Soft Drinks, Hard Facts

Research suggests kids who drink a lot of soft drinks risk becoming fat, weak-boned, cavity-prone and caffeine-addicted.

By Sally Squires

Americans drink more soda pop than ever before. These popular beverages account for more than a quarter of all drinks consumed in the United States. More than 15 billion gallons were sold in 2000. That works out to at least one 12-ounce can per day for every man, woman and child.

Kids are heavy consumers of soft drinks, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and they are guzzling soda pop at unprecedented rates. Carbonated soda pop provides more added sugar in a typical 2-year-old toddler’s diet than cookies, candies and ice cream combined. Fifty-six percent of 8-year-olds down soft drinks daily, and a third of teenage boys drink at least three cans of soda pop per day.

Not only are soft drinks widely available everywhere from fast food restaurants to video stores, they’re now sold in 60 percent of all public and private middle schools and high schools nationwide, according to the National Soft Drink Association. A few schools are even giving away soft drinks to students who buy school lunches.

As soda pop becomes the beverage of choice among the nation’s young — and as soda marketers focus on brand-building among younger and younger consumers — public health officials, school boards, parents, consumer groups and even the soft drink industry are faced with nagging questions: How healthful are these beverages, which provide a lot calories, sugars and caffeine but no significant nutritional value? And what happens if you drink a lot of them at a very young age?

Beginning tomorrow, representatives of the soft drink industry, concerned that public opinion and public policy may turn against them, will stage a three-day “fly-in” to lobby Congress to maintain soft drinks sales in schools; and to educate lawmakers on the “proper perspective” on soft drink use. The industry plans to counter a U.S. Department of Agriculture proposal, announced in January, that would require all foods sold in schools to meet federal nutrition standards. That would mean that snack foods and soft drinks would have to meet the same standards as school lunches.

Some state legislators are already taking steps to limit soft drink sales to youngsters. In Maryland, a bill introduced by Sen. Paul G. Pinsky (D-Prince George’s) would prohibit sales of soft drinks and other non-nutritious foods in schools until after 3 p.m. Current law says vending machines can’t be turned on until after the final lunch period.

Nearly everyone by now has heard the litany on the presumed health effects of soft drinks: Obesity. Tooth decay. Caffeine dependence. Weakened bones. But does drinking soda pop really cause those things?

Even the staunchest critics of soft drinks say finding the scientific bottom line on soda pop can be maddeningly tricky. “It’s hard to pull out the health effects of soft drinks from the whole diet,” says Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and author of a critical report on soft drinks called “Liquid Candy: How Soft Drinks Are Harming Americans’ Health.” “There are relatively few studies on sugars. And some studies don’t distinguish between naturally occurring sugars and refined sugars.”

To help separate fact from fiction, the Health section reviewed the latest scientific findings and asked an array of experts on both sides of the debate to weigh in on the topic. Be forewarned, however: Compared with the data available on tobacco and even dietary fat, the scientific evidence on soft drinks is less developed. The results can be a lot like soft drinks themselves, both sweet and sticky.

Obesity
One very recent, independent, peer-reviewed study demonstrates a strong link between soda consumption and childhood obesity. One previous industry-supported, unpublished study showed no link. Explanations of the mechanism by which soda may lead to obesity have not yet been proved, though the evidence for them is strong.

Many people have long assumed that soda– high in calories and sugar, low in nutrients — can make kids fat. But until this month there was no solid, scientific evidence demonstrating this.

Reporting in The Lancet, a British medical journal, a team of Harvard researchers presented the first evidence linking soft drink consumption to childhood obesity. They found that 12-year-olds who drank soft drinks regularly were more likely to be overweight than those who didn’t. For each additional daily serving of sugar-sweetened soft drink consumed during the nearly two-year study, the risk of obesity increased 1.6 times.

Could it be that the soda pop drinkers were simply living extremely sedentary lives? Or that they ate more than the kids who didn’t drink soft drinks regularly? When lead author David Ludwig and his colleagues parsed the data to examine those possibilities, neither explanation panned out. Drinking soda proved to be “an independent risk factor for obesity,” says Ludwig.

