Hyvin
A Natural Health and Wellness Blog

We’ve talked a lot about the important health benefits of whole grains. Here’s another study looking specifically at whole-grain breakfast cereals (defined as those having at least 25 percent oat or bran content). Eating them is linked to a reduced risk of heart failure. HealthDay reports that the study was reported at the American Heart Association’s annual Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention Conference held in March of 2007.

Add a B to the alphabet line-up of nutrients that can help prevent Alzheimer’s Disease. (see earlier post about C and E) Recently reported in the Archives of Neurology is a study identifying folate, one of the B nutrients, as being linked to a reduced risk of Alzheimer’s. Researchers looked at folate (also called folic acid) both eaten in food (whole grains, leafy green vegetables) and taken in supplement form.

There is something particular to note about folate (or folic acid). As one of the B nutrients, it occurs with the other B’s that make up the complex but is a hard one to absorb because it tends to get bound up with the others in the matrix. Look for a supplement with a guaranteed delivery system.

Want to lose weight? New research published in the June 2006 Journal of the American Dietetic Asociation suggests that dietary fiber is key.

Found in whole grains, fresh veggies and fruits, and legumes, the foods that contain fiber are just plain good for us.

But fiber also stabilizes blood sugar (which helps control binge eating), makes us feel full (so we eat less), and is typically in lower-calorie foods.

Want to boost your fiber intake? There are some natural fiber supplement choices, and you can even get extra fiber as part of a healthy meal replacement drink, another weapon in the weight war.

While a belly laugh sounds fun, belly fat is no laughing matter. Here’s a discussion on belly fat from Nedra Sahr, M.S., C.N.S.:

Pot belly — spare tire — love handles… call it what you will… it’s without question the first concern most of us have when we want to get in shape. Belly fat is stored energy. To get rid of the fat, you have to burn more energy (calories) than you take in. There is a link between abdominal fat and markers of chronic inflammation. The idea is that fat is an “organ” that produces substances such as leptins and cytokines that can affect your health.

Most doctors will tell you that the best way to avoid a heart attack is to lower your cholesterol… that’s only true for less than half of all patients at risk for heart disease. What we now know is that there’s another, possibly more, important marker, the amount of inflammation that you have in your body. We measure it by checking the levels of C-reactive protein in the blood. Elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) are linked with a higher than average risk of heart disease.

What’s interesting is that higher CRP levels are linked with body fat, especially the belly fat stored around your waist AND that belly fat is linked with insulin resistance. Insulin resistance, Syndrome X, Dysglycemia are all terms for the same condition: an abnormal insulin response in the body brought on by consuming too many fast-burning carbohydrates.

The answer to body fat is to eliminate refined fast burning carbohydrates from the diet, replace them with whole fruit and vegetables, and eventually whole grain products and to couple that with a consistent program of exercise. This process works!

If you’re one of those people who struggle with cravings for those fast-burning carbs, you’ll be happy to know there is natural craving reduction help available!

Fiber continues to get “high-fives” from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Recently published is another study showing that those consuming diets high in fiber have lower levels of C-reactive protein, an indicator of inflammation that is recognized as a predictor of diabetes and cardiovascular disease risk.

I know it’s recommended that we get between 25-30 grams of fiber every day. Raw, fresh fruits and veggies and whole grains are what it takes to reach that amount. Do you find it tricky to pay attention to those levels? I found a fiber supplement that my kids really like (they even ask to have it for a snack), so that helps a lot!

Here is a commentary by Dr. Stephen Chaney, professor of nutrition, biochemistry and biophysics at the Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, medical school. Dr. Chaney is a warm, gracious man (yes, I know him personally ) and a cancer researcher who has published 80 papers in peer-reviewed medical journals as well as two chapters on nutrition for one of the leading biochemistry textbooks for medical students. His informed perspective is always helpful in separating fact from fiction in the news reports about supplements and dietary recommendations.

Part of the Story

You’ve been hearing a lot of negative news stories about supplements and standard dietary recommendations lately. They are what I call “part of the story.” What I’d like to share is what Paul Harvey calls “the rest of the story.” But first a bit of perspective:

You may have noticed lately that the news media never let the facts get in the way of a good story. That’s because the role of a journalist is to sell newspapers or increase the ratings of their radio or TV station. The journalist craves controversy because that generates interest, which leads to follow-up articles and TV reports.

Scientists also crave controversy to a certain extent. There is no fame in being the 10th person to prove a widely accepted belief. The recognition comes from being the first person to disprove a widely held belief and developing an alternative hypothesis. However, scientists know the rules of the game. That is why you always hear scientists saying that “further studies are needed.” We’re not trying to assure job security. We just know that every study is based on underlying assumptions that may ultimately prove to be false.

Therefore, we don’t want to make dietary recommendations to the public until those recommendations are based on at least 5 or 10 independent studies that all come to the same conclusion. Unfortunately, journalists don’t understand the rules of the game and enjoy creating controversy (see above).

With that perspective behind us, I would like to comment on some of the recent news headlines.

Soy doesn’t decrease the risk of heart disease: What the study actually showed is that adding soy protein or soy isoflavone pills to the diet did not significantly reduce cholesterol levels if nothing else in the diet changed. That is not news.

