Search

20/20 InSights

January 2008 - Posts

  • Couch potatoes age faster...

    A study was just published in the Archives of Internal Medicine suggesting that couch potatoes age faster than people who are physically active.

    NewScientist is reporting on the study here.

    In the study, people who weren't very active (only 16 minutes of exercise per week) had shorter telomeres than people who got 3 hours per week of exercise.  This translates to being about 10 years biologically older.

    Telomeres are like "bookends" to your DNA.  Your cells are constantly dividing.  Every time one of those cells divides, the telomeres get shorter.  Once the telomere gets too short, the cell can no longer divide.  Thus, telomere length is a marker of the aging process.

    Telomere length can be inherited, which explains why some families of people tend to live longer than other families of people, and why some people seem to have the genetics to look younger than other people of the same age.  Still, genetics had nothing to do with the results of this study, because the researchers looked at pairs of twins.  The twin that was doing more exercise had longer telomeres than the twin that wasn't doing exercise.

    The other interesting thing was that only exercise during leisure time seemed to have this effect.  For people that had a job of manual labor, this effect wasn't seen...possibly because of the psychological stress of "being in the lower social pecking order" according to Tim Spector, one of the researchers.

    This same research team has shown that smoking and obesity will shorten telomere length by the equivalent of 10 years.  So, a program like 20/20 can truly help you age slower.

    You know, my gut hunch has always been that physical activity can help slow the aging process.  I've noticed it in my own family.  People have told me that I look like I'm in my 20's even though I'm in my 30's.  And I've been exercising regularly since I was 12 years old.  In fact, the only time in my life where I've been inactive for more than a week or two was a period of 3 months when I was heavily involved in my research down in Florida.

    People might tell me it's just genetics, because my dad looks very young for a guy in his 50's.  However, my dad is also very physically active, and continues to swim and run just as he did when he used to compete in road races and triathlons.

    My grandmother looks young for someone of her age, and she goes on hikes all over the world.

    The bottom line is that regular exercise (at least 3 hours per week) is not only good for your cardiovascular system, but it will keep you younger for longer.  David Gems, a research on aging from London, put it best in the NewScientist article...

    "These days older folks spend more and more money on various dietary supplements in the hope of ageing more slowly, but really they would be better off keeping the money and just walking the dog more often."

     

     

    Posted Jan 29 2008, 11:22 AM by jkrieger with no comments
  • Another Biggest Loser blunder

    In this week's episode of the Biggest Loser, the pink team was eliminated.

    During the elimination, they were really angry that the yellow team had chosen them for elimination.  Well, what do you expect, pink team?  You had made it clear earlier in the episode that you would eliminate the yellow team if you had the chance.  It seems a bit hypocritical to accuse the yellow team of "game play", when you yourself were doing the same thing in your vote to eliminate the yellow team.

    If it had been me, I would've eliminated one of the teams that tried to throw the weigh-in.

    On another note, during the Biggest Loser episodes, they always have little "trainer tips" before commercial breaks.  This week's trainer tip was from Jillian.  She said that skipping breakfast "slows your metabolism."

    That simply isn't true.  Skipping breakfast has no effect on your metabolism (I'm referring to metabolism here as your resting metabolic rate or RMR).  RMR is primarily determined by the fat-free mass (FFM) of your body, which is made up mainly of your internal organs.

    Where skipping breakfast is a problem is in appetite regulation and food intake.  One study clearly showed that, when people skipped breakfast, they ate 90 more calories per day.  That's almost a 10 pound weight gain per year!

    So, Jillian was right that you shouldn't skip breakfast.  But it's not because it will screw up your metabolism....it's because it will screw up your satiety.

     

    Posted Jan 24 2008, 10:07 AM by jkrieger with 2 comment(s)
  • Misinformation Management

    The world of politics is full of misinformation....so much so that it can be difficult to discern what is true and what is not.

    Enter the website FactCheck.org, a site that thoroughly investigates claims made by politicians, whether Democrat, Republican, or independent.  They do a very good job of getting through the deception and disinformation of U.S. politics.

    So what's that got to do with this blog?  The world of health is very similar to the world of politics....ripe with misinformation, distortion, half-truths, quarter-truths, and zero-truths.  It can be very difficult to discern what's real and what's not.  On top of that, many people don't have the required background or time to be able to filter incorrect information.  With the invention of the internet, the ability of people to spread misinformation has increased 10,000 fold.