The soft drink industry quickly took steps to dispute the findings. Although the study included 548 ethnically diverse youngsters attending four public schools in Massachusetts, the NSDA knocked the research for including too few Caucasian kids: About two-thirds of participants were white, compared with 75 percent of the total U.S. population and 88 percent of Massachusetts residents.

The industry response also cited an earlier study conducted by Georgetown University’s Center for Food & Nutrition Policy that showed overweight children consumed about 14 ounces of carbonated beverages per day — only about two ounces more than kids of normal body weight. The Sugar Association paid for part of the Georgetown study, which was presented last April at the Experimental Biology 2000 meeting, but it has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Obesity experts, on the other hand, called the Harvard findings important and praised the study for being prospective. In other words, the Harvard researchers spent 19 months following the children, rather than capturing a snapshot of data from just one day. It’s considered statistically more valuable to conduct a study over a long period of time.

But even those who lauded the Harvard report still underscored the usual caveats. “It’s only a single study, and it needs to be repeated,” says William H. Dietz, director of the division of nutrition and physical activity at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.

If soft drinks do prove to contribute to obesity, how might this happen? Is it simply a matter of drinking in too many calories?

Again, the jury is out, and there are several competing theories. But there are some tantalizing clues suggesting that excess calories alone can’t explain the problem. The Harvard team also conducted a meta-analysis — a number-crunching examination of similar research conducted over the past 25 years — to explore this question. They concluded that drinking sugary calories doesn’t register with the brain the same way that eating calories does. In other words, the brain seems to get confused by these sugary liquid calories that pass quickly through the stomach; they do not seem to trigger feelings of satiety in the same way calories from foods do. Absent a signal that calories have been consumed via soft drinks or sweetened fruit juices, the stomach does not tell the brain to quit eating at the current meal or to eat less at the next meal. In this way, the thinking goes, excess pounds are added.

Ludwig found that schoolchildren who drank soft drinks consumed almost 200 more calories per day than their counterparts who didn’t down soft drinks. That finding helps support the notion, he says, that “we don’t compensate well for calories in liquid form.”

The soft drink industry doesn’t buy that conclusion. “Childhood obesity is the result of many factors. Blaming it on a single factor, including soft drinks, is nutritional nonsense,” noted Richard Adamson, NSDA’s vice president for scientific and technical affairs.

On this point, the obesity experts tend to agree: “There are no data from the Harvard study that allow us to make an estimate of what proportion of obesity might be accounted for by changes in soft drink consumption,” says the CDC’s Dietz. “It’s unlikely that we will be able to tie the obesity epidemic to any single change in the way we live. It is much more complex than that.”

Tooth Decay
hough the soft drink industry admits that soda contributes to tooth decay, most data suggest it is just one of several contributors, and a less important one in developed countries than elsewhere in the world. In the United States, cavities have decreased while soda consumption has increased.

Here’s one health effect that even the soft drink industry admits, grudgingly, has merit. In a carefully worded statement, the NSDA says that “there’s no scientific evidence that consumption of sugars per se has any negative effect other than dental caries.” But the association also correctly notes that soft drinks aren’t the sole cause of tooth decay.

In fact, a lot of sugary foods, from fruit juices to candy and even raisins and other dried fruit, have what dentists refer to as “cariogenic properties,” which is to say they can cause tooth decay.

Okay, so how many more cavities are soft drink consumers likely to get compared with people who don’t drink soda? This is where it gets complicated.

A federally funded study of nearly 3,200 Americans 9 to 29 years old conducted between 1971 and 1974 showed a direct link between tooth decay and soft drinks. (Numerous other studies have shown the same link throughout the world, from Sweden to Iraq.) But here’s the rub: In the last 25 years, tooth decay in the United States and other developed countries has actually declined — at the same time that soft drink use and obesity have risen dramatically.

The scientific explanation for this phenomenon appears to come from a number of studies. One of the most illustrative is a 1994 British study of tooth decay among 12-year-olds in 90 countries. Conducted by statisticians at the University of Reading, the study found that throughout the world, dental decay rises proportionally with sugar consumption. But when researchers examined data from 29 industrialized nations, there was no evidence of a link between sugar and tooth decay.

