It’s 95 degrees and sunny. You spend most of your day by the pool with your friends running and playing different games and then go for a bike ride after dinner because its summer! Sounds like a normal day for any child during summer right? Maybe 15 years ago, but not so much any more!

An article by the New York Times claims that summer is actually the leading months for when children gain weight. We talk over and over about different weight management/ health living school programs failing to work or costing too much money and time to implement into the system when maybe school is not the problem? Maybe we need to be looking at what the children do outside of school especially during the summer. Maybe we also need to look at their home surroundings, the food they are being given, and the food habits of the household.

As the article states, “During the academic year, meal times [are] more fixed; sleep is better regulated; physical education and recess, however minimal, is in the schedule; and, most critically, by being in class during the day and doing homework afterward, students have less time for screens.”¹ These are all extremely important factors that many parents and caregivers do not realize when caring for their children during the summer months. The research shows that over a 3 school year and 2 summer periods the only time students gained weight was during the summer months!

So, bottom line, when the summer months come around get those kids moving and keep them in their routines and most of all make sure any caregivers aiding during the summer do the same!

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/health/children-obesity-summer.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fhealth&_r=0
2. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21613/full

What does healthy mean? Can we see it? Can we feel it? Can we taste it?

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines “health” as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. If this is the case, what does it mean for food to be healthy? If a food is low in fat but high in sugar is that healthy? These are some of the questions brought up in a great article by the Internet source Popular Science.

The FDA has begun the process of redefining the meaning of the word healthy. That being said, food labels claiming that their content is “healthy” may need to change or maybe they will go away all together. The biggest challenge though is actually defining the word. Can it be done, or will we need a completely new word or concept to be able to correctly label the food we eat? Either way something needs to be done.

Right now we have products on our grocery shelves such as fat free pudding, extremely sugary breakfast cereals, and fruit juices being considered and labeled as “healthy” . Can we honestly and confidently say that pudding is more “healthy” than an orange or some broccoli? I have a very tough time agreeing with that, as did many researchers who looked at the correlation between Coronary Artery Disease and the Sugar Research Foundation’s data dating back to the 1950’s. The research depicted that the Sugar Industry has continuously downplayed the effects that added sugar and a high sugar diet can have on the body. Their research alone has significantly helped high sugar foods and beverages being mislabeled as “healthy”!

In the end “healthy” is a difficult word to describe and an even more difficult word to create criteria for when determining which food labels can get that seal of approval. Maybe we need to take the article’s advice and leave a comment on the FDA website on how we as the consumers and next generation of health professionals/advocates want and think healthy labels to be redefined.

1. http://www.popsci.com/calling-food-healthy-doesnt-really-mean-anything
2. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2548255

“Red wine is linked to weight loss.”¹ Could this be true? Housewives across the country will be flocking to their nearest supermarket, liquor store, and even online (in some states) to grab their favorite bottle of “adult grape juice” guzzling until the pounds melt away. That was a nice little fairytale wasn’t it, but I’m sure you assumed it couldn’t be all true right? Well, you are correct, it’s not 100% true but there may be still be some good news after all!

Wine Folly (an online source claiming they “create wine smarts since 2011”) promotes an article based off an Oregon State University research study dealing with red wine and weight loss. The article states that the study found “a specific type of red wine slowed the growth of fat cells and formation of new fat cells in the liver.”^1,2 The particular red wine contains ellagic acid, which comes specifically from one type of grape. This type of grape is known as the Red Muscadine grape and only grows in the southeastern United States and even more so primarily in Georgia. Watch out everyone, Georgia may no longer be known as The Peach State!

The study fed the specific acid to overweight mice, and the results showed an improvement in the mice’s ability to burn fat because of the slower creation of fat cells in the liver. Needless to say it now needs to be tested on humans! Research is also still needed to determine if ellagic acid in wine form still contains these prosing weight loss benefits.

The other problem that the article does a great job of sliding in towards the end is that most wine made from Muscadine grapes is made into sweet wine, therefore negating and health benefits that the acid may have because of the amount of added sugar. Well I guess we can only solve one problem at a time right?

Overall those looking to shed a few pounds should probably stick to the common methods of healthy eating and exercise in order to reach their goal. Although the researchers are trying to “validate the specific contributions of certain foods for health benefits [and weight loss],”¹ they are not quite there yet.

1. http://winefolly.com/update/one-red-wine-linked-weight-loss/2
2. http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2015/feb/another-reason-drink-wine-it-could-help-you-burn-fat

Ham. Beef. Bacon. Veal. Sausage. Peperoni. Hot Dogs. Lamb. Pork. You mat be wondering what all these meats have in common. Some may say they are the best meats out there, while others may disagree.

