serious nut allergy is a good comparison) and just like nut-free is information for those allergic to nuts, not signifying good or bad attributes, so it is with gluten: Gluten-free means it’s food that's acceptable to those with celiac; it can be nutritious or pure junk—you’ll have to read the ingredients.

If you don’t have celiac, and are ready to make a change for better health, why not spend your time, energy and money on strategies that make more sense, and reduce (not necessarily eliminate) more serious offenders, such as fast and highly processed foods, or resolve to follow the age old advice of eating more fruits and veggies?

What I hope we’ll all get from the gluten-free boom (before it busts) is greater awareness of celiac disease (along with timely diagnosis) and some great tasting gluten-free breads and pastas, which are no small feats.

What do you think of the popularization of gluten-free foods?

Dr. Ayala

The gluten-free health fad: the good and the bad - part 1

Have you noticed the gluten-free food explosion? I have the privilege of attending many food shows, and I’m stunned by the proliferation of grain based foods—prepared meals, cookies, snacks bread and crackers—developed for the benefit of those on a gluten-free diet and with “gluten-free” as a marketing proposition.

Gluten-free foods are a necessity for people with celiac disease, a disorder resulting from an immune reaction to gluten. But are these foods good for everyone else?

While the precise prevalence of celiac disease isn’t known, it’s estimated to range from about 0.4 percent to about one percent of the general population in the U.S. (up to three million Americans). The number of Americans with physician-diagnosed celiac however, although growing, is still not very large, and estimated anywhere in the range of 40,000-110,000 cases.

Not to sound cynical, but even a one percent consumer base wouldn’t drive manufacturers and retailers to the accelerated expansion of the gluten-free options we’re seeing. The reason food manufacturers have jumped in full force into this market is because gluten-free products are now favored not only by celiac patients, but by many people without the diagnosis—gluten free is indeed the latest food fad—and it’s a huge opportunity to make money. Research firm Mintel estimates that nearly 10 percent of shoppers currently seek gluten-free foods; they forecast 15- 25-percent growth in gluten-free product sales in coming years.

I’m glad to see the growing awareness of celiac, and also happy to see that keeping a gluten-free diet is becoming easier, more acceptable, and requires less sacrifice on taste.

On the other hand, the “fad” aspect of the gluten-free boom worries me quite a bit.

Is gluten bad for you?

Gluten is a protein found in wheat or related grains. It's a remarkably large molecule that’s quite central to the structure and texture of dough.

Gluten is definitely not an evil food component for those not afflicted by celiac. Gluten is part of whole-wheat flours and whole wheat, barley and rye grains—parts of a healthy diet. Although many junk foods contain gluten, gluten isn’t what makes these foods not nutritious—it’s the other ingredients or the processing of the grains that makes them so. If going gluten-free means choosing from the gluten-free menu at Wendy’s or Dairy Queen, or replacing wheat based snacks with corn based ones, you haven’t done yourself much good.

What’s a gluten-free diet good for?

There are only two established medical reasons to avoid gluten: celiac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis, a very itchy chronic skin rash of bumps and blisters, frequently linked to celiac. In celiac disease, complete removal of gluten from the diet is necessary for life, and results in complete resolution of symptoms. Non-adherence to a gluten-free diet can have dire consequences (even if the person is asymptomatic), including poor growth, infertility, osteoporosis, anemia, bowel narrowing and bowel cancer.

A gluten free diet is now touted for many other conditions, from autism to attention-deficit disorder, irritated bowel syndrome, multiple sclerosis and now even weight loss.

Although there are anecdotal stories about gluten-free diets making a difference for these conditions, there's really no good evidence to support such advice.

Autism

The gluten-free casein (milk protein)-free diet is a very common treatment attempt for autism.

A Cochrane review did an extensive literature search to identify randomized controlled studies of gluten-free or casein-free diets as an intervention in autistic features. They found only two small randomized controlled studies, with a total of 35 patients between them. The results of one of these studies indicated that a combined gluten- and casein-free diet reduced autistic behavior, but the second study showed no significant difference in outcome measures between the diet group and the control group.

The researchers concluded (emphasis is mine):

“Research has shown of high rates of use of complementary and alternative therapies (CAM) for children with autism including gluten and/or casein exclusion diets. Current evidence for efficacy of these diets is poor. Large scale, good quality randomised controlled trials are needed.”

Weight loss

There's no logical reason why adopting a gluten-free regimen should result in weight loss. Unless you have a strategy of reducing caloric intake on what just happens to be a gluten-free regimen, I can’t see how gluten-free for weight reduction makes any sense.

In fact, patients with celiac often gain weight once they start a gluten-free regimen. The reason is that while they’re eating gluten, many suffer abdominal pain, malabsorption and other symptoms that lead to reduced consumption or utilization of food. Once they’re on the gluten-free diet they thrive, eat well and gain weight.

Perhaps paying more attention to food—no matter what the regimen—can anecdotally lead to weight loss, but there’s nothing inherently low calorie or healthy about a gluten-free diet.

I learned from nutritionist Janet Helm about Elisabeth Hasselbeck’s book “The G free diet,” which Janet criticizes for inaccuracies, and also for “glorifying gluten-free and making it appear to be the best thing since, um, sliced bread.”

In the introduction to her book, Hasselbeck (who has celiac disease, and therefore greatly benefited from going gluten-free) writes:

“But a gluten-free lifestyle can help countless others as well. People suffering from a wide range of diseases—from autism to osteoporosis, from diabetes to rheumatoid arthritis—can often benefit from this change in diet. Even people with no health issues have a great deal to gain by giving up gluten. The G-free diet can help with weight management. It can elevate your energy levels, improve your attention span, and speed up your digestion.”

To which all I have to say is: Show us the proof! I searched Medline (the online computer database for biomedical journals) and couldn't find it.

But is there a downside to giving gluten-free a try? I'll get to that on the next post, in the meantime, your comments as always are welcome.

Dr. Ayala

The allure of forbidden food

In his book “Ending the Food Fight” Dr. David Ludwig writes:

“Consider this: no species of mammal in nature allows its young to eat whatever they want. What would happen if a bear mother didn’t teach its cub what and how to eat? The cub wouldn’t survive the winter. Our modern nutritional environment can be as dangerous to children as an arctic winter is to a bear cub.”

We want what’s best for our kids, but how to best influence your kids’ eating habits is a fine art with no clear answers. It would have been easier if kids got the same message of reason and moderation wherever they go, but most parents can provide no more than an island of sensible eating in a sea of marketing messages and opportunities to overeat all the wrong foods.

I believe in the importance of good parental role modeling regarding food choices; we have to watch what and how we eat not only for our own well-being, but because our kids are watching!

I also personally believe that we as parents have the right and the duty to decide what goes into our pantry and on our table.

When it comes to the issue of control over kids’ food intake it gets fuzzier. Well-meaning parents, consciously or not, often participate in some form of pressure or restriction to further reinforce what they see as good eating habits.

I devoted a previous post to the issue of pressuring kids to eat healthy—pressure includes common practices, such as prizes and coercion tactics, not cruel torture. I concluded that pressure is counterproductive, and will more likely to lead to decreased consumption of the target food (aside from fostering an overall unpleasant experience).

But what about restricting foods you perceive as unhealthy? Could prohibiting certain unhealthy foods from kids benefit their diet?

I’m sure most of you already have an opinion about the wisdom and fairness of such tactics, but I pulled out a few studies to see if we can look at this topic in a more evidence-based way before we get to that.

There are several studies showing a correlation between parents’ restrictions on food and overweight and obesity; the more restrictions on food intake the higher the weight. In these studies one can argue that parents restricted food because the kid was getting chubby, and not the other way around. That’s why I’ll discuss two studies that actually perform an experiment, and don’t just look at associated findings. Both studies were lead by Esther Jansen, a clinical psychology researcher and both were published in the research journal Appetite.

In the first study, 74 kids aged 5-6 years were recruited from six elementary schools in the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium. The researchers set out to test whether prohibiting snack foods elevates their desirability and consumption. The snack food was M&M’s of the red and yellow variety, and crisps (chips in American), also in red and yellow. The snacks did not differ in taste, only in color (yeah, that red doesn’t come from strawberries or cherries; it’s just color).

The kids were randomly assigned to either a prohibition group, or a no-prohibition (control) group. Each kid was tested individually and answered questions about taste, satiety and desirability of the snacks. Four bowls were filled with measured amounts of the snacks.

In the first phase of the experiment, the kids were left alone with the four bowls for five minutes, in which the prohibition group was instructed not to eat red snacks, and the control group kids could eat whatever they wanted. The bowls were then taken away and measured. The level of desire for the snacks was assessed between the two phases of the tasting experience. In the second phase, both groups of kids had five minutes in privacy in which they could eat whatever they wanted from the four replaced and measured bowls of snacks.

The desire to eat the forbidden red snack increased after the prohibition even though this prohibition lasted only five minutes. Kids that were forbidden to eat the red snack also ate relatively more of it in the second phase once they could.

This raised an interesting possibility: If restriction creates desirability, can restriction be used for positive purposes? Can we make healthy foods more attractive by forbidding them?

That’s exactly what the researchers set out to test in the second experiment. Seventy kids, aged 5-7 years were divided into three groups. This experiment followed much the same protocol of the previous one, but the four foods tested this time were pineapple pieces, banana slices, M&Ms and fruitgums. In the first phase, one group was prohibited to eat from the two fruit bowls, the second group was prohibited to eat from the two candy bowls, and the control group could eat whatever they wanted. In the second phase, all kids could eat whatever they pleased.

And the results? Kids in both the fruit-banned group and the candy-banned group ate more of the forbidden food during the second phase of the experiment. What’s more, total food intake (and total calorie intake) was higher in the two prohibition groups compared to the controls, proving that prohibition indeed results in higher intake, not only of tempting unhealthy food, but also of food kids usually don’t crave and fight over.

These studies support previous research showing that strict restrictions of foods lead to unintended consequences (many argue that the Prohibition in the twenties and early thirties increased drinking—or at least binge drinking—proving the same point).

What’s a parent to do? As with many other issues of effective parenting, I think what we’re all looking for is the middle ground between too much freedom, which isn’t a good thing for a kid, and to much control, which usually backfires, leads to rebellion, and I personally feel isn’t really fair!

A few guidelines I follow (but not too strictly):

• I strive to make our home a sanctuary of nothing but healthy wholesome foods (by my definition that does include quality desserts in moderation).

• I try to provide of as many of the meals my family eats as possible.

• I don’t try to impose my rules out of home. I don’t dwell too much on what my kids eat at other people’s home or the snacks they’re served at parties and sports events. Kids should know what their parents think, but then use their own judgment. I see with satisfaction that they often dismiss the typical after-soccer snacks and choose healthier options out of home too.

• I provide an explanation to my objection to foods I think aren’t good for you.

• I try to make healthy eating so pleasurable and tasty that it would be self-evident that anyone would prefer it over fast food and junk food. It isn’t very hard to do. If kids get accustomed to the great taste of quality real food, junk food will look more and more like the cheap imitation it really is.

And no, I definitely don’t think we should prohibit healthy foods so that kids will desire them more: I’m against tricking kids.

Kids will need to eventually build up their own self-control. Empowering them with the knowledge and tools to do so isn’t easy, but providing the control from the outside isn’t the solution either.

I’d love to hear your opinion and advice.

Dr. Ayala

Who’s shaping decisions about the school lunch program?

This is the last time I’ll be writing about the school lunch program for a while, I promise. I know it’s not the most cheerful of subjects, but it’s an important topic and, as you’ll see, a timely one: the School Lunch Program is up for renewal, and that’s why now’s the time to review and hopefully improve it.

I wanted to share with you Steven Greenstreet’s provocative video, “The Food Lobby Goes to School,” produced by the The American News Project. The video is of a hearing on school lunch nutrition regulations assembled at the Institute of Medicine. The institute will later this year advise the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on revisions to the School Lunch Program nutrition requirements.

I think that if videos of barfing people get hundreds of thousands of views on YouTube, this video should be viewed by at least as many, just to prove there are thinking people out there too, so please pass this video on!

There are many people weighing in on the subject of school food. I agree with Greenstreet that the food industry’s not a good source for unbiased information in what’s supposed to be a scientific meeting.

Here are two voices that the USDA should be hearing: Alice Waters and Katrina Heron, who co-authored an op-ed in the New York Times last week. Waters—the legendary founder and co-owner of Chez Panisse—is credited with single-handedly creating an American culinary revolution and for developing “Californian Cuisine", which is famous for using locally-grown and fresh ingredients.

Waters is also the founder and president of the Chez Panisse Foundation; Heron is a director of the foundation and a co-producer of civileats.com. The foundation advocates a nationwide public school curriculum that gives kids a culinary education, including hands-on experiences in school kitchens, gardens and lunchrooms, and inspires students to choose healthy food that helps the community and the environment.

One of the foundation’s priorities is replacing the unhealthy offerings in the schools with healthier and tastier meals.

Waters and Heron call the School Lunch Program a “poor investment” of taxpayer’s money. They describe the commodity foods which the schools get as “fast food” and “essentially leftovers from big American food producers.” School meals are valued at a little over 20 cents per meal and include high-fat, low-grade meats and cheeses and processed foods like chicken nuggets and pizza.

Most of the schools have no kitchens and just heat and un-wrap those low-quality foods.

The authors say:

“Every public school child in America deserves a healthful and delicious lunch that is prepared with fresh ingredients. Cash-strapped parents should be able to rely on the government to contribute to their children’s physical well-being, not to the continued spread of youth obesity, Type 2 diabetes and other diet-related problems. Let’s prove that there is such a thing as a good, free lunch.”

These are only two of the many voices that should to be heard on of the subject of our kids’ nutrition.

Personally, I hope that the final standards don’t end up concentrating only on ranges of fat, protein, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals the way previous standards did, and actually address the issue of what wholesome, healthy food should look like.