“These results suggest,” the researchers reported in the British Dental Journal, “that in addition to sugar, other factors” — including improved diet, fluoridated water and even genetics — play an important role in reducing tooth decay.

But sugar isn’t the only ingredient in soft drinks that causes tooth problems. The acids in soda pop are also notorious for etching tooth enamel in ways that can lead to cavities. “Acid begins to dissolve tooth enamel in only 20 minutes,” notes the Ohio Dental Association in a release issued earlier this month.

Caffeine Dependence
The stimulant properties and dependence potential of caffeine in soda are well documented, as are their effects on children. While health advocates argue that childhood use of caffeine can lead to dependence later in life — and that regular doses of caffeine can have negative effects on brain development — there is no conclusive science to demonstrate this.

Ever tried going without your usual cup of java on the weekend? If so, you may have experienced a splitting headache, a slight rise in blood pressure, irritability and maybe even some stomach problems. These well-documented symptoms describe the typical withdrawal process suffered by about half of regular caffeine consumers who go without their usual dose, according to Kenneth S. Kendler, professor of psychiatry and human genetics at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) in Richmond.

Research on caffeine’s effects in children is more limited, but it suggests that kids also experience caffeine dependence and withdrawal. At the University of Minnesota, child psychiatrist Gail Bernstein and her colleagues gave 8- to 12-year-old children the equivalent of two to three cans of Diet Coke daily for 13 days. Then they substituted caffeine-free soft drinks without telling the children and measured withdrawal symptoms.

During a computerized test 24 hours later, the children showed signficantly decreased attention, a classic symptom of withdrawal, Bernstein says.

The soft drink industry agrees that caffeine causes the same effects in children as adults, but officials also note that there is wide variation in how people respond to caffeine. The simple solution, the industry says, is to choose a soda pop that is caffeine-free. All big soda makers offer products with either low or no caffeine.

That may be a good idea, though it raises the question of whether soda machines in schools should be permitted to offer caffeinated beverages or at least be obligated to offer a significant proportion of caffeine-free products. It also raises the question of how one determines a product’s caffeine content. Nutrition labels are not required to divulge that information. If a beverage contains caffeine, it must be included in the ingredient list, but there’s no way to tell how much a beverage has, and there’s little logic or predictability to the way caffeine is deployed throughout a product line.

Okay, so most enlightened consumers already know that colas contain a fair amount of caffeine. It turns out to be 35 to 38 milligrams per 12-ounce can, or roughly 28 percent of the amount found in an 8-ounce cup of coffee. But few know that diet colas — usually chosen by those who are trying to dodge calories and/or sugar — often pack a lot more caffeine. A 12-ounce can of Diet Coke, for example, has about 42 milligrams of caffeine — seven more than the same amount of Coke Classic. A can of Pepsi One has about 56 milligrams of caffeine — 18 milligrams more than both regular Pepsi and Diet Pepsi.

Even harder to figure out is the caffeine distribution in other flavors of soda pop. Many brands of root beer contain no caffeine. An exception is Barq’s, made by the Coca-Cola Co., which has has 23 milligrams per 12-ounce can. Sprite, 7-Up and ginger ale are caffeine-free. But Mountain Dew, the curiously named Mello Yellow, Sun Drop Regular, Jolt and diet as well as regular Sunkist orange soda all pack caffeine.

So does Kick (58 milligrams) and Surge (53 milligrams).

Confused? You’re not alone. “There is no way for a parent to know how much caffeine their kids are getting,” said Avram Goldstein, professor emeritus of pharmacology at Stanford University and a petitioner, along with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, to the Food and Drug Administration to require soft drink manufacturers to label caffeine content.

Caffeine occurs naturally in kola nuts, an ingredient of cola soft drinks. But why is this drug, which is known to create physical dependence, added to other soft drinks?

The industry line is that small amounts are added for taste, not for the drug’s power to sustain demand for the products that contain it. Caffeine’s bitter taste, they say, enhances other flavors. “It has been a part of almost every cola — and pepper-type beverage — since they were first formulated more than 100 years ago,” according to the National Soft Drink Association.

