What if I told you that if you did four things, you might be 36% less likely to develop cancer than a person who did none of these?  Or 50% less likely to have a stroke? Perhaps 81% reduced risk for a heart attack would get your attention?  Would you do these four things if it meant you might be able to lower your risk of diabetes by 93%?  93%!!!

What are these “Fantastic Four?” 

Health factors that far too many of us skip or ignore.  They are:

• Never smoked.
• Body mass index is less than 30. (Check yours out here.)
• Exercise for 3.5 hours or more a week.
• Eat lots of fruits, vegetables, whole grains and very little red meat.

According to a large study of German men and women, the more of these healthy habits the subjects practiced the lower their risk of developing one or more of the chronic diseases cited above.  People who did all four had a 78% reduction in risk of developing cancer, diabetes, heart attack, or stroke than those who did none of the healthy habits.  Even doing one cut the chances by nearly 50%.  Being physically active and eating a healthy diet – the two calorie balance habits we advocate on the Stand Up and Eat web site – lowered risk by a whopping 66%. 

Not German?  No worries.  The results of this study are very, very similar to studies that have been done with American participants.  The bottom line is that adopting simple healthy habits can have a major impact on disease risk. 

How many of the “Fantastic Four” do you do? 

1 Ford et al.  Healthy living is the best revenge: Findings from the European Prospective Investigation into cancer and nutrition – Potsdam study.  Archives of Internal Medicine.  2009;169(15):1355-1362.

As rates of childhood obesity skyrocket, it seems appropriate for parents to forbid their children from eating chips, cookies, and candy at snack time. We'll a new study says being overly restrictive may actually backfire!

Researchers at Pennsylvania State University¹ evaluated 200 non-Hispanic white females and their parents at two-year intervals from the ages 5 to 15. Measurements included mothers' reports of girls' inhibitory (self) control levels, girls' reports of parental restriction in feeding, girls' body mass indices (BMIs), parents BMIs, education, and income. Results showed that girls with lower inhibitory control at age 7 had higher BMIs at all time points, greater weight gain, and were almost twice as likely to be overweight by age 15. Furthermore, girls who perceived higher parental restriction exhibited the strongest inverse relation between inhibitory control and weight status (high perceived restriction = low self-control and high weight status). Thus, parents who forbid their children from eating certain foods may prevent them from learning self-control, which ultimately may lead to weight gain.

So what's a parent to do? Let his/her children eat whatever they want? No. Provide a variety of healthy options at home, let children choose what and how much to eat, and when eating away from home (hopefully infrequently) let children choose what they want off the menu and encourage mindful eating (like stopping before feeling stuffed and taking 1/2 of large portions home).

¹ Anzman, S.L. (2009). Low inhibitory control and restrictive feeding practices predict weight outcomes. The Journal of Pediatrics, July 11 (available online). 

You might have read or heard about the brouhaha concerning the August 17th TIME magazine cover article titled, “The Myth About Exercise.” In it the author claimed that exercise doesn’t help you lose weight and may even cause you to gain weight.  Oh my!!

The American College of Sports Medicine immediately sent out a press release to rebut the assertions made in the article.  “The statement ‘in general, for weight loss, exercise is pretty useless’ is not supported by the scientific evidence when there is adherence to a sufficient dose of physical activity in overweight and obese adults” stated John Jakicic, Ph.D., FACSM one of the lead authors on ACSM’s position stand on physical activity in weight management.  Click here to access this important position paper.

Dr. Tim Church, Professor at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana was heavily quoted in the article.  Or rather, misquoted.  After the story broke, he wrote an open letter to TIME magazine, stating, “I found the story to be full of gross inaccuracies and misleading statements, and the premise, as introduced by the title, entirely wrong.” 

One of Dr. Church’s recent studies¹ was mentioned in the article.  In the study, women who exercised at a high level did not lose the amount of weight they were expected to lose based on their caloric expenditure.  Church and colleagues were not exactly certain why this happened but felt that the women might have been consciously or unconsciously eating more than when they started the study.  Or perhaps there was a physiologic change that compensated calorically for the extra calories burned.  Dr. Church and others need more time to tease this out.  In the meantime, remember that while some women in this study did gain weight, on average, the group lost weight.

So the journalist twisted the study results and said that exercise causes you to eat more and thus, will sabotage your weight loss efforts.  But in his letter to TIME, Church stated, “The majority of people lose weight in response to exercise training even when no dietary advice is provided…The main point we are trying to make when addressing 'compensation' is that regular exercise is not a license to eat anything you want.”

So what's going on here?  It’s a classic example of a journalist cherry-picking the science to create a sensationalistic/provocative story that will sell magazines.  Well, telling people not to exercise if you want to lose weight will (and did) get people’s attention.  Unfortunately, readers got an eyefull of inaccuracies.  Dr. Church was told by a health reporter that “it will take 10 years to undo the damage of this particular article.”  He – and we – hope not.

Did you see the TIME article and if so, what did you think about it?  Comment below.

¹ Church TS, et al.  Changes in weight, waist circumference and compensatory responses with different dosesof exercise among sedentary, overweight postmenopausal women.  PLoS ONE 2009;(42):e4515.  doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004515.

It's that time again... shopping for school supplies, clothes, and healthy foods that your kids won't throw away in the cafeteria. Start this year off right by substituting the boring turkey on white bread, apple, and baggie of pretzels with some of these fun, good-for-them foods:

Sandwich Substitutes

• Whole-grain* pita pocket stuffed with tuna or chicken salad (made with a little mayo, dried cranberries, and finely chopped nuts)
• Rainbow pinwheels made by spreading cream cheese on a whole-grain* tortilla; topping it with roast beef or turkey, thin carrot strips, and a few leafy greens; rolling it up; and cutting it into slices
• Whole-grain* bagel (or 2 whole-grain mini bagels) with small containers of peanut butter and jelly for dipping
• Egg salad on a whole-grain* English muffin
• Ham, cheese, and a dollop of brown mustard on a whole-grain* bun

Note: Keep these foods cold by putting an ice pack or frozen drink (100% fruit juice box or water) wrapped in paper towel in the lunch box or brown bag.

Snack Substitutes

• Baked tortilla chips and salsa
• Whole-grain* crackers (like whole-grain goldfish-shaped cheese crackers) and hummus
• Reduced-fat (2% milk) cheese stick
• Colorful veggie spears (sliced carrots, red/green peppers, cucumber) with light ranch dip
• Fruit kebabs (grapes, melon, berries)

Sweet Substitutes

• Trail mix (dried fruit, nuts, whole-grain* cereal, and small chocolate pieces)
• Kiwi fruit (slice in half and serve with a spoon)
• Banana or berry bran muffin

Share your ideas!

*The words "whole-grain" should be number one on the ingredient list. 

The term, “enlightenment,” in the title of this blog is not refering to wisdom but to lower body weight.  A study from a while back1 showed that doing yoga on a regular basis was associated with lower risk of gaining weight over time, especially in overweight people.  A recent study2 has teased out why this may be true.  And it has little to do with the calories burned during yoga practice.  Rather, it seems that it is all in one’s head.

Celia Framson and colleages at the University of Washington – Seattle conducted a study to develop and test a questionnaire that would help researchers assess “mindful eating” or awareness of what, when, where, how, and why one eats what they do.  Mindless eating has been hypothesized as a factor in excessive calorie intake and thus, weight gain and obesity.

The researchers found that people who practiced yoga were more likely to be mindful about their eating.  And people who were mindful about their eating weighed less than those who had lower mindful eating scores.  Other types of moderate and vigorous physical activity were not associated with mindful eating scores.

So it’s not the calories burned during yoga exercise that contributed to lower body weight.  Researchers speculate that the mindfulness training – the ability to maintain difficult physical positions while focusing on breathing and maintaining a calm mind – that is part of yoga is transferred to one’s relationship with food.  Thus, people who do yoga regularly are better able to prevent the intake of excess calories by:

• eating only until they are full
• paying attention to and enjoying fully the foods they eat
• not letting ads or other external cues influence their eating
• preventing emotions from triggering eating episodes
• remaining focused while eating.

More research is needed to confirm this hypothesis but in the meantime, it looks like yoga may be good not only for your body and your mind but also for way you relate to food.

If you are a yoga practitioner, do you think your yoga work helps you be more mindful about your eating?

¹ Kristal et al.  Yoga practice is associated with attenuated weight gain in healthy, middle-aged men and women.  Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine.  2005;11(4):28-33.

² Framson et al.  Development and validation of the mindful eating questionnaire.  Journal of the American Dietetic Association.  2009;109:1439-1444.

In a previous blog, we described a study that showed that adults who have obese friends and family members are more likely to become obese. Well, a new study shows that this may be true in kids, too!  

Researchers from The State University of New York at Buffalo found that some social factors, such as the presence of friends, may put overweight children at greater risk of overeating (which may contribute to increases in weight). In their study, researchers paired both normal weight and overweight children with a friend or an unfamiliar person and put them in a room filled with games, puzzles, low-calorie snacks (baby carrots, grapes), and high-calorie snacks (cookies, potato chips) for 45 minutes. The children were told they could eat as much or as little as they wanted.

Results showed that all children who were in the room with a friend ate more food than children who were in a room with an unfamiliar person. Likewise, friends were more likely to eat similar amounts than children paired with a stranger. Additionally, overweight children who were paired with an overweight peer, whether friend or stranger, ate more than the overweight children who were paired with a normal weight child.

