Posted by Sylvia on June 28th, 2007 — Posted in Opinion
This is an excerpt from Barry Groves upcoming book, The National Health Scandal, which will be published early next year.
We are told that we should eat ‘5 portions’ to prevent cancer and cardiovascular disease. If there really is a dose-response whereby 4 portions, say, aren’t good enough, then surely the size of the portion and the number of portions would be important. It is odd, therefore, that both the numbers of portions and their quantity vary widely across the Atlantic. Other scientists must have thought so as well, because over the last few years several studies into the 5-a-day claim have been conducted to test the advice - with disappointing results.
The prestigious CARDIO2000 study published its results in 2003.[i] This study was looking at intakes of fruit and vegetables specifically in relation to acute heart disease. They found that vegetables did reduce the risk of heart disease. But, significantly, it didn’t need ‘5 portions a day’ for the maximum effect. In their conclusions the researchers say:
‘Our findings support that even low consumption of fruits and vegetables (1-2 servings per week) is associated with about 45% lower coronary risk. Consumption of 2 or more servings per week is associated with about 70% reduction in relative risk.’
The Daily Mail reported the study’s results.[ii] The Mail interviewed Professor Sir Charles George, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, about the obvious conflict with the 5-a-day guidelines. Sir Charles answered ‘There is some argument about how much you need; I think five may be an arbitrary figure’ - and, by so doing, admitted that this was yet another example of dietary advice which was based on nothing more than guesswork or wishful thinking. So we don’t need to eat anything like 5 a day to derive benefits in terms of heart disease.
But is there a benefit in terms of cancer the other major disease it is aimed at? This was considered in another study of over 100,000 people published in 2004. This study, conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health, showed that, ‘Increased fruit and vegetable consumption was associated with a modest although not statistically significant reduction in the development of major chronic disease’. They continued: ‘The benefits appeared to be primarily for cardiovascular disease and not for cancer.’ [iii] And concluded: ‘Consumption of five or more servings of fruits and vegetables has been recommended . . . but the protective effect of fruit and vegetable intake may have been overstated.’
Not surprisingly, supporters of the ‘5-a-day’ campaign were outraged by the findings, repeating their mantra that eating the recommended number of fruit and vegetables has numerous health benefits - without specifying what those benefits might be.
So you won’t be surprised to learn that a very large study found no benefit in breast cancer from eating ‘5 portions’. In this study, 20 named researchers investigated 7,377 incident invasive breast cancer cases and a wide variety of fruit and vegetable intakes among 351,825 women at 17 cancer research centres in the USA, Germany, Netherlands, and Sweden. They found no association for green leafy vegetables, 8 botanical groups, and 17 specific fruits and vegetables. They concluded:
“These results suggest that fruit and vegetable consumption during adulthood is not significantly associated with reduced breast cancer risk”.[iv]
Whenever studies such as these are reported, the diet police repeat their dogma that eating the recommended number of fruit and vegetables has numerous health benefits; they say that the evidence is ‘overwhelming’. But they never seem able to quote any of that evidence or to specify exactly what the benefits are. In view of the above studies, that will probably come as no real surprise. The point is that, just like almost all the health advice we have had forced down our throats and come to believe over the last few decades, there is practically no basis for ‘5 portions’ advice in science.
Dr Barnett Kramer, of the National Institutes of Health in the US, said of the healthy eating message: ‘A lot of the public is completely unaware that the strength of the message is not matched by the strength of the evidence.’ That we are still kept unaware of it demonstrates just how strong an influence the diet dictocrats have on our minds and the news media.
References
[i]. Panagiotakos DB, Pitsavos C, Kokkinos P, et al. Consumption of fruits and vegetables in relation to the risk of developing acute coronary syndromes; the CARDIO2000 case-control study. Nutr J 2003; 2: 2.
[ii]. ‘Three fruit and veg are still healthy.’ Daily Mail, 2 September 2003, p 8.
[iii]. Hung H-C, Joshipura KJ, Jiang R, et al. Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Risk of Major Chronic Disease. J Nat Canc Inst 2004; 96: 1577-1584
[iv]. Smith-Warner SA, et al. Intake of Fruits and Vegetables and Risk of Breast Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of Cohort Studies. JAMA 2001; 285: 769-776.
Barry Groves PhD
Author: Natural Health & Weight Loss
Co-producer: The perfect Weight Plan: Be Slim Without Dieting (DVD / Video)
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk
http://www.theperfectweight.com
No Comments »
Posted by Dom on March 12th, 2007 — Posted in Opinion
By Yuliana Hendarto.
Tired of being overweight?
Have you finally got the resolve to lose weight and keep it off once and for all?
Can Atkins help you realize your dreams?
Before you jump into the bandwagon with the illusion of losing weight fast and painlessly, read this report to find out if it really works, or you’ll end up in the hospital instead.
What is it?
The ever-popular program called Atkins basically involves extremely low-carb intake, or even none at all. The theory behind the Atkins diet is that, because the body will digest any sugar stored in the body first to get the energy it needs, it is really hard to lose the fats in your body. So if the body’s sugar storage is depleted, it will then turn to fats, and then protein, to get its energy. Hence you’ll finally get to lose those flabby fats if you reduce your sugar intake dramatically.
Does it work?
It seems that the severely obese people might find the program works well. They’ll start losing weight really quickly, especially at the beginning. However, it will soon reach a pleateau.
Another problem with the Atkins is the sugar cravings that many people will have because of the drastic reduction in sugar intake. This leads to cheating in many cases, which then just throws you off the program.
Is it safe?
Biologically speaking, if the body is deprived of sugar, it will enter a “starvation mode” where it will try to conserve any amount of energy. This is because the body is tricked into thinking that it is being starved.
This is actually a natural self-defence mechanism which preserves and prolongs the human life when you’re truly starving. Hence you hear cases where people still survive even after 30 days without any food at all. However, this also means that the body will then convert ANY kind of sugar it can absorb, into fats as soon as possible! That’s why the moment you cave in to that sugar craving, it destroys everything.
In actual fact, several people have ended up in hospital after such a severe reduction in their sugar intake. Hence it is not advisable to totally eliminate sugar from your diet all at once.
A Modification
Instead of totally eliminating carbohydrates from your diet, you can just reduce it in stages. Another alternative is to switch to complex carbohydrates.
What else should I watch out for?
If you’re trying to do Atkins, please do not combine it with heavy exercise. Exercise requires sugar, which is the body’s main fuel. With such a low-carb intake, the body will then start to digest proteins to produce sufficient energy for the exercise, which then results muscle loss.
While the diet recommends a higher intake of protein, and lower of carbohydrates, it does not mean you can consume as much meat or fatty food as you wish. That will be a sure way to damage your kidney and liver. Maintain a high intake of vegetables and fruits to lessen the impact.
Is it recommended?
Only with the advice of nutritionists or doctors. Even then, it should be done in moderation. Do not completely eliminate your sugar intake. Also, take note that the quick weight loss is usually only visible for those who are really overweight.
The best thing is still to have a balanced diet and a good exercise program in place.
1 Comment »
Posted by Karen on February 5th, 2007 — Posted in Opinion
There appears to be much debate over the two food packaging labeling systems. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) have introduced the Traffic Light System but many food and drink manufacturers as well as supermarkets Tesco, Somerfield and Morrison, have chosen to use the GDA system (Guideline Daily Amounts)
The GDA system shows percentages of sugar, salt, fat and calories in each serving.
The Traffic Light System simply shows the three colours; red means the product is high in fat/saturated fat/sugar/salt, amber means medium levels and green, low.
I personally prefer the traffic light system. Whilst I am perfectly capable of working out percentages, when I am in the supermarket I want to simply shop, not take part in a complicated mathematics lesson. One of the arguments against the Traffic Light System is that it is patronising. I don’t feel patronised at all. If I can choose a healthier option with nothing but a quick glance at the label then I’m happy. I don’t need to show my mathematical capabilities in a shop to prove my worthiness. If I do however get stuck behind a shopper clutching a calculator whilst muttering about the amount of cheese she and her family will be allowed to have in one day if she decides to buy butter too… then I shall be looking for labels that claim to reduce high blood pressure, instantly.
Apparently twenty one companies and retailers have claimed that people will not buy food with red labels on them. Now I do find this patronising. If I buy a mature cheese or a doughnut am I going to be so surprised at the red light that I change my mind and buy a grape instead? I believe consumers deserve to be given more credit. The vast majority of people already know what is good or bad. The area where guidance is needed is for example with ready meals. If we discovered at a glance that a normal lasagne actually proved to be healthier than one that claims to be a healthier option, or suitable for people watching their weight, then we as the consumer have instantly benefited. For too long now, the consumer has had to trust a claim of a food being healthier or lower in fat. After all, lower in fat could simply mean that it has a lower fat content than their non-diet version. It does not necessarily mean it is LOW in fat. Now we should be able to judge for ourselves and leave the false and misleading claims on the shelves.
It is my opinion that the people who will benefit the most from an healthier diet in the long run are families with young children. Encouraging a generation of healthy eaters is a great step forward. Now, I know I am generalising here, but being a mother of a young child I am speaking from personal experience, and I believe the two main groups of people who are at the forefront of the gathering of the weekly food are stressed and tired Mums and helpful and inquisitive children. Would either of these enjoy working out percentages in the middle of a busy supermarket?.. Or would it be more fun to encourage the toddler/child to look for for food with green lights on?
This is just my opinion on the two labeling systems. I would be interested to hear of other views.
1 Comment »