But recent blind taste tests conducted by Roland Griffiths at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions in Baltimore found that only 8 percent of regular soft drink consumers could identify the difference between regular and caffeine-free soft drinks. The study included only subjects who reported that they drank soft drinks mainly for their caffeine content. In other words, more than 90 percent of the self-diagnosed caffeine cravers in this small sample could not detect the presence of caffeine.

That’s why Griffiths says the “great popularity of caffeinated soft drinks is driven not so much by subtle taste effects as by the mood-altering and physical dependence of caffeine that drives the daily self-administration,” he says.

The soft drink industry counters that “the long history of caffeine’s use confirms that it is safe when consumed in moderation.”

That is true. “Were you to compare with alcohol or nicotine, there’s no question that caffeine is far less deleterious to health,” says VCU’s Kendler. “But consuming a substantial amount of any psychoactive substance is not generally a good idea. It produces physiological changes in the brain. We don’t know what that means.”

And the unknown could be especially troublesome for the developing brains of children and adolescents. As Stanford’s Goldstein sees it, logic dictates that “when you are dependent on a drug, you are really upsetting the normal balances of neurochemistry in the brain. The fact that kids have withdrawal signs and symptoms when the caffeine is stopped is a good indication that something has been profoundly disturbed in the brain.”

Exactly where that leads is anybody’s guess — which is to say there is little good research on the effects of caffeine on kids’ developing brains.

Bone Weakening
Animal studies demonstrate that phosphorus, a common ingredient in soda, can deplete bones of calcium. And two recent human studies suggest that girls who drink more soda are more prone to broken bones. The industry denies that soda plays a role in bone weakening.

Animal studies — mostly involving rats — point to clear and consistent bone loss with the use of cola beverages. But as scientists like to point out, humans and rats are not exactly the same.

Even so, there’s been concern among the research community, public health officials and government agencies over the high phosphorus content in the U.S. diet. Phosphorus — which occurs naturally in some foods and is used as an additive in many others — appears to weaken bones by promoting the loss of calcium. With less calcium available, the bones become more porous and prone to fracture.

The soft drink industry argues that the phosphoric acid in soda pop contributes only about 2 percent of the phosphorus in the typical U.S. diet, with a 12-ounce can of soda pop averaging about 30 milligrams.The National Academy of Sciences has set 3 grams (or 3,000 milligrams) per day as the tolerable upper limit of phosphous for children ages 1 to 8 years, and 4 grams per day for those 9 years and older.

To reach that amount would require drinking at least 100 cans of soda pop per day. But there’s growing concern that even a few cans of soda today can be damaging when they are consumed during the peak bone-building years of childhood and adolescence. A 1996 study published in the Journal of Nutrition by the FDA’s Office of Special Nutritionals noted that a pattern of high phosphorus/low calcium consumption, common in the American diet, is not “conducive to optimizing peak bone mass in young women.”

The scientific literature is scant on this topic, and the soft drink industry says the few studies that have been done are flawed. But the studies seem to consistently link soft drink use with the kind of bone weakening that can raise the risk of fractures. Most troubling is that the studies suggest the increased risk of fractures occurs as early as adolescence.

A 1994 study of bone fractures in teenage athletes by Grace Wyshak, then a researcher at Harvard’s Center for Population Studies, found a strong association between cola beverage consumption and bone fractures in 14-year-old girls. A follow-up study of 468 9th- and 10th-grade girls, also conducted by Wyshak, who is now at the Harvard School of Public Health, concluded that girls who drank cola were about five times more likely to suffer bone fractures than girls who didn’t consume soda pop. She also found that girls who drank only non-cola carbonated drinks were three times more likely to develop bone fractures than those who didn’t consume soda pop.

Exactly how soft drinks may contribute to bone weakening is not yet known. But Pennsylvania State University researcher Leeann Birch has found that soft drinks often displace more nutritious beverages, including milk. And just how much soda are teens — whose bones are growing at peak levels — drinking? Shanty Bowman, a researcher at USDA’s Agricultural Research Service in Beltsville, finds that Americans 12 to 19 years old consume an average of 503 grams of carbonated beverages each day, the equivalent of about half a quart. About 61 percent of teens report drinking carbonated beverages on any given day, compared with just half who drink milk. Bowman says that only one in every five meets the current milk requirement.

It’s that combination of increased consumption of soda, decreased consumption of milk and other beverages, and the possible link between phosphorus and bone health that researchers such as Wyshak believe is enough to justify a “national concern and alarm about the health impact of carbonated beverage consumption on teenage girls.”

Besides, to many researchers, the combination of rising obesity and bone weakening has the potential to synergistically undermine future health. “Adolescents and kids don’t think long-term,” says Jamie Stang, professor of epidemiology at the University of Minnesota. “But what happens when these soft-drinking people become young or middle-aged adults and they have osteoporosis, sedentary living and obesity?”

By that time, switching to water, milk or fruit juice may be too little, too late.

Source: http://www.chetday.com/softdrinkdangers.htm

Living Large – For The Big Man or Woman

How often have you walked into WalMart, Sears or just about any department store to look for basic essentials – simple things like towels or robes and while most everyone sells these basic items if you are a kingsized man, or full-figured woman you know all to well that most just won’t fit you.

Even most clothing stores that cater to the big crowd don’t carry some of these essential items.

What to do?

You could buy two towels and sew them together.  No.  Not a option.

Why not just buy one?

Supersize Towels™

At 70″ x 35″ and weighing almost 2 pounds, these 100% cotton towels are significantly larger than most standard bath towels. Plush, warm and ultra absorbent, they add a touch of luxury and efficiency in the bathroom. These are machine washable and are made in USA. You can purchase this item by clicking on the image above (item #X1182).

Have you ever been to a spa? Or how about a 4 or 5 star hotel? Like their robes? Wish you can have one of them, and don’t want to have to resort to umm… borrowing one? Here is something that you will love.

Terry Cloth Spa Unisex Bath Robe

Heavy and luxurious Turkish cotton creates a spa-grade robe that’s extremely absorbent and comfortable. Features include plush cotton, cuffed sleeves, shawl collar, patch pockets, belt loops and belt, and a mid-calf length. It is also machine washable. Click the link above to get prices, or purchase!

Finally for the passenger who needs just a little extra when it comes to the seat belt on the plane. Why ask the steward/ess for an extender and embaress yourself in front of a fully loaded plane? Bring your own! If you are a frequent (or even infrequent) traveller this is the ideal convenience item for living large.

For a comfortable flight and a safe, secure fit. Tested to the FAA-approved specifications that airlines use. Model B fits Southwest® Airlines and some business jets.

Want more Living Large items? Why not visit Living Large and search from their huge online store that caters to individuals that are living large!

Mohamed

Fewer Sugary Drinks Key to Weight Loss

THURSDAY, April 2 (HealthDay News) — When it comes to losing weight, cutting back on the calories in sugar-sweetened drinks, rather than food, may be most important.

So say researchers who found that cutting back on calories from sugary beverages — by only one serving per day — accounted for nearly two-and-a-half pounds of lost weight over 18 months.

“Weight loss from liquid calories is greater than loss of calorie intake from solid food,” concluded lead researcher Dr. Liwei Chen, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the School of Public Health at the LSU Health Science Center in New Orleans.

One reason for this is that the body is able to self-regulate its intake of solid food. For example, if you eat too much solid food at lunch, you’ll tend to eat less at dinner. But the same self-regulation is not there for what you drink, experts say. Your body does not adjust to liquid calories, so over time, you gain more weight, Chen explained.

“If you reduce your intake of beverages, particularly sugar-containing beverages, it’s a simple but easy way to help you maintain your weight,” Chen said. “You can avoid additional weight gain, or if you are on a diet, it’s an easy, simple way to help you achieve your goals,” Chen added.

One dietitian said the finding wasn’t so surprising.

The study “supports what many have suspected — liquid calories don’t satisfy,” said Connie Diekman, director of university nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis. “In addition, the identification that [sugar-sweetened beverages] can impact weight gain more than other liquids is an important message as Americans continue to work to lower their calories.”

And if you get thirsty? “Drink water,” Chen said.

The report was published in the April 1 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

For the study, researchers studied the diets of 810 adults 25 to 79 years old who participated in the Lifestyle Interventions for Blood Pressure Control (PREMIER) trial. People in the trial, which lasted 18 months, were randomly assigned to one of three groups: advice about lowering blood pressure; lifestyle intervention (including dieting advice and exercise to lower blood pressure); or lifestyle intervention plus a specific diet that was rich in fruits and vegetables.

In the current study, researchers specifically looked at the weight of the participants and the beverages they drank. People in PREMIER had their weight measured at six and 18 months and were quizzed about their diet by unannounced phone interviews.

Beverages were placed into seven categories: sugar-sweetened beverages (including soft drinks, fruit drinks, fruit punch, or high-calorie beverages sweetened with sugar); diet drinks such as diet soda and other diet drinks that were artificially sweetened; milk (including whole milk, 2 percent milk, 1 percent and skim); 100 percent fruit and vegetable juice; coffee and tea with sugar; coffee and tea without sugar; alcoholic beverages.

The researchers found that sugar-sweetened drinks accounted for 37 percent of all the liquid calories people in the study consumed. Among beverages, sugar-sweetened beverages were the only type of beverage type significantly associated with weight change at both the 6 and 18 months, the researchers noted.

Drinking fewer sugary drinks was more important than eating less for losing weight, the researchers found. In fact, drinking one less serving of a soft drink was associated with just over one pound of weight loss at six months and an additional weight loss of more than 1.4 pounds at 18 months.

Diekman said the findings are a reminder that little things mean a lot when it comes to weight loss.

“If one small diet change can trigger a one-half- to one-pound weight loss in six months, adding other small changes or boosting activity even 15 minutes a day could make ‘healthy’ more attainable,” she said. “As a registered dietitian, this study indicates to me that helping people make gradual changes will help them comfortably achieve a healthier weight.”

Consuming liquid calories has increased along with the obesity epidemic, Chen’s group noted. In earlier studies, researchers found that 75 percent of U.S. adults could be overweight or obese by 2015, and they tied drinking sugar-sweetened beverages to the obesity epidemic.

In 2006, the nation’s major soft drink companies agreed to limit the sale of sodas in U.S. schools. That deal was brokered by the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, a joint effort of the American Heart Association and the President William J. Clinton Foundation.

Source: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_82474.html

The average American can of Coke is 10.91% high fructose corn syrup. That is 45g of sugar, same as 8 tsp of sugar.

These popular beverages account for more than a quarter of all drinks consumed in the United States.

That works out to at least one 12-ounce can per day for every man, woman and child.

_{»crosslinked«}

Can’t Control Junk Food?

FRIDAY, May 1 (HealthDay News) — Two areas of the brain work together to give some people the self-control to reject unhealthy foods, a new study has found.

California Institute of Technology researchers used MRI to scan the brains of volunteers as they looked at photos of dozens of types of foods and decided which ones they’d like to eat. They found significant differences in the brain activity between people who had self-control in terms of making food choices and those with no self-control.

Previous research has shown that an area of the brain called the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) is involved in all value-based decisions. When vmPFC activity decreases, a person will probably reject an item, whereas increased activity means they’ll probably choose it.

The new study found that in people with no self-control, the vmPFC seemed to take into consideration only the taste of a food.

“In the case of good self-controllers, however, another area of the brain — called the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) — becomes active and modulates the basic value signals so that the self-controllers can also incorporate health considerations into their decisions,” principal investigator Antonio Rangel, an associate professor of economics, said in a CalTech news release.

The researchers noted that the vmPFC is active during every decision and that the DLPFC is more active when a person is using self-control.

“This, ultimately, is one reason why self-controllers can make better choices,” Rangel said.

The study appears in the May 1 issue of Science.

Source: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_83698.html

Walking To Help You Lose Weight

MONDAY, May 11 (HealthDay News) — For people in cardiac rehabilitation who are overweight, longer but slower walks are better for losing weight and improving heart health than shorter, brisker walks, a new study has found.

Frequent long, slow walks — 45 minutes to 60 minutes a day at a moderate pace, five to six days a week — were found to burn more calories, improve cardiac function, reduce weight and body fat. The standard regimen for cardiac rehabilitation involves walking, biking or rowing for 25 minutes to 40 minutes at brisk pace three times a week.

