Tips On Improving Your Cholesterol Profile

The beneficial effects on the heart and circulatory system of a having a low blood level (below 130) of LDL cholesterol and a high blood level (above 55) of HDL cholesterol are well established. It is also good to have a ratio of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol of no more than 4.0. If your levels don’t meet these criteria, you might benefit from the recommendations listed in an online Men’s Health Magazine article by Bill Phillips dated September 13, 2011. It presents the following ways, purportedly based on scientific studies, of improving your cholesterol profile without drugs:

Raise Your HDL Level

• Eat at least 2 oz (57 gm) of nuts per day.
• Do endurance exercise at least 20 min/day
• Do 3 sets of 6-8 reps of the half squat, leg extension, and leg press, with 2 min max rest between sets, 2x/wk
• Take a 1000 mg calcium supplement daily with 400 IU of Vitamin D-3
• Eat fresh, not processed, white fish (e.g. cod, sole, flounder)
• Take a daily 10-20 mg polycosanol supplement
• Drink cranberry juice
• Eat 2.5 oz of dark chocolate daily

Lower Your LDL Level

• Eat a grapefruit daily
• Eat several small meals a day
• Eat food fortified with oat bran
• Switch from a margarine containing trans fats to a spread that doesn’t
• Drink Concord grape juice
• Take phytosterol or phytostanol supplements in pills or margarine form
• Add whole grains, nuts, and beans to your diet

Bottom Line

These seem like good recommendations. Just observe the following precautions:

• Don’t overdo the calories by adding these items to your diet. Remove other items when you add these.
• Endurance exercise is important for everyone. Weight training alone is not optimal for health.
• Do not exceed 1000 mg of calcium/day from all sources (1200 mg/day if you're over 70) because of a possible increased risk of prostate cancer.
• Don’t eat only white fish, because darker, fattier fish like salmon and mackerel are high in beneficial omega-3 fish oil.
• Don’t overdo the juice because even natural juices contain a lot of sugar, especially fructose, which can increase fatty deposits in the liver and around the midsection.
• Look for brands of dark chocolate without added milk fat.
• Several small meals means SMALL.
• The margarine brands that contain phytosterols and phytostanols contain some trans fats that are not listed because they're less than 0.5 mg per serving. So you may prefer getting these supplements in tablet form.

　

Are dairy products healthy?

Tweet

Many books and articles contain health recommendations based on little or no scientific evidence. So when making personal decisions about how to maintain and improve one’s health, it is important to look for books and articles based on solid studies, especially large, well-controlled ones. A good example of science-based health information can be found in the July/August 2011 issue of the Nutrition Action Health Letter, published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. It evaluates the pros and cons of consuming dairy products, Some of its key points:

Bones
We all know that milk is a major source of dietary calcium, which is needed to maintain bone density. Recently however, some health writers have contended that eating animal protein lowers bone density. Because protein contains amino acids, the alleged mechanism is increased acidity of the blood, prompting the body to respond by leaching calcium from the bones to neutralize the acid. Since milk is a protein source, it is implicated in bone loss. However, scientific study has refuted this contention. In actuality, bone mineral density is higher among people who eat more protein and lower among people who eat less protein. Radio isotope studies that tracked actual deposition and depletion of calcium have verified that consumption of dairy foods does not increase bone loss as we age.

Colon Cancer
A major analysis by the Harvard School of Public Health of 10 studies conducted in 5 countries, involving over 500,000 people concluded that people who drank at least one cup of milk per day had a 15% lower risk of colon cancer than those who drank less than 2 cups per week. Similarly, people treated for colon cancer who took 1200 mg of calcium per day and who had an above-average Vitamin D level had 15% less chance of recurrent colon cancer than those who didn’t take the calcium. Twenty-five percent of experimental animals fed a high-fat diet low in fiber, calcium, Vitamin D, and folic acid, developed colon tumors, but those supplemented with calcium and Vitamin D got none.

