Search

20/20 InSights

May 2008 - Posts

  • Stadium Nutrition

    "Stadium Nutrition" is an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

    Ever wondered about the calorie and fat content of some of the foods you can get at your local neighborhood professional sports stadium?

    Stadium nachos with cheese has around 1040 calories, 55 grams of fat, and 2460 milligrams of sodium!

     A slice of pizza has 465 calories, 24 grams of fat, and 1200 milligrams of sodium!

    A stadium dog has 370 calories, 20 grams of fat, and 1360 milligrams of sodium.

    Two cups of popcorn has 170 calories, 12 grams of fat, and 250 milligrams of sodium.  Stadiums give you a lot more than just two cups!

    A plain burger and bun will give you 382 calories and 21 grams of fat (and that's plain...without anything else!).

    A 12 ounce beer has 157 calories.

    A single soft pretzel has 180 calories and 1 gram of fat.

    Other than the nachos, peanuts are one of the biggest whoppers of them all.  One cup of stadium peanuts will give you 854 calories and 72 grams of fat!

    My personal favorite has always been the garlic fries, but I couldn't find any nutritional info on them.

    So there you have it....a sampling of the calories you can get when you hit the ballgame.  And most people eat more than just one item!  That's not to mention the increased costs of eating at the ballpark.  All the more reason to take your food with you when hitting the ballpark....you'll save both cash and calories.

     

    Posted May 28 2008, 05:14 PM by jkrieger with 4 comment(s)
  • Obesity contributes to global warming?????

    Just the other day, one of my colleagues sent me a link to a Reuters article stating that obesity may contribute to global warming.

    This Reuters piece is a perfect example of how the media can completely misrepresent scientific research.

    The headline of the Reuters piece reads, "Obesity adds to global warming, study finds."  The headline alone is way off-base.

    The Reuters article is referring to a recent publication in the journal The Lancet.  However, this publication was NOT a study as the headline insinuates.  It was simply a letter to the journal.  You can read the letter here (free registration required).

    Also, this "study" did NOT find that obesity "adds to global warming."  The authors did a few simple calculations, and estimated that obese people consume about 18% more food energy than normal-weight people.  They then suggested that this increased food intake would contribute to higher food demand and thus more need to transport food (which would increase greenhouse gas emissions).  They also suggested that overweight people would drive around more rather than walk; this would increase greenhouse gas emissions both through increased driving and through the increased energy needed to move larger bodies.

    This speculation is a long way from finding that "obesity adds to global warming."  To support this headline, you would need a study (not a letter!) that clearly showed that the eating & driving activities of overweight people made a significantly higher contribution to greenhouse gases than normal weight people, and that this contribution was large enough to be of concern.

    Whether you believe in global warming or not, it's clear that this media report took speculation and turned it into something more.  This is why you always want to be very careful when reading media reports on research.

     

    Posted May 27 2008, 10:01 AM by jkrieger with 2 comment(s)
  • Sweetening Size

    Those of you who have been reading my blog for a while know that I've occasionally talked about artificial sweeteners, and how all the scientific evidence indicates they are perfectly safe for most people.

    Now, when I say safe, I mean safe from a toxicity point of view.  These substances aren't going to harm you.  They don't cause cancer...they don't cause Parkinson's....they don't cause multiple sclerosis....they don't cause Gulf War syndrome....yada, yada, yada.

    However, when it comes to weight gain, that's where things get a bit more tricky.  A recent article came out in the Journal of the American Medical Association, discussing evidence that artificial sweeteners may be linked to weight gain.  Some of this hoopla was generated over a study done in February.  In this study, 8 rats consuming saccharin-sweetened yogurt ate more food overall and put on more weight during a two week period compared to 9 rats consuming sugar-sweetened yogurt.  Why?  The scientists felt that the artificial sweeteners caused a disconnect between sweet taste and calories.  In other words, when the rats ate something sweetened with sugar, the sweetness told their brains they were taking in more calories, which caused the rats to compensate by eating less later.  However, when the rats got the artificially-sweetened yogurt, they weren't getting the calories their brains were expecting based on the taste.  So, the "sweet feedback" decreased, and the animals didn't regulate their food intake as well.

    In a study on humans, researchers found that, although artificial sweeteners and sugar stimulated the same taste buds, they affected the brain differently.  Only sugar stimulated the part of the brain that responds to food rewards.  This brings about the possibility that artificial sweeteners may not be as satiating as normal sugar.

    Does this mean artificial sweeteners will make you fat?  Not quite.  First, keep in mind that the rat study was a very small study (17 rats isn't very much for an animal study).  Also, humans are much more complicated than rats when it comes to regulating food intake.

    There are also studies that show the opposite.  In one study, rats actually lost weight when they consumed aspartame (Nutrasweet).  In a study on humans, people ate less calories when they consumed aspartame-sweetened soda as compared to sugar-sweetened soda (although this was an older study that only lasted 3 weeks).  In another 10-week study, people that ate sugar-sweetened foods gained weight, while people who ate artificially sweetened foods did not.