“The benefits of weight loss in cardiac patients have not been all that clear,” said Dr. Philip A. Ades, a professor of medicine and director of cardiac rehabilitation and prevention at the University of Vermont College of Medicine and the study’s lead researcher. “And docs are usually pessimistic that their patients can accomplish weight loss.”

In fact, most cardiac rehabilitation programs have not been effective in weight loss, Ades said.

“The reason people don’t lose weight in cardiac rehab is they don’t burn enough calories with their exercise,” he said.

Walking can burn more calories than biking or swimming, Ades explained, because walkers support their total body weight by themselves, rather than having a bike or water support their weight. People have to bike or swim a lot more, he said, to gain the same calorie-burning effect as walking.

The report is published in the May 11 online edition of Circulation.

The study involved 74 overweight people with coronary heart disease, also called coronary artery disease, who were enrolled in a cardiac rehabilitation program. They were randomly assigned to an exercise regimen designed to burn 3,000 to 3,500 calories a week or to a standard rehab exercise program designed to burn 700 to 800 calories a week.

The high-calorie expenditure program was based on exercise that was not more intensive than standard rehabilitation but was done more often (five to seven times a week, rather than three) and longer (45 minutes to 60 minutes a session, rather than 25 to 40), according to the study. Participants did not begin walking for an hour each session but gradually built up their ability, Ades said.

Exercise for the standard rehabilitation group included a combination of walking and biking or rowing.

Being overweight increases the risk of heart attacks and increases other risks factors, including cholesterol, high blood pressure and diabetes, the researchers noted.

After five months, people in the high-calorie-burning group — those taking the longer, slower, more frequent walks — had greater improvement in insulin sensitivity, cholesterol, blood pressure and cardio and respiratory fitness than did people in the standard exercise group, the researchers found.

In addition, the long, slow walkers lost an average of 18 pounds, compared with 8 pounds among those in the standard rehabilitation group, and they lost more body fat (13 pounds versus 6) and inches from their waistlines (2.7 versus 2 inches) than the others.

A year after the study ended, people in the high-calorie-burning group had regained an average of 2.9 pounds and those in the standard treatment group had regained about two pounds. Weight and body fat remained lower in both groups than it had been when they started, the researchers said.

“However you lose weight is good for heart patients and should reduce their risk,” Ades said. “But don’t forget the exercise. It’s a big part of how to lose weight. Walking daily, walking far, really made a big difference in reducing cardiac risk.”

Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, a cardiology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said he thinks the regimen from the study would be worth trying in people in cardiac rehabilitation programs.

“There is an ever-increasing proportion of individuals who are overweight or obese,” Fonarow said. “Achieving a healthy body weight is a challenge, even among patients who are referred to formal cardiac rehabilitation programs.”

The study demonstrated that a new exercise protocol aimed at maximizing exercise-related calorie expenditures was more effective in achieving weight loss than a standard cardiac rehabilitation exercise regimen, Fonarow said. “There was also improved insulin sensitivity, lipid levels and inflammatory markers with the high-calorie expenditure regimen,” he said.

“This new high-calorie expenditure protocol should be considered for overweight and obese patients referred to cardiac rehabilitation who are eligible for a five-to-six-times-a-week exercise regimen,” he said.

SOURCES: Philip A. Ades, M.D., professor of medicine, director of cardiac rehabilitation and prevention, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, Vt.; Gregg C. Fonarow, M.D., professor, cardiology, University of California, Los Angeles; May 11, 2009, Circulation, online

Source: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_84104.html

FDA Uncovers Additional Tainted Weight Loss Products

On Dec. 22, 2008, the FDA warned consumers not to purchase or consume 28 different products marketed for weight loss. On Jan. 8, 2009, the FDA expanded the list of tainted weight loss products to include 41 additional tainted products. The FDA will continue to update this list as warranted.

“These tainted weight loss products pose a great risk to public health because they contain undeclared ingredients and, in some cases, contain prescription drugs in amounts that greatly exceed maximum recommended dosages,” said Janet Woodcock, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Consumers have no way of knowing that these products contain dangerous drugs that could cause serious consequences to their health.”

