A lot of people tune in to “The Biggest Loser” and think “why can’t I do that?” or “I want to be on that show!” Other people may be somewhat turned off by the extreme measures that are taken on that show. One thing is for sure, there are many people that are looking for help with weight loss.
There are lots of “weight loss camps” across the country that are targeted to various demographic groups: adults, teenagers, children, women only, etc. Many people find they are able to lose a significant amount of weight when they are in a controlled environment. The problem some people find is that when they are back home, it is difficult to follow the same guidelines as they did when they were at camp.
Green Mountain at Fox Run is a women’s only program that uses a non-diet approach to weight loss and fitness. It has a “retreat” atmosphere, and is located on 26 acres in the Green Mountains of Vermont, overlooking Okemo Mountain. Their weight loss program is spread out over four weeks, with each week building on the previous week’s instruction. Topics include nutrition, behavior change, and fitness. The meals provided in the dining hall cater to many different needs, such as food allergies, heart health, and blood sugar control. When participants leave the retreat, they have learned how to make healthy food choices, as well as have a fitness plan that will fit into their lives. Participants also receive ongoing support via a private discussion board.
One of the great things about Green Mountain is that in addition to weight loss programs in general, they also offer programs specifically for women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and Type 2 Diabetes.
The PCOS program is either 1 or 2 weeks, with the next one coming up in November. Women with PCOS who are overweight often have a much harder time losing weight than the average person because of the hormonal imbalances they are suffering from. This retreat is a great opportunity to get support from other women who are going through the same issues. It also gives women with PCOS the opportunity to fully understand their diagnosis and attend workshops on topics specifically related to PCOS issues.
The Type 2 Diabetes program is one week (the next one is in September). One of the benefits of this program is getting to meet with a board certified endocrinologist who specializes in diabetes. People who attend this program also get more guidance and support to help them put what they learn about controlling diabetes into action.
For more information, check out their website: Green Mountain at Fox Run
Monday, August 24, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Organic vs Conventional: Which is better?
The debate over whether organic food is more “nutritious” than conventional food rages on. Some of you may have seen some media reports on a recent study out of the UK that appears in the September 2009 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. This report is a review of 55 studies published between January 1958 and February 2008. These studies looked at levels of 13 nutrients such as vitamin C, phenolic compounds, magnesium, potassium, calcium, zinc, copper, and total soluble solids. These nutrients are vitamins, minerals, and some antioxidants (for example, vitamin C and phenolic compounds are antioxidants).
Why is it important to look at the content of these nutrients in our foods? Because vitamins and minerals support our health in a variety of ways; they are needed for healthy eyes and skin, strong bones, muscle and nerve function, etc. Some vitamins and other substances also act as antioxidants. Antioxidants can prevent or slow down oxidative damage that occurs to our bodies, hence lowering our risk for developing many health problems such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.
The researchers conducting this review did not find significant differences between conventional produce and organic produce regarding most of these nutrients. They did find that conventional produce had higher levels of nitrogen (likely due to the use of synthetic fertilizers), and organic produce had higher levels of phosphorus and acidity. This in itself is significant because foods high in nitrogen have the potential to turn into cancer causing nitrosamines in the digestive tract, which indicates organic foods are safer in this regard. Higher levels of phosphorus and acidity are protective (phosphorus being a key mineral in bone health, metabolism, as well as nerve and muscle function; acidity aiding in the absorption of various nutrients), also indicating organic foods are a better choice. However, you will notice that you will not see that conclusion reported.
Another thing they fail to emphasize is that this report admits that they did not analyze chemical residue or contaminants. These researchers actually state that herbicides, pesticides, and chemical fertilizers may also affect the chemical content of foods and that in this regard, organic foods likely have an advantage over conventional foods because they do not use these synthetic substances. In addition, because this study looks at conventional farming from over 50 years ago, the results are likely skewed as well because conventional farms in the 1950s were a lot closer to organic farms than they are in this day and age.
This particular review also failed to look at total antioxidant capacity among the nutrients studied. The Organic Center (TOC) conducted a review of these same studies. They found similar results as the UK review for most of those particular nutrients, but they did had very different results regarding phenolic compounds. In addition, the TOC also looked at antioxidant capacity.
In looking at phenolic compounds, the TOC used more rigorous selection criteria and focused on studies that had scientifically valid “matched pairs,” meaning organic and conventional farms that were grown in the same regions, on the same types of soil, using the same types of irrigation systems, harvested at the same time, and grown from the same plant variety were compared (which is why they had different results). Using these criteria, they were able to find 25 matched pairs for comparing phenolic compounds. Of these 25, 18 of the organic crops had higher phenolic compounds while only 6 of the conventional crops had higher phenolic compounds.
Regarding antioxidant capacity, there were 8 matched pairs; seven of the organic crops were higher than the conventional crops. There were also 15 matched pairs for specific antioxidants such as quercetin and kaempferol. Once again a majority the organic crops were higher than the conventional crops.
On average, across all the valid matched pairs, the nutrient levels in organic foods were 25% higher than conventional foods. In addition, the most significant differences were for key antioxidants that average Americans do not consume enough of. This is like saying by eating these organic foods, you are getting the benefit of eating an additional serving of fruits and vegetables daily.
Based on the UK report’s overall conclusion, most of the media outlets are inaccurately reporting that organic food is not any more nutritious than conventional food. This is a clear example of how often media reports will take parts of research and sensationalize it, giving consumers faulty information.
Even if organic foods were not higher in many nutrients than conventional foods, they are definitely lower in pesticide reside, which in itself is a health benefit. Organic farming methods are also more sustainable and therefore better for the environment. Having said that, there are a number of other studies that have come out in the past year (post February 2008, which was the end of the studies reviewed in the UK report) that do show organic foods are higher in many nutrients than conventional foods.
So if you are trying to decide if organic foods are really worth it, I say yes! They are “safer” when it comes to chemical contaminants, better for the environment, and higher in some key nutrients that are extremely beneficial for your health.
Why is it important to look at the content of these nutrients in our foods? Because vitamins and minerals support our health in a variety of ways; they are needed for healthy eyes and skin, strong bones, muscle and nerve function, etc. Some vitamins and other substances also act as antioxidants. Antioxidants can prevent or slow down oxidative damage that occurs to our bodies, hence lowering our risk for developing many health problems such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.
The researchers conducting this review did not find significant differences between conventional produce and organic produce regarding most of these nutrients. They did find that conventional produce had higher levels of nitrogen (likely due to the use of synthetic fertilizers), and organic produce had higher levels of phosphorus and acidity. This in itself is significant because foods high in nitrogen have the potential to turn into cancer causing nitrosamines in the digestive tract, which indicates organic foods are safer in this regard. Higher levels of phosphorus and acidity are protective (phosphorus being a key mineral in bone health, metabolism, as well as nerve and muscle function; acidity aiding in the absorption of various nutrients), also indicating organic foods are a better choice. However, you will notice that you will not see that conclusion reported.
Another thing they fail to emphasize is that this report admits that they did not analyze chemical residue or contaminants. These researchers actually state that herbicides, pesticides, and chemical fertilizers may also affect the chemical content of foods and that in this regard, organic foods likely have an advantage over conventional foods because they do not use these synthetic substances. In addition, because this study looks at conventional farming from over 50 years ago, the results are likely skewed as well because conventional farms in the 1950s were a lot closer to organic farms than they are in this day and age.
This particular review also failed to look at total antioxidant capacity among the nutrients studied. The Organic Center (TOC) conducted a review of these same studies. They found similar results as the UK review for most of those particular nutrients, but they did had very different results regarding phenolic compounds. In addition, the TOC also looked at antioxidant capacity.
In looking at phenolic compounds, the TOC used more rigorous selection criteria and focused on studies that had scientifically valid “matched pairs,” meaning organic and conventional farms that were grown in the same regions, on the same types of soil, using the same types of irrigation systems, harvested at the same time, and grown from the same plant variety were compared (which is why they had different results). Using these criteria, they were able to find 25 matched pairs for comparing phenolic compounds. Of these 25, 18 of the organic crops had higher phenolic compounds while only 6 of the conventional crops had higher phenolic compounds.
Regarding antioxidant capacity, there were 8 matched pairs; seven of the organic crops were higher than the conventional crops. There were also 15 matched pairs for specific antioxidants such as quercetin and kaempferol. Once again a majority the organic crops were higher than the conventional crops.
On average, across all the valid matched pairs, the nutrient levels in organic foods were 25% higher than conventional foods. In addition, the most significant differences were for key antioxidants that average Americans do not consume enough of. This is like saying by eating these organic foods, you are getting the benefit of eating an additional serving of fruits and vegetables daily.
Based on the UK report’s overall conclusion, most of the media outlets are inaccurately reporting that organic food is not any more nutritious than conventional food. This is a clear example of how often media reports will take parts of research and sensationalize it, giving consumers faulty information.
Even if organic foods were not higher in many nutrients than conventional foods, they are definitely lower in pesticide reside, which in itself is a health benefit. Organic farming methods are also more sustainable and therefore better for the environment. Having said that, there are a number of other studies that have come out in the past year (post February 2008, which was the end of the studies reviewed in the UK report) that do show organic foods are higher in many nutrients than conventional foods.
So if you are trying to decide if organic foods are really worth it, I say yes! They are “safer” when it comes to chemical contaminants, better for the environment, and higher in some key nutrients that are extremely beneficial for your health.
Friday, August 7, 2009
August is Water Quality Month
August is full of unusual “holidays,” including National Catfish Month, National Picnic Month, Peach Month, Water Quality Month, Family Fun Month, and Admit Your Happy Month! Because many of us are suffering from an unusually hot summer, this week I want to focus on Water Quality Month.
While there are many beverages that can quench our thirst, and there are times when we benefit from beverages such as juices, sports drinks, milk, etc. (such as after a hard workout), as well as times when we just want something with flavor to drink, our bodies still need some plain water to help flush out waste products that are formed throughout the day.
I often get asked “How much water should I drink?” The answer is “it depends.” On days that you exercise, you will need to drink more water depending on how much you sweat (see my earlier blog on “Do You Know Your Sweat Rate?”). A good rule of thumb, in general, is to drink until your urine is almost clear (like the color of lemonade as opposed to the color of apple juice).
The next question I usually get asked is “Should I drink bottled water or is tap o.k.?” Now this depends on where your water comes from. The safety and flavor of water will vary from source to source due to different levels of contaminants and naturally occurring minerals (such as calcium, iron, etc, in “hard” water) and whether your water comes from a private well or a public water supplier. If you get your water from a public water company, you can access its water-quality or consumer-confidence report from the local water utility. You can also get more information by calling the EPA's toll-free Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800-426-4791, or visit their website. The website Campaign for Safe and Affordable Drinking Water also has fact sheets to help you understand these reports.
If your water comes from a private well, you can have it tested. Call your local health department for recommendations or visit the EPA’s website for a listing of certification officers.
Even if your water is safe, many people just don’t like the taste of tap water. You can always filter it to eliminate those “unsavory” flavors, as well as eliminate some potential contaminants. You can either purchase a pitcher that has a filter on it, attach a filter to your faucet, have one mounted under your sink, or even have one that filters water as it comes to your home. If you choose to purchase a filter, make sure it is approved by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF), Underwriter’s Laboratories (UL), or the Water Quality Association.
If you turn to bottled water for safety, keep in mind that bottled water is often just filtered tap water, so it may not be any “safer,” particularly because in the process of bottling water, there is now another source of potential contamination if good manufacturing processes are not followed. Purchasing bottled water also has a huge toll on the environment. According to the Earth Policy Institute, it takes about 17 million barrels of oil to produce the amount of bottles needed to meet the United State’s demand for bottled water. That’s enough fuel to run over a million cars for a year. There is also the question of how safe those plastic bottles holding water really are. If you absolutely have to buy bottled water, look for the brands that have the NSF certification.
What about carrying water around? Try to store your water in metal canteens or glass. If you have to use plastic, avoid bottles made with BPA, and make sure you don’t leave water sitting in plastic bottles at high temperatures, such as in your car in 105-degree heat! High temperatures may cause “leaching” of chemicals in the plastic into your water.
While there are many beverages that can quench our thirst, and there are times when we benefit from beverages such as juices, sports drinks, milk, etc. (such as after a hard workout), as well as times when we just want something with flavor to drink, our bodies still need some plain water to help flush out waste products that are formed throughout the day.
I often get asked “How much water should I drink?” The answer is “it depends.” On days that you exercise, you will need to drink more water depending on how much you sweat (see my earlier blog on “Do You Know Your Sweat Rate?”). A good rule of thumb, in general, is to drink until your urine is almost clear (like the color of lemonade as opposed to the color of apple juice).
The next question I usually get asked is “Should I drink bottled water or is tap o.k.?” Now this depends on where your water comes from. The safety and flavor of water will vary from source to source due to different levels of contaminants and naturally occurring minerals (such as calcium, iron, etc, in “hard” water) and whether your water comes from a private well or a public water supplier. If you get your water from a public water company, you can access its water-quality or consumer-confidence report from the local water utility. You can also get more information by calling the EPA's toll-free Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800-426-4791, or visit their website. The website Campaign for Safe and Affordable Drinking Water also has fact sheets to help you understand these reports.
If your water comes from a private well, you can have it tested. Call your local health department for recommendations or visit the EPA’s website for a listing of certification officers.
Even if your water is safe, many people just don’t like the taste of tap water. You can always filter it to eliminate those “unsavory” flavors, as well as eliminate some potential contaminants. You can either purchase a pitcher that has a filter on it, attach a filter to your faucet, have one mounted under your sink, or even have one that filters water as it comes to your home. If you choose to purchase a filter, make sure it is approved by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF), Underwriter’s Laboratories (UL), or the Water Quality Association.
If you turn to bottled water for safety, keep in mind that bottled water is often just filtered tap water, so it may not be any “safer,” particularly because in the process of bottling water, there is now another source of potential contamination if good manufacturing processes are not followed. Purchasing bottled water also has a huge toll on the environment. According to the Earth Policy Institute, it takes about 17 million barrels of oil to produce the amount of bottles needed to meet the United State’s demand for bottled water. That’s enough fuel to run over a million cars for a year. There is also the question of how safe those plastic bottles holding water really are. If you absolutely have to buy bottled water, look for the brands that have the NSF certification.
What about carrying water around? Try to store your water in metal canteens or glass. If you have to use plastic, avoid bottles made with BPA, and make sure you don’t leave water sitting in plastic bottles at high temperatures, such as in your car in 105-degree heat! High temperatures may cause “leaching” of chemicals in the plastic into your water.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