Prostate Cancer
There is some inconsistent evidence that high calcium consumption (in excess of 1500 mg/day) may increase the risk of prostate cancer. Milk increases the body’s level of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), a hormone that stimulates the growth of both muscle and bone, but may also stimulate prostate-cancer growth. Even though a study of men receiving a 1200 mg calcium supplement daily showed no prostate cancer increase, the article recommended that men limit their calcium intake from food and supplements combined to 1000 mg/day if under 70 years of age and 1200 mg/day if over 70.

Blood Pressure
Adding 2 servings per day of low-fat dairy foods to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, lowered blood pressure even further. In addition, a study of 28,000 women over 10 years showed that those consuming at least 2 cups/day of low-fat dairy foods reduced their risk of high blood pressure by 10%.

Weight Loss
When restricted to the same number of calories per day, women consuming more dairy products showed no difference in weight loss than those who consumed less dairy. However, when allowed to eat all they wanted at the end of the study, the dairy group consumed fewer calories. The implication is that dairy may help control appetite. While the weight-loss results were equivocal, the women in the low-dairy group lost bone density in their hips, while the high-dairy group did not. This is an important finding, considering that dangerous loss in bone density is common among both women and men as they age.

Lactose Intolerance
Lactose is the sugar found in milk. The following is the lactose content of some dairy products:

• 8 oz cup of milk: 12 grams
• 6 oz cup of yogurt - 10 grams
• 1 oz hard cheese or cream cheese - 1 gram or less
• ½ cup cottage cheese - 4-5 grams
• ½ cup ice cream - 4-5 grams

Many people think they are lactose-intolerant, However, the article cites evidence that between one-third and three-quarters of people who think they are lactose-intolerant are actually not so. Many of them show none of the typical symptoms of gas or diarrhea when lactose is put in their non-dairy drinks without their knowledge. Many people’s digestive systems can adjust to lactose by building up intestinal bacteria over a period of time. So the authors recommend that people who think they are lactose intolerant try to adjust to lactose by:

• Limiting lactose to 12 grams at a time (the amount in one 8 oz glass of milk).
• Consuming lactose along with other foods to give it more time to be digested
• Eating dairy foods regularly to maintain lactose-digesting bacteria
• Other Health Issues Related to Dairy Products

Diabetes
A study of 200,000 people over 20 years showed that those consuming 3-5 servings per day of dairy products had a 14% lower risk of Type II diabetes than those consuming less than 1.5 servings per day. However, it is not known whether that is an effect of the dairy products or another factor common to people who consume more dairy products.

Breast and Ovarian Cancer
Eight studies of 350,000 women in several countries did not find any link between milk consumption and breast cancer. However, research on 500,000 women in the U.S. and Europe did show a weak and marginally significant increased risk of ovarian cancer for women who consumed more than 30 grams of lactose per day. However, two major cancer research organizations did not feel the evidence was conclusive.

Bottom Line
Dairy products made from skim or one-percent milk can be considered health-promoting foods. They contain large quantities of calcium necessary for maintaining bone-density as we age. Also, most are excellent sources of protein (except products made primarily from milk fat, such as cream cheese and butter). Milk appears to help control blood pressure and avoid colon cancer, and may also help control appetite. However, high milk consumption may increase the risk of prostate cancer among men and ovarian cancer among women. Therefore, men should limit calcium consumption from food and supplements combined to 1000 mg/day below age 70 and 1200 mg/day above age 70. Adequate Vitamin D intake is essential for healthy bone mineralization, even if calcium intake is adequate. Many people are deficient in Vitamin D because of low sun exposure. Current recommendations for daily Vitamin D supplementation are in the neighborhood of 1,000-2,000 IU.

Additional Note
The main type of saturated fat found in milk (myristic acid) is particularly potent in raising blood cholesterol, specifically the harmful low-density variety (LDL). Because of that, consumption of milk fat should be very limited. High proportions of milk fat are found in cream, butter, ice cream, cheese (especially cream cheese and soft cheeses like Brie), whole milk, and 2% milk. That is why non-fat and 1% fat milk products are preferable. Unfortunately, many dishes popular in the U.S., such as cheese burgers cheese ravioli, macaroni and cheese, and pizza, contain large amounts of cheese. The evidence indicates that the cardiovascular health of Americans would benefit from a reduction in cheese consumption.

Omega-3 Fats from Fish Oil Raise Risk of High-Grade Prostate Cancer

It has been increasingly evident that there are trade-offs in the quest to get and stay healthy. In other words, there are actions we can take that will reduce the risk of one health problem, but increase the risk of another. One example is playing high-impact sports such as basketball, which is great for improving and maintaining physical fitness while having fun, but also increases the risk of sprains, strains and other musculoskeletal problems. Now, an article by Brasky et al. in the American Journal of epidemiology (published online April 24, 2011)  points up a trade-off involved in taking fish-oil supplements, which have been widely recommended for reducing the risk of cardiovascular diseases and other health problems.

The researchers analyzed blood samples of 3,461 men to measure levels of omega-3 fats (DHA and EPA from fish consumption), omega-6 fats (from common vegetable oils), and trans-fats (from hydrogenated oils in margarine, shortening, and processed foods). The men were then followed over a 7-year period in order to see the association of the different fat types to the incidence of prostate cancer. The hypotheses were that:

• Because of the anti-inflammatory effect of the omega-3 fats, men with the highest blood levels of them would have a lower incidence of prostate cancer
• Because of the inflammatory effect of the trans- fats, men with the highest blood levels of them would have a higher incidence of prostate cancer

Results
The statistical analysis produced the following surprising results:

   > There were no effects of any of the fat types on overall incidence of prostate cancer.
   > When looking at the high-grade form of prostate cancer that progresses rapidly and is the most lethal:

• Those men with the highest blood levels of DHA from fish oil had more than twice the risk of contracting high-grade prostate cancer as men with the lowest blood levels of DHA.
• EPA from fish oil had no effect on the incidence of high-grade prostate cancer.
• Those men with the highest blood levels of trans-fats had about half the risk of contracting high-grade prostate cancer as men with the lowest blood levels of trans-fats
• Blood levels of the type of omega-3 fat from vegetable sources (e.g. flax seeds, walnuts) had no effect on the incidence of high-grade prostate cancer.

Bottom Line
The results of highly surprising, given the widespread view of fish oil as all-good and trans-fats as all-bad. Here is a clear case of trade-off. There is considerable evidence that fish-oil is good for the heart and cardiovascular system and reduces the incidence of heart attacks. Yet, here we see that it increases the risk of high-grade prostate cancer. Eating omega-3 fats from flax-seeds or other vegetable sources is not a solution because that type of omega-3 fat has not been proven to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. The good news is that most prostate cancer is of the low-grade variety. Given that heart disease remains the number one killer of both men and women, it doesn’t appear that fish and fish-oil be abandoned as a health-promoting dietary elements. Yet men must be aware of the trade-off in risk of eating fatty fish or taking fish-oil supplements in order to make an informed decision about how best to promote their health.

Update (May 8, 2011):
Consumerlab.com, a company that tests the quality of supplements from various companies, contacted Dr. Theodore Brasky, the lead author of the study described herein. He stated that the blood levels of DHA and EPA measured in the study were largely based on fish consumption rather than fish-oil supplements. However, a recent study of his, soon to be published, shows no link between fish oil supplementation and risk of prostate cancer. He also noted another study (Szymanski, Am J Clin Nutr 2010) that found fish consumption associated with a large reduction in late state or fatal prostate cancer.

Our Changing Eating Patterns

The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently published information on the sources of our daily caloric intake between 1970 and 2008, a time period in which our daily caloric consumption increased by 23.2% from 2,169 cals to 2,672 cals, and rates of overweight and obesity have risen sharply. An interactive graphic was created from the data that allows users to scroll along a time-line to see how the amount of daily calories in each food category has changed over time. The following are the percentage changes in calories coming from each food category:

meat, eggs, and nuts: +4.1%
fruit:                         +22.9%
added fat:                 +56.3%
dairy:                          -3.7%
grains:                      +44.7%
vegetables                   -2.4%
added sugar              +14.2%

Some Observations on the Data

In Terms of Absolute Calories

• The biggest contributors by far to our increased daily caloric intake are added fat (231 cals) and grains (193 cals).
• Much more modest contributors to our increased daily caloric intake are added sugar (57 cals), meat/eggs/nuts (19 cals), and fruit (16 calories).
• Our daily consumption of dairy actually decreased by 10 calories and of vegetables by 3 calories.

In Terms of Percentage of Daily Calories

• The only foods that increased as percentages of our diet from 1970 to 2008 are added fats (from 18.9% to 24.0% of daily calories) and grains (from 19.9 % to 23.4% of daily calories).
• Caloric consumption from fruit was steady at 3.2 % of calories.
• All other foods declined as percentages of our daily calories including meat/nuts/eggs (from 21.3% to 18.0% of daily calories), dairy (from 12.3% to 9.6% of daily calories), added sugar (from 18.5% to 17.2% of daily calories), and vegetables (from 5.8% to 4.6% of daily calories).

Bottom Line
The greatest contributors to our increase in caloric consumption are grains and added fat. While we have increased our intake of all other foods except vegetables, grains and fat together account for 84% of our increase in caloric consumption and should therefore be the prime focus of cutting back calories. This makes it clear that the low-fat and low-carb diets are both missing something because the intake of both must be reduced. Any diet that emphasizes what you eat rather than how much you eat is bound to fail. Overweight and obese people who seek to attain a healthy body weight must face the reality that total intake must be lessened. Focusing on eating both fewer grain-based foods and fewer added fats is a good start.

New Insights into Obesity

The December 2010 issue of the Nutrition Action Health Letter, published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, featured an interview with Eric Ravussin, head of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center of the highly regarded Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, LA. The discussion centered on new clues as to why we gain weight, and revealed the following:

• Leptin, a hormone discovered in 1994, is produced by fat cells and  tells the brain when the cells are full.
• When people diet and lose weight, leptin levels drop sharply, causing food cravings and weight regain.
• Loss of 10-20% of body weight slows the metabolism and rate of caloric burn.
• Injecting leptin can bring the metabolism back up.
• However, most overweight people are resistant to leptin, just as Type II diabetics are resistant to insulin.
• Using drugs to shut down hunger mechanisms doesn’t work well because the human body has developed several redundant systems to stimulate eating as protection against starvation.
• People have natural ranges of body fat depending on their genes that control energy intake and expenditure.
• Nutrition in the womb and infancy can affect propensity for overweight and obesity by switching different genes on and off.
• Brown adipose tissue, which burns calories to produce body heat, previously thought to exist only in infants, was recently discovered in adults.
• By maintaining homes at a steady comfortable temperature throughout the year, we don’t burn calories via brown fat to keep warm in winter, and we miss the appetite-suppressing effect of heat in the summer.
• A common cold virus (adenovirus-36) makes experimental animals gain a lot of weight. Antibodies to this virus, an indication of exposure, are much more common in obese than in normal-weight people.
• Gut bacteria can be a factor. Transplanting feces from a fat animal to a lean one results in weight gain for the latter, while transplanting from the lean to the fat animal makes the fatter one leaner. Similar transplants in humans have reduced insulin-resistance of people with metabolic syndrome, a set of symptoms indicative of heart-disease risk characterized by excess fat around the waist, low HDL, and elevated blood pressure, blood triglycerides, and fasting blood glucose.

Ravussin feels that we should tax soft drinks and other unhealthy foods while subsidizing healthy foods, create areas where kids can safely play, and make physical education mandatory so that everyone, not only the athletically-gifted, engages in physical activity,

Eating Nuts Provides Several Health Benefits

An article in the January 2011 Harvard Health Letter listed several health benefits of eating nuts. Although the calories in nuts come mainly from fat, the type of fat is largely of the unsaturated healthful variety. The article cited a study done at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center showing that walnuts eaten at breakfast made subjects feel more full before lunch, potentially reducing caloric consumption. Other health benefits include favorable effects on blood cholesterol, blood pressure, and inflammatory factors. Studies on large populations have linked high nut consumption with lower heart disease rates. Nuts also contain little or no carbohydrate so they do not cause spikes in blood sugar and may even blunt blood sugar spikes caused by carbohydrates eaten along with the nuts. Peanuts, almonds, and pistacios have the highest protein content, while brazil nuts, cashews, hazelnuts, and walnuts have intermediate protein content, and pecans and macadamias have the lowest protein content. Walnuts have the additional benefit of being high in omega-3 fatty acids, which are widely considered the most healthful kind.

Are There Hidden Causes of the Overweight Epidemic?

In the December 20, 2010 issue of Newsweek magazine, Sharon Begley, the magazine’s science columnist, wrote that there are some little-known factors that may contribute to the continued increase in the prevalence of overweight and obesity. Her main argument is that it must be more than a matter of exercising more and eating better because, among animals that have contact with human beings, such as pets, lab animals and rodent pests, 23 of the 24 species studied since 1940 have shown significant increases in the percentages of overweight and obese animals, a statistic that could have occurred by chance only once in 8 million. Yet changes in diet and exercise don’t appear to be the reason, as these factors haven’t changed much for these animals over the years.

Begley cites some possible reasons other than diet and exercise for the weight gain of animals and, by extension, us:

• The type of bacteria in our gut - more efficient bacteria wring more calories out of our food than do less efficient bacteria. In this case, efficiency is not our friend.
• Lack of sleep, which increases the appetite-stimulating hormone ghrelin, and decreases the hormone leptin that suppresses our appetite when we’ve eaten enough.
• Environmental chemicals such as BPA that stimulate fat-cell production.
• Home heating, which lessens the need for the body’s calorie-consuming heat production.
• Home air conditioning, which lessens the appetite-suppressing effect of environmental heat.
• Infection with adenovirus-36, which causes obesity in  lab animals and is correlated with obesity in humans.

In addition, I feel that there may be another contributor to obesity:

• The lack of internal parasites due to modern sanitary practices. If parasites eat some of our food, less of it can be packed on as fat. If they partake of our bodies, then energy must be consumed for repair. This assumes the kind of parasites that are relatively harmless other than consuming some of our food or body tissue.

Bottom Line
There is no doubt that our health benefits from exercising regularly and eating a healthy diet without excess calories. However, we must continue to look for other contributing factors in order to effectively deal with and counteract the continued rise in overweight and obesity that threatens to undermine the gains we’ve made in improving our health and increasing our lifespan.

Should You Skip Breakfast to Burn More Fat During a Workout?

An Associated Press article suggesting that, because skipping breakfast before a workout burns more fat, such a practice may be effective for body fat loss. Yet, the study on which the article is based provides absolutely no evidence that such a practice would result in a stable loss of body fat. Sure, if your body is depleted of stored carbohydrates in the form of muscle and liver glycogen, you will burn more fat during exercise. However, a close look at the article reveals that the fat burned is in the muscle, and not around the waist or other parts of the body where people generally want to lose fat. Thus, exercising in a fasted state merely depletes intramuscular fat that is replenished upon eating. So there is no net body fat loss unless one consumes fewer calories than are used, which requires dietary control. So we can’t escape from the truism that the only way to lose weight is to burn more calories than you take in.

The following are additional reasons not to exercise in a fasted state:

• You will feel less energetic and more lethargic
• The quality of your workout will diminish
• Your motivation to exercise will be reduced
• You will cannibalize muscle to convert protein into needed carbohydrates

The only advantage to running in a fasted state might be for long-distance runners who wish to train their bodies to preferentially burn fat, thereby sparing muscle and liver glycogen to avoid “hitting the wall” late in a race. However, training with long-distance runs accomplish the same goal.

