Search

20/20 InSights

April 2008 - Posts

  • Antioxidant Insanity

    I'd say that we are a bit antioxidant crazy in our society.

    Antioxidants are pushed for everything from stopping the aging process to preventing cancer to enhancing the immune system.  You'll find them added to everything from juices to skin creams.

    If you don't know what an antioxidant is, it's a substance that helps stop free radicals.  Free radicals are missing an electron, so they like to go around and take electrons from other sources, like your cells.  This can cause damage to the cells; this process is called oxidation.  This damage is believed to be involved in numerous diseases, including heart disease and cancer, as well as aging.  Antioxidants are supposed to prevent this damage; they stop the free radicals in their tracks by "appeasing" them with an electron.

    In our society, we're all about more is better.  More money, more cars, more things...and more antioxidants.  We'll take megadoses, hoping that we'll slow the aging process and prevent cancer.  We'll rub it all over our skin to prevent wrinkles.  We'll put them in our hair to help stop it from turning gray.  I'm surprised we aren't using them to prevent the latest subprime mortgage crisis.

    However, just like with anything else, you can have too much of a good thing.

    The first sign that too many antioxidants could be a problem was seen in a study published in 1994, where researchers found that smokers who took high doses of beta-carotene (an antioxidant) got more lung cancer than smokers who didn't.  A few years later, another study performed at The Hutch showed the same thing.  Further research has confirmed these results.

    More research has come out indicating too many antioxidants can be a problem.  In a previous blog, I mentioned how megadoses of vitamin C might cause skin cancer.  A recent meta-analysis (a "study of studies") also indicated that high doses of single antioxidants might increase mortality.  While this meta-analysis has some flaws, it raises the possibility that you can have too much of a good thing.

    Why would too many antioxidants cause a problem?  Well, too many antioxidants can have a pro-oxidant effect.  This means, rather than stopping oxidation, they contribute to it!  Another thought is that, if you take too many antioxidants, you suppress your body's natural antioxidant defense mechanisms.

    The old cliche' of "everything in moderation" applies here.  Antioxidants in moderation have health benefits, but in excess, they have health detriments.  You should get most of your antioxidants from eating a variety of fruits and vegetables, and then take a basic multivitamin (like our 20/20 multivitamin) as a safeguard against any potential deficiencies.  But leave the antioxidant supplements on the store counter.

     

    Posted Apr 29 2008, 01:58 PM by jkrieger with 5 comment(s)
  • Colon Cleansing

    I think it's time to cleanse the world of the colon cleansing.

    Colon cleansing is where people go on special liquid diets or take special liquid or herbal supplements to "cleanse" the colon of any "toxins" that supposedly have accumulated in there.

    First, the word "toxin" is always a red flag.  Usually, "toxin" is pseudoscientific doublespeak that people use to get you to buy their product.  The next time people tell you their product will get rid of toxins, ask them "Which toxins?"  They usually can't tell you.

    In fact, colon cleansing is based on the outdated 19th century theory of autointoxication....the belief that waste collects in the colon over time and stagnates there.  Well, research as early as the 1920's showed that this isn't true. Doctors who regularly perform colonoscopies and literally look into hundreds of colons per year will tell you that stool does not collect in the colon at all.

    There's also no evidence that stool is toxic to the body.  If stool was toxic, then people who suffer from constipation would also suffer from more disease....but they don't.

    If you take a close look at the ingredients of these "colon cleansing" products, you'll find that they're either simply a random collection of different types of fiber...

     

    and/or a random collection of herbs...

    ...and there's no evidence that any of these herbs do anything for you, let alone "cleanse" your colon.

    In fact, you have to be careful with some of the herbal colon cleansers, because they may contain powerful laxatives, such as senna leaves.  While laxatives can occasionally relieve constipation, frequent use may have harmful effects, including dehydration and vitamin/mineral deficiencies.

    Despite all the claims of the people who want you to take a colon bath, there's no need to cleanse your colon.  It does just fine on its own.

    For a healthy colon, what matters is what you put in your mouth.  Make sure your diet is adequate in natural fiber from whole fruits and vegetables.  Also, drink enough water....mild dehydration may result in constipation.

    The bottom line is that colon cleansing is nothing but a bunch of the stuff that comes out of your colon.  If you ever use any these products, you're flushing your money right down the toilet...literally!

     

    Posted Apr 28 2008, 11:26 AM by jkrieger with 2 comment(s)
  • Liposcam

    On TV the other day, I saw a commercial for a product called Lipozene.

    The product was supposed to magically make the pounds melt away.  They even said they had a clinical trial proving the product.  Of course, if you read the fine print that they flash on the screen for about 1 second in blurry text that you can hardly read, you'd see that the weight loss was 1.86 pounds over 8 weeks.  That's certainly nothing magical.

    They even had the product packaged to make it look like a drug.

    My fraud-meter was going off big time when I saw this commercial, so I thought I'd look into it further.  Turns out that the main ingredient in Lipozene is glucomannan, a form of soluble fiber taken from konjac roots.

    There are studies showing that glucomannan can help improve blood sugar control, decrease LDL cholesterol (the "bad" cholesterol), and improve weight loss by increasing satiety.  However, that's true for any form of soluble fiber.  There's nothing special about glucomannan.  Any over-the-counter fiber supplement, including our 20/20 fiber supplement, will have the same effect, for much cheaper.

    In fact, Lipozene is a rip-off.  They recommend you take 6 capsules, 3 times per day.  At $29.95 per bottle, that will last you 10 days.  So you'd be paying $90 per month for a fiber supplement.

    That's not the only way they rip you off.  The makers of Lipozene were charged by the Federal Trade Commission for making false and unsubstantiated claims and were forced to pay $1.5 million in customer redress.

    That was in 2005.  Apparently the makers of Lipozene haven't learned their lesson, because they're still ripping off consumers.  In fact, here's a long list of consumer complaints against the company's business practices over the past few years.

    Caveat emptor.

     

     

    Posted Apr 21 2008, 08:38 AM by jkrieger with no comments
  • The most important meal of the day?

    Over on Diet Blog, somebody recently wrote a post questioning the importance of breakfast for weight control.

    Cari Corbet-Owen, a clinical psychologist, examined a lot of the claims made about breakfast and then tries to debunk each claim based on her own personal experience.

    While personal experience can provide valuable information, it certainly can't be used on its own as evidence for anything.  First, one person is hardly representative of the entire population.  Second, there are always exceptions to every rule.  For example, there are personal anecdotes of people who smoke but never get any form of cancer or COPD.  But these people are the exceptions, not the rule;  there are always going to be some outliers who get lucky.  It's well established that smoking dramatically increases your chances of getting these diseases.

    Anyway, Owen makes a bunch of statements that I would have to disagree with, so I'm going to list some of her statements here and explain why I disagree with them.

    1.  Fact is, much 'breakfast research' is done by groups that have a lot invested in the "Eat Breakfast like a King" theory.

    She doesn't provide any evidence for this statement, and I'm wondering if she's even read the research on breakfast.

    There are many studies supporting the importance of breakfast.  Many of these are by different research groups from a variety of Universities.  These aren't people trying to sell breakfast cereal or who are being funded by cereal companies.  Here's a list of some of the studies supporting breakfast...

    Granted, the majority of these studies are observational studies which can't establish cause/effect.  Still, that's a large body of evidence from a variety of researchers all pointing to the same conclusion.

    2.  Researchers design their hypothesis and questions to inevitably prove their hypothesis true

    Actually, researchers (at least good ones) design their hypothesis to try to prove it false.  That's how science works.  You come up with a hypothesis, then you design an experiment to test the hypothesis (you try to falsify it).  If you are unable to prove the hypothesis false, then that means you've supported your hypothesis.  It does NOT mean you've proven it to be true.

    3.  Plenty of people who don't eat until they get hungry in the mornings tell me their concentration isn't impaired at all.

    Again, anecdotes aren't very good evidence.  Some of the studies I referenced earlier are quite clear that eating breakfast is associated with better concentration during the day.

    4.  Water and exercise help mental agility as does oxygen.

    I don't know of any evidence that indicates drinking water improves concentration.  Unless you're severely dehydrated, I don't even see a mechanism behind how water would help.  And I'm not sure what she means about oxygen.  Unless she's referring to exercise, there's no practical way to increase oxygen delivery to the brain.

    5.  But breakfast researchers don't ask questions about water consumption or exercise. It wouldn't fit their hypothesis.

    Researchers don't need to ask questions about water consumption or exercise; that's what control groups are for.  When you're comparing breakfast eaters to non-breakfast eaters (the controls), ideally the only difference between them is in the breakfast consumption.  With a large enough sample, other variables (like exercise) are going to be equivalent among the groups.

    In fact, in one of the studies I referenced above, the researchers used a cross-over design.  This means that the subjects acted as their own controls; they went through both the breakfast experiment and the no-breakfast experiment.  This practically guarantees any confounding variables (like exercise) are going to be equal.

    Now, when it comes to observational studies, this is not always the case.  For example, maybe non-breakfast eaters tend to be less active.  So, maybe its the lower activity is what really causes the weight gain.  But scientists often adjust for these confounding variables when they analyze the data.

    6.  My body only wants food between 10-11am, so I only eat then. Yet, I have tons of energy having only had a large glass of lemon water and a brisk walk/jog. But let me eat a highly processed, refined and sugary breakfast cereal - and I'm lethargic and even sleepy.

    This sounds like an either/or fallacy.   Having some lemon water & a run, or having a sugary breakfast cereal are not the only two choices.  You could also have a high-protein breakfast, which suppresses hormones that cause hunger and increases hormones that suppress appetite.  You could also have a low-glycemic, whole-grain cereal, which improves blood sugar control over the rest of the day.

    7.  If you suffer with problems of blood sugar regulation -your body will let you know that. It's an amazing biological masterpiece, constantly letting you know what's going on with it. While some people may have blood sugar fluctuations if they don't eat first thing in the morning, the vast majority don't.

    This ignores the 17.5 million people with diabetes, and the 73.3 million people that have either diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance.  Their bodies are NOT very good at blood sugar regulation.

    8.   But when I eat my first meal of the day only when I am hungry and when I then eat whenever I am hungry thereafter, I eat in a way that maintains my weight just fine.

    This ignores the vast amount of research that shows that obese people's hunger/satiety mechanisms are screwed up, so that they can't accurately regulate their food intake based on hunger alone.

     

    The bottom line is that the experiences of one person (in this case, the blog's author) cannot be generalized to most people.  While there are certain people who have no problems not having breakfast, or delaying breakfast, most people are going to need to have some sort of breakfast (preferably high-protein and low-glycemic) for optimal weight & blood sugar control.  This doesn't mean you have to eat as soon as you wake up, but you shouldn't be waiting for hours, either.

     

    Posted Apr 15 2008, 09:17 AM by jkrieger with 1 comment(s)
  • Water, water, everywhere

    I've been getting some people asking about the recent news on water.

    For those of you who haven't heard, there have been dozens of news reports about how there's no scientific evidence that you need at least 8 glasses a day.  There was a recent online editorial in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology about this, and the conclusion was that there's no good evidence that you need this much water.

    This was not the first review published on this topic.  Back in 2002, Heinz Valtin of Dartmouth University published a similar review and came to a similar conclusion.

    You know what?  These guys are right.  There's no solid scientific evidence indicating you need 8 glasses per day.

    Nobody really knows where the 8-glass-per-day-minimum recommendation came from.  Valtin did some extensive searching to see if he could find the origins of the recommendation.  He couldn't determine for sure where it came from.  He found a short quote in the back of a book in 1974 by the late Dr. Frederick J. Stare, a renowned nutritionist.  In the passage, he recommended 6-8 glasses of fluid...not just water.  There was no scientific references provided in the quote.

    Another possible origin of the 8-glass recommendation comes from a 1945 statement by the Food & Nutrition Board.  The statement read:

    A suitable allowance of water for adults is 2.5 liters daily in most instances.  An ordinary standard for diverse persons is 1 milliliter for each calorie of food.  Most of this quantity is contained in prepared foods.

    It's possible that the last sentence was ignored, and led people to believe that they need 8 glasses of water (2.5 liters) per day.

    Regardless of where the myth started, it's obvious that we have a case of communal reinforcement.  Somewhere, someone made this recommendation, and it "stuck" and has been repeated a billion times over the years...so much that people have believed it without question.

    Even in 20/20, we believed it.  In the old 20/20 videos, we recommended a minimum of 8 glasses per day.

    When I came on board as the research geek in 2005, I re-evaluated our water recommendations.  We changed our recommendation to 6-8 glasses (and no more is necessary), rather than 8 glasses minimum.  This recommendation is based on the following studies:

    Also, the Food & Nutrition Board has recommended about 1 milliliter of fluid for every calorie you expend.  We estimated that the men in 20/20 are expending around 2750 calories per day, and the women are expending around 2450.  This equals a fluid intake of 2.75 liters for men and 2.45 liters for women.  We then estimated that the men and women get about 1 liter of fluid from food.  This leaves 1.75 liters of water for men (7 cups) and 1.45 liters for women (6 cups).

    So there you have it.  That's where our 6-8 glass recommendation comes from.  Keep in mind that we feel this is an optimal intake.  While you certainly don't need 6-8 glasses of pure water, your risk of kidney stones and bladder cancer goes down with that amount, which is why we recommend it.

     

     

     

    Posted Apr 09 2008, 09:10 AM by jkrieger with 3 comment(s)
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems