|
Diet
HOLIDAY WEIGHT GAIN
I walked into an exercise class the other day and the Instructor announced that
every year most Americans gain 13-15 lbs over the holiday season and end up
retaining 2 lbs of it every year. I thought to myself, “Is that
true?” Turns out, it’s not.
Believe it or not, most of us believe that
we gain more during the holidays than we actually do. In
an NIH study back a few years ago, it was determined that
fewer than 10% of those in the study gained 5lbs during the
holiday season. On average between Sept/Oct and Feb/March
they gained 1.05 lbs, .8lbs or a little more than half was
put on during the holidays. The problem is that this weight
is not lost during the rest of the year and the cycle starts
all over.
What is interesting is that the cumulative
weight gain over the holidays is a substantial cause of increased
body weight during adulthood.
Therefore, a clear strategy is to stabilize
your weight during the holidays and you are basically done
for the year! Obviously, we must be mindful for the
rest of the year but it appears that this can really work
to combat age related weight gain. I like this theory
as I think I can do this.... admittedly I love the carmel
popcorn that gets delivered every year in one of those big
tubs… but I think if I keep it to a few favorites
and make sure it disappears as quickly as possible by sharing,
I’m in good shape.
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/new/releases/holidayweightgain.cfm
Newsletter
January/February 2006
A COUPLE OF TID BITS
These are just two things I came across that I thought I'd
pass on - try to take your vitamins with food. There
is convinceing evidence that the body will better absorb
nutrients at the same time it is digesting other food.
Add rosemary to your burgers to cut down
on the heterocyclic amines (HCAs) in grilled hamburgers.
Studies have linked HCAs to various cancers (not conclusive)
and one scientist found that rosemary extract reduced two
of the HCA compounds when hamburgers were cooked at 375-400
degress. Two other HCA's were not reduced. Hey,
if you like rosemary, like I do - it could only help and
it's a great anti-oxidant besides.
Newsletter
July 2005
BUY BUY MY LITTLE CUPCAKE
I’m going to make this short and sweet (pun intended) and give you the
411 as I’m running out of room on my newsletter. Remember when everyone
thought margarine was the way to go? This was because we were told to stay
away from animal fat (butter) and margarine is made from vegetable oil. The
problem now is that margarine is hydrogenated oil (a.k.a. trans-fat) which means
that it is an oil that is made into solid fat. They simply use hydrogen
atoms to convert it.
Well, to make a long story short, the body doesn’t know the difference
between butter and something that was turned into butter. Even worse than
saturated fats (animal fat) trans fats raise low-density lipoprotein
(LDL) or "bad" cholesterol levels – and lower the high density
liproprotein (HDL) or “good” cholesterol. Saturated fats do
raise LDL but they also raise the levels of HDL or good cholesterol. So
with trans fats, it’s a double wammy.
The result is a build up of fatty plaque
in the arteries resulting in heart disease. It is now believed
that high consumption of trans-fats can increase chances
of heart disease 50% and reducing trans-fat can decrease
the chance of diabetes by 40%. The real issue is that trans
fats are everywhere – just name it. 95% of cookies,
100% of crackers, 80% of frozen breakfast foods as well as
cereals, candies, baked goods, granola bars, chips, snack
foods, salad dressings, fats, fried foods. Of course,
anything with shortening which brings me back to cupcakes. Shortening
is what cupcakes are all about – it makes them light
an airy and yummy (the same goes for doughnuts). But like
I said – it’s over, except for my new child’s
birthday bashes. You’ll see me gobble one down.
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/71/81217.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0913F73F5E0C
708DDDAB0894DD404482&incamp=archive:search
Newsletter
June 2005
THE NEW FOOD PYRAMID
is definitely a marked improvement and the web site
is actually quite good and useful. As a result, anyone eating as part of a federal program, like
school lunches, should be getting better nutrition soon. Unfortunately,
there are no regulatory measures curbing the sale of junk food in schools
or requiring calorie disclosures at fast-food restaurants – but let’ hope
this is a move that will gain momentum. The new website is www.mypyramid.gov and
it has some useful features like tips for incorporating more
fruit into the diet as well as a chart that constitutes what “a serving” is – comparing
it to servings we usually see in the grocery stores or in cafes and restaurants. It’s
still a triangle with stripes but instead of the old horizontal bars, it
now has vertical ones and a person hiking up the side to show the importance
of exercise. The real value and details are on the website. You
put in your age and sex and exercise amount and it gives you a calorie based
consumption diet that is broken down by food groups. Fruits and vegetables
get the most volume, reflecting what was discussed above. There
is also a push towards whole grains and limiting fats and sugars. Some
are complaining that the new pyramid will be too difficult to follow – it
does limit calories quite a bit. But the reality of the situation is that
we have been super-sizing for way too long and need to pay attention to what’s
on our plate. Take a look, see what you think.
Again, www.mypyramid.gov
Newsletter
May 2005
THE LITTLE PINK PACKET
Here’s a joke for you that I got off the web… What’s the difference
between sugar and Sweet ‘n Low? Sugar is when you kiss her on the
mouth! I thought it was cute-- if a little risqué.
Saccharin is the granddaddy of artificial
sweeteners as it’s been around since1879. It
has no calories, and is 300 times sweeter than sugar. It
wasn’t too popular until the late ‘50’s
early ‘60’s when a New York entrepreneur combined
saccharin with another sweetner cyclamate and made it into
little packets for sanitary reasons. Combining it with
cyclamate reduced the “tin like” taste.
But in 1969, cyclamate was banned for
causing cancer in rats and researchers began to take a closer
look at saccharin. While conflicting tests showed it caused
cancer in some laboratory animals, the fact that at least
some of the research was financed by the sugar industry raised
credibility questions. In 1977, based on a study of 200 rats
in Canada, Canadians decided to ban saccharin in food and
beverages. Diabetics were allowed to buy it.
The FDA decided to follow suit and ban
the sweetner which resulted in a public outcry and the hoarding
of diet products. At this point, Americans were in love with
the pink packet and diet soda like Tab. Later that
year, Congress passed a law prohibiting the FDA from banning
saccharin (God bless America) – however, the pink
packet was to carry a warning label.
Depending on what you read, you’d
have to drink 750 cans of diet soda every day to cause an
increased risk of bladder tumors or it could be as low as
6 packets a day. It’s also been “determined” that
the cancer issue is both particular to rats or ingesting
very high quantities of the stuff.
In 2000, President Clinton signed legislation
that allowed saccharin to remove the warning label. So
what’s the general consensus now?
While it’s pretty well determined
that in high doses, saccharin does pose a small risk factor – in
its defense, by far, it has the most studies at over 3,000. The
fear from toxologists is that they don’t want children
to begin using it in high doses early on and then a small
risk may become a big risk later in life. In my humble
opinion, it seems to me that saccharin or Sweet ‘N
Low has the most honest information available and it’s
really not that bad. My gut says to keep them all the
artificial sweetners at a minimum.
My philosophy that bears no scientific basis what so ever,
is to switch them all around. I use Sweet ‘N
Low in my tea (I wish I could do without), Splenda on cereal
and Aspertene in the diet soda! I don’t have
a lot of these or anything, maybe it’s the equivalent
of 6 packets total of all of them per week (okay, maybe a
little more) but I’m still hoping that one day I don’t
glow!
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1999/699_sugar.html
http://www.junkscience.com/news/saccharin.html
Newsletter April
2005
IS SPLENDA SO SPLENDID?
I have to admit, when I first heard of it, I thought it was
a natural product. I
was at a Natural Product “Ingredient Show” about 3 years ago and
the Splenda people were there. I got the standard line from the person
in the booth, “It’s made from sugar” – and at a Natural
Food “ingredient show”, I assumed it was a natural product. They
had a big jar of gum balls and I thought they were great! (I had no use
professionally for this ingredient, so I wasn’t equipped to ask the “tough
questions”, but personally I was curious) I later found out that none of
the natural markets like Whole Foods or Wild Oats were carrying Splenda, so I
figured something was up. I haven’t seen them back at the show, (I
was looking for the gumballs!!), it may not have passed the muster for those
who do use this kind of ingredient – regardless, they’ve managed
to capture 50% of the artificial sweetner market. That’remarkable
considering the tough competition from NutaSweet. That’s what got
the press last month – their competitors are complaining about false advertising – that
they imply it’s a natural product. (it’s a Johnson & Johnson
product with a big ad budget) I fell for it…and we know I’m a genius…but
probably like most of us – I knew on some level that it sounded far fetched
that Splenda was “natural” -- but if was ½ natural that’s
better than what we got! Well, it’s a big ‘ol mix of chemicals
like the other ones – but is it safer at all?
If you read their web site, it is very
convincing. There’s no known side effect, not toxic,
no bioaccumulation, non-carcinogenic, no effects on fetal
or neonatal development, no calories or carbs. Splenda
is a compound called sucrolose, derived from sucrose or sugar. They
go on to explain that most ingested sucralose passes through
the digestive system unchanged without any gastrointestinal
side effects. The small amount that is consumed, it
is toxicologically insignificant and is rapidly excreted
in urine. The ingested sucralose is excreted unchanged
in the feces. It’s safe for people with diabetes
because it’s not recognized as a carbohydrate.
What they don’t tell you is how on
their website, is how it’s made, which is a little
suspicious that they don’t mention it. Basically,
what they do is replace hydroxyl groups in sugar or sucrose
with chlorine atoms. In the end, it really doesn’t
resemble sugar at all. Being derived from sugar doesn’t
mean it resembles sugar. There are a couple of things
that are “at issue” here. The first is that sucralose
is a cholorocarbon – and chlorocarbons are known toxic
chemicals. (DDT is a cholorocarbon, although Splenda people
relate it to salt) Of course the FDA has looked into
this and came to the conclusion that these particular chlorocarbons
are not absorbed by the body.
However, that goes to the next issue, which
is how much is really absorbed by the body. The FDA
says that 11% to 27% is absorbed in humans (which kind of
contradicts the first statement that it’s not absorbed),
the Japanese say as much as 40% is absorbed. The absorbed
sucralose has been found to concentrate in the liver, kidney
and gastroestinal tract. It is broken down into small
amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, a chemical that has not
been adequately tested in humans. Which leads us to
the final big issue that “nay sayers” have about
Splenda and that is that just about all of the tests have
been conducted by the company that sells it or will profit
from it and there are no long term human trials. The
biggest concern is whether sucrolose decreases thymus weight,
which would ban it forever. In rats, thymus weight
decreased 40% and the FDA addressed this concern claiming
that these effects would not be seen in humans at recommended
doses.
In spite of all this, it does have a lot
of support. Not only is it sold in over 27 plus countries
(although not in Europe) it is approved by the World Health
Organization, American Council on Science and Health, among
others like the Health Ministries of Canada and Australia.
It’s also been in use since 1991 but has not been as
widely used as it has been in the last few years.
I personally have high hopes for Splenda
but I think the FDA has shown lately who it really works
for and I don’t feel confident it’s for us. In
the meantime, I will use it but, like salt, sparingly and
not all the time. If I was a diabetic, I wouldn’t
use it at all, yet.
As for Whole Foods and them, read for yourself
what they have to say and why they don’t carry it. They
also give the most balanced review I think. http://www.wholefoods.com/healthinfo/sucralose.html
Other sites:
http://www.splenda.ca/en/about/safety2.asp
http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm#
http://www.wnho.net/splenda.htm
http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com/resources/faqs.html#8
Newsletter March
2005
DEFINING A NET CARB
Just FYI, the FDA does not recognize the difference in carbs,
and requires manufactures to list the total carbohydrates
on food packages. They are receiving a lot of pressure
from food companies and consumers so they are considering
redefining carbohydrates.
Basically the formula is this:
Net Carbs = Total carbohydrates - Grams of Fiber
(sometimes certain sweetners get deducted)
The idea behind it is similar to "good
fats" and "bad fats". There are "bad"
carbohydrates like white flour and those high in sugar that
digest quickly and spike our blood sugar. Then there's "good"
carbohydrates like whole grains and vegetables that burn slow
and smooth out digestion time. What net carb essentially means
is that only the refined carbohydrates show up as "carbs".
Be aware that many manufactures define all this a little differently.
It sounds like a stretch to me, but I'm not a big Atkins fan…
Newsletter April
2004
FROM SEA TO SHINING SEA
No sea shines without fish life. I knew this was an issue
but wasn't sure which fish were endangered. Women put organic
produce on the map so I'm sure we could save more of the oceans
by just asking basic questions to restaurant personnel and
store owners, like how they choose their fish. Cod, Atlantic
halibut, bluefin tuna Chilean sea bass and swordfish are all
endangered due to catching methods, coastal development and
pollution. We can bring these species back by simply giving
them a rest like the "Give Swordfish a break" campaign.
Fish that have sustainable stocks include Albacore tuna, Artic
char, Catfish (farmed), Caviar, Clams (farmed) Dungeness crab,
Halibut, Lobster, Mahi mahi, mussels (farmed) oysters (farmed),
wild Salmon, Bay scallops, wild shrimp , stripped bass (farmed)
and Tilapia (farmed). For more detailed information go to:
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/seafood/fishhome.cfm
or www.mbayaq.org.
Newsletter March
2004
CALCIUM AND WEIGHT LOSS
Another follow-up. Way back in November of 2002, I told you
about the most interesting finding from a conference on Obesity
that spoke about weight loss and calcium. http://www.oonausa.com/newsl_nov02.html.
I was surprised that this idea didn't get much play in the
media. There wasn't much information at the time about why
calcium played such a major role, but this month I found that
the folks at Alternative Medicine provided an explanation.
The reason calcium is so important for fat burning goes back
to when we were primates. When there was food, our ancestors
seldom had to worry about getting enough of the mineral as
the vegetables, plants and fruits they consumed had particularly
high levels due to the calcium-rich soil of the times. They
also got a lot of calcium from fish and bird bones. When levels
are low, something called "calcitriol" is released
to tell our fat cells to stop breaking down fat and to begin
storing it. This helped our ancestors ward off starvation
but today in Western countries food related threats are generally
something like too many cookies. A high calcium diet prevents
calcitriol from being released and tells our bodies to continue
to burn fat. The optimal amount is 1,000 mg for men and women
under 50, 1200 mg. for adults over 50 and don't exceed 2500
mg. a day. Calcium should be taken with magnesium and Vitamin
D for absorption. For more information go to http://www.alternativemedicine.com
(at the time of this newsletter, their search function is
broken - the article appears in the March 2004 issue. You
can search by issue).
Newsletter March
2004
A GOOD REVIEW ON THE SCIENCE OF DIETS
It seems everywhere you turn, there is talk about what, when
and how to eat to promote weight loss. It often seems like
the information is contradictory. My philosophy has always
been: if I want to be a smaller person, I have to eat like
a smaller person. Translation: less calories. (I don't always
follow my own philosophies) It's not what any one wants to
hear and I don't even like saying it to myself but last month
in the Wall St. Journal, Tara Parker-Pope wrote about some
of the things that we do know about the science of loosing
weight. Some highlights are:
- Calories count.
That's what your body really knows. Some quick easy things
you can do is cut out soda, eat whole fruits instead of
juices and lots of low calorie volume food like salads.
- Write down what you eat. We all do a
lot of eating that we don't remember, like that handful
of m&m's when you pass someone's desk.
- Portions are key. Movie stars do this.
I think it was John Travolta who lost 20 lbs in month or
two by having whatever he wanted but ate half.
- Weigh yourself. I hate this one but
it is true that you'll catch yourself sooner and watch it
before the 5 lbs turns into 15.
- Cut out the white stuff. Like white
bread and white rice and potatoes. Your body will burn it
quicker and make you hungry sooner. This is where there
is something to the Atkins diet and many nutritionist encourage
this rule this rule… protein in the size of a fist
with every meal.
For more information go to www.wsj.com
and search "the diet that works". It's a paid subscription
but you can try it for free for two weeks.
Newsletter
May 2003
BIG HAIR IS OUT, BIG FOOD IS IN
It's not big hair, and I like Jennifer Aniston, but I am looking
forward to the day that hair style is out. Isn't ten years
of JA look a-likes enough? But big food? I'm in. This theory
on food has to do with it's "energy density" defined
as the amount of calories per gram. A food has low energy
density if it has fewer calories relative to its weight or
up to 1.5 calories per gram, 1.5 to 4 are medium and over
4 calories per gram are high density foods. "Big foods"
would be considered those that contain a lot of fiber and
water. The example given was chicken soup has just 0.5 calories
per gram would be just as filling and less fattening than
cheese ravioli at 3.2 calories per gram. Some are obvious
like this one, but others are less obvious like cream of broccoli
soup has an energy density of 0.8 while graham crackers have
a density of 4.2 calories/gram. And there are ways to lower
the density of foods. If for example you really prefer full-fat
salad dressing you can lower the density by adding a lot more
vegetables. The idea behind this is apparently backed by numerous
studies (presented at the North American Association for the
Study of Obesity) that show that we are more satisfied by
the amount of food we eat without regard to calorie content.
The overall effect by eating high density foods is the consumption
of less calories and feeling satisfied. Some guidelines to
lower the energy density of foods are 1. Consume far more
fruits, vegetables, salads and soups - this may include adding
more vegetables to stews and casseroles. 2. Use the blender,
smoothies fill you up the longer they are whipped and 3. Substitute
high density foods when you can like switching to low-fat
dressings cheeses and cooking oils. (This is based on a report
in the Wall St. Journal Tuesday, October 14, 2003 front page
of the Personal Journal by Tara Parker-Pope).
Newsletter
December 2003
A PRELIMINARY SKINNY ON LOW CARB DIETS
The New England Journal of Medicine published two studies
that looked at severe obesity and low carbohydrate diets such
as Atkins. The outcome is not surprising: that those on the
low carbohydrate diet lost more weight than that low-fat diet.
We are not sure if calorie consumption was compared but we
do know that participants had specific foods to eat and the
low fat participants did not have any advice on how to limit
calories. Most important is that drop out rate was 40%. One
year out, the difference in weight loss was not significant.
The most alarming thing to us is that Atkins diet does not
provide adequate nutrition without supplementation and can
be very hard on the kidneys and liver. It is certainly not
an easy way to live. However, there does seem to be some truth
to the Atkins diet… it appears that there is a benefit
to limiting (not eliminating) carbohydrates if you want to
reduce weight, it's just that one would need to see a nutritionist
to figure out what is the best way to go about doing that
for themselves. There are ways to work within one's lifestyle
and we wish the whole discussion would move beyond low-carb
vs. low-fat. See abstracts for more info on diets effects
on cholesterol and insulin. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/348/21/2082,
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/348/21/2074
Newsletter
July 2003
THE BIG NEWS FROM RESEARCHERS ON DIET
Every year the International Association for the Study of
Obesity (IASO)has a conference that includes 5000 medical
and health professional members through affiliated National
Associations in 30 countries. At this years conference, the
big news was the importance of calcium in the diet for weight
loss. Two well performed studies pointed to calcium as one
very important element for women and managing weight. Taking
1,200 milligrams of calcium (be sure to take with magnesium
for absorption) increased the use of fat as fuel during the
entire day -- whether at rest or exercising.
Other better known points were confirmed
like low-carbohydrate diets seem best for losing weight. (we
didn't say NO carbohydrates) If you work out a lot, increase
your carbohydrate consumption as it is important fuel for
muscular work. One other point worth mentioning was to use
foods high in fiber but low in calorie like apples, pears,
edamame and low-fat yogurt to snack on.
Newsletter
November 2002
Nutrition
CALCIUM SUPPLEMENTS
In the last newsletter, I went through the basics of calcium nutrition, absorption
and life style. This month, I’m going to look at calcium supplements. To
recap - Children 4-8 require 800 mg. per day (elemental calcium). For ages
9-18 it jumps to 1300 mg. a day. Men and women from 19-50 need about 1,000
mg. of calcium daily and after the age of 50 it jumps to 1,200 mg.
It is best to get your calcium from food as it may be up to 8.79 times
more available to the body. We also need adequate protein, weight bearing
exercise and a diet that avoids soda, sugar and white bread, among other things
you might enjoy. It isn’t easy to get all the calcium we need in
a day, so many of us, including myself need supplements. So what should
we buy?
In my experience, I had read or heard and
believed that calcium citrate was the way to go as it is
the most readily absorbed. I needed a ratio of 2:1
calcium/magnesium. So I went out and bought 750 mg.
capsules with 500mg. of calcium to 250mg. of magnesium. I
was taking two a day at night close to eating and I thought
I was all set.
I was wrong. My biggest mistake is
that I didn’t read the label and my 500 mg. of calcium
citrate only has 100mg. of “elemental calcium”. That
means I need to take 8 capsules a day if my diet is providing
at least what I think it is. So I’m not sure
that calcium citrate is the best option for me. I
don’t do well taking anything more than 2x a day.
Before I get to the different types of
calcium, a couple of important points to note:
Do not take calcium supplements if you
have kidney stones or a history of kidney stones.
Don’t go cheap, go reliable. A
lot of resources point out that some refined calcium carbonate
products (sources include oyster shell, bone-meal and dolomite)
may have lead. You need to be sure that the company
you buy from is reputable and screens for lead and other
toxins.
Make sure that your calcium supplement
dissolves – calcium is known to have difficulty breaking
down. Simply put it in a ½ cup of vinegar and
swirl it every once in a while for a ½ hour. Your
tablet/capsule should be 100% dissolved by then, with no
little clumps left. In general, capsules are usually
a better choice for calcium supplements.
It is vital to keep in mind that just adding
calcium to your diet does not necessarily mean that it will
improve bone density. Your body requires other vitamins
and minerals, most importantly vitamin D. According
to Holistic Primary Care (Summer 2005), there are 25 different
trials showing that without vitamin D no form of calcium
is well absorbed. As you know most of us can get enough
vitamin D by spending 15 minutes in the sun without sunscreen
or supplement with 400-600 IU’s a day.
One final note before I get to types of
calcium. Most experts agree that the body can not absorb
very much calcium at one time. Spread out your intake
throughout the day (500 mg. intervals max), and if it’s
calcium carbonate, take it with food. (I certainly
wasted a lot of money on calcium!)
Most of the discussion about calcium supplements
is about the source – mostly calcium carbonate vs.
calcium citrate and then there was the big excitement for
a while about coral calcium. There is nothing that
I came across that substantiated that coral calcium was superior
in anyway and certainly not worth the price. It is
a form of calcium carbonate.
Here’s the pros and cons of the two:
Calcium carbonate contains TWICE as much
elemental calcium (40%) as calcium citrate BUT calcium carbonate
can be harder to digest/absorb. It requires hydrochloric
acid from the stomach. Therefore, it should be taken
with meals and may not be the best source for elderly people
who do not produce enough hydrochloric acid. It is
also more likely to cause constipation and bloating
Calcium citrate is much easier to absorb
as it is water soluble BUT contains just 20% elemental calcium. You
really need to take a lot of it. Calcium citrate can
be taken with or without food but it may be better taken
without food.
One study quoted in Holistic Primary Care
said that a combination of calcium citrate and calcium carbonate,
taken on an empty stomach with vitamin D provides the best
overall absorption. I kind of like this idea…
And what about magnesium?
Yes, it is also important for absorption
and the 2:1 ratio I was taking is correct (not as vital as
vitamin D). There is conflicting opinion about whether
the two taken together compete for absorption in the body. A
couple of sources say that you should take your magnesium
at a different time. The sources I have come to trust
over the years do not mention this, so I’m coming down
on the side that taking them together is fine.
Here are some other tips I found helpful:
- Calcium does interfere with the absorption
of iron, so do take them separately.
- Take Vitamin C with calcium as it also
helps with absorption.
- Vitamin K is important in calcium regulation
(leafy green vegetables) as well as B6, folic acid, zinc,
boron, and essential fatty acids.
- Antacids are not a good source of calcium
because they neutralize stomach acid that is needed to
absorb it.
I’m now going to switch to a combination
of Citrate and Carbonate and see how I fare. I will
try and find one with the magnesium already in there and
I think I get enough vitamin D. I’m good for
two times a day and for the middle of the day, I’m
going to sneak one of those dark chocolate balls with 500mg.
of calcium! There ya go.
Short list:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_261/ai_n13471769
http://paleodiet.com/losspts.txt
http://bariatricadvantage.com/information/scientificdata_nnfaoncalcium.htm
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/calcium-supplements/AN00964
http://www.vitacost.com/science/hn/Supp/Calcium_Best.htm
http://www.prairieontheweb.com/pseweb/Optimal%20
Health%20Home/tips_on_taking_calcium.htm
http://www.ehow.com/how_3953_absorb-calcium-supplements.html
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium.html
http://www.enzymestuff.com/calcium.htm#9
Newsletter
Summer 2006
CALCIUM
For such a simple element, what a complicated story! Here
we go.
GENERAL FACTS
The human skeleton has 206 bones. (who
knew?) Basically speaking, bones are made up of two types
of material that are known as “organic” and “inorganic”. The
organic material is primarily collagen (90%) and other proteins
(10%) that keep bones flexible. The inorganic material
consists of calcium, phosphorus, sodium and other minerals
that keep bones strong and resistant to damage. There
is also the soft bone marrow inside where most of the blood
cells that flow through our body are made. We know
them as “stem cells”.
Calcium is the most abundant mineral in the human body --
our teeth and bones account for 99% of the body's calcium.
The remaining 1% of calcium is found in our body fluids and
blood. There are five other macrominerals in the body --
they are magnesium, sodium, chloride, potassium, and sulfur.
All six macrominerals account for 4 - 5 % of total body weight
-- ½ of which comes from calcium.
Bone production is a dynamic system; our bones are constantly
being broken down and built up in a process called remodeling. Calcium
plays a critical role in this process. Further, our
bones act like a reservoir for calcium as it is continually
taken from the bones and used for other functions in the
body such as regulating heart beat, clotting the blood, regulating
thyroid function, hormone secretion and nerve function.
If not enough calcium is being absorbed or is being used
for these other functions, our bones become deficient.
ABSORPTION
Elemental Calcium
When you hear or read “daily recommended requirement”,
the government is referring to “elemental” calcium. When
you buy a supplement, the amount of “elemental” calcium
should be listed on the package as it is the law. It
is NOT the calcium source. As an example, if a capsule
contains 1000 mg. of Calcium Citrate, the amount of “elemental” calcium
is only 200mg. You are correct in assuming that you
need to take 5000 mg. of Calcium Citrate in order to get
1000 mg. of “daily required” elemental calcium
available to you. Referring to the two most popular
forms of calcium supplements -- calcium carbonate and calcium
citrate, calcium carbonate contains 40% of elemental calcium
while calcium citrate contains 20% of elemental calcium. That
does not mean you should necessarily run out and just buy
calcium carbonate. I’ll get to that. (next month)
Children 4-8 need 800 mg. per day. (elemental calcium) Ages
9-18 it jumps to 1300 mg. a day. Men and women from 19-50
need about 1,000 mg. of calcium daily and 1,200 mg. after
the age of 50.
Absorption and Age
Calcium absorption is highest during infancy when it is about
60%. In young children, it is about 28%. During early puberty
and the time of rapid growth, it increases to about 34%
and then drops to 25% two years later where it remains
for several years. Calcium absorption does decline with
aging. In postmenopausal women and in men around the same
age it declines 0.21% yearly on average. Calcium
absorption may be critically impaired after the age of
70.
I think it is safe to assume that the
daily recommended dose that is suggested by the government
has taken age into consideration. It doesn’t
seem we need to adjust for this.
Absorption and Nutrition
The best analogy I came across is to think of bone health/calcium
absorption as if you were building a house. In order
for the house to become inhabitable, you need all the parts
to the house. It doesn’t help you much if you
just keep buying more wood, even if your house is 80% wood. For
calcium absorption and bone health, it’s similar. Just
adding more elemental calcium is not the way to go. Calcium
needs other nutrients to support bone health and production – specifically
Vitamins D, B6, B12, C and K. It also needs magnesium,
zinc, boron, folic acid, essential fatty acids and protein.
It appears that vitamin D and magnesium have the most direct
affect on how much calcium is stored in the bones.
Calcium is 8.79 times more bioavailable
from food than it is from any supplement. Considering
that supplements can be complicated to absorb, this is an
important point to keep in mind. There are health writers
that love or hate dairy, yet all agree that the best place
to get your calcium is from food. Like it or not, diary
contains the highest amounts calcium. Luckily, it’s
the low fat/skim kind topping the list. The highest
calcium food I saw was low fat yogurt, 8 oz. at 415 mg. of
calcium. This is followed by skim milk with 306 mg.
of calcium. For comparison, whole milk yogurt has 275
mg. of calcium.
For those of you who are lactose intolerant,
don’t worry. Other calcium rich foods are dark leafy
greens like spinach, kale, mustard greens all around 200-300mg.
per cup, many seeds and nuts (about 100 mg per ¼ cup),
legumes like black eye peas (around 200 per cup) In my opinion,
the best non-dairy food to eat is soy beans. Not only
are they high in calcium (260 mg. per cup) but they also
contains other compounds such as isoflavones and genistein
that are both protective and bone building. The best
protein sources are sardines (yuk) and salmon (yum). But
back to my house analogy, the more healthy food you consume,
especially fruits and vegetables, the better off you are.
It’s not just the calcium. As an example, studies
have found that bones may benefit more from vitamin D than
calcium as vitamin D is vital to transfer calcium to the
bones. So if I were to walk you through the array of foods
that not only contain calcium but other important vitamins
and minerals that play a role in creating strong healthy
dynamic bones, you would see just about every fruit, vegetables,
nut, beans, good protein, etc. The one food you won’t
see are foods that are high in phytates – like wheat
bran. Of course nothing is easy -- as legumes are high in
phytates but are also high in magnesium and contain some
calcium which is good for our bones. Personally, I
wouldn’t get too hung up on it. Just eat well.
Other Lifestyle Issues
Calcium absorption is another reason to avoid white sugar,
colas, alcohol and caffein in excess and too much animal
protein. Protein is essential for bone health but
in excess can suck calcium out of our bones. Bone
health is another reason to exercise. Weight baring
exercise is vital – when muscles work harder bones
become stronger. Finally reduction of stress and
good rest plays an important role – stress
produces cortisol which decreases calcium absorption.
If you are like me and work out and try
to eat healthy, we still may not be getting enough calcium. I
don’t think that I get enough. So in the next
newsletter, I’ll tackle supplements and try to cut
through some of the popular beliefs that may or may not be
the best approach.
Sources:
http://www.endocrinesurgeon.co.uk/osteoporosis/osteo1.html
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium.html
http://bariatricadvantage.com/information/scientificdata_nnfaoncalcium.htm
http://naturalhealthdoc.net/health-questions-health-information-Truth-about-minerals.htm
Kris Wetherbee, “Build Your Best Bones” Herbs
for Health, February 2006 page 51
Janer Gulland, “Clearing up Confusion about Calcium” Holistic
Primary Care Summer 2005, page 1
Newsletter
March/April 2006
PMS AND CALCIUM + VITAMIN D
Let me explain this study a little bit that has been going
on in two parts since 1976. It's called "The Nurses Study" and was originally designed
to look at look term use of oral contraceptives. The first part of the
study began with women aged 30-55 in 1976, the second half of the study began
in 1989 and with a younger target population of 25-42. Each study has
over 100,000 women that participate and respond to questionnaires approximately
every two years. In addition to contraception and hormone use, the study
also looks at diet and lifestyle risk factors. What's interesting about
this study is that it is an epidemiological study - meaning that it looks at
correlations in the populations, not necessarily causations. If you remember
back 10 years or so, it was thought that hormone replacement therapy (HRT)
was beneficial to heart health, dementia and bone density. These initial
conclusions came out of this Nurses Health Study. It was only after a
double blind study was done later by the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), that
we found out that only bone density benefits from hormone replacement therapy
and in fact is hurtful to heart health and raises the risk of dementia. It
turned out that women on HRT evaluated in the earlier "Nurses Study" were
also women who most likely more educated, lead more healthy lifestyles and
thus improved heart health. It wasn't the HRT.
The Nurses Study is still ongoing and various
data is still collected and reported on from that study.
As in this case, companies also sponsor some of the research
to see if there is any information that will support their
products. Mostly pharmaceutical companies, they
say they don't have any input into the analysis or the results
(most likely true), however, it isn't unusual for an employee
to co-author an article about it. Glaxo Smith Kline
makes a calcium supplement and a person from their company
co-authored this study.
I'm certainly not negating the importance
of this data, as it can point science in the right direction
- I just say, in general, let's not view it as conclusive.
I like this correlation about PMS - because
even if it's not true, the benefits of calcium in the diet
of women has other proven benefits (bone health, potential
weight loss, prevent kidney stones and improve blood pressure),
and as far as I know, if it's taken in quantities that are
reasonable, calcium proposes no health risk.
This study did not look at the entire 100,000
or so population, but a subset of about 3000 women (from
the part II) who at baseline had no PMS in 1991. 1,057 women
developed PMS over 10 years of follow-up and 1,968 reported
no PMS. Intake of calcium and Vitamin D was measured
in 1991, 1995 and 1999 by a food questionnaire. Women
had to express at least one emotional symptom, as well as
one physical symptom to be considered having PMS. The
idea was to look at diet to see if it could prevent PMS. Too
few of the women took supplements to show an effect, so this
is based on dietary intake only.
Volunteers who got the most calcium in
their diet (1283 mg/day) decreased their chances of getting
PMS by 30%, and 40% for Vitamin D (400 international units/day)
- I didn't see anything about if the two together make a
bigger difference, since the presence of Vitamin D increases
helps the body absorb calcium. (so does the presence
of magnesium)
1,200 milligrams of calcium and 400 milligrams
of Vitamin D consist of about four servings of skim milk. Whole
milk, because of it's fat content, did not offer any benefit,
according to the author of the study.
My 2 cents? I'm all for it, but I
don't believe it's "the answer". Women under
30 need to get more calcium anyway - as it's crucial for
our bones later on in life and most of us are way under the
1500 mg. or so that we need. I think it helps, but
there are other factors that also play an equally if not
more important role. These would be exercise, overall
body weight and eating fruits and vegetables. I also
don't think that if you have PMS, you will see a noticeable
enough difference by just adding calcium. And here
comes the shameless plug for Oöna PMS1 - if you
have PMS and you take Oöna PMS1 consistently for
two cycles, you will notice quite a difference.
As for the calcium supplements I like -
I get plenty of Vitamin D in my multi so I take 1500 mg.
of calcium per day with magnesium at a 2:1 ratio. (example:
500 mg. of calcium to 250 mg. of magnesium) I make
sure it's in a capsule, not a tablet, as calcium is known
to have trouble breaking up in the digestive track. I'm
not sure how much of it I absorb, but I do eat low fat yogurt
and other greens very rich in calcium, so I know I get at
least another 500mg. or so.
About the Nurses Study:
http://www.channing.harvard.edu/nhs/history/index.shtml
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/165/11/1246
http://www.rednova.com/news/health/158913/preventing_pms/
http://www.bgdailynews.com/articles/stories/public/200506/27/4wwB_top-feature.html
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050712/NEWS40/106140125
Newsletter
July 2005
TWO TAKES ON A JAMA PUBLISHED VITAMIN
E STUDY
The Women's Health Study (WHS) is the largest, long term randomized, double blind
study that evaluated the risks and benefits on low-dose aspirin and vitamin E
in reducing cardiovascular disease and cancer in women. The results are
interesting for Vitamin E. The study was conducted between 1992 and 2004
and 1/3 of close to 40,000 women 45 years old or older took 600 IU of a natural
Vitamin E every other day. (1/3 were placebo and 1/3 low-dose aspirin) The
study was to evaluate prevention of heart disease only.
It was found that Vitamin E did not significantly
effect any major cardiovascular event such as stroke or heart
attack. There was also no significant effect on breast,
lung or colon cancers.
However, women taking vitamin E saw a reduction
of death by cardiovascular disease by 24%. There also appears
to be a benefit for women that are 65 years old and older
- a 49% decrease in the risk of cardiovascular death and
a 34% reduction in heart attacks. There was no benefit
for strokes in this group.
What is interesting about this is that
if you just look at the headlines you wouldn't think there
was any benefit for vitamin E and heart health whatsoever.
I do think it is clear that there is no vitamin E benefit
for women's cancers whatsoever. Even though mortality
prevention was not a focus, it certain deserves attention
as the numbers are significant. It may be, like I mentioned
above, that these women lead more overall healthy lifestyles
- but this was a double blind study. In any case, the
benefit is significant and we should also consider the fact
that women over the age of 65 are the group with the highest
risk and comprise 58% of the U.S. elderly population.
The study:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/1/56
Other articles:
www.rxpgnews.com/cancer/article_1833.shtml
http://www.foodconsumer.org/777/8/Vitamin_E_does_not_
protect_women_from_heart_attack_stroke_or_cancer.shtml
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/?epi_menuItemID=
e23d7f2be635f4725e0fa455c6908a0c&epi_menuID=887566059a3
aedb6efaaa9e27a808a0c&epi_baseMenuID=384979e8cc48c441ef0
130f5c6908a0c&searchHereRadio=false&ndmHsc=v2*A0*J2*L1*N
searchNDMConfig*Z%22Largest+Clinical+Trial+on+Healthy%22
Newsletter
July 2005
FOR THE LITTLE ONE
in the tummy. It’s been my experience that most MD’s are not as up
to date as they could on the nutrition end of things. Maybe your doctor
is fabulous and I just overstepped myself here, but it’s simply not my
experience. I haven’t eaten fish since I got pregnant -- mostly because
I can’t remember which ones are okay – I know that tuna is out for
mercury, salmon is out for PCB’s, is Halibut or Striped Bass okay? I
can’t remember – I always say that I’ll print out a list, but
I forget. The party line is that one can of tuna a week is fine, but I’m
not doing that. What if my can got more mercury that the “average”?
We are talking about a heavy metal and a fetus. Besides, for the first trimester – I
couldn’t stand the smell/sight of fish.
So what’s the deal here…There
are two types of Essential Fatty Acids -- omega-3 and omega-6.
(they are called “Essential” because the body
can not manufacture them itself) Most Americans get
plenty of Omega 6 – which is in just about all the
vegetable oil that we consume – like safflower and
corn. (I’m not talking any bad fats here – they
are HARMFUL) For optimum health, the key is to balance
Omega 6’s to Omega 3’s at a ratio of 1:4. Omega
-3’s are mostly found in fish oils and flax seed. Fish
oil contains EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA docosahexaenoic
acid). Most fish oil supplements are 18% EPA and 12% DHA,
or a total of 30% omega-3.
A lot of people have heard of the benefits
of Omega 3’s and the role they play in heart health
and skin health but I want to focus here on the “little
one”. (my step father calls her “Catchatory”,
as in Chicken)
Fats make up sixty percent of the brain
and the nerves that run every system in the body. And
your brain sends chemical messengers throughout the body,
telling each organ what to do. Prostaglandins are a
hormone-like substance that are a very important part of
these chemical messengers. It is essential fatty acids
that produce prostaglandins. This all stands to reason
that good fats = good brain health and development.
Why Omega 3’s are so key is that
when the body is deprived of the essential fatty acids that
they need to grow – the cells develop a fatty acid
that may actually be harmful. These acids have been
found to be elevated in those that suffer from depression
or ADD. It’s generally a result of too much hydrogenated
fats or omega-6 fats –adding omega-3 actually reduce
the effects of bad fats or too much omega-6.
The most rapid brain growth occurs during the first year
of life, with an infant’s brain tripling in size by
their first birthday. During this time period the
brain will consume 60% of the energy ingested by the infant. Again,
it makes sense that getting the right kind of fat greatly
affects brain development – and if mother’s
milk is any indication – consider that 50% of the calories
of mother’s milk is fat.
There are some new studies that back all
of this up – one that was published in Jan. 2005 of
Pediatric Research. This was an animal study, not a
clinical one, but one that showed interesting relationships
between DHA and brain development. Another had to
do with vision – Omega 3’s are also associated
with good eye development and neural development – this
was published in September 2004 in the Journal of Nutrition.
But the logic is enough for me. I
take 200mg. a day of both DHA and Omega 3. I like and
trust Nordic Naturals – they make ones that are “deodorized” so
I don’t get the back lash from others I’ve tried.
She has no excuse now not to be the genius
she’s expected to be! (yes, I’m kidding).
For more info:
http://www.softecare.com/Ingredients/omega-3_fetal_development.cfm
http://www.askdrsears.com/html/4/T040900.asp
http://www.meg-3.com/LifeStage/Pregnancy.asp
Newsletter
May 2005
FOLIC ACID IS LIKE EXERCISE
Only because it’s going to be on every “Top 10” list to improve
your health. Personally, I’m a big fan, I’ve been taking a
prenatal vitamin now for about 5 years or so, just for the high amount of folic
acid. If it’s 1mg. (1000 mcg.) or more, it must be a prescription. I
could have supplemented with folic acid on top of a multi – but fewer the
bottles, the better. (Don’t go above 2,000 mcg. – 5,000-10,000
mcg. is dangerous) We know the benefits for women who are trying to get pregnant
and women who are pregnant (prevents birth defects of the brain and spine), and
we know that it’s a nutrient for the heart as it lowers homocysteine levels.
High levels of homocysteine impair blood pressure. It may also help people
who suffer from depression as people who are depressed have high homocysteine
levels as well. Now JAMA has confirmed that in women, folic acid cuts the
risk of high blood pressure – although it’s only data from a large
observational study. In other words, there hasn’t been a double
blind control study yet.
There were two large groups looked at,
both from the Nurses’Health Study. A total of
150,000 women one group was aged 26 to 46 (“Younger
Women”) and the other 43 to 70 (“Older Women”).
Bottom line – the “Younger
Women” who took 1,000 mcg. a day had a 46% reduction
in risk compared to the same age group who took 200 mcg.
a day. Taking 800mcg. (mircrograms) of folate a day,
reduces the risk 29%. For “Older Women” who
took more than 1,000 mcg. a day the reduction in risk was
18% -- at 800 mcg. a day the reduction in risk was13%. (also
compared to those less taking than 200 mcg. a day) Between
200 and 800mcg. there was some extra benefit, but not enough
to report for either group.
No one is sure why younger women benefit
so much more than older women but it could be that younger
women develop hypertension for different reasons.
So start taking it now! (Doctors/Researchers
are not recommending this, but I am!) The reason this is
so important is that hypertention is the “silent killer”,
meaning that it strikes without symptoms.
Foods rich in folate include Citrus fruits and fruit juices,
leafy green vegetables, beans, asparagus, peanuts, wheat
germ, sunflower seeds and there are breakfast cereals and
breads that are “fortified” or “enriched” with
folate.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=41548
http://health.yahoo.com/news/43693
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/3/320
http://www.nutritional-supplement-info.com/folic-acid.html
Newsletter
March 2005
ABOUT THE VITAMIN E CONTROVERSY
It was all over the place in November…(I had other, more
important WOMEN issues to talk about then) Vitamin E in high
doses could cause death. All the media picked it up, and in
my humble opinion, this is a perfect example of really bad
reporting. Just for the record, I certainly don't defend irresponsible
companies of the industry and I do understand the frustration
of consumers who feel the need to question the quality of
what they are buying in supplements. However, it's no excuse
for bad reporting about such a valuable vitamin such as E.
According to supplementinfo.org, about 18% of elderly people
may stop taking vitamin E because of this report, and that's
really a shame. http://www.supplementinfo.org/contentman/anmviewer.asp?a=188&z=6
The study was presented be Dr. Edgar Miller
in the Annals of Internal Medicine and looked at 19 different
research projects that included approximately 135,000 people
that included vitamin E use. The studies included vitamin
E as a potential treatment for, or prevention of diseases
such as heart disease, Alzheimer's and cataracts. In order
to be included in Miller's study, the patients needed to be
taking vitamin E for at least one year, and each study had
to have at least ten deaths during or after the time of the
study.
The conclusion of the authors was that lower
doses of vitamin E may be slightly protective, but that higher
doses may slightly increase the patients risk of death and
that vitamin E used in high doses is dangerous. I admit it
sounds scary, but if you look closer it's simply not the truth.
As many editorials and letters have pointed out (I like the
about.com the best, see the link below) here's blanks that
were not filled in.
- The populations
studied were old people with chronic diseases and were also
on pharmaceutical drugs. It is common knowledge to health
care professionals that Vitamin E is a blood thinner --
interactions with pharmaceuticals were not explored.
- Miller does point out that this population
may not equate to younger or healthier populations but that
wasn't reported.
- The study didn't take into consideration
the different dosages and protocols of the 19 studies.
- There is a difference between natural
and synthetic Vitamin E. This distinction was not made.
- Even with all these issues, the study
claims that the relative risk is 1.05 - when 1.0 is neutral.
Any one of the above reasons could account for such a low
increase in risk.
It's obvious that to call high dosages (over
400 I.U.) dangerous is premature. At issue for me is that
if one takes natural Vitamin E (only take the natural) there
are very beneficial Tocotrienols that are very difficult to
find in food… for us women, they are very beneficial
for breast health and bone health. (the synthetic E does not
have these tocotrienols) Without getting too technical, here's
what to keep in mind:
- Vitamin E is a complicated one as it
exists in eight different forms. It is a powerful antioxidant
and there is lots of evidence (not necessarily proof)
of its benefits.
- The upper limit is established at 1500
International Units (IU's) I stick with about 400 IUs/day.
- Vitamin E does thin the blood - so if
you are taking pharmaceuticals, your health care professional
should be made aware. Also it should be stopped before surgery
so advise your doctor.
- Make sure it's Natural Vitamin E - The
synthetic form is labeled "D,L" and the natural
is labeled just "D".
For more information about all this go to:
http://www.nnfa.org/vitamine.htm
http://nutrition.about.com/od/researchstudies/a/vitaminestudy_2.htm
http://www.supplementinfo.org/contentman/anmviewer.asp?a=188&z=6
The study can be found at http://www.annals.org
- it was published November 10th but I couldn't find it there,
I had to type in "Miller and Vitamin E" in the search
function.
A good explanation of the different components
of Vitamin E can be found at
www.vitaminretailer.com
in their December 2004 issue - their site is down at the time
of this writing so I can't get you the link.
Newsletter
January 2005
THE POWER OF FLAX
This small seed is certainly making a comeback. And its benefits
are far from over blown. What flax is most known for is high
amounts of Omega 3's as well as a good source of Omega 6's.
It also contains the most soluable and insoluble fiber - ¼
cup seeds (then ground) will provide all the fiber you need
in a day. (25-30 grams, most Americans get 8 or 9 grams a
day) Keeping in mind that Omega 3's can not be manufactured
by the body, flax is known to be the best plant source. While
flax has much higher Omega 3 content than fish, (1/4 cup of
flour is = 9000mg) it is argued that the Omega 3 in fish is
more easily absorbed. (I have not seen that proven but I do
know that the Omega 3 in flax needs the body to convert it).
A decent ratio of Omega 6 to Omega 3 is 4:1 -- most of us
have a ratio of 20:1. That is because we get plenty of Omega
6s - it's in just about everything -- cereals, eggs, poultry,
most vegetable oils, whole-grain breads, baked goods, and
margarine to name a few. So to balance it with Omega 3's takes
a some paying attention. Adding flax seed to cereal or smoothies
or on top of cottage cheese may be just the thing.
Remember that the best way to eat flax is
to grind it, or crush it - you won't get the valuable lignans
if you don't crush it. I know I didn't mention lignans - but
it is the part of flax I really wanted to talk about -- it's
difficult not to get into the important Omega 3 aspect. Lignans
are found in many plants but it appears that flax has the
highest concentration of these as well. They are phytoestrogens,
and these appear to interact in some way with estrogen receptors.
While some phytoestrogens can be "estrogen like"
others can block or the effect of more powerful estrogens.
In this way lignans have been termed "selective estrogen
receptor modulators" or SERMS - in that they appear to
be able to do both.