    Which brings me to one of my purposes behind this blog....to help clear up misinformation out there.  Unlike many people, I have the time, resources, and background to try to get down to what's true and what's not in the health field.  In fact, part of my job revolves around doing this; it is critical that, in 20/20, we set policies and procedures that have a solid basis in evidence.

    Let me give you an example.  A while back, our dietitians wanted an assessment of the safety of various artificial sweeteners.  With a range of information from industry telling us that they're perfectly safe, to thousands of websites saying artificial sweeteners are more dangerous than terrorists, it can be tough to know what's really true.

    So I embarked on a journey, spending hours and weeks investigating the safety of artificial sweeteners.  I particularly focused on aspartame (Nutrasweet).  I read the studies.  I read the websites (both pro and con).  I read debates.  I browsed through a book talking about the alleged dangers of these sweeteners.  I cross-checked everything that I could.  I was skeptical of everything presented to me, regardless of whether it was pro or con.  I applied the same critical standards to every bit of information that I waded through.

    All I cared about was finding the truth.  I was going to be my own FactCheck.org.  And it was not easy.  It took me weeks of my full-time job to find answers that were factual.  If it took me weeks of my full-time job to find an answer, there's no way the average person could accurately discern information from disinformation in regards to artificial sweeteners.

    What I found was that all of the internet-scare websites and alarmist books were completely bogus.  They were full of logical fallacies, half-truths, historical inaccuracies, and sometimes information that appeared to be completely made up.  The fact is, most artificial sweeteners, including the supposedly evil Nutrasweet, are quite safe for the vast majority of the population when consumed at amounts below the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI).  And, believe me, it's pretty tough to exceed the ADI.  About the only potential issues that I could find with Nutrasweet....issues that had a basis in factual evidence....were that people with phenylketonuria (PKU, a very rare genetic disorder) should watch their intake.  There was also some very weak evidence that Nutrasweet, in large doses on an empty stomach, might trigger headaches in a very small minority of sensitive people.  But I stress this evidence was very weak.

    And no, I'm not on Nutrasweet's payroll.

    So, you can always be sure that I'll give you the straight dope on the health field, and that I'll give you information that I've thoroughly investigated and cross-checked.  In some ways, I want this blog to become a sort of mini-FactCheck.org for weight loss, nutrition, and obesity.  Not every topic is going to be a "debunking" topic, but you can be certain I'll occasionally tackle misinformation in regards to your health.

     

    Posted Jan 22 2008, 02:27 PM by jkrieger with 1 comment(s)
  • Artificial vs natural part II

    FoodNavigator recently posted an article talking about the refusal of regulators to provide a formal definition of the term 'natural.'

    "Natural" food products are big business.  It was the third most frequent claim launched on food products in the U.S. in 2007.  And 63% of U.S. customers have a preference for "natural" foods and beverages.

    However, as I talked about in a previous blog, there really is no clear line between what is artificial and what is natural.  And, as I discussed in detail, there is no evidence that natural (whatever natural means) products are any safer or better for us than artificial ones (whatever artificial means).

    Despite that, people demand "natural" products.  And unfortunately, there are no regulations governing the use of the term "natural", and there are no standardized industry guidelines in the U.S. or Europe.

    The FDA recently received two petitions to define the term, but it will not be considering this issue in the near future because "we're not sure how high of an issue it is for consumers."

    If the FDA ever does consider it, it's not going to be easy to define it.

    I'll give my opinion on this issue.  I do think there should be a definition so that consumers know exactly what is meant by the term "natural."  Consumers have a right to know.  There also needs to be consistency among food manufacturers in how this term is used.  However, I would also have to side with the FDA that it's not an urgent issue.  The FDA is dragging their feet on this because they don't have the resources to tackle everything on their plates...and they have more important issues to deal with (such as allergen declarations).  IMO, they're right...defining "natural" really isn't an urgent thing (especially given the issues I talked about in my previous blog).

    That brings me to another issue I have with the whole "all-natural" thing....the fact that food manufacturers will change the names on the list of ingredients to make something sound natural or healthier than it really is.

    Let me give you an example.  On some natural food products (like some snack bars), you'll see in the ingredient "evaporated cane juice."

    Do you know what evaporated cane juice is?

    Table sugar.  That's all it is.  But manufacturers will use the other term because it sounds healthier.  IMO this is misleading, as not everyone knows that evaporated cane juice and sugar are the same thing.  So someone might buy a product not realizing there is added sugar in it.  The only tip-off they might get is if they read the "sugars" content on the carbohydrate label.

    Anyway, as I've mentioned before, don't get too caught up in whether something is "all-natural" or not.  It's much more important to pay attention to the macronutrient content, the type of fat, and the type of carbohydrate in a food rather than whether it can meet the as-of-yet-to-be-determined "natural" category.

     

     

     

     

    Posted Jan 18 2008, 02:42 PM by jkrieger with 5 comment(s)
  • Biggest Loser Couples

    Has anyone been catching this season of The Biggest Loser?

    This season they have couples competing against eachother.  Some are married couples.  One couple is an ex-husband and wife.  One couple is a pair of best friends.  One couple is a mother and daughter combo.  Another couple is a pair of former teammates.  Another couple is a random pair of people who didn't know each other before the show and the show stuck them together.

    I missed the first episode but saw episode #2 last night.  I don't know about you, but already the show feels a bit repetitive to me.  After watching it all last season, it just feels like more of the same ol' stuff & fabricated drama.

    I'll say that I wasn't a fan of how the brothers on the black team were given 3 sets of calling cards to give out to other teams of their choice.  I don't think it's fair to put such people in such a position, and the hidden resentment that it can cause among the teams who didn't get chosen by the black team.  But such is the nature of a TV show trying to create drama.

    I was also surprised at who the black team chose.  If I had been in that situation, I would've chosen the teams who chose to finish out the 100 reps on the seesaw

    I did like the room they put the contestants in where it gave them numbers representing how many calories, pounds of fat, and pounds of sugar they were getting from the foods they typically ate.  Stuff like that can really give someone a good dose of reality.

    I was surprised at the magnitude of weight loss for week 2.  Usually in the inital weeks of an intense weight loss program, including 20/20, weight losses tend to be large due to loss of body water.  But most of the contestants only lost 1-3 lbs, and one contestant was up a pound.  The trainers, Bob and Jillian, thought it was because they were working together, but I really doubt that's the reason.  There's so much stuff that goes on off-camera that there are many possibilities why weight loss was not what you typically see in those initial weeks.  The human body does not operate in a linear fashion, anyway, so you can't always expect consistent week-to-week numbers.

     

    Posted Jan 10 2008, 09:53 AM by jkrieger with 1 comment(s)
  • Auto-Eating

    Happy Monday, everyone!

    In the latest issue of the CDC's Preventing Chronic Disease, there's an interesting article called Eating as an Automatic Behavior

     

    The authors present the idea that eating is an automatic behavior over which the environment has more control thatn the person.  They define automatic behaviors as behaviors that occur without awareness, are initiated without intention, tend to continue without control, and operate efficiently with little effort.  They cite a number of studies to support this viewpoint.  For example, there's a lot of research showing the amount of food eaten is strongly influenced by factors such as portion size, food visibility, and ease of obtaining food.  People also are often unaware of the amount of food they've eaten or of the environmental influences over their eating.

    I would agree with these authors that there definitely is an automatic component to eating.  However, I wouldn't say that it's exclusively automatic.  This is not a dichotomous situation of eating behavior being either automatic or not automatic.  I would say that there is a mix of automatic behavior and conscious choices.

    Neverthless, it's clear that eating is partly an automatic behavior, and is strongly influenced by our environment.  When you want to lose weight, people who have never been overweight will tell you, "Just eat less and exercise more!"  But people who have never had weight problems do not understand the powerful forces the environment exerts on our eating.  They also don't understand the powerful signals that our bodies give us to resist weight loss.  They don't understand the changes that happen in our bodies and brains that literally make us addicted to food.

    I'm going to talk about these changes in my upcoming 20/20 lecture, The Science of Food Addiction.  It's on January 17th, from 6 - 7:30 PM in our Decathlon Room.  I'm not only going to talk about the science of what makes us hungry and what makes weight loss difficult, but I'm also going to talk about what you can do about it.  I highly recommend signing up for it if you can attend.

    Posted Jan 07 2008, 12:58 PM by jkrieger with 1 comment(s)
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems