Don’t take this the wrong way though, this study seems to serve more as a reminder too much of anything can be bad for you. It’s also nice to contrast the information we hear, which is usually positive related to fish oil — omega-3 fatty acids. The fact of the matter is that the amount of omega-3 fatty acids we need for optimal functioning is still not known, so don’t go crazy with the supplements.

Fenton cautions people may not need to avoid fish oil; what the research shows is needed are guidelines on dosing. With any nutrient, there is a “bell curve” effect. On the left of the curve are those deficient in a nutrient; on the right are those in excess.

She said people already receiving enough omega-3 fatty acids through their normal diet and foods have no need for added supplementation.

[ScienceDaily]

The researchers created a healthy lifestyle index using internationally accepted public health recommendations from the World Health Organization, World Cancer Research Fund and the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations.

These included being physically active for at least 30 minutes a day, having no more than seven drinks a week for women and 14 drinks a week for men, being non-smoker, having a waist circumference below 88 cm for women and 102 cm for men and consuming a healthy diet

If all participants had followed all five recommendations, then 23% of the bowel cancer cases could have been avoided.

The researchers conclude: “Our study reveals the useful public health message that even modest differences in lifestyle might have a substantial impact on colorectal cancer risk and emphasises the importance of continuing vigorous efforts to convince people to follow the lifestyle recommendations.”

[BMJ]

I think it’s a great idea which can get you started of on a healthier pattern. Even if you don’t do it every day of the week, try at least a Meatless Monday. Everything helps;  for your own health, the environment and the animals.

After Bill Clinton had his bypass surgery, his arteries clogged up and he needed a stent. He didn’t want it to happen again, so he researched the topic, and found that 82% of heart patients who went on a plant based diet becomes healthy again. He changed his diet to a plant based one, and the video is an interview with him where he explains why and where his doctors, Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn and Dr. Dean Ornish, explains more about the benefits and some of the research behind a plant based diet.

I enjoyed reading the results from a recent study by Associate Professor Greg Cooney, from Sydney’s Garvan Institute of Medical Research.  Although I’m personally quite convinced that there’s only one way of loosing weight; to adjust energy intake or usage, I have heard various other arguments. There has even been quite the misconception that it’s possible to loose weight only by burning fat instead of carbohydrates.  This idea has also been suggested in scientific papers, and adopted by several fad diets.

Now,  Prof. Cooney and his team has found evidence that this effect is non existent, there is no magic bullet.

“The energy that fuels your body can come from fats, proteins or carbohydrates. You won’t know which because the end result is ATP, or cellular energy.”

The researchers used mice which was genetically altered to burn fat in preference to carbohydrates, to show that the mice would convert unburned carbohydrate into fat.  This resulted in the body weight and composition to be the same as normal mice.  The enzyme they changed was ACC2 (acetyl-CoA carboxylase), which controls whether a cell burns fats or carbohydrates.

“Your body will use the energy it needs and store the leftover fats, proteins or carbohydrates as fat. When you do the sums, it’s ultimately a matter of calories in and calories out.”

I hope this settles it once and for all, weight loss or gain is only a factor of energy input (food) versus energy usage (exercise).

The key message is that the best way to loose weight is to adjust either energy input or output while eating a healthy and balanced diet, such as a whole-plant-based-diet.

[ScienceDaily]

A new study by D. Casey Kerrigan aiming to “determine the effect of modern-day running shoes on lower extremity joint torques during running” appeared in the December issue of PM&R Journal.  The conclusion of the study was that running shoes exerted more stress on knee, hips and ankle joints compared to running barefoot or even walking with high heels.

“Remarkably, the effect of running shoes on knee joint torques during running (36%-38% increase) that the authors observed here is even greater than the effect that was reported earlier of high-heeled shoes during walking (20%-26% increase). Considering that lower extremity joint loading is of a significantly greater magnitude during running than is experienced during walking, the current findings indeed represent substantial biomechanical changes.”

To me these findings are quite shocking since I was under, what seems to be false, impression that running shoes gave me better support and exerted less tension to the joints than running barefoot.  Running barefoot is not really a suitable alternative to me though, since it would probably hurt and leave me with quite the rough skin under my feet.  But it seems running shoe designers have a job to do!

Please start making running shoes which simulates the natural act of running barefoot, because I really enjoy running.

Update:

I was just informed me about a web page called Barefootrunningshoes which serves as “an information hub on many of the popular barefoot running shoes that are currently available as well as related products and accessories”. Could be helpful if you’d like to get shoes which resembles that of running barefoot.  Thanks Kate!