Is Fructose Unhealthy?

There has recently been some concern from various sources that fructose might be unhealthy. The focus on fructose has likely been prompted by the widely increased use of high-fructose corn syrup to sweeten various foods and drinks such as sodas, iced tea, yogurt, and snacks. Yet fructose can also be found in relatively high amounts in fruits, especially apples, pears, grapes (including raisins), and pineapples, and even in vegetables such as tomatoes, cabbage and squash. Table sugar (sucrose) is a 50/50 amalgam of fructose and glucose, while high-fructose corn syrup is 55% free fructose and 45% free glucose, industrially manufactured from corn starch,

There is some fairly solid evidence supporting the negative health effects of fructose on mice, but the evidence concerning humans is much less conclusive. In human studies, fructose intake has been positively correlated with obesity (1, 2), especially fatty deposits around the waist, which is thought to be the most dangerous to health and, of course, detrimental to the 6-pack look. Fructose also increases blood triglycerides, a recognized risk factor for heart disease (3). All cells in the body can metabolize glucose, but only the liver can metabolize fructose, and high fructose consumption appears to load the liver with fatty deposits (4, 5). Also, fructose tends to suppress insulin and leptin, both of which are hormones that decrease appetite, while increasing ghrelin, which raises appetite (6, 7), thus possibly contributing to excess weight gain. However, there is little evidence that the fructose in high-fructose corn syrup is more damaging than the fructose in table sugar (typically sucrose from sugar cane).

Bottom Line
While more studies must be done to solidify the evidence on the effects of fructose on human health, it appears wise to avoid excessive intake of fructose. This can be accomplished by:

• Completely avoiding foods and drinks containing high-fructose corn syrup
• Limiting consumption of table sugar and any product with a high sugar content
• Limiting fruit juice consumption, especially juice from apples and grapes

References:
1. Lustig RH (2006). "Childhood obesity: behavioral aberration or biochemical drive? Reinterpreting the First Law of Thermodynamics". Nature clinical practice. Endocrinology & metabolism 2 (8): 447–58. doi:10.1038/ncpendmet0220. PMID 16932334.

2. Isganaitis E, Lustig RH (2005). "Fast food, central nervous system insulin resistance, and obesity". Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 25 (12): 2451–62. doi:10.1161/01.ATV.0000186208.06964.91. PMID 16166564.

3. Bantle JP, Raatz SK, Thomas W, Georgopoulos A (2000). "Effects of dietary fructose on plasma lipids in healthy subjects". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 72 (5): 1128–34. PMID 11063439.

4. Forristal, Linda (Fall 2001). "The Murky World of High-Fructose Corn Syrup". Weston A. Price Foundation. http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/hfcs.html.

5. Ouyang X, Cirillo P, Sautin Y, et al. (June 2008). "Fructose consumption as a risk factor for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease". J. Hepatol. 48 (6): 993–9. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2008.02.011. PMID 18395287.


6. Teff, KL; Elliott SS, Tschöp M, Kieffer TJ, Rader D, Heiman M, Townsend RR, Keim NL, D'Alessio D, Havel PJ (June 2004). "Dietary fructose reduces circulating insulin and leptin, attenuates postprandial suppression of ghrelin, and increases triglycerides in women". J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 89 (6): 2963–72. doi:10.1210/jc.2003-031855. PMID 15181085.

7. Swan, Norman; Lustig, Robert H. "ABC Radio National, The Health Report, The Obesity Epidemic". http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/1969924.htm. Retrieved 2007-07-15.

Vibration Training Can Increase Jump Height

Introduction

Because of evidence supporting their effectiveness for improving strength, flexibility and power, whole body vibration platforms have become increasingly available in fitness centers and athletic training facilities. These platforms generally provide repeated vertical fluctuations at a user-selected rate and amplitude (distance). One study reported that frequencies of 20-30 Hz (cycles per second) produced the greatest gains in flexibility and strength. Amplitude adjustment generally ranges from 1-15 mm (0.04-0.60").

While it is easy to train previously untrained people to increase strength and power, it is more difficult to produce improvement in those already trained. Thus, the study described below provided a challenge to whole-body vibration training.

Experimental Method

In a study by Wyon, Guinan, and Hawkey published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (vol 24, no 3, pp. 866-870, 2010) 18 female undergraduate dance majors, who were currently engaged in 12-16 hours of dance training per week, were divided into the following two groups that were tested before and after a 6-week experimental period:

Experimental Group: In addition to their normal dance training, these subjects did whole-body vibration training two times a week separated by 2 rest days. The training consisted of twice holding each of the following positions for 30 sec while on a vibration platform set at a frequency of 35 Hz and amplitude of 4 mm (0.16").

     Half-squat with knees pointing outwards
     Right leg leading lunge
     Left leg leading lunge
     Maximal height calf raise
     Forward torso bend (at least 90 degrees) with knees straight

Control Group: In addition to their normal dance training, this group held each of the same positions as the experimental group, but on a stable floor rather than on a vibration platform.

Results

The experimental groups improved 2.3 cm (0.9" or 6%) in their maximal vertical jump, while the control group actually declined by 1.5 cm (0.6" or 4%). This difference was statistically significant.

Bottom Line

Whole-body vibration training appears to hold promise for training athletes and dancers. The experimental training required only 5 minutes twice a week. Because the physical demands on in-season dancers and athletes are great, strength and power training is usually limited to avoid overtraining. However, whole-body vibration training seems to be able to improve performance without excessively stressing the athlete. An added advantage is the previous evidence that such training can improve bone mineral density. Low bone density has been a problem with female dancers and athletes who maintain low bodyfat, such as gymnasts and distance runners.

A Profile of the Changing American Diet

In its March 2010 issue, the Nutrition Action Healthletter, a publication of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, reported the following changes in U.S. eating patterns between 1970 and 2007. All quantities are per person per year.

Meat, Poultry, and Seafood

• Beef - Dropped by about 20% to 40 lb
• Chicken - Doubled to about 35 lb
• Pork - Steady at about 28 lb
• Fish - Increased more than 1/3 to 11 lb
• Turkey - more than doubled to about 9 lb

Comment: There's still plenty of room for improvement, since beef and pork consumption increase the risk of colon cancer and heart disease.

Dairy

• Cheese - Almost tripled to about 25 lb
• Full fat ice cream - Dropped about 25% to 10 lb
• Yogurt - Increased more than tenfold to about 8 lb
• Low fat ice cream - Steady at about 5 lb

Comment: The sharp increase in cheese consumption is not good since most of the calories in cheese come from the kind of saturated fat that raises undesirable blood cholesterol (LDL). Yogurt is usually made from 1% milk, which is better than whole or 2% milk (regular milk is about 3.5%), and usually contains live cultures that benefit the digestive system. Yet all but plain yogurt contain a lot of sugar, usually in the form of high-fructose corn syrup, the health effects of which remain controversial.

Grains

• White and whole wheat flour - Up about 20% to about 97 lb
• Corn flour and meal - Almost tripled to about 22 lb
• Rice - Almost tripled to about 15 lb
• Oats - Fairly steady at about 2.5 lb

Comment: The overall increase in grain consumption is largely related to our increased total caloric intake. Unfortunately, grains often form the base of salty and calorie-heavy snacks such as corn chips and pretzels. It is best to eat whole grains in the form of bread, pasta, brown rice, quinoa, etc.

Fats and Oils

• Salad and cooking oil - More than tripled to about 32 gallons
• Shortening (hydrogenated oils) - Up about 25% over 1970 to about 15 gal but a third less than its peak consumption in 2000-2005
• Margarine (also hydrogenated oils) - Dropped by 2/3 to about 3 gal
• Butter - Dropped by 25% to 3 gal
• Beef and pork fat - Steady at about 2.5 gal

Comment: Vegetable oils are generally considered healthful except when they raise caloric consumption over our daily needs. However, most of us consume an excess ratio of omega-6 oils (abundant in most vegetable oils) to omega-3 oils (abundant in fish and flaxseed oils). Olive oil has less omega-6 fat than most other vegetable oils and is generally regarded as beneficial.

Drinks

• Sugared soda - Data only goes back to 1985. Since then there was an increase until 1998 but a 15% drop since then to about 34 gallons
• Bottled water - Increased from almost nothing to about 29 gal
• Coffee - Dropped by 25% to 24 gal
• Beer - Up 20% to 22 gal
• Milk - Down by 20% to 21 gal. Considering milk types, whole milk has fallen by 3/4 to 4 gal, 2% milk has more than doubled to 5 gal, skim milk has doubled to 2 gal, and 1% milk has gone from almost zero to 2 gal
• Diet soda - Data only goes back to 1985. Since then its been up 2/3 to 15 gal
• Fruit drinks - Data only goes back to 1985. Since then its been up 1/3 to 14 gal
• Fruit juice - Up 1/3 to about 8 gal
• Wine - Doubled to about 3 gal

Comment: We've gone in the right direction by cutting soda and whole milk consumption, but we still drink too much soda and sweetened drinks.

Fruits and vegetables

• Vegetables (excluding potatoes) - Increased by 1/3 to 129 lb
• Fruit - Increased about 5% to 73 lb
• Fresh potatoes - Decreased by almost half to 25 lb
• Frozen potatoes - More than doubled to 19 lb.

Comment: The increase in vegetable consumption is very good. However, the switch from fresh to frozen potatoes suggests that people are eating more french fries than mashed or baked potatoes.

Sugars (including corn syrup)

• Up about 15% to 96 lb

Comment: Of course this is undesirable. Sugars are empty calories that increase the likelihood of weight gain, high blood triglycerides, and other problems.

Potential Health Problems Related to Fructose Intake

An article in The January/February 2010 issue of the Nutrition Action Health Letter, a publication of the Center for Science in the Public Interest highlights some potential health problems associated with fructose intake. Aside from the detrimental effects of any added sugar (e.g. empty calories, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, tooth decay) the article points up some problems specific to fructose (not only high-fructose corn syrup):

• The liver converts virtually all fructose, but not glucose, into fat.
• Fructose raises blood triglyceride level, an independent risk factor for heart disease
• Fructose may increase visceral fat (fat around the internal organs) another risk factor for heart disease
• Fructose intake may raise the risk of gout, a painful joint condition
• Fructose may suppress the effectiveness of leptin, the body’s appetite-curbing hormone
  

Drinks and food products sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup are the greatest sources of fructose in the U.S. diet. Whole fruits, the sugar of which is mainly in the form of fructose, is not generally a problem because the amount of fructose in one apple or orange is limited. However, fruit juice is more of a problem because several individual fruits may go into one glass of juice. So it is best to keep eating whole fruits but limit intake of sodas, juice drinks, juices, and syrups.

Visceral Fat

Visceral fat is the fat around the abdominal organs. Because such fat is under the abdominal muscles, it cannot be detected by pinching the skin over the abdomen. In contrast, subcutaneous fat is located right under the skin and can be detected by a pinch and quantified by using a skinfold-caliper. Unfortunately, visceral fat is the most dangerous kind in that it produces hormones and inflammatory agents. Framingham heart study researchers reported that visceral rather than subcutaneous fat was associated with an indicator of cholesterol deposits in the aorta, the body's main artery.

Fortunately, exercise can have an impact on visceral fat. A study by Gary Hunter Ph.D., of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, showed that, among a group of women who lost an average of 24 lb by dieting, only those who stuck to an aerobic or strength-training exercise program of 40 minutes, twice a week, managed to keep off all of the visceral fat they lost. Those who did not exercise or who quit their exercise programs increased their visceral fat an average of 33% in the year following their weight loss.