View the complete list on the FDA website – http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm149547.htm

Site Upgrade Coming Soon!

UPDATE:  The redesign is done!  Looking forward to your feedback.

Hello – just a quick post today, I am in the process of updating the blog with a newer, cleaner professionally designed theme. I will be doing work on it over the next few weeks so it may not look 100% once it rolls-out but it will be much nicer than the current theme (which is a freebie).

The new theme will allow me to set-up featured content, and videos in addition to generating some revenue for the site to help pay for hosting, yearly fees and bandwidth costs. Most of the advertising offered up is for complimentary products — meaning I do my best to avoid selling you diet plans, but I may advertise fitness equipment, clothing, shoes and other related items to help those living large, live.

I will also fix a few things, like the HUGE amounts of SPAM hitting the site through trackbacks.

Stay tuned!

Mohamed

Insurance And Obesity – Can You Get Life Or Health Insurance?

Here is another way that being overweight, or obese could affect you – getting life or health insurance.

Now I am not speaking from any authority here, but from my own experience and the experience of friends that have been willing to share their story with me.

Life Insurance and Mortgage Life Insurance and Obesity

Many life insurance companies will require you to get a health test done before saying yes to offering you health insurance.  They also require you to fill out a form where you have to state various illnesses you’ve had or have and past medical history.

I know from friends that purchased homes and applied for mortage life insurance that they’ve been declined when they said that they have diabetes for example.  I know someone else who was refused disability insurance due to claims they had made with WCB and an existing condition.

So will getting life insurance of any type affect you?  I would say “yes”.

That’s not to say that you will be refused – but the cost may be so high that it is not possible to purchase it.

Here is a small article from the Association of British Insurers found on the website http://www.onlyinsurance.com/Life-Insurance-News/12751422-Obesity-means-higher-life-insurance.aspx

Life Insurance – Obesity means higher life insurance – 13/05/2008

People who are overweight can prepare to have to pay for higher premiums in future, warns the Association of British Insurers (ABI).

Companies providing life insurance generally are becoming fussier about lifestyle factors when people apply. Smoking has always been top of the list of activities frowned upon, but the increasing awareness of in the UK has now attracted their attention more than ever.

Being overweight by itself is not so much what is disliked by the insurance company, but the illnesses relating to the condition and which may stem from being obese. Such conditions will not ordinarily be covered by the policy. As the obesity level increases, so does the risk of associated illnesses like diabetes, heart disease and strokes. This will only add to the problem of rising life insurance quotes.

It seems the short term response to tackle the overall problem of obesity is to hit the consumer in the pocket where it hurts, thus providing them with an incentive to slim down. It of course does not tackle the problem of poor people who may be overweight who are then priced out of life insurance and may simply not take any cover out at all.

Unfortunatley my searches did not result in any references to this specifically but if you think about it, insurance companies are in the business of managing risk.  If you are obese, or overweight the risk is high that you will have related issues such as diabetes, heart disease and a host of other ailments.  Would you insure someone that is obese?

I was able to find a cached copy of a report – http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:1RpjEp2VZ2UJ:canadiancpd.medscape.com/viewarticle/559151_print+%22Association+of+British+Insurers%22+overweight&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca from MedScape that says:

A spokeswoman for Direct Line said it was willing to insure people with diabetes, depending on their “rating factor”, but that they could face loaded premiums.

“Every case is different, but if someone is at increased risk of health problems, they will pay increased premiums.”

The higher the risk, the higher the premium or a flat-out refusal to insure.

Additional Resources and Information

• http://www.themoneystop.co.uk/112006/life-insurance-costs-can-rocket-if-you-are-overweight-or-a-smoker.html
• http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/11052009/401/10-ways-cut-insurance-costs.html
• http://uk.insurancewide.com/insurance/life/news/2007/june/life-insurance-quotes-to-rise-as-obesity-epidemic-worsens-18188627/
• http://www.insure.com/articles/lifeinsurance/weight.html
• http://www.jdpower.com/insurance/articles/The-Cost-of-Being-Overweight-and-Term-Life-Insurance

Here is to your health!

Mohamed

« Previous Page — Next Page »