on Oct 30, 2012 in Wellness Blog
That Flawed Stanford Study By MARK BITTMAN I tried to ignore the month-old “Stanford study.” I really did. It made so little sense that I thought it would have little impact. That was dumb of me, and I’m sorry. The study, which suggested — incredibly — that there is no “strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods,” caused as great an uproar as anything that has happened, food-wise, this year. (By comparison, the Alzheimer’s/diabetes link I wrote about last week was ignored.) That’s because headlines (and, of course, tweets) matter. The Stanford study was not only an exercise in misdirection, it was a headline generator. By providing “useful” and “counterintuitive” information about organic food, it played right into the hands of the news hungry while conveniently obscuring important features of organic agriculture. If I may play with metaphor for a moment, the study was like declaring guns no more dangerous than baseball bats when it comes to blunt-object head injuries. It was the equivalent of comparing milk and Elmer’s glue on the basis of whiteness. It did, in short, miss the point. Even Crystal Smith-Spangler, a Stanford co-author, perfectly captured the narrowness of the study when she said: “some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious. We were a little surprised that we didn’t find that.” That’s because they didn’t look — or even worse, they ignored. In fact, the Stanford study — actually a meta-study, an analysis of more than 200 existing studies — does say that “consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.” Since that’s largely why people eat organic foods, what’s the big deal? Especially if we refer to common definitions of “nutritious” and point out that, in general, nutritious food promotes health and good condition. How can something that reduces your exposure to pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria not be “more nutritious” than food that doesn’t? Because the study narrowly defines “nutritious” as containing more vitamins. Dr. Dena Bravata, the study’s senior author, conceded that there are other reasons why people opt for organic (the aforementioned pesticides and bacteria chief among them) but said that if the decision between buying organic or...
Read More
on Mar 2, 2012 in Nutrition, Weight Loss, Wellness Blog
Get the PDF version of this article By Vicki Pepper, M.S., R.D., Kaiser Permanente, San Diego California When Emperor Darius invaded India in 510 B.C. he called it, “the reed which gives honey without bees.” The Crusaders called it sweet salt when they brought it to the European continent, and white gold is what the British called it in 1750 when it became the most valuable crop produced in all of Europe. Today we call it sugar and it is considered a basic food staple of the American diet. Sugar even rates a spot on the government food pyramids. Most Americans rarely go a day without consuming one form of sugar or another. We add it to just about everything—even ketchup, medicines, and baby food. The truth is that sugar is relatively new to the food chain. Unlike nuts, seeds, fruits, meats, and wild grains which have been found in the guts of primitive man and have been part of our consumption since our earliest history, sugar was discovered a mere 8,000 years ago and, until the last 40 years, people consumed very little of it. The harvesting and the making of sugar originated in New Guinea and then quickly spread to Polynesia, Indonesia, and eventually Northern India where it stayed until the seventh century. When Arabic peoples invaded India they quickly recognized sugar as valuable crop and carried the harvesting techniques to their conquered territories throughout the Arabian Peninsula where the technology stayed until the 11th century. It was the Crusaders who carried what they called sweet salt to Europe and later Columbus carried it across the seas to the Americas. Despite being of a substance of great desire, sugar was hard to come by, very expensive, and was something reserved for nobility and the very rich. So difficult were the conditions of harvesting it, that sugar is credited with the birth of African slavery as slaves were imported throughout the world to harvest sugar cane. It wasn’t until the 18th century that sugar was produced in enough quantities to become something the general public could afford and not until the early part of the 21st century that it was affordable enough to become a daily staple. In 1930,...
Read More
on Mar 1, 2012 in Wellness Blog
Get the PDF version of this article by Vicki Pepper, M.S., R.D. Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, CA If only you would lose some weight. You’ve heard that phrase a million times and then you hear things like…your knees or back wouldn’t hurt so much…your blood cholesterol would come down…you could go off blood pressure medication…avoid diabetes…get pregnant…get healthy…get a date…be happy…whatever! You know these things are true, but the idea of losing all your extra weight can be overwhelming, making it easier to give up and do nothing at all. The trouble with fat is that many people blame all their problems on it, but the truth is too much fat isn’t as much of a health problem as the lifestyle choices that lead to weight gain. Regaining and maintaining your health doesn’t necessarily mean attaining an ideal body weight. It may be more about making a few different choices on a daily basis. Physicians advise weight loss for various health problems because they know that restricting calories to the point of weight loss helps correct metabolic disturbances in the body. Losing as little as 10% body weight can reverse blood sugar problems, lower blood pressure, and decrease elevated blood lipids (cholesterol). That means that a six foot, 290 pound man needs to lose about 29 pounds to see health benefits. At 261 lbs. he may still be considered overweight—but as his blood sugar normalizes and blood lipids decrease with his 29 lb. loss, he is in much better health. The benefits of restricting calories can be seen in the dramatic effects of bariatric surgery on health. The surgery reduces the amount of food that can be eaten or absorbed. Blood sugar values typically normalize within days or weeks of having bariatric surgery even though patients are still carrying 100 lbs. or more of extra body fat. Luckily, the same health benefits are easy to achieve without the risk of surgery. We see the phenomena in Kaiser Permanente’s Positive Choice Weight programs participants every day. Over two-thirds of insulin dependent, type 2 diabetics—some of whom have struggled with diabetes for decades—attain normal blood sugar values within the first several weeks of using OPTIFAST® supplement in our full fast weight...
Read More
on Feb 27, 2012 in Wellness Blog
Get the PDF version of this article by Vicki Pepper, M.S., R.D. Kaiser Permanente, San Diego California Never underestimate the power of a few small changes. Think of the ripple effect of throwing something so tiny it would seem unnoticeable into a pond. Seems like it wouldn’t matter much, but we know that it doesn’t take a lot to disturb the delicate ecological balance of a pond. Our bodies are very similar to environmental systems. Small changes in behaviors can and do lead to dramatic changes in our health and wellbeing. In this country changes in our food supply and lifestyle have had striking effects on our health. Twenty years ago only 10% of adults were obese, now 30% suffer from obesity. One in 50 children were obese in 1970, now one in three struggle with extra weight. Type 2 diabetes, once considered an old person’s disease, is now a growing epidemic in both children and adults. The small shifts in calorie intake and calories burned and the effects it has had on our health are highlighted in a recent article in the American Journal of Medicine. The study analyzed diet, weight, and health statistics for nursing students in the United States. The study followed the students from their 20s until they were in their 50s. During the 28-year study the students gained on average approximately 35 pounds. To gain 35 pounds over 28 years the students’ caloric balance (calories in minus calories out) was over by 370 calories a day. Behaviorally that could be accomplished by adding an additional 13 extra calories a day to your diet every year for 28 years. Unfortunately many Americans have faired worse than the students in the study. Statistics for the 20th century show that body weight was stable for most Americans through the late 80s. In the early 90s, adults and children started to gain weight rapidly. By 2008 obesity in America had increased from 10 to 14% to 25 to 30%, with several states reaching obesity rates of greater than 30% of the population. Child obesity rates grew 10 times as fast. In just 20 years the weight and, consequently, the health of America changed dramatically. Let’s look at a few...
Read More