According to attn: media company, “eating meat raises your mortality rate and puts you at risk for numerous diet-related diseases.” So is it time for us to all go vegetarian? After reading this article and the subsequent research that is hidden throughout it, people are encouraged to make an informed choice on what diet/ lifestyle they choose, as well as monitor the quality and quantity of what they are eating on a daily basis as it could have a large impact on your mortality rate.

attn: points out some pretty shocking and important results. “researchers have found the steepest increase in mortality was found at the smallest increases of intake of red and processed meat.”¹ They go on to explain that even eating small amounts of red and processed meats have the potential to have a serious impact on a person’s mortality risk.

All you meat lovers who are reading this, don’t yell at your computer screens just yet, both the article and the research study did not discriminate and also evaluated vegan and vegetarian diets as well. Okay… maybe now is the time you should let out some steam. Research has shown that these diets tend to decrease diabetes risk, high blood pressure, as well as reverse the harms of CVD. Better yet, they found that vegetarian/vegan diets even in the short term have positive effects on your lifespan. Bottom line? Meat, especially processed meat, will negatively affect your health and positively affect your chances of CVD even by consuming a small amount.

It is extremely important that physicians become familiar with the current research and positively educate their patients on their diet and the effects it can have on their lifespan. The research is still undecided on diets that consist mainly of fish and poultry and the effect that it has on mortality. But, for now we do know that people who supplement a plant-based diet with mild amounts of fish, poultry, and dairy seems to be the best recommendation yet for our health.

1. http://www.attn.com/stories/8249/how-much-longer-you-live-when-you-go-vegetarian
2. http://jaoa.org/article.aspx?articleid=2517494

With the proportion of processed food consumed away from home increased to nearly one half through the recent years[2], education on how to prepare nutritious meals at home is not enough to help people eating healthy. If we take a look into food bought at restaurants and homemade meals, we can see that people consume significantly more calories when they eat out. Overconsumption of fat and sugar as well as underconsumption of iron, calcium and vitamins is seen when people eat at restaurant[3]. It is thus not surprising, when researchers found that eating out is associated with childhood obesity across the United States[4]. Part of the reason could be people are less aware of the ingredients, portion size and nutrition when the food is not prepared by themselves, or their healthy options are limited by the menu. Either way, it is necessary to involve the restaurants if we were to improve overall nutrition.

The food portion we see in the restaurants is increasingly larger over the years. With portions getting larger, the appetite of the customers grows, too. While some people realizing the growing portion size and trying not to finish their plates, the restaurants are responsible for offering flexible sizes and options that include vegetables and fruits to the customers. The researchers of Choose Health LA have made a lot of effort in educating and communicating with the restaurants. The first step was how to make the message of smaller size and healthier option heard by the restaurants. Next is how to make it a win-win choice for both the restaurants and the society. In other words, the policy makers and researchers need to think through how this project can make the community around those restaurants healthier without hurting the profit of the restaurants as indicated by Pareto efficiency. Only in this way will the restaurants be willing to participate in the program and be committed even after the campaign finishes. A successful approach used by the administrators of Choose Health LA program was to advertise the participating restaurants on local news and social media, which was an efficient way to market those restaurants and make the restaurants feel that their efforts were being recognized. When we are trying to implement a public health program, it is important to make it align with the market rules, appealing to stakeholders and cost-effective. Sometimes, it might be beneficial to calculate the return on investment value of the possible public health projects in order to select the most rewarding one.

1. Food-Away-from-Home. 2016; Available from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-choices-health/food-consumption-demand/food-away-from-home.aspx.
2. McGuire, S., Todd J.E., Mancino L., Lin B-H. The impact of food away from home on adult diet quality. ERR-90, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Econ. Res. Serv., February 2010. Adv Nutr, 2011. 2(5): p. 442-3.
3. Boumtje, P.I., et al., Dietary habits, demographics, and the development of overweight and obesity among children in the United States. Food Policy, 2005. 30(2): p. 115-128.

Thinking of getting a loved one a fitness tracker this Christmas? You might want to read on this first. According to this article published in the New York Times, adults who meet the physical activity recommendation of 150 minutes per week are less likely to die prematurely from cardiovascular diseases than their counterparts who do not meet those requirements.