    This all probably seems very confusing to you.  However, let me make some sense of it.  The reason you see all this conflicting information is that people's responses to artificial sweeteners vary.  In people who are "sweet sensitive" (i.e., their taste buds are very sensitive to sweetness and they experience sweet taste with more intensity than other people), artificial sweeteners can stimulate appetite.  In people who are not sweet-sensitive, artificial sweeteners won't have any effect.

    As with many things, moderation is key.  Artificial sweeteners in low amounts aren't going to represent a problem for most people who are trying to lose or maintain weight.  In fact, they're often necessary to sweeten protein  shakes (protein helps suppress appetite, and who wants a bland protein shake?).  Just don't go overboard on them.  If you start consuming artificially sweetened products all of the time, you might interfere with your brain's "sweet feedback" mechanisms and make it more difficult for your body to regulate appetite.

     

     

    Posted May 21 2008, 05:24 PM by jkrieger with 2 comment(s)
  • D is for Darn Good

    More and more evidence is coming out showing how important vitamin D is to your health.

    FoodNavigator just mentioned a study where people with high vitamin D levels had a 55% lower chance of getting fatal cancer.

    The German scientists measured blood levels of vitamin D in 3,299 patients over a period of 7.75 years.  People with the highest level of vitamin D in their blood were 55% less likely to die of cancer than people with the lowest level of vitamin D.

    There are two ways you can get vitamin D.  One is through food.  However, we tend not to get a lot of vitamin D in our foods.  The best sources are dairy and fish.  For example, one cup of fortified milk has about 100 International Units (IU) of vitamin D.  One 3.5 ounce serving of oily fish has 200 - 300 IU.

    Most of our vitamin D comes from sunlight.  If you expose your face, arms, back, or hands for 10-15 minutes to the sun, twice per week in the summer or warm climates, and without sunscreen, you'd get a dose of about 3000 IU of vitamin D.  Of course, here in cloudy Seattle, and many other areas at high latitudes, don't get a lot of sun.  This puts people at a risk of being vitamin D deficient.  For example, up to 97% of Canadians are vitamin D deficient at some time during the winter and spring.

    Even incidental sun exposure may not be enough.  One study showed that 25% of people in southern Arizona had deficient levels of vitamin D in their blood.

    The RDA for vitamin D is 400 IU.  However, studies are showing that may not be enough for people to maintain adequate levelsEven 800 IU may not be enough.  Also, certain populations may be at a greater risk of deficiency.  For example, obese people tend to have lower levels of vitamin DAged and dark-skinned people are also at a greater risk, since their skin doesn't make vitamin D as well from the sun as lighter skinned people.

    The National Academy of Sciences has said that the safe upper limit for vitamin D intake is 2000 IU per day.  However, many researchers now are saying this is overly conservative, and that 10,000 IU should be the new upper limit.

    All of this new evidence has caused us to look into reformulating our 20/20 multivitamin.  We currently have 400 IU of vitamin D in there, but we are now considering upping that level to 1600 IU.

    In a previous blog, I mentioned how, if there were only two supplements that people should take, it should be a multivitamin and fish oil.  Well, with all of this vitamin D research coming out, I have to add vitamin D to that list.  I've added a 1000 IU vitamin D supplement to the fish oil and multivitamin that I already take.  So vitamin D is something you may want to consider adding as a supplement, particularly if you are overweight or have dark skin.  Even if you aren't in these categories, it still might be a good idea because of the northern latitude we live in, and all the gray skies we get here in the Northwest.

     

     

     

    Posted May 12 2008, 02:18 PM by jkrieger with 4 comment(s)
  • More obesity drugs?

    Reuters is reporting on a study where scientist blocked a certain brain enzyme in mice, and it helped them stay slim.

    The scientists focused on an enzyme in the brain called CaMKK2.  It plays a role in appetite stimulation.  It takes orders from a hormone called ghrelin, which is produced by your stomach and signals hunger.

    The scientists bred mice that couldn't produce CaMKK2.  They stayed thin whether they were on a low-fat or high-fat diet.  Then they took normal mice and injected their brains with a drug that would block CaMKK2.  By doing this, the mice were protected against insulin resistance and pre-diabetes, two harmful effects of a high-fat diet.

    The scientists said that the next challenge is to find an oral version of the drug that can cross the blood-brain barrier, as many chemicals are unable to do this.  You can't stick a needle through a person's skull!

    That's not the only problem.  As I mentioned in a previous blog, every obesity drug that has been introduced so far hasn't done so well.  Why?  Human appetite regulation is very complicated.  If you knock one system out, there will be dozens of others that will take its place.  This makes the quest for an obesity drug somewhat futile.

    You can still never beat lifestyle change for losing weight.  It's really the only way to lose it and keep it off long term.

     

     

     

     

     

    Posted May 08 2008, 01:43 PM by jkrieger with no comments
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems