Diet & Health: What Do The Experts Say?

[rynner2]

Received wisdom seems to change with the weather...

Saturated fat is not bad for health, says heart expert
Diets that are low in saturated fat do not lower cholesterol, prevent heart disease or help people live longer, a cardiac scientist claims
By Sarah Knapton, Science Correspondent
6:40AM GMT 06 Mar 2014

NHS guidelines which advise cutting down on high fat foods like butter, cream and chocolate may be putting the public at risk and should be urgently revised, a leading heart scientist has warned.
Diets that are low in saturated fat do not lower cholesterol, prevent heart disease or help people live longer, Dr James DiNicolantonio insists.
He is so concerned about misinterpretation of ‘flawed data’ that he has called for a new public health campaign to admit ‘we got it wrong.’
British health experts and nutritionists backed his comments claiming that for too long ‘uncomfortable facts’ have been stifled by ‘dietry dogma.’

Saturated fat is traditionally found in butter, cheese, fatty meat, biscuits, cakes and sausages.
But Dr DiNicolantonio, claims sugar and carbohydrates are the real culprits driving high cholesterol and the obesity epidemic and suggested that guidelines should be changed urgently.
“A public health campaign is drastically needed to educate on the harms of a diet high in carbohydrate and sugar.
“There is no conclusive proof that a low-fat diet has a positive effect on health. Indeed the literature indicates a general lack of any effect, good or bad, from a reduction in fat intake.

“A change in recommendations is drastically needed as public health could be at risk.
“We need a public health campaign as strong as the one we had in the 70s and 80s demonising saturated fats, to say that we got it wrong.”

DiNicolantonio points out that the ‘vilification’ of saturated fats dates back to the 1950s when research suggested a link between high dietary saturated fat intake and deaths from heart disease.
But the study author drew his conclusions on data from six countries, choosing to ignore the data from a further 16, which did not fit with his hypothesis, and [with?] subsequent analysis of all 22 countries' data.
Nevertheless the research stuck and since the 1970s most public health organisations have advised people to cut down on fat.

“It seemingly led us down the wrong 'dietary road' for decades to follow", said Dr DiNicolantonio, of Ithica College, New York, writing in the BMJ journal Open Heart.
“This stemmed from the belief that since saturated fats increase total cholesterol (a flawed theory to begin with) they must increase the risk of heart disease."
Experts also believed the diet would lead to less obesity and diabetes - when the exact opposite was true, he added.

In 2009 the Food Standards Agency launched a campaign including a hard hitting television advert which showed a kitchen sink becoming clogged with fat, and suggested that it was having a similar effect on the arteries.
The FSA claimed that too much fat in the diet raises cholesterol levels in the blood, which is a risk factor for coronary heart disease, heart attacks, angina and stroke.
NHS guidelines suggest the average man should eat no more than 30g of saturated fat per day and women no more than 20g.

But Dr DiNicolantonio believes the switch away from fat towards carbohydrates has harmed public health. He suggests the rise in high-carb diet is responsible for the increase in diabetes and obesity epidemic in the US.
The best diet to boost and maintain heart health is one low in refined carbohydrates, sugars and processed foods, he recommended.

Brian Ratcliffe, professor of nutrition at Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, welcomed his comments.
"For the last three decades, accumulating evidence has not provided strong support for the dietary recommendations regarding reducing fat and saturated fat intake," he said.

"DiNicolantonio does not even touch on the evidence which shows that low-fat diets (admittedly lower than the current recommendations) have been associated with poor mood and even depression.
"Many who adhere to dietary dogma have chosen to ignore the uncomfortable facts that did not fit the hypothesis."

Victoria Taylor, senior heart health dietitian at the British Heart Foundation, advised the public to take a more holistic approach to their diets.
"Fat is just one element of our diet. To look after our hearts long-term, we should look at our diet as a whole. Eating a Mediterranean-style diet rich in fruit, veg, pulses and fish will help lower cholesterol and reduce the risk of coronary heart disease."

However professor Tom Sanders, head of diabetes and nutritional sciences division in the School of Medicine at King's College London, said Dr DiNicolantoni's assessment misrepresented the scientific evidence.
"Refocusing dietary advice on sugar and away from fat modification and reduction is not helpful," he said.

Prof Bruce Griffin, Professor of Nutritional Metabolism at the University of Surrey, added: “To suggest that the theory relating saturated fat to increased total cholesterol is flawed, is nonsense, and contradicts 50 years of evidence-based medicine.
“A more balanced review of the overall evidence would reveal that the risks from saturated fat and refined sugars are not mutually exclusive, but co-exist together in our diet.”

The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) is currently reviewing the evidence on dietary carbohydrates and a consultation on new guidelines will begin this summer.

Alison Tedstone, Director of Nutrition and Diet at Public Health England, said: “The totality of the evidence suggests that high saturated fat intake is associated with raising total and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) blood cholesterol levels which, over time, could lead to an increased risk of developing heart disease.
“It is therefore reasonable to conclude that a reduction in saturated fat intake will lower total and LDL blood cholesterol which, in turn, may reduce the risk of developing heart disease."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... xpert.html

I suggest we put all these experts in a big boxing ring and let them fight it out!

 

[drbastard]

Suits me, I started using butter again because toast is plain horrible without it.

My feeling is that this expert is overstating the issue- sugar at the moment is being touted as the new evil, and lots of health gurus and nutritional experts are clambering onto the band wagon. My feeling is, sugar is bad, yes, but no worse than saturated fat. In about 10 years time they'll be campaigning for people to consume more sugar because it's good for you. Everything in moderation -hasn't that always consistently been the best approach?

 

[Mythopoeika]

Suits me, I started using butter again because toast is plain horrible without it.

Me too! It's much nicer than marge and makes me fart less (it's more naturally digestible than marge).

 

[rynner2]

17 March 2014 Last updated at 21:49
Article written by Fergus Walsh, Medical correspondent
Should I avoid saturated fat?

I had to do a bit of a double-take when I read some Cambridge-led research about fat consumption and heart disease.
It said that - contrary to decades of public health advice - switching from saturated fats found in foods like butter, cheese and fatty meats, to polyunsaturated fats such as vegetable oils and fish - did not seem to have any benefit for the heart.
This surprised not only me but the people who co-funded the research, the British Heart Foundation (BHF).

Pretty much every respectable health body says that we should cut down on food that is high in saturated fat because it can cause cholesterol levels in the blood to build up.

Raised cholesterol increases your risk of heart disease. Some unsaturated fats can lower blood cholesterol so the assumption has been that this will cut your heart disease risk.

But the analysis of dozens of international studies did not yield clear evidence that switching to mono and polyunsaturated fats reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease.

It should be pointed out that the authors freely admit their research is inconclusive - the BHF wants to see more studies before anyone considers changing dietary advice.
The findings are certainly not an invitation to gorge on a diet of cream cakes and fatty meat pies. Not only do most of us eat too many calories but we eat too much fat overall.
But simply demonising saturated fat or any other single food source is not helpful either. We have to get our calories from somewhere.

The newspapers are full of the latest dietary battle - is fat or sugar to blame for heart disease?

The problem is that sensible food advice, rather than faddy trends, tend to be a bit boring.
The key to a healthy heart remains a balanced and varied diet - with a strong emphasis on vegetables and fruit. Add to that exercise and not smoking.

Do all of those and not only will you cut your risk of heart disease, but cancer, diabetes and dementia.

----------------------------------------------

Saturated fat

Saturated fat is the kind of fat found in butter and lard, pies, cakes and biscuits, fatty cuts of meat, sausages and bacon, and cheese and cream

Eating a diet that is high in saturated fat can raise the level of cholesterol in the blood, which increases the risk of heart disease, according to NHS Choices.

Most of us eat too much saturated fat - about 20% more than the
recommended maximum amount.

The average man should eat no more than 30g of saturated fat a day.

The average woman should eat no more than 20g of saturated fat a day.

---------------------------------------------------

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26622399

 

[Mythopoeika]

The real evil is sugar, not fat.

 

[rynner2]

This sounds like good news to me!

Gut bacteria turn dark chocolate 'healthy'
By Michelle Roberts, Health editor, BBC News online

Bacteria in our stomach ferment chocolate into useful anti-inflammatory compounds that are good for the heart, scientists have said.
The Louisiana State University team told the American Chemical Society meeting that their lab work had revealed the finding.
Gut microbes such as Bifidobacterium feast on the chocolate and release beneficial polyphenolic compounds.
The scientists believe adding fruit to chocolate could boost the fermentation.
[Mmm, dark choccy fruit-n-nut! 8) ]

Dr John Finley and his team tested cocoa powder, but say solid dark chocolate contains the same polyphenolic or antioxidant compounds.

Meanwhile, the US National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute plans a big trial of a chocolate pill for heart disease.
It's teaming up with chocolate manufacturer Mars, which has patented a way to extract a specific type of these beneficial compounds - flavanols - from cocoa in high concentration and put them in capsules.
Dr JoAnn Mason, who will be leading the trial, said: "You're not going to get these protective flavanols in most of the candy on the market. Cocoa flavanols are often destroyed by the processing."

The idea of the study was to see whether there are health benefits from chocolate's ingredients minus the sugar and fat, she said.
The 18,000 participants that they hope to recruit will get dummy pills or two capsules a day of cocoa flavanols for four years, and neither they nor the study leaders will know who is taking what during the study.

Christopher Allen, of the British Heart Foundation, said: "Though flavanols are found in dark chocolate, this doesn't mean we can reach for a chocolate bar and think we're helping our hearts. Flavanols are often destroyed by processing and by the time a chocolate bar lands on the supermarket shelf it will also contain added extras such as sugar and fat."
He said though chocolate could be enjoyed as a treat, it was not good to eat in large quantities.
"Eating lots of sugary and fatty foods can lead to obesity and type-2 diabetes, which are major risk factors for heart attacks and strokes," he said.

A diet rich in fruit and vegetables, combined with an active lifestyle, is the best way to keep your heart healthy, the BHF advises.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26626507

 

[rynner2]

I thought at first this was an April Fool, but this is comment based on something published yesterday...

Ten portions of fruit and veg a day - are they having a laugh?
As a new study recommends a doubling of 'five-a-day' diet, could it be that the joke's on us?
By Victoria Lambert
12:49PM BST 01 Apr 2014

How I laughed when I saw the April Fool joke in my Telegraph: how many portions of fruit and veg are we supposed to eat now? Five, 10, a bushel, a kilo? The more, the merrier? Ha ha ha!
But as I was looking for a payoff that had UKIP promising to re-position sprouts from Brussels to Barnsley, I realised the joke was on me. There really is new scientific research – and perfectly credible too – that says our five-a-day is getting us nowhere fast. That it is the nutritional equivalent of moving the deckchairs around the Titanic.

According to the study by University College London, which examined the eating habits of 65,000 people in England between 2001 and 2013, eating large quantities of fruit and vegetables significantly lowered the risk of premature death. Researchers found that eating seven helpings a day of fruit or vegetables could reduce a person’s overall risk of premature death by 42 per cent when compared with people who ate just one whole portion.

But, we were also warned, eating five portions, as based on World Health Organisation recommendations issued in 1990, which advised consuming 400g of fruit and vegetables each day to lower the risk of heart disease, stroke, type-two diabetes and obesity, is simply not enough. Only 30 per cent of us manage that anyway.

I say “us” – but let’s look a little closer to home, shall we? Like you, in the Lambert kitchen, we try to keep on top of all this healthy eating guidance. Look around and there are plenty of nods to recent advice.
There are the porridge oats (good for cholesterol); here is the empty wrapper for 70 per cent dark chocolate (reduces blood pressure, makes us live longer); and over in the larder you’ll find walnuts (antioxidants), pole-caught tuna in spring water (protein), cinnamon (steadies the blood sugar) and – look, push that can of Heinz Tomato Soup out of the way, will you? – cod liver oil for vitamin D.

And constantly underfoot – like an old Labrador and just as smelly - is the large box of home-delivered organic fruit and veg with which I try to plump out each meal (before the leftovers get fed to the rabbits).

So surely my family must be part of the 30 per cent? Well, I’m not so sure we manage it every day. So far I’ve had a handful of blueberries and I might grab a tomato at lunchtime or some salad leaves. But that’s leaving an awful lot of veg to pack into my evening meal isn’t it?

Checking the NHS website for confirmation, I find that while one tomato counts as a portion, it takes two handfuls of blueberries to make another helping, and I’d need to put away a whole dessert bowl of lettuce. :wince:

I could then make up my total of 10 portions today by eating 14 button mushrooms, four heaped tablespoons of curly kale, 16 medium okra, eight spring onions, a large parsnip, 20 raspberries and one peach.
Yes, it is daunting. Even if I make vegetable curry.

But of course the researchers’ intentions are noble. Shrink our national obesity problem and we’d probably be able to afford a fatter NHS. So no wonder campaigners are calling for fruit and veg to be subsidised to help everyone afford them in place of junk food.

But I’m afraid I don’t see cost as the major hurdle for the researchers to cross before the public take up this new challenge.
It’s not just the thought of the sheer quantity of fruit and veg you’d need to buy in that makes this 10 portions sound a bit pie in the sky – although can you imagine how many damp boxes smelling of old boots would begin to clutter our homes? (The researchers also discovered that canned and frozen fruit increased the risk of dying by 17 per cent, and fruit juice was found to have no significant benefit – so don’t think you can take short cuts with your storage. )
Nor is it an issue with recipes – vegetables from beetroot to parsnips get stuck in cakes these days.

Let’s be frank – there are two reasons we are not going to return to the hunter-gathering grazing days of yore, which would undoubtedly slim down our figures and return our cholesterol levels to peak fitness.
Firstly, let’s be practical. If life is too short to stuff a mushroom, time is certainly too tight to masticate turnips, tomatoes and tangerines by the ton. No one I know chews these days. We’re too busy.

Secondly, there is the unavoidable issue of fermentation which consuming enormous quantities of – particularly cruciferous – vegetables has on the abdominal area.
Digestion is difficult enough when your body is trying to balance the bloating caused by stress, combined with the corseting effect of a pair of Spanx (or simply your favourite tight jeans). But add in the bacterial effect required to tackle a colander’s worth of cauliflower, green beans and cavolo nero, at just one meal, and we’re talking a knock-on methane-gas climate-change effect which doesn’t bear thinking about. :shock:

Moreover, your body will be so distended and groaning, you’ll be fit for nothing but vegging out – potato-fashion – on the couch. Which is sort of against the whole anti-obesity ethos in the first place.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10736 ... laugh.html

 

[PeniG]

If you reduce your meat intake and increase your vegetable intake, you will be wildly flatulent for about a month; that's how long it takes your gut flora to adjust. After that, you'll smell like everybody else. I know this from experience.

That month is a little embarrassing, but if you happen to have some vacation time saved up, now would be the time.

 

[Mythopoeika]

My diabetes nurse told me not to eat my 5 a day, because doing so would increase my blood sugar.

 

[rynner2]

Now I'm totally confused. Do I fart because I eat vegetables, or because I eat meat?

Or do I fart just because I eat? :?

 

[PeniG]

My blood sugar improved when I went vegetarian. Actually, everything about my health did. I don't blame meat; I blame processed food.

The best thing to do is to be your own Fortean nutritionist, Ryn. In other words, experiment on yourself! Gas is a byproduct of the chemical process of digestion, and your gut flora adapt to what you eat. The better adapted they are, the fewer unpleasant side effects of digestion.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Now I'm totally confused. Do I fart because I eat vegetables, or because I eat meat?

Or do I fart just because I eat? :?

I eat a lot of meat and fart a lot.

I think it just depends on every individual and what's going on with their gut flora.

 

[rynner2]

I don't eat a lot of meat. My diet is largely 'vegetarian, sometimes with a meat sauce'!

But I also eat a lot of fish. Mostly from tins, sometimes from vacuum packs, etc. How does this fit in?

And then of course there's the booze, but I'm currently changing my tipples, so I'll say no more till I see how that works out.

If I have a strawberry jam sandwich, does that count as vegetable plus fruit?

I'm so ignorant about all this stuff, it's amazing I've lived as long as I have! 8)

 

[PeniG]

Sandwiches are grains, not vegetables. And whether a spread counts as a fruit or a sugar depends on the proportion and degree of processing. If it's actual jam, it's a sugar.

To get the maximum value out of most fruits and vegetables, fresh is better than frozen, frozen is better than dried, dried is better than canned, canned is better than spoiled, spoiled may or may not be better than nothing.

 

[GNC]

I had about seven fruit and veg today, so that's two above five. I really should be healthier than I am!

 

[rynner2]

Matt cartoon:

Man carrying newspaper, which says '5-a-day not enough', goes into a pub and orders: "A pint of bitter - and put a cherry in it"

 

[Analogue Boy]

Yay!!!! 10 a day!

Booooooo!!!!! Cancer thrives on Fructose.

Make your decision.....now!


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... ancer.aspx


Dried Fruits* Highest in Fructose:
Raisins, golden – 37.1g
Zante currants – 37.1g
Raisins – 33.8g
Dried figs – 24.4g
Dried peaches – 15.6g
Dried prunes – 14.8g
Dried apricots – 12.2g

Fresh Fruits Highest in Fructose:
Grapes – 7.6g
Apple – 7.6g
Pears – 6.4g
Cherries – 6.2g
Pomegranate – 4.7g
Kiwi – 4.3g
Blackberries – 4.1g
Blueberries – 3.7g
Watermelon – 3.3g
Raspberries – 3.2g
Starfruit – 3.2g
Purple Passion Fruit – 3.1g

Enjoy!!

 

[ramonmercado]

Apricots, raspberries and blueberries will suffice for me.

 

[SHAYBARSABE]

My husband makes fantastic lentil soup.

It has lentils (of course), tomatoes (canned, chunky), a couple of potatoes, onions, garlic, olive oil, salt, and pepper. That soup, by itself, must count for several helpings of veg and fruit.

My husband makes the soup once a week in the 10 1/2 quart stock pot, then we portion it out and freeze the portions for dinner during the week. One bowl is enough for me (two for my husband), and neither of us feel deprived or still hungry.

We were never into processed foods, but, even so, we feel healthier and have lost weight. Yea! Lentils!

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Love a decent pot of lentil soup.

 

[rynner2]

Love a decent pot of lentil soup.

Rick: Neil, are these lentils South African?!
Neil: well... ummm
Rick: You Bastard! You complete and utter bastard! why dont you just go out and become a Policeman? Become a Pig? there's no difference you know?! I suppose you hate gay people too! Hippie!

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Young_Ones

 

[rynner2]

Michael Mosley: Should people be eating more fat?

Contrary to conventional advice, eating more of some fats may be good for our health, says Michael Mosley.
It really is the sort of news that made me want to weep into my skinny cappuccino and then pour it down the sink. After years of being told, and telling others, that saturated fat clogs your arteries and makes you fat, there is now mounting evidence that eating some saturated fats may actually help you lose weight and be good for the heart.

Earlier this year, for example, a systematic review, funded by the British Heart Foundation and with the rather dry title "Association of dietary, circulating and supplement fatty acids with coronary risk" caused a stir.
Scientists from Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard, amongst others, examined the links between eating saturated fat and heart disease. Despite looking at the results of nearly 80 studies involving more than a half million people they were unable to find convincing evidence that eating saturated fats leads to greater risk of heart disease.

In fact, when they looked at blood results, they found that higher levels of some saturated fats, in particular a type of saturated fat you get in milk and dairy products called margaric acid, were associated with a lower risk of heart disease.

Although there were critics, NHS Choices described this as "an impressively detailed and extensive piece of research, which is likely to prompt further study".
Some academics queried the paper, others worried that this sort of research would confuse people and the message they would get would not be "it's OK to eat more of some forms of fat" but that "it's OK to eat lots more saturated fat, even if it is in pies". 8) We know that current levels of obesity have been fuelled, at least in part, by snacks like muffins, crisps and cakes, all high in fat, sugar and calories.

When I talked to one of the researchers behind this paper, Prof Kay-Tee Khaw of the Department of Public Health at Cambridge University, she was quite clear that her research was not a licence to fill up on junk food but she also accepted that new research made the dietary picture more complicated.
"It's complicated in the sense that some foods which are high in saturated fats seem very consistently to reduce heart disease."
Khaw told me that there is good evidence that eating a handful of oily nuts a few times a week will reduce your risk of heart disease, despite the fact they are rich in saturated fats. She said the evidence for full-fat dairy is less strong, but is she is quite happy to eat butter and drink milk.

She is also happy to eat red meat, although she is concerned about where it comes from.
"It's very clear that cattle that are fed on pasture have very, very different fatty acid patterns from cattle that are corn-fed. So I think how the animal has been reared probably has a big impact in its nutrient profile and, presumably, on health outcomes, which may be why there's such conflicting evidence, because it depends on where the source of your food comes from."
In the US, where most cattle are corn-fed, there is good evidence that higher rates of red meat consumption are associated with higher rates of heart disease. In Europe, where cattle are more commonly raised on grass, the association seems much less clear.

Although eating some types of fat may not be as damaging as we once thought, surely fat is bad for you because it makes you fat? Not necessarily.
A recent study, this time published in the Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, "High dairy fat intake related to less central obesity", certainly questioned the link.
In this study, researchers followed 1,589 Swedish men for 12 years. They found that those following a low-fat diet (no butter, low-fat milk and no cream) were more likely to develop fat around the gut (central obesity) than those eating butter, high-fat milk and whipping cream.
One reason for this may be that fat is extremely satiating, so when people cut it out of their diet they consciously or unconsciously replace the calories with something else, often refined carbohydrates like white bread or pasta.

This may help to explain the failure of the Women's Health Initiative, a study which was run by the National Institute of Health in the US.
In this study 48,835 postmenopausal women were randomly allocated to either a low-fat or a control group. It was the largest long-term randomised trial of a dietary intervention ever conducted and over an eight-year period the women did manage to cut their fat consumption by over 8%. Unfortunately, this made almost no difference to their weight, when compared with the control group, and no difference at all to their risk of heart attack or stroke.

By contrast, in another study, published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine where 7,500 men and women were randomly allocated to either a low-fat diet or a much higher fat Mediterranean diet, the high-fat group clearly came out tops. On the Med diet, along with fruit, vegetables, meat and fish, the volunteers were encouraged to eat oily nuts, olive oil and have a glass of wine with their meal.

Not surprisingly the drop-out rate was much lower for those on the Mediterranean diet than those on the low-fat diet (4.9% versus 11.3%) and they also had much better health outcomes. There were fewer strokes and a 30% lower risk of having a heart attack.

This isn't a licence to start eating fry-ups or pouring cream down your throat, because even if the fat doesn't harm your heart, there's no doubt eating too many calories will. I still think most saturated fat, particularly if it comes from processed food, is unhealthy, but I have gone back to butter, Greek yoghurt and semi-skimmed milk, as well as cramming in lots more nuts, fish and vegetables.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29616418

It'll all be different next time the wind changes...

 

[Cochise]

Was up late last night - working (or rather, waiting for some computer process to run to a hopefully satisfactory conclusion) and happened to catch a hilarious episode of South Park on the subject of Gluten Free Ebola.

I'd post a link but you aren't apparently allowed to watch it in the UK , you'll just have to watch out for it on late night television to discover the appalling effects gluten has on the male body. I can't remember what channel it was on - I was hopping around when I found it.

 

[rynner2]

Something remarkable:

Is reheated pasta less fattening?

Many food-lovers worry about pasta making them fat. But could simply cooling and then reheating your meal make it better for you, asks Michael Mosley.

There are few things that really surprise me about nutrition, but one of the experiments from the latest series of Trust Me, I'm a Doctor really did produce quite unexpected results.

You are probably familiar with the idea that pasta is a form of carbohydrate and like all carbohydrates it gets broken down in your guts and then absorbed as simple sugars, which in turn makes your blood glucose soar.
In response to a surge in blood glucose our bodies produce a rush of the hormone insulin to get your blood glucose back down to normal as swiftly as possible, because persistently high levels of glucose in the blood are extremely unhealthy.

A rapid rise in blood glucose, followed by a rapid fall, can often make you feel hungry again quite soon after a meal. It's true of sugary sweets and cakes, but it's also true for things like pasta, potatoes, white rice and white bread. That's why dieticians emphasise the importance of eating foods that are rich in fibre, as these foods produce a much more gradual rise and fall in your blood sugars.

But what if you could change pasta or potatoes into a food that, to the body, acts much more like fibre? Well, it seems you can. Cooking pasta and then cooling it down changes the structure of the pasta, turning it into something that is called "resistant starch".
It's called "resistant starch" because once pasta, potatoes or any starchy food is cooked and cooled it becomes resistant to the normal enzymes in our gut that break carbohydrates down and releases glucose that then causes the familiar blood sugar surge.

So, according to scientist Dr Denise Robertson, from the University of Surrey, if you cook and cool pasta down then your body will treat it much more like fibre, creating a smaller glucose peak and helping feed the good bacteria that reside down in your gut. You will also absorb fewer calories, making this a win-win situation.

One obvious problem is that many people don't really like cold pasta. So what would happen if you took the cold pasta and warmed it up?
When we asked scientists this question they said that it would probably go back to its previous, non-resistant form, but no-one had actually done the experiment. So we thought we should.

Dr Chris van Tulleken roped in some volunteers to do the tests. The volunteers had to undergo three days of testing in all, spread out over several weeks. On each occasion they had to eat their pasta on an empty stomach.
The volunteers were randomised to eating either hot, cold or reheated pasta on different days.

On one day they got to eat the pasta, freshly cooked, nice and hot with a plain but delicious sauce of tomatoes and garlic.
On another day they had to eat it cold, with the same sauce, but after it had been chilled overnight.
And on a third day they got to eat the pasta with sauce after it had been chilled and then reheated.

On each of the days they also had to give blood samples every 15 minutes for two hours, to see what happened to their blood glucose as the pasta was slowly digested.

So what did happen?
Well we were fairly confident the cold pasta would be more resistant than the stuff that had been freshly cooked and we were right.
Just as expected, eating cold pasta led to a 50% smaller spike in blood glucose and insulin than eating freshly boiled pasta had.

But then we found something that we really didn't expect - cooking, cooling and then reheating the pasta had an even more dramatic effect. Or, to be precise, an even smaller effect on blood glucose
In fact, it reduced the rise in blood glucose by a further 50%.
This certainly suggests that reheating the pasta made it into an even more "resistant starch". It's an extraordinary result and one never measured before.

Denise is now going to continue her research - funded by Diabetes UK - looking at whether, even without other dietary modifications, adding resistant starch to the diet can improve some of the blood results associated with diabetes.

Chris was certainly blown away by this finding.
"We've made a brand new discovery on Trust Me I'm A Doctor", he says, "and it's something that could simply and easily improve health. We can convert a carb-loaded meal into a more healthy fibre-loaded one instead without changing a single ingredient, just the temperature. In other words our leftovers could be healthier for us than the original meal." 8)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29629761

 

[OneWingedBird]

This has to be a sh*te idea, kind of reminds me of the electric shock sticks in "But I'm a Cheerleader". :lol:

An American company has produced a wristband that aims to instill good habits in people – by giving them an electric shock when they stray.

The Pavlok is worn like a FitBit bracelet, and can be activated manually or automatically through an app. Inspired by Pavlov's theory – who trained his dogs to expect food every time a bell was rang – the app wearer is supposed to learn to avoid certain behaviour, or else an electric shock will be sent out from the band.

Telegraph

 

[Mythopoeika]

I need one of those to remind me to do some exercise.

 

[OneWingedBird]

Or maybe a leather clad dominatrix with a 20 foot bullwhip?

 

[Mythopoeika]

Or maybe a leather clad dominatrix with a 20 foot bullwhip?

That would suffice. :lol:

 

[maximus otter]

Records Found in Dusty Basement Undermine Decades of Dietary Advice

Christopher Ramsden, of the National Institutes of Health, unearthed raw data from a 40-year-old study, which challenges the dogma that eating vegetable fats instead of animal fats is good for the heart. The study, the largest gold-standard experiment testing that idea, found the opposite, Ramsden and his colleagues reported on Tuesday in BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal).

Ramsden and his colleagues discovered what had been hidden for nearly half a century: records on 9,423 study participants, ages 20 to 97, all living in state mental hospitals or a nursing home. It was the largest experiment of its kind.

It was also one of the most rigorous. Participants were randomly assigned either to the group eating the then-standard diet, which was high in animal fats and margarines, or to a group in which vegetable oil and corn oil margarine replaced about half of those saturated fats. Such a randomized controlled trial is considered less likely to produce misleading results than observational studies, in which volunteers eat whatever they choose.

Because the participants were in institutions that prepared all their meals and kept records, the scientists knew exactly what they ate for up to 56 months. Many nutrition studies have foundered because people misremember, or lie about, what they ate.

Analyzing the reams of old records, Ramsden and his team found, in line with the “diet-heart hypothesis,” that substituting vegetable oils lowered total blood cholesterol levels, by an average of 14 percent.

But that lowered cholesterol did not help people live longer. Instead, the lower cholesterol fell, the higher the risk of dying: 22 percent higher for every 30-point fall. Nor did the corn-oil group have less atherosclerosis or fewer heart attacks.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...basement-undermine-decades-of-dietary-advice/

maximus otter

 

[Mythopoeika]

Nice to have my own thoughts confirmed after all these years.
I haven't touched margarine at all for the last few years - it really is indigestible. Butter is much more pleasant in every way.