This information is based of a study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, where researchers compared the activity tracker results with self-reports of 4,000 middle-aged men and women who wore fitness monitors for a week. The study then followed the participants up to 10 years, checking their names against those in the National Death Registry to determine whether objectively meeting the 150-minute per week guideline affected how long people lived. According to the results of the study, moderate and moderate to vigorous physical activity from the trackers were generally associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality. The published article however failed to mention the limitation of the study. The fitness tracker was only worn for a week, which might be too short of a time to reflect long-patterns of behavior. The fitness tracker also undercounted some activities such as weight lifting thus likely classifying motionless standing as sedentary behavior.

The article goes further and cites another study carried out in Singapore where 800 office workers were given activity trackers and asked to meet certain goals. The workers were divided into groups where some received cash to reach those goals, another earning money for their favorite charity, and the last group was told to meet the targets simply because it was a good for their health. At a six months follow up, those who received cash exercised the least while those who did it for their own good were exercising more now than at the last check. The study however did not find any evidence of improvements in health outcomes across the different groups. This definitely calls into question the value of these devices for health promotion.

Even with insufficient evidence to make a proper claim of the impact of fitness trackers, the studies do show that activity monitors have the potential to influence how long and well we live through physical activity. Generally, physical activity has been shown to have benefits especially ones related to cardiovascular diseases. Health practitioners can use this studies and still recommend the use of fitness trackers to help clients monitor their physical activity, as long as they also advise the clients to not only depend on the fitness tracker as a measure of their health.

Sugary beverages are a hot topic as of late. From proposed soda taxes to outright removal of soda in some organizations, it is clear that there is a movement to reduce the consumption of these calorically-rich, nutritionally-empty drinks. With more than 24,000 employees, The University of California-San Francisco is perhaps the largest institution to take action systematically thus far. Sugary drinks were removed from every outlet on campus, including fast-food chains and replaced with diet beverages and fruit juices with no added sugar.

Being a public institution that also conducts health research, UCSF researchers not only wanted to reduce consumption, but also set out to study whether any impact on metabolic systems would also be measurable as a result of this policy change. One researcher also cited the moral implications of profiting off of something that is known contribute to adverse health effects. Researchers are studying 214 employees and looking at the impact on weight loss, liver health, insulin resistance, and telomeres. Although the study is still in progress a survey of over 2,500 employees found that soda consumption among employees dropped by a quarter, a significant overall decrease.

The article mentions the beverage industry fighting back with the argument that restrictions and taxes hurt the poor. My question, then, is: What is the definition of “hurt”? If allowing “the poor” – and, in most cases, the least educated in terms of nutrition and health outcomes – easy access to sugary beverages by keeping the prices low, then who is really doing the hurting of this population in need? It is a moral and a money question that is not easily answered.

Early results from the UCSF study show that participants have lost weight, and, despite early resistance to the policy change, they are now glad their employer has removed the sugary sodas. Once long term results have been reported, it will be especially interesting to see whether UCSF employees maintained lower sugar consumption or whether they replaced soda with other high-sugar foods while at work. If they maintain lower sugar intake, UCSF will become an example for schools and employers throughout the country that not only improves the waistline, but the bottom line.

O’connor, A. (2016). Putting Sugary Soda Out of Reach. Retrieved November 06, 2016, from

When it comes to your health, there may be more to consider than just what you are eating –   calories, fat content, types of fat, carbohydrates, protein, vitamins, minerals, and… well, you get the picture. A new study published in the journal Nutrition warns that the temperature at which we cook is as just as important as what we are cooking and how we are cooking it.

Researchers warn that when foods are cooked to high temperatures, they release chemicals linked to an increased risk of heart disease.  According to the article, South Asian populations are at four times greater risk of heart disease, citing the propensity of cooking in hot oils at high temperatures. This implies, however, that they type of oil itself is not a factor – or, at least, not as much of a factor as the temperature of the oil may be.

To break it down further, researchers studied the difference between Chinese and Indian populations’ food preparation methods and how they related to health outcomes. Indian food is typically cooked for longer times and at higher temperatures, thus changing healthy oils and making them unhealthy. In addition, reheating oil is a typical practice in Indian culture, a practice which can bring a separate set of health risks.

Although the argument presented in the article seems valid enough, the research is still nonetheless hypothetical, not empirical. As both the article and the original study state, it has not been tested in a broader, more generalizable population. Although this information seems noteworthy, it all “boils down” to what we already know: Deep fried foods are simply not healthy.

When researchers compare the Chinese cooking methods of boiling and lightly frying with Indian methods of “fried batter soaked in sugar syrup,” it seems as though they aren’t comparing apples to apples, or, perhaps, samosa to samosa. So, are the health risks related to cooking methods between populations really comparable even if traditional food preparation methods are not? It would be interesting and perhaps more useful to look at food preparation methods within a specific group rather than between groups in order to limit the genetic and environmental variables which may also contribute to heart disease.

Senthilingham, M. (2016, November 5). Too much heat in the kitchen may increase your risk of

heart disease. Retrieved November 6, 2016, from  http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/04/health/high-

temperature-cooking-increases-heart disease-risk/index.html

Kakde, S. (2016, July 25). Urbanized South Asians’ susceptibility to coronary heart disease: The high-heat

food preparation hypothesis. Nutrition. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2016.07.006

“Is red wine really good for you?” The question I would like the answer to be a definitive “Yes” and no one argues the validity of it and no one actually looks at research and the health components of why it benefits the body. With me being a “wanna be” wine sommelier these articles always grab my attention especially if the tag line is positive and encourages that red wines are beneficial. This study looked at the contradictory journals about wine benefits and was medically reviewed by Lindsey Marcellin, MD, MPH and she broke down the physiology.  We all are in the healthcare profession, or at least attempting to get there one day, and so we understand that yes, excessive drinking can adversely affect your health, career and social relationship. But a glass of red wine before bed most nights, how does that produce positive effects? Or is it just a placebo effect?

Red wine is full of antioxidants, known as polyphenols. Polyphenols can protect cells and tissues against the development of diseases. Halpern, a profession in pharmaceutical sciences explains that red wine tends to have a greater number of polyphenols because of the greater pigment of color and a higher concentration that have a protective effect on the cardiovascular system. So if I were to stop reading there, I would guilt free drink a glass every night to keep my cardiovascular system healthy.

But since I didn’t just stop reading there, I come to find out that in 2014 a study published by the JAMA internal medicine, researchers studied Italians who consumed large amounts of polyphenol and found that it did not protect from developing heart disease or cancer. Reading that was a bummer, but as I dived into that statement more, the phrase larger amount stuck out. I’m not consuming a large quantity, or am I? What is considered a large amount? In one sitting? Over a week’s span? Month? Year? Unfortunately, it doesn’t specify.

As I kept reading and read more additional benefits of red wine, I noticed a common trend. The chemical make-up of red wine may prevent head and neck cancer, it may help prevent age-related memory decline, it can block cellular processes that allow fat cells to develop and grow & it may kill dangerous bacteria in your mouth.

All these benefits are so subjective and a possibility. The percentages aren’t quantified, sure it could be beneficial or it could just be another liquid that is consumed and excreted in the body. I would have loved to walk away with from this study with a rolodex of positive examples of what wine does, but as of right now I’ll just stick with, I enjoy the taste and it could have health benefits.

1. http://www.everydayhealth.com/longevity/is-red-wine-good-for-you.aspx
2. http://slideplayer.com/slide/2476844/

A stressful job could be good for your health?? That has got to be a joke right?! This seems crazy and something I truly don’t want to believe, who even likes being stressed?! Not me! In the culture we live in, all we have heard is how detrimental stress can be, and when I feel overwhelmed at work and it’s been non-stop, I of course have the only rational thought out there: “This job is taking years off my life.” But according to this study, stress may actually be more beneficial in a long term sense than we think. Strange thought, right.

Erik Gonzalez-Mule was the lead author of this study and his team from Indiana University tracked thousands of workers who were in their 60’s to gauge the stress that is caused from their jobs over 6 years. The most interesting part of this study for me was that the researchers categorized stress in two different ways: those who had freedom and control in high-stress roles vs employees that have little freedom to make their own decisions in high-stress roles.

When stress is divided into categories like those I agree that there are clear negative consequences for employee health when it is paired with a small amount of freedom for decision making as opposed to when an employee has more freedom that can be favorable. When you have freedom to choose in stress it causes you to find a way and figure it out how you would like. Gonzalez-Mule suggested that reconstructing jobs to give more control to employees could have double benefits because not only would it be good for the employee but also could improve the business itself.

There are several other quotes and statistics that I agree with, but I also do have a few concerns with this study. Why did they look at employees that were in their 60’s? What type of jobs were the researchers looking at? With this type of article out in the media it can be construed and misunderstood very easily. Employee’s may not even read the study but assume that their sleepless nights, long days, and insane workload amount will benefit them, when in reality that is not what this study is saying.

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/19/a-stressful-job-could-actually-be-good-for-your-health-experts-s/
2. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/peps.12206/epdf?r3_referer=wol&tracking_action=preview_click&show_checkout=1&purchase_referrer=onlinelibrary.wiley.com