The Life Ledger

Fitness is a way of life.

photo credit: M J M

According to a recent article on Food Navigator, a USDA study found the increased rate of obesity in US adults is matched by an increased rate of fat and oil consumption. This follows the generic advice you find almost anywhere - cut fats and sugars, lose weight. The study identifies processed foods as the culprit for the fat consumption trend.

American consumption of added fats and oils has increased dramatically over the past 35 years, exceeding government recommendations and affording a need for healthier processed foods.
The findings form part of Dietary Assessment of Major Trends in the US Food Consumption, 1970-2005 - a report by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) that shows Americans are failing to meet the Federal dietary recommendations.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, two-thirds of US adults were either overweight or obese between 2003-2004, compared with 47 percent between 1976 and 1980.

The report shows this correlates with a swell in added fats consumption of 63 percent between 1970 and 2005 and a 19 percent increase in added sugar and sweeteners.

I wonder if anyone has conducted a study on the obesity trend of communities before and after fast-food restaurants move in? If not, they’ll have to act fast - I bet it’s getting hard to find one-horse towns without a McDonalds.

Thank you for visiting The Life Ledger. If you enjoyed this article, check out the related posts below and subscribe to our feed.

photo credit: chiodachic

Trans fats take one more step to earning the infamy associated with drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. A study recently conducted on Wistar rats shows pregnant or nursing mothers fed a diet enriched with hydrogenated vegetable fat causes symptoms associated with obesity, even when the offspring never consumes that same diet. Scientists split the rats into four groups, and the results were striking:

Pregnant and lactating Wistar rats were fed with either a control diet (C group) or one enriched with hydrogenated vegetable fat (T group). Upon weaning, the male pups were sorted in four groups: CC a mothers were receiving C, and pups were kept on C; CT - mothers were receiving C, and pups were fed with T; TT a mothers were receiving T, and pups were kept on T; TC a mothers were receiving T, and pups were fed with C.

… Offspring of TT and TC rats had increased white adipose tissue PAI-1 gene expression. Insulin receptor was higher in TT than other groups. Ingestion of hydrogenated vegetable fat by the mother during gestation and lactation could promote deleterious consequences, even after the withdrawal of the causal factor.

That result bears repeating: offspring that never ate the high-trans-fat diet still exhibited symptoms of obesity, including insulin resistance, which leads to diabetes. Science Daily’s article includes this explanation of the study’s results:

“We know that foetal growth is influenced by the mother’s nutritional status,” explained Brazilian nutritionist Luciana Pisani. “Fats play a fundamental role in foetal development and changes in dietary fatty acids has important implications for foetal and postnatal development. Heavy ingestion of very hydrogenated fats rich in trans fatty acids increases risk of cardiovascular diseases and reduces insulin sensitivity and so leads to type 2 diabetes. We need to investigate this further as this has important implications for people’s own diets, especially pregnant women.”

Interestingly enough, Science Daily’s article also linked to a similar study on junk foodconducted in 2007:

Mothers who eat junk food during pregnancy and breastfeeding may be putting their children at risk of overeating and developing obesity, according to a study funded by the Wellcome Trust and carried out at the Royal Veterinary College, London. The research suggests that pregnant and breastfeeding women should not indulge in fatty, sugary and salty foods under the misguided assumption that they are “eating for two”.

The study*, published in the British Journal of Nutrition, found that rats fed a diet of processed junk food such as doughnuts, muffins, biscuits, crisps and sweets during pregnancy and lactation gave birth to offspring which overate and had a preference for junk foods rich in fat, sugar and salt when compared to the offspring of rats given regular feed. The research team behind the study believe the findings have implications for humans.

The more we study HFCS and hydrogenated fat, the more obvious it becomes we are killing ourselves by replacing food with man-made substances. I’m betting Michael Pollan’s non-scientific claims may eventually be backed with scientific studies - the more natural food and less man-made “food” in our diets, the healthier overall we’ll be.

The takeaway? Stop eating fried peeps. Yes, in case you were wondering, the picture above is someone’s fried peeps. Gross.

photo credit: wiennat

A story currently making rounds on the interwebs makes vague claims about how eating 1.8oz of processed meat per day, the equivalent of one sausage, increases your risk of bowel cancer by 20%. Blogs like That’s Fit are picking up the story, as originally reported in UK papers like the Daily Mail:

One sausage a day can significantly raise the risk of bowel cancer, one of the deadliest forms of the disease, experts have warned.

Eating 1.8oz (50g) of processed meat a day - the equivalent of one sausage or three rashers of bacon - raises the likelihood of the cancer by a fifth, research shows.

Never satisfied with vague, oblique references like “studies show,” I did some digging to find a study that actually backs up this claim. A search on Medical News Today results in this article:

For most Americans, meals tend to center around meat. To significantly decrease a person’s risks of developing colorectal cancer, experts at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center suggest a new approach to meal planning that focuses more on fruit and vegetable dishes.

According to recent findings issued by the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR), consuming more than 18 ounces, or a little over a pound, of red meat (pork, beef, lamb and goat) each week can significantly increase a person’s risks for developing colorectal cancer. In addition, every ounce and a half of red meat a person eats over 18 ounces increases their risks by 15 percent.

AICR also recommends eating very little processed meat (meat preserved by smoking, curing, salting or adding chemical preservatives), such as ham, bacon, hot dogs, sausages, pastrami and salami. Every ounce and a half of processed meat eaten a day is thought to increase a person’s risks of developing colorectal cancer by 21 percent.

Experts at University of Texas suggest? Recent findings issued by AICR? Still not satisfied, I do a little searching at AICR’s website, which doesn’t provide any further information or studies backing up the claims. I next head to the World Cancer Research Fund’s UK website, which is cited by several news stories, and find what appears to be the story’s origin:

Last year we published our Expert Report, which analysed 7,000 studies on the link between lifestyle and cancer risk and then made 10 recommendations on how to reduce cancer risk.

The report found convincing evidence that red meat and processed meat are a cause of bowel cancer. Because of this, we recommend people limit consumption of red meat to 500g per week (cooked weight) and to avoid eating processed meat…

Processed meat is any type of meat that is preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or by adding preservatives. Examples of this are ham, bacon, pastrami and salami. Hamburgers and minced meats only count as processed meat if they have been preserved with salt or chemical additives.

There you have it - the story is based on a report which analyzed “7,000 studies” and made a determination based on that analysis. Don’t get me wrong - I’m not suggesting processed meat isn’t bad for you, and avoid it like the plague myself. I simply dislike reading news articles making vague references to things that “studies suggest” without providing the evidence. News agencies don’t have a very good track record of accurately reporting health news, as inaccuracies arise when dense stories are condensed into soundbites and short timelines are met. Excluding information on studies or reports that originate the story make me question news articles that much more.