In all my exposure with women with breast
cancer, it does appear that the lignans in flax have protective
properties. I know breast cancer survivors who have written
books and cookbooks based on this theory, and they are passionate
about it. It has since been shown that flax may slow the spread
of breast cancer cells in laboratory animals by inhibiting
the compounds that cause metastasis - and while it's too soon
to tell if flax can reduce the risk of breast cancer in the
first place, one thing for sure is there is nothing bad about
the seed. I also think that supplementing with flax, maybe
even more so than soy foods, is a great addition to taking
Oöna -- especially to protect against those times when
stress may cause a break through flash or two. You need 3-4
grams a day to do the job. Again, just be sure to grind it
right before you eat it.
For almost everything about flax -
go to http://www.flaxcouncil.ca
it's a Canadian site with a lot of information.
Newsletter
October 2004
MORE ON A GOOD SET OF BOWELS
Last month we took a look a the role of fiber in our diet.
There are, however many women who suffer from the opposite
problem in that they experience an irritable bowel or other
digestive issues. This is especially true as we age. There
is growing evidence that the role of probiotics can be very
helpful in the prevention and treatment of a wide range of
conditions. Probiotics are supplements that are comprised
of "friendly" gut flora and are known to restore
normal intestinal function. They have traditionally been used
following a course of antibiotics or to prevent "travelers
diarrhea". They also have a role in the management of
a number of chronic disorders that are not immediately related
like chronic fatigue, vaginitis and urinary tract infections.
If you consider that the digestive tract has the second largest
concentration of nerve endings, and 95% of all serotonin in
the body, it makes sense that poor digestion can lead to the
above mentioned issues as well as disruptive sleep and poor
cognitive function.
The thing with probiotics is that they are
a bit complicated to buy and understand. And like most natural
therapies, they take a couple months of continuous use before
an effect is felt. However, once you've bought the right product
and are taking the correct dose (usually high at first) they
are very safe and can truly solve a lot of issues that have
plagued people for years. So in my opinion, it's worth the
effort. Here are a few key ideas to guide you - as for actual
brands you should be safe with Natren of California or Pharmax.
- THERE ARE A LOT OF STRAINS WITH BIG
NAMES SO GET A PEN
For digestive health, the most researched
are Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, Bifidobacterium lactus BB12,
L. acidophilus NAS, L. bulgaricus LB-51, B. bifidum Malyoth
strain and L. acidophilus DDS1. Vaginal issues are better
handled with L. rhamnosus GRI or L. fermentum RC14. Now
the important point here is that the product must name the
genus, species and strain. Just Lactobacillus is not specific
enough. Don't buy it -- you must be very selective as it's
been reported that 70-80 percent of the products do not
contain their claimed amount of live probiotic microorganisms.
- YOU WANT A PROBIOTIC PRODUCT THAT
PRESERVES
THE "SUPERNATANT"
This usually translates that you should look for a product
that has been freeze dried (freeze drying preserves the
supernatant)- the supernatant is the fluid growth medium
which contains the nutrients for the probiotic organisms
- it provides a natural buffer to help the beneficial bacteria
survive the gastric juices.
- DOSING AND POTENCY ARE DIFFERENT
First, you want to look for guaranteed potency through an
expiration date printed on the label - and true potency
is cited in colony-forming units or (CFU) at the time of
manufacturing and at the expiration date. It is also how
you should figure out how much to take. Generally speaking,
recolonization of the GI tract requires about 109 CFUs per
day. Treatment for irritable bowel about 1011 per day. Less
can be taken for bacterial vaginitis at 108 per day. Anything
lower is not likely to be effective. Once your gut is recolonized,
you can take this amount 2 to 3 times a week for maintenance.
- STORAGE IS IMPORTANT
The bottles should not be exposed to direct sunlight and
many believe that opaque glass is what is best. The bottle
shouldn't heat up to kill the bacteria. Second the bottles
should be moisture-free and stored in refrigeration. The
only acception is L.spirogenes which is good for "travelers
diarrhea" as it does not require refrigeration.
- YOU'LL NEED MORE THAN ONE STRAIN
FOR INTESTINAL USE
Make sure the strains are actually capable of colonizing
both the upper and lower intestines. As an example L. acidophilus
works well in the small intestine while Bifidobactieria
works well in the large intestine. It's best to colonize
both parts.
- IF YOU'RE DIARY INTOLERANT CHECK
THE LABLES
A lot of probiotics use lactose as an excipient as it can
buffer stomach acid and dissolve at the correct time.
- PASS, FOR NOW, ON THE "PREBIOTIC"
it's really not been proven. Basically a prebiotic is suppose
to provide nutrients for the probiotic organisms as they
move through the gut. The idea is they are never separated
from the food they were created on so they survive harsh
stomach conditions and don't need refrigeration. My suggestion
is to wait on that one. In other words, don't use a new
probiotic supplement unless it has documented prior safe
use in humans and has undergone toxicological tests.
Newsletter
July 2004
FIBER IS ESSENTIAL TO YOUR HEALTH
Interesting note, while nutritionist have long proclaimed
the value of fiber in the diet, the FDA was a little behind
on this one…it was only December 2003 when the agency
allowed fiber as a health claim. Not to get graphic or anything,
but a bottom line about fiber is that it correlated to the
quality of what you are eliminating…if your are not eliminating
properly chances are this is a problem with your diet that
needs to be addressed. You should have soft and bulky stools
at the very least once a day.
Fiber is basically a component of food,
only plant food, which is not broken down by native enzymes
and secretions of the gastrointestinal tract but may be metabolized
by the bacteria in the lower gut. In other words, we humans
don't digest it. There are two types of fiber - soluble and
insoluble. The difference is soluble fiber dissolves in water.
A good way to think about this is that whole grains and fruits
with edible seeds etc is the insoluble type (we call it roughage
or bulk) while most beans, legumes barley and citrus fruits
are the soluble type. To keep it simple, the insoluble type
keeps it all moving while the water soluble fiber promotes
soft and bulky stools.
Why is this so important? It all has to
do with making sure that food keeps moving through your system
and doesn't "ferment" in your gut. Fiber maintains
a digestive transit time to an optimal length of about 12
to 18 hours - many Americans have a 72 hour or longer transit
time. This allows pathogenic organisms to grow in the intestines
and toxins to be absorbed into the body by the gut. This is
why low fiber diets are correlated with chronic illnesses
like hear disease and diabetes. It's also why high fiber diets
are considered protective. (yes, you can have too much fiber,
click on
www.extension.umn.edu link below to see the answer to
that question)
The recommended amount of fiber (either
soluble or insoluble) is 25 grams for adult women and 38 grams
for adult men. There is also a huge side benefit to diets
high in fiber, whole grains contain 200 to 300 times more
phytochemicals (protective plant substances) than refined
grains -- add in the antioxidant and other phytochemicals
of fruits and vegetables and a whole pattern of dietary protection
emerges. So eat well. To find the fiber in any food go to
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/SR16-1/wtrank/wt_rank.html
and scroll down to fiber. I also like this piece as an overall
explanation etc.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/nutrition/DJ0423.html
(Sources: Taste for Life Magazine, March
2004 and Mayo Clinic Women's HealthSource, June 2004)
Newsletter | 
