Archive for December 1st, 2005
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent
Published: 01 December 2005
Healthy options offered by burger and pizza chains are still stuffed with salt and fat despite menu changes.
An investigation of the food sold by the “big four” - McDonald’s, Burger King, KFC and Pizza Hut - found that 17 of 20 products were high in salt or saturated fat or both. Of those, five out of eight of the salads used as “evidence” of their embrace of healthy eating had “high” salt or fat content.
On average, the fast-food meals sampled by Which? had 274 calories per 100g of food, more than double that of a home-cooked roast dinner. And there were inaccuracies in the nutritional information provided by three of the companies.
McDonald’s website claimed that a Big Mac and medium fries had 786 calories but analysis showed it had 900. Burger King’s Whopper and regular fries had 19 grams of saturated fat, rather than the 13 grams claimed. Levels of saturated fat in KFC’s Zinger crunchy salad were almost treble the company estimate.
Obesity has tripled in England since 1980. A third of children aged two to 15 are overweight or obese. Which? said that although fast food was not solely to blame, the rise in weight had been accompanied by the rise in fast-food sales.
Researchers said the chains frequently targeted children in promotions by giving away toys or goodie bags. Many used children’s characters such as Mr Men, Postman Pat, Winnie the Pooh and My Little Pony.
Which?found the popularity of fast-food outlets was related to their advertising budgets. Researchers also analysed nutritional content. Burger King fries were only 86 per cent potato; the 11 other ingredients included partially-hydrogenated vegetable oil, rice flour, dextrose, corn syrup solids and salt. McDonald’s chicken grills contained 19 other ingredients. McDonald’s and Burger King’s cheddar slices included “cheese flavouring”, trisodium citrate, diphosphates, polyphosphates and sorbic acid.
Some of the fast-food meals scored astronomical calorific counts. A Big Mac, medium fries and small vanilla milkshake contained 1,169 calories. A diner would need to walk 16 miles to work that off. Which? said: “Nearly all the fast food we tested contained a lot of salt. And salt can lurk where you least expect it. The KFC original chicken salad contains more salt than the KFC chicken fillet burger.”
A Pizza Hut margherita pan pizza and garlic bread had 5.4 grams of salt, almost the entire recommended daily allowance of 6 grams.
The companies said their menus now had more variety. Pizza Hut said it gave customers “the choice of healthy or more indulgent food”. McDonald’s said its customers visited on average just two or three times a month.
Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University, said: “The food industry knows there is evidence of a health problem which it is part of, but it likes to claim it has nothing to do with it.”
Which? wants to ban television advertisements for fast-food aimed at children, saying such “aggressive but sophisticated” marketing was irresponsible.
Healthy options offered by burger and pizza chains are still stuffed with salt and fat despite menu changes.
An investigation of the food sold by the “big four” - McDonald’s, Burger King, KFC and Pizza Hut - found that 17 of 20 products were high in salt or saturated fat or both. Of those, five out of eight of the salads used as “evidence” of their embrace of healthy eating had “high” salt or fat content.
On average, the fast-food meals sampled by Which? had 274 calories per 100g of food, more than double that of a home-cooked roast dinner. And there were inaccuracies in the nutritional information provided by three of the companies.
McDonald’s website claimed that a Big Mac and medium fries had 786 calories but analysis showed it had 900. Burger King’s Whopper and regular fries had 19 grams of saturated fat, rather than the 13 grams claimed. Levels of saturated fat in KFC’s Zinger crunchy salad were almost treble the company estimate.
Obesity has tripled in England since 1980. A third of children aged two to 15 are overweight or obese. Which? said that although fast food was not solely to blame, the rise in weight had been accompanied by the rise in fast-food sales.
Researchers said the chains frequently targeted children in promotions by giving away toys or goodie bags. Many used children’s characters such as Mr Men, Postman Pat, Winnie the Pooh and My Little Pony.