If you took the time to read down to the end of the article (which, of course, was on the inside page of the paper), you would have read that the experts stated that “using soy protein in place of some of the high fat animal protein in a typical American diet does reduce cholesterol.” That is what we have always been saying and, in fact, forms the basis for the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health recommendations that “soy protein is part of a heart healthy diet.”

The real take-home message of this article and the message that the scientists were trying to get across (before it was distorted by the journalists) is that you won’t lower cholesterol (and thus decrease your risk of heart disease) by simply sprinkling soy protein on your Big Mac or taking a soy isoflavone pill along with your Big Mac.

[…]

Calcium supplements don’t prevent bone fractures due to osteoporosis: These headlines were particularly curious because when you read the article the experts were quoted as saying that calcium supplementation did actually decrease the incidence of hip fractures, but not some of the other fractures tested.

The experts went on to make the point of saying that the calcium supplements were effective at preventing bone fractures in the sub-group of women who were at highest risk and that the inclusion of both high risk and low risk women in the study confounded the results. Loosely translated this means that if you are starting with dense bones entering menopause (usually because of a combination of genetics, good diet and exercise), the addition of calcium supplements may not be necessary, at least in the short run. However, if you are entering menopause with relatively low bone density, calcium supplementation can be very important.

Finally, the experts were quoted as saying that the calcium supplements worked much better for those who took them regularly than for those who didn’t. That comes under the category of “Duh!”

All of the experts concluded by saying that they still recommended that post-menopausal women get at least 1000-1200 mg of calcium per day. Even if you are taking bone-protective medications, the recommendations are still for 1000 mg of calcium per day.

[…]

Saw Palmetto is ineffective at preventing prostate problems: Suffice it to say that the lead author of this study acknowledged that people shouldn’t change their use of saw palmetto based on his study alone, because its results were opposite to those reported by dozens of earlier studies. Clearly more studies are needed (that’s the scientist in me) because this study may be a fluke.

Low fat diets are ineffective at preventing cancer and heart disease in women: Again, even the headlines were misleading because the study did show that low fat diets slightly decreased the risk of breast cancer.

However, the point to be made here is really that the concept of “low fat diet” has always been an oversimplification. When nutrition experts introduced the concept of low fat diets they were visualizing the American population replacing high saturated fat animal foods with more fresh vegetables, fresh fruits, whole grains, seeds and nuts. What many Americans did, however, was replace the fatty foods with wonder bread, pasta and twinkies.

The real take home message from this study should be to reduce the fat content of the diet slightly, focusing on healthy fats (olive oil, fish oils and unmodified vegetable oils) and healthy carbohydrates (vegetables, fruits and whole grains with a high glycemic index).

Stephen G. Chaney, PhD

Well, we got the word that whole grains are good. Now, come to find out, there is no standard definition of “whole grains,” so a claim on a food product may mean there’s a teeny-weeny bit of whole grains OR it could mean it’s 100% whole grain. And the manufacturer gets to decide how to label it! It seems to me like a standardized definition is a no-brainer!! Surely, the FDA proposal discussed in a recent Baltimore Sun article, excerpted below, will be implemented. Though according to the full article, there are some who claim it’s not a good thing!

FDA seeks stricter standards for ‘whole grains’ claims

The Food and Drug Administration proposed yesterday a definition for “whole grains” and labeling that would detail the quantity of the ingredient in breads, cereals and other foods to help consumers figure out what they’re eating.

When the federal government encouraged Americans to eat whole grains last year, it didn’t tell them what a whole grain was or give them help determining whether they were eating the recommended 3-ounce daily allowance.

That left it to manufacturers of breads, cereals and other foods to decide whether their ingredients were whole grains and to label their products with claims saying they were “excellent” or “good” sources.

The FDA’s proposal, which is subject to 60 days of public comment, would not order manufacturers to revise their practices but would strongly advise them to do so. Failure to comply could prompt the FDA to issue warnings or take other actions, the agency said.

The proposal would make sure that manufacturers are using unprocessed grains if they want to claim that their ingredients are whole grains, the agency said. That definition mirrors the prevailing industry standard, industry groups said.

The recommendations would also encourage manufacturers to specify the number of ounces or grams of whole grains in a product, rather than saying that the product is a good or excellent source, said Barbara Scheenman, director of the FDA’s office of nutritional products, labeling and dietary supplements.

We try to incorporate whole grains into the family diet, often mixing them with more processed grains (like pancakes with whole wheat flour and some white flour). I know that the fiber, vitamins and minerals in whole grains are good for us, and that the processing of grains removes these natural elements from the food. It’s nice to see these practices affirmed.

Research findings newly published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition conclude that diets high in whole grains reduce the incidences and mortality risks of diabetes and coronary heart disease. Those conducting the study analyzed diet records and analyses of blood samples available from healthy middle-aged adults (468 men and 473 women) who were enrolled in the long-term health professionals and nurses’ health studies of the Harvard School of Public Health.

So, it looks like it’s whole grains to be hyvin. How do you incorporate whole grains into your diet?