Otherwise the only change in the lunch menu might be ‘new and improved’ junk foods that technically fit the new standards of macro and micro-nutrient recipes to a tee, while defying the spirit of what every expert in nutrition—and I daresay anyone with a bit of common sense—knows about healthy eating: namely that fast food, even if lower in fat and sugars, is unhealthy.

The food lobbyists are listening intently, and are ready to make lower saturated-fat burgers and pizzas, and lower-carb sugary drinks. I’m afraid that won’t stop the health crisis our kids face.

Who would you like to see advising the government on school lunches?

Dr. Ayala

Not a healthy choice: junk foods vs. the school lunch program

I devoted a recent post to the school lunch program, a federally sponsored and regulated program, which complies with some (if not altogether satisfactory) nutrition standards for nutrient content and portion size. I was grousing about the sorry state of the food our young ones are served under the guise of an “improved” lunch program.

But to get the full picture of the school food environment, we need to also look at the competitive foods sold in schools–foods that are expressly marketed to our kids–which make up a big part of what kids actually eat while they’re in school.

What are competitive foods? They’re anything sold, served or given to the kids that isn’t part of the school subsidized lunch. They are comprised of foods and beverages sold in the cafeteria or in a school store, from a vending machine or in fundraising events. The lunch money parents give their kids may very well be spent on these offerings, rather than on the school lunch.

Kids love the vending machines and the school stores, but that’s not the only reason these outlets exist. Schools depend on the revenues that vendors bring in to fund much-needed programs. This creates an unusual and worrying conflict, in which schools share an interest with the manufacturers of snacks and junk foods.

The US Department of Agriculture administers and regulates the school lunch program, but has practically no control over other foods and drinks available at schools (although some school districts have taken initiatives to impose restrictions banning some junk food sales in schools). In fact, the only existing federal restriction is that foods of “minimal nutritional values”, such as candy and soda, won’t be sold in the cafeteria during meal times. That of course doesn’t mean they can’t be sold right outside the cafeteria doors.

You can imagine that if the content of the regulated school lunch leaves a lot to be desired, the completely unregulated competitive food scene would be a free-for-all candyland galore.

The Journal of the American Dietetic Association’s special supplement this month analyzed the data from the third School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study. One of the papers is devoted to competitive foods. The data was collected in 287 nationally representative schools and included 2,314 kids.

These were the main findings:

• Availability: One or more sources of competitive foods was available in 73 percent of elementary schools, 97 percent of middle schools, and 100 percent of high schools. À la carte foods sold in the cafeteria were common in all school levels. Vending machines were available in more than one quarter of elementary schools, 87 percent of middle schools and virtually all high schools.

• Consumption of competitive foods: Overall about 40 percent of the kids consumed these foods on any given day. Consumption was much higher in high school and reached 55 percent.

• Energy contribution of competitive foods: Overall kids consumed about 280 calories/day from competitive foods, and almost two thirds of these calories were from foods of low-nutrient and energy-dense food (the study defined “low-nutrient energy-dense food” to include cakes/cookies and other desserts, donuts, toaster pastries, snack chips, French fries and caloric beverages excluding milk and 100% juice). These numbers varied by school type, with middle and high school kids getting more calories from competitive foods. A typical high school kid gets about 340 calories/day from competitive foods, 65 percent (or 220 calories) of which are from junk food.

• The most commonly consumed competitive foods: Desserts and snacks were selected by just over 50 percent of kids; these products include cakes, cookies, candy and ice cream. Sweetened beverages were consumed by almost half the kids--these include juice drinks (not 100% juice) and carbonated soda.

The authors conclude:

“SNDA-III (third School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study) data indicate that consumption of competitive foods was widespread, particularly in middle and high schools. Sources of competitive foods varied by type of school, with vending machines and à la carte purchases most common in middle and high schools and fundraisers and other school activities most common in elementary schools. The specific competitive foods consumed most frequently were low-nutrient, energy-dense foods such as fruit drinks/sport drinks, cookies/cakes/brownies, candy, and carbonated sodas. On average, children who consumed one or more competitive foods obtained 177 calories (8% of total daily energy intake) from low-nutrient, energy-dense competitive foods.”

So, we have low-quality foods sold in the schools competing with a low-quality school lunch–a competition that’s a lose-lose for our kids. Wherever our kids turn they have snacking opportunities that contribute mostly empty calories.

Many parents commented on my previous school lunch post, and told me that they opt to pack a lunch for their kids. It’s sad to say, but for most American kids the only potential source for a healthy nutritious lunch may be the lunchbox from home.

No matter how you approach the school lunch issue, I'm convinced that we as parents have more influence on our kids’ food choices–through what we do, what we say and how we eat–than anyone else. It’s within our reach to exert our influence to better our kids' diet and health.

More on vending machines and the foods they offer here.

Do you give your kids money to buy food at school? What advice do you give them about their choices for lunch?

Dr. Ayala