Which?found the popularity of fast-food outlets was related to their advertising budgets. Researchers also analysed nutritional content. Burger King fries were only 86 per cent potato; the 11 other ingredients included partially-hydrogenated vegetable oil, rice flour, dextrose, corn syrup solids and salt. McDonald’s chicken grills contained 19 other ingredients. McDonald’s and Burger King’s cheddar slices included “cheese flavouring”, trisodium citrate, diphosphates, polyphosphates and sorbic acid.
Some of the fast-food meals scored astronomical calorific counts. A Big Mac, medium fries and small vanilla milkshake contained 1,169 calories. A diner would need to walk 16 miles to work that off. Which? said: “Nearly all the fast food we tested contained a lot of salt. And salt can lurk where you least expect it. The KFC original chicken salad contains more salt than the KFC chicken fillet burger.”
A Pizza Hut margherita pan pizza and garlic bread had 5.4 grams of salt, almost the entire recommended daily allowance of 6 grams.
The companies said their menus now had more variety. Pizza Hut said it gave customers “the choice of healthy or more indulgent food”. McDonald’s said its customers visited on average just two or three times a month.
Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University, said: “The food industry knows there is evidence of a health problem which it is part of, but it likes to claim it has nothing to do with it.”
Which? wants to ban television advertisements for fast-food aimed at children, saying such “aggressive but sophisticated” marketing was irresponsible.
Source: news.independent.co.uk
December 1st, 2005
BEIJING, Dec. 1 (Xinhuanet) — Caffeine has a positive effect on short-term memory and reaction times, according to an Austrian study.
Researchers at the Innsbruck Medical University discovered that the caffeine found in coffee, tea, soft drinks and chocolate stimulates areas of the brain governing short-term memory and attention.
In a study of 15 healthy men ages 26 to 47, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)showed increased activity in the frontal lobe where the working memory is located and in the anterior cingulum that controls attention 20 minutes after the men consumed 100 mg of caffeine.
After consuming caffeine, all the men showed a tendency toward improved reaction times on the test, compared to when they had no caffeine, said study author Dr.Florian Koppelstatter, a radiology fellow at the university.
“This effect takes part in the distinct part of the working memory network that controls attention and concentration.” Dr.Koppelstatter said.
The research was presented Wednesday in Chicago during the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.
Caffeine is the world’s most widely used stimulant, with a global, per-person average of 76 milligrams a day.
Source: xinhuanet.com
December 1st, 2005
By David Rose
PREGNANT women have long been expected to “eat for two” and satisfy their craving for unhealthy foods, but expectant mothers who overindulge may be condemning their children to a lifetime of obesity, researchers have said.
Although obstetricians agree that women should gain weight as part of a healthy pregnancy, two separate studies have suggested that children born to women who put on excess weight during pregnancy are likely to become overweight themselves.
Guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) suggest that, taking into account women of different builds, a total gain of almost 18kg (40lb) during pregnancy — including the weight of the foetus — is an upper limit for a healthy pregnancy. Yet two American studies involving thousands of mothers have suggested that weight gain in excess of 16kg during pregnancy will lead to babies being overweight by the age of 3, next week’s New Scientist magazine will report.
The studies were carried out by two teams, one from Harvard Medical School, Boston, led by Matthew Gillman, and a second led by Andrea Sharma, of the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, in Atlanta, Georgia.
The teams presented their findings last week at the 3rd International Congress on Developmental Origins of Health and Disease, in Toronto.
Guidelines issued by the US Institute of Medicine in 1990 suggest that, on average, women should experience a total weight gain of between 11.5kg and 16kg. The Harvard researchers studied a group of 770 pregnant women from Massachusetts, divided into those who gained “inadequate”, “adequate” and “excessive” amounts of weight, according to the guidelines.
Professor Gillman said: “Only the ‘inadequate’ group — a weight gain of less than 11.5 kg — gives a result that is where you want to be.”
Dr Sharma, meanwhile, scoured national health records and found a correlation between pregnancy weight gain and obesity among children aged between 2 and 4. The study of 190,000 families found that mothers who had gained more than the US institute’s recommended 16kg were more likely to have obese children.
The last two to three months of pregnancy and the first months of life are understood to be a critical period for the development of obesity, when a baby’s metabolism is learning how to adapt to what it perceives as a normal environment. The Harvard team found that the relationship between pregnancy weight gain and childhood obesity remained strong after allowing for factors such as race, smoking, income and foetal growth.
Researchers suggested that their findings could explain the marked increase in obesity in the United States, where 16 per cent of children — a threefold increase since 1980 — and 30 per cent of adults are obese.
But in Britain expectant mothers have been shown to gain even more weight than the disputed American recommendations. NICE’s latest antenatal care guidelines state: “The normal range of weight gain during pregnancy varies for each individual. Based on observational data, total weight gain ranges for healthy pregnant women giving birth to babies of between 3kg and 4kg are between 7 and 18kg.”
The World Health Organisation suggests that a weight gain of between 10kg and 12.5kg is healthy. Peter Bowen-Simpkins, at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said: “It is more preferable to think in terms of the maximum advisable weight gain as being 25 per cent of the mother’s original weight.”
AVERAGE GAIN
# At birth, an average baby weighs 3.3kg (7.3lb)
# During pregnancy the muscle around the womb grows to weigh an extra 900g
# The placenta weighs 600g, breasts put on 400g, blood mass increases by 1.2kg and extra body fluid can weigh up to 2.6kg
# About 2.5kg of fat is stored during pregnancy to provide extra energy for breastfeeding
# Total weight gain: about 11kg (24.2lb)
Source: timesonline.co.uk
December 1st, 2005
Published on: 12/01/05
A pending lawsuit against Coca-Cola will charge that the Atlanta soft drink giant uses caffeine to addict schoolchildren to its nutritionally bankrupt product, and the legal team behind the class-action suit is the same one that successfully challenged Big Tobacco.
There’s no disputing that children should not be drinking as many soft drinks as they are. Soft drinks represent almost a fourth of the caloric intake of children ages 2 to 19, and teens consume twice as much soda as milk. Daily consumption of one 12-ounce sweetened soft drink raises a child’s risk of obesity by 60 percent.
Schools ought to end their unholy alliance with the soft drink industry whereby they permit vending machines in their hallways in return for a portion of the sales. The Sprites and Cokes are too tempting for teens, most of whom know nothing about the word “moderation” — except, perhaps, how to spell it.
Because of the epidemic of childhood obesity and the specter of legislative action, the soft drink companies have made concessions, removing sugary sodas from elementary and middle schools. However, soft drinks are still available in about 60 percent of the nation’s public and private high schools, and many teens still regard a Coke and a Snickers bar as lunch.
Which brings up another point: If caffeine in schools is a threat, the lawyers shouldn’t stop with soda. There’s caffeine in the candy bars dispensed from vending machines and in the chocolate milk served in the cafeteria. (And don’t forget all those tins of chocolate-doused popcorn and cashews that children sell as fund-raisers.) There’s twice as much caffeine in a glass of ice tea, the elixir of the South, as in a glass of Coke.
The problem isn’t the Coke that kids today swill like water. Their appetite for sweet beverages is a symptom of the larger and more complex issue — sugar and fat have become the staples of American children’s diets, from Cocoa Puffs in the morning to extra-cheese pizza at night. An after-school snack used to be an apple. Now, it’s Frosted S’Mores Pop-Tarts.
And it’s not just children who are getting fat. Their parents also have lousy diets and compromised health.
Until attorneys are ready to serve notice on every pantry in America, children will continue to develop poor dietary habits — not from what they learn at school but from what they see at home.
Source: ajc.com
December 1st, 2005
Fruit bats may be acting as reservoirs of the killer Ebola virus, responsible for several deadly outbreaks in central Africa, research suggests.
Three bat species captured during outbreaks between 2001 and 2003 in Gabon and the Republic of Congo show evidence of symptomless infection.
Writing in Nature, researchers in Gabon say this means the animals may play a key role in spreading the virus.
They say local residents should be encouraged to refrain from eating bats.
The first human outbreak of Ebola was recorded in 1976, but scientists have still to pin down which species harbour the virus.
If bats are among the culprits, they are more likely to pass the virus on to great apes such as gorillas and chimpanzees, which have been badly affected.
However, it is also possible that bats could infect humans directly.
Researchers from the Centre International de Recherches Medicales de Franceville trapped and tested more than 1,000 small animals in Ebola-affected areas.
They found fruit bats of three species - Hypsignathus monstrosus, Epomops franqueti and Myonycteris torquata - had either genetic sequences from the virus or evidence of an immune response to it.
Traces of the virus were found in the animals’ liver and spleen - two organs specifically targeted by Ebola.
Dry season
Each of the three species has a broad geographical range that includes regions of Africa where human Ebola outbreaks occur.
Previous research has suggested that bats may also harbour the deadly Marburg and Sars viruses.
Death rates from Ebola among the great apes tends to increase during dry seasons, when food is scare in the forest, and animals are more likely to come into contact with other species as they compete with food.
Immune function in bats is also known to change during these periods, providing the virus with more favourable conditions in which to reproduce.
Professor Tony Hart, of the University of Liverpool, told the BBC News website bats had long been suspected of harbouring Ebola.
One of the earliest outbreaks of the virus in Sudan was linked to a cotton factory filled with the animals.
Professor Hart said: “This is another piece in the jigsaw. It is good to know where this virus comes from, and it might help us to get some idea about the diversity of different strains.
“But whether it will enable us to do anything about the virus is another matter.
“Ebola tends to amplify itself through the great apes, so the best way to avoid infection is to avoid contact with them.”
Dr Dilys Morgan, of the Health Protection Agency, said bats appeared to harbour many viruses that were posing a growing threat to man.
For instance, they have been implicated as the natural reservoir for the recently discovered nipah virus, which also produces deadly fever.
“Bats are long lived, highly gregarious animals, and there is a suspicion that they may have modified immune systems which we don’t fully understand that can harbour these viruses,” she said.
Dr Morgan said humans were coming into increasing contact with bats because agriculture was encroaching into territories where the creatures traditionally thrived.
Source: news.bbc.co.uk
December 1st, 2005
By Lori Corbin
For pets, the planet or just to peel off a few pounds, many are looking to a vegan diet.
But, unlike vegetarians, a vegan diet is strictly plant based. Absolutely no animal products what so ever. No meat, eggs, dairy, fish, or fowl of any kind. While that may seem limiting, it is a diet that’s packed with good things.
Owner of Nutrifit, dietitian Jackie Keller operates a nutritional catering business, servicing those with many different nutritional needs. She says the diet is tough to follow for a novice. Since food is her business, Keller incorporates plenty of soy protein, legumes, beans, nuts, seeds, and a plethora of produce.
Contrary to popular belief, vegans can get adequate protein in their diet. What they lack is vitamin B-12, which you can only get from meat. In addition, vegans need to make sure they get adequate iron, calcium, riboflavin, zinc and vitamin D. No surprise, health experts recommend taking a supplement on this type of program. It’s also helpful to eat certain foods in tandem, like iron rich black beans with a food high in vitamin C (like red bell pepper, oranges, kiwi, etc.) Keller says vegetarians and vegans benefit with lower rates of cholesterol, hypertension, cancer, obesity and reduced risk of kidney problems.
A recent study at George Washington University proved that vegan dieting works well, at least for overweight post menopausal women. They lost almost twice as much weight as those following a standard low cholesterol diet; fourteen pounds versus eight pounds.
In addition it’s important to remember, animal free doesn’t mean taste free. Keller recommends giving your body a break by eating semi-vegan a few days a week.
Source: abclocal.go.com
December 1st, 2005