Thus, while you can teach your child to make healthy food choices, his/her friends (as well as other social and environmental factors) will likely influence his/her behaviors. And if your child is already overweight, eating with other overweight friends may give him/her "permission" to eat more or may reinforce unhealthy "norms" in terms of amounts or types of foods.  

Given peer influence on eating and so many other behaviors, maybe more research should be done on how friends can promote positive eating and physical activity behaviors to friends. Parents, teachers, and coaches might experiment with this idea by encouraging children who have healthy habits to share them (e.g., healthy meal/snack ideas) with their friends.

¹Salvy, S-J (2009). The presence of friends increases food intake in youth. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 90, 282-287.

“Boy, I am really getting a good workout playing Wii Tennis,” a friend was heard to say.  Oh really?

Really.

According to a small study completed at the University of Wisconsin, LaCrosse, subjects who played tennis using the Wii video game platform burned calories at a rate only about 35% less than a person playing a real tennis game.   So in 30 minutes, Wii Tennis burns about 159 calories versus 243 for the real deal.  Here are other Wii/sport comparisons:

The study hasn’t been published yet in a peer-reviewed journal but was described in ACE FitnessMatters, the magazine for members of the American Council on Exercise.  Click here for a link to the article.  Nonetheless, it provides some preliminary confirmation that by mimicking the movement of the real sport these video games can increase calorie expenditure. The key, mind you is that the game movement must be just like the real sport movement.  Simple flicking of the wrist instead of a full arm swing won’t burn many calories.

Couple these new data and the study we told you about in the “Let the (Video) Games Begin” blog with the fact that the video gaming is a growing multi-billion dollar industry AND that we have an inactivity epidemic and what do you get???  Ka-ching, ka-ching!!  In fact, exergaming is a whole new segment of video game market aimed at using technology to promote physical activity.  Check out the blog for the ExerGame Lab at State University New York - Cortland for insights into this field.

Exergames may make physical activity more fun, convenient, and motivating for some people.  But there is one thing missing – fresh air.  So don’t let active video games be your only calorie-burning activities.  Enjoy the real sports in the real out of doors.

Do you use active video games in your home?

For those of us who wince at the $5.00 half-pint of organic raspberries and sneakily throw the $1.99 package of conventional berries into our carts, a new scientific review may give us some comfort. Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine recently published a review of studies conducted over the past 50 years that compared the nutrient content between organic and conventional foods.¹ Comparing 55 studies that were at least "satisfactory quality", researchers found no noted differences between conventional and organic crops with regard to vitamin C, magnesium, calcium, potassium, zinc and copper content. Organic crops did have higher levels of phosphorus, however, and conventionally produced crops had higher levels of nitrogen. No differences in nutrient content were indicated in the livestock studies, according to the review.

Organic food producers argue, however, that organic foods contain higher levels of healthy antioxidants and contain no pesticides, a factor that may be very important to some people, including parents of young children.

Controversy remains around the evidence behind the extra antioxidants in organic produce and whether the levels of pesticides in conventional foods actually cause negative health effects. And others argue that consumers should be more concerned about buying food that is locally grown, fresh to the table, and prepared in a way that doesn't lose all of the nutrients it does have.

So what's the cost-conscious consumer to do? Maybe buy the organic when it's on sale (fresh, frozen, or canned) and buy the conventional (fresh, frozen, or canned) when the price of organic seems outrageous. But certainly don't feel guilty for buying conventional healthy foods like fruits and vegetables! Instead, praise yourself for getting those foods into your cart and onto your plate!

¹ Dangour, A.D. (2009). Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.28041.

In the preventive medicine field, the focus of many interventions is on modifiable risk factors.  That is, things you do or conditions you have that you can change.  For example, you can quit smoking, be physically active, and eat a healthy diet to reduce risks for many chronic diseases.  You can further reduce risks by controlling things like high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and diabetes by taking medications as well as adopting healthier habits. 

Then there are those unmodifiable health risks – age, race, gender, and family history (aka genetic make up).  These are things we are stuck with.  Or are we?

In the last few years, obesity researchers have tied the variants of a specific gene called the FTO gene, to an increased risk for a high body mass index.  Body mass index (BMI) is a measure of obesity.  People who have one or more of these gene variants are more likely to become overweight or obese.  Recent research suggests that physical activity may reduce the BMI level that might otherwise be expected due to the presence of this specific obesity gene variant.¹

So you may not be able to change your genes, but by being physically active, you may be able to “turn down” some of the obesity genes you have.  Couple regular physical activity with a healthy diet and you can further outwit your genes for obesity and possibly, other health conditions.

Does obesity run in your family?  Does your family run? 

¹Vimaleswaran KS, et al.  Physical activity attenuates the bodi mass index-increasing influence of genetic variation in the FTO gene.  American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.  2009;90:425-428.