[PM&R Journal via Sciencedaily]

Kerrigan, D. C., Franz, J. R., Keenan, G. S., Dicharry, J., Della Croce, U., & Wilder, R. P. (2009). The effect of running shoes on lower extremity joint torques. PM & R : The Journal of Injury, Function, and Rehabilitation, 1(12), 1058-63. Retrieved January 19, 2010, from http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/1934-1482/PIIS1934148209013677.pdf

The many benefits of breastfeeding is something all mothers are familiar with, but are there really that many benefits? A Norwegian study is challenging this well established truth.

A recent study from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology have spurred several heated debates in Norway between researchers and breast feeding supporters.  The study claims that breast feeding is not the reason behind the added health benefit observed in kids which have been nursed.  The researchers is pointing towards hormones produced during the pregnancy as an explanatory factor for the benefits previously accredited to breast milk. Groups with factors such as overweight, smoking or hormonal disorders breastfeed less than their peers, which again can be traced back to hormonal production.  The explanation offered is that the conversion of testosterone to oestrogen in the placenta is corrupted, leading to higher than normal amounts of testosterone in the body during pregnancy.

“It’s thus not the woman’s will to breastfeed. Women who had more testosterone in their bodies during pregnancy feel the effects of a hormone that limits breastfeeding. That is clearly why it is not as easy to breastfeed.”

The researchers reassures women unable to nurse that baby formula is as good as breast milk, and that should not feel guilty for not being able to nurse.

Personally I have a split opinion of this; I appreciate the deed which the researchers seem to be doing by removing the guilt of anxious mothers struggling to breast feed, but it almost gives me the impression that the researchers think breast feeding is unnecessary.  This could again lead to cosmetic reasons to skip breastfeeding although one is perfectly capable, which would be a scary trend.  The two reasons the researchers mention to continue encouraging breast feeding is that formula is less environmental (heating milk and sterilizing bottles) and less economical in developing countries. Maybe the Iiamo bottle leaves parents with a more environmental way of heating milk, at least it seems to be much more efficient.

It seems unbelievable to me that breast feeding has no positive physiological effects, although they might be overstated by previous studies.  I think natural breast feeding should be encouraged, but maybe there should be more focus on not leaving those who can’t with a guilty conscience.

[Medical news today]

A Dutch study investigated if the choice of what vegetables kids were to eat compared to no choice at all would have any impact on the amount of vegetables they ate.  The conclusion: No impact, although the kids enjoyed choosing by themselves.  In my opinion it would be more interesting to compare the relationship between kids consumption of vegetables relative to their parents’ consumption.

[Reuters]

In a recent study of more than 400,000 Canadians Dr. Harminder Singh of the University of Manitoba demonstrate that there is no connection between risk of colorectal cancer and the use of Statins.

“This study did not find any statistically significant reduction in colorectal cancer risk with regular use of statins, irrespective of the dose or duration,”

“The best-designed studies of the issue indicate that statin use is neither a major risk factor nor a protective factor for colorectal cancer and that we have come very near to the end of the road for the hypothesis relating statins to colorectal cancer risk.”

[American Journal of Gastroenterology via Reuters]

Singh, H., Mahmud, S. M., Turner, D., Xue, L., Demers, A. A., & Bernstein, C. N. (2009). Long-Term use of statins and risk of colorectal cancer: A population-based study. The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 104(12), 3015-23.

Calorie-restriction diets include very little food

Progress has been made in understanding the physiological effects of calorie-restriction diets, known to increase longevity.  Scientists have discovered proteins in fat cells which change according to weight loss in subjects.   This could be useful for monitoring the effects of calorie-restriction diets and possibly also increase the effectiveness.

The increasing prevalence of obesity is raising health concerns all over the world, as obesity also increase the risk of other common diseases like diabetes and cardiovascular disorders.   It has been known for quite some time that calorie restriction extends lifespan and prevents common lifestyle diseases, although the actual physiological effects are not clear, especially the effects on cells that store fat.

Edwin Mariman and colleagues have recently conducted a study where they identified a protein in the fat cells which changed as subjects were undergoing a calorie-restricted diet.  The study followed 8 overweight/obese subjects for 5 weeks as they were on a very low calorie diet, where the average weight loss was 9.5 kg body weight.  The study focused on proteins in abdominal subcutaneous fat cells where 6 proteins were identified.

The findings could be useful in establishing markers in order to monitor the effect of calorie-restriction diets, and possibly also to increase the effectiveness of such diets.  Since fruits and vegetables are important factors in calorie-restricted diets, the effects of increased longevity are probably somewhat connected to the same effects from vegetarian diets.

“Altogether, our findings underscore the potential value of in vivo proteomics for human intervention studies“.

References:

Bouwman, F. G., Claessens, M., van Baak, M. A., Noben, J. -P., Wang, P., Saris, W. H. M., et al. (2009). The Physiologic Effects of Caloric Restriction Are Reflected in the in Vivo Adipocyte-Enriched Proteome of Overweight/Obese Subjects. Journal of Proteome Research, 8(12), 5532-5540.