Health check: will eating nuts make you gain weight?



File 20190214 1726 10qcw1z.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Nuts contain “good” fats.
From shutterstock.com

Elizabeth Neale, University of Wollongong; Sze-Yen Tan, Deakin University, and Yasmine Probst, University of Wollongong

The Australian Dietary Guidelines recommend we eat 30g of nuts – a small handful – each day. But many of us know nuts are high in calories and fat.

So should we be eating nuts or will they make us gain weight?

In short, the answer is yes, we should eat them, and no, they won’t make us gain weight if eaten in moderate amounts. The fats in nuts are mostly the “good” fats. And aside from that, our bodies don’t actually absorb all the fat found in nuts. But we do absorb the nutrients they provide.




Read more:
Five food mistakes to avoid if you’re trying to lose weight


Dietary fat: friend or foe?

Nuts do contain fat, and the amount of fat varies between nut types. For example, a 30g serving of raw cashews or pistachios contains around 15g of fat, whereas the same amount of raw macadamias contains around 22g of fat.

There are different kinds of fats in our diet and some are better for us than others. Nuts contain mainly monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. These types of fats are known as “good fats”. They can help lower cholesterol when we eat them in place of saturated fats.

The type of fats present varies between nuts. For example, walnuts are rich in polyunsaturated fats, whereas other types of nuts such as hazelnuts and macadamias have more monounsaturated fat.

What the evidence says

Even if the type of fat in nuts is good for us, they are still high in fat and calories. But this doesn’t mean we should be avoiding them to manage our weight.

Studies that looked at people’s eating habits and body weight over a long period have found people who regularly eat nuts tend to gain less weight over time than people who don’t.

Nuts are a healthier option for a snack than many processed alternatives.
From shutterstock.com

We see a similar pattern in clinical studies that asked people to include nuts in their diets and then looked at the effects on body weight.

A review of more than 30 studies examined the effects of eating nuts on body weight. It did not find people who ate nuts had increased their body weight, body mass index (BMI), or waist circumference, compared to a control group of people who did not eat nuts.

In fact, one study found that when people ate a pattern of food aimed at weight loss, the group of people who ate nuts lost more body fat than those who didn’t eat nuts.




Read more:
Got high cholesterol? Here are five foods to eat and avoid


Let’s nut this out

There are several possible explanations for why eating nuts doesn’t seem to lead to weight gain.

  1. We don’t absorb all of the fat in nuts: The fat in nuts is stored in the nut’s cell walls, which don’t easily break down during digestion. As a result, when we eat nuts, we don’t absorb all of the fat. Some of the fat instead is passed out in our faeces. The amount of calories we absorb from eating nuts might be between 5% and 30% less that what we had previously thought.

  2. Nuts increase the amount of calories we burn: Not only do we not absorb all the calories in nuts, but eating nuts may also increase the amount of energy and fat we burn. It’s thought this may partially be explained by the protein and unsaturated fats in nuts, although we don’t yet know exactly how this occurs. Increases in the number of calories burnt can help us maintain or lose weight.

  3. Nuts help us feel full for longer: As well as fat, nuts are rich in protein and fibre. So, nuts help to keep us feeling full after we eat them, meaning we’re likely to eat less at later meals. Recent studies have also suggested providing people with nuts helps improve the overall quality of the types of foods they eat. This may be because nuts replace “junk foods” as snacks.

  4. People who eat nuts have healthier lifestyles in general: We can’t rule out the idea that eating nuts is just a sign of a healthier lifestyle. However, randomised controlled trials, which can control for lifestyle factors like eating habits, still find no negative effect on body weight when people eat nuts. This means the favourable effects of nuts are not just the result of nut eaters having healthier lifestyles – the nuts themselves play a role.




Read more:
Want to improve your mood? It’s time to ditch the junk food


Overall, the evidence suggests nuts are a healthy snack that can provide us with many of the nutrients our bodies need. We can confidently include the recommended 30g of nuts a day in a healthy diet, without worrying about the effect they will have on our waistlines.The Conversation

Elizabeth Neale, Career Development Fellow (Lecturer), University of Wollongong; Sze-Yen Tan, Senior Lecturer in Nutrition Science, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, and Yasmine Probst, Senior lecturer, School of Medicine, University of Wollongong

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisements

Want to improve your mood? It’s time to ditch the junk food



File 20190131 112314 1s27pth.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Eating a healthy diet fuels our brain cells, fights inflammation and helps produce the chemicals that make us happy.
Antor Paul

Megan Lee, Southern Cross University

Worldwide, more than 300 million people live with depression. Without effective treatment, the condition can make it difficult to work and maintain relationships with family and friends.

Depression can cause sleep problems, difficulty concentrating, and a lack of interest in activities that are usually pleasurable. At its most extreme, it can lead to suicide.




Read more:
What causes depression? What we know, don’t know and suspect


Depression has long been treated with medication and talking therapies – and they’re not going anywhere just yet. But we’re beginning to understand that increasing how much exercise we get and switching to a healthy diet can also play an important role in treating – and even preventing – depression.

So what should you eat more of, and avoid, for the sake of your mood?

Ditch junk food

Research suggests that while healthy diets can reduce the risk or severity of depression, unhealthy diets may increase the risk.

Of course, we all indulge from time to time but unhealthy diets are those that contain lots of foods that are high in energy (kilojoules) and low on nutrition. This means too much of the foods we should limit:

  • processed and takeaway foods
  • processed meats
  • fried food
  • butter
  • salt
  • potatoes
  • refined grains, such as those in white bread, pasta, cakes and pastries
  • sugary drinks and snacks.

The average Australian consumes 19 serves of junk food a week, and far fewer serves of fibre-rich fresh food and wholegrains than recommended. This leaves us overfed, undernourished and mentally worse off.

Here’s what to eat instead

Mix it up.
Anna Pelzer

Having a healthy diet means consuming a wide variety of nutritious foods every day, including:

  • fruit (two serves per day)
  • vegetables (five serves)
  • wholegrains
  • nuts
  • legumes
  • oily fish
  • dairy products
  • small quantities of meat
  • small quantities of olive oil
  • water.



Read more:
Back to work? Take lunch from home to save time and money – and boost your mood


This way of eating is common in Mediterranean countries, where people have been identified as having lower rates of cognitive decline, depression and dementia.

In Japan, a diet low in processed foods and high in fresh fruit, vegetables, green tea and soy products is recognised for its protective role in mental health.

How does healthy food help?

A healthy diet is naturally high in five food types that boost our mental health in different ways:

Complex carbohydrates found in fruits, vegetables and wholegrains help fuel our brain cells. Complex carbohydrates release glucose slowly into our system, unlike simple carbohydrates (found in sugary snacks and drinks), which create energy highs and lows throughout the day. These peaks and troughs decrease feelings of happiness and negatively affect our psychological well-being.

Antioxidants in brightly coloured fruit and vegetables scavenge free radicals, eliminate oxidative stress and decrease inflammation in the brain. This in turn increases the feelgood chemicals in the brain that elevate our mood.




Read more:
Five types of food to increase your psychological well-being


Omega 3 found in oily fish and B vitamins found in some vegetables increase the production of the brain’s happiness chemicals and have been known to protect against both dementia and depression.

Salmon is an excellent source of omega 3.
Caroline Attwood

Pro and prebiotics found in yoghurt, cheese and fermented products boost the millions of bacteria living in our gut. These bacteria produce chemical messengers from the gut to the brain that influence our emotions and reactions to stressful situations.

Research suggests pro- and prebiotics could work on the same neurological pathways that antidepressants do, thereby decreasing depressed and anxious states and elevating happy emotions.

What happens when you switch to a healthy diet?

An Australian research team recently undertook the first randomised control trial studying 56 individuals with depression.

Over a 12-week period, 31 participants were given nutritional consulting sessions and asked to change from their unhealthy diets to a healthy diet. The other 25 attended social support sessions and continued their usual eating patterns.

The participants continued their existing antidepressant and talking therapies during the trial.

At the end of the trial, the depressive symptoms of the group that maintained a healthier diet significantly improved. Some 32% of participants had scores so low they no longer met the criteria for depression, compared with 8% of the control group.




Read more:
You’ve been diagnosed with depression, now what?


The trial was replicated by another research team, which found similar results, and supported by a recent review of all studies on dietary patterns and depression. The review found that across 41 studies, people who stuck to a healthy diet had a 24-35% lower risk of depressive symptoms than those who ate more unhealthy foods.

These findings suggest improving your diet could be a cost-effective complementary treatment for depression and could reduce your risk of developing a mental illness.The Conversation

Megan Lee, Academic Tutor and Lecturer, Southern Cross University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What’s behind the increase in bowel cancer among younger Australians?



File 20181115 194509 4mwn4d.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Bowel cancer was the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia in 2017.
from shutterstock.com

Suzanne Mahady, Monash University; Eleonora Feletto, Cancer Council NSW, and Karen Canfell, UNSW

Bowel cancer mostly affects people over the age of 50, but recent evidence suggests it’s on the rise among younger Australians.

Our study, published recently in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, found the incidence of bowel cancer, which includes colon and rectal cancer, has increased by up to 9% in people under 50 from the 1990s until now.

Our research examined all recorded cases of bowel cancer from the past 40 years in Australians aged 20 and over. Previous studies assessing bowel cancer incidence in young Australians have also documented an increase in the younger age group.




Read more:
Interactive body map: what really gives you cancer?


Bowel cancer includes cancer of the colon and rectum.
Wikimedia Commons

This trend is also being seen internationally. A study from the United States suggests an increase in bowel cancer incidence in people aged 54 and younger. The research shows rectal cancer incidence increased by 3.2% annually from 1974 to 2013 among those aged age 20-29.

Bowel cancers are predicted to be the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia this year. In 2018, Australians have a one in 13 chance of being diagnosed with bowel cancer by their 85th birthday.

Our study also found bowel cancer incidence is falling in older Australians. This is likely, in part, to reflect the efficacy of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program, targeted at those aged 50-74. Bowel cancer screening acts to reduce cancer incidence, by detecting and removing precancerous lesions, as well as reducing mortality by detecting existing cancers early.

This is important, as bowel cancer has a good cure rate if discovered early. In 2010 to 2014, a person diagnosed with bowel cancer had a nearly 70% chance of surviving the next five years. Survival is more than 90% for people who have bowel cancer detected at an early stage.

That is why screening is so effective – and we have previously predicted that if coverage rates in the National Bowel Screening Program can be increased to 60%, around 84,000 lives could be saved by 2040. This would represent an extraordinary success. In fact, bowel screening has potential to be one of the greatest public health successes ever achieved in Australia.

Why the increase in young people?

Our study wasn’t designed to identify why bowel cancer is increasing among young people. However, there are some factors that could underpin our findings.

The increase in obesity parallels that of bowel cancer, and large population based studies have linked obesity to increased cancer risk.




Read more:
How obesity causes cancer, and may make screening and treatment harder


Unhealthy lifestyle behaviours, such as increased intake of highly processed foods (including meats), have also been associated with increased bowel cancer risk. High quality studies are needed to explore this role further.

Alcohol is also thought to be a contributor to increasing the risk of bowel cancer.

Alcohol is thought to contribute to an increased risk of bowel cancer.
from shutterstock.com

So, should we be lowering the screening age in Australia to people under the age of 50?

Evaluating a cancer screening program for the general population requires a careful analysis of the potential benefits, harms, and costs.

A recent Australian study modelled the trade-offs of lowering the screening age to 45. It showed more cancers would potentially be detected. But there would also be more colonoscopy-related harms such as perforation (tearing) in an extremely small proportion of people who require further evaluation after screening.

A lower screening age would also increase the number of colonoscopies to be performed in the overstretched public health system and therefore could have the unintended consequence of lengthening colonoscopy waiting times for people at high risk.




Read more:
Needless procedures: when is a colonoscopy necessary?


How to reduce bowel cancer risk

One of the most common symptoms of bowel cancer is rectal bleeding. So if you notice blood when you go to the toilet, see your doctor to have it checked out.

A healthy lifestyle including adequate exercise, avoiding smoking, limiting alcohol intake and eating well, remains most important to reducing cancer risk.

Aspirin may also lower risk of cancer, but should be discussed with your doctor because of the potential for side effects including major bleeding.

Most importantly, we need to ensure eligible Australians participate in the current evidence-based screening program. Only 41% of the population in the target 50-74 age range completed their poo tests in 2015-2016. The test is free, delivered by post and able to be self-administered.The Conversation

Suzanne Mahady, Gastroenterologist & Clinical Epidemiologist, Senior Lecturer, Monash University; Eleonora Feletto, Research fellow, Cancer Council NSW, and Karen Canfell, Adjunct professor, UNSW

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Health Check: what causes bloating and gassiness?



File 20190129 127151 jj2o3o.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
One in six healthy people report problems with bloating.
Alice Day/Shutterstock

Vincent Ho, Western Sydney University

Your trousers fit when you put them on in the morning. But come mid-afternoon, they’re uncomfortably tight – and you didn’t even overdo it at lunchtime. Sound familiar?

Around one in six people without a health problem and three in four people with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) report problems with bloating. In fact, for people with IBS and constipation, bloating is their most troublesome symptom.




Read more:
Explainer: what is irritable bowel syndrome and what can I do about it?


Bloating is, of course, a feeling of increased abdominal pressure, usually related to gas. It may or may not be accompanied by visible enlargement of the waist (known as abdominal distension).

But contrary to popular belief, bloating and abdominal distention isn’t caused by an excessive production of gas in the intestines.

What causes intestinal gas?

Gas in the upper gut can come from swallowed air, chemical reactions (from neutralising acids and alkali) triggered by food, and dissolved gas moving from the bloodstream into the gut.

Food products that are poorly absorbed in the small intestine can travel lower down to the large intestine where they’re fermented by bacteria. This process can produce carbon dioxide, hydrogen or methane gas.

Gas from the gut can come out through belching or passing wind, or by being absorbed into the blood or consumed by bacteria.

How much wind is normal?

Back in 1991, researchers in the UK tracked the farts of ten healthy volunteers. The volume of gas they expelled in a day varied from 214 mls (on a low-fibre diet) to 705 mls (on a high fibre diet).




Read more:
Health Check: what happens when you hold in a fart?


The participants passed wind an average of 14 to 18 times per day, and it was comprised mainly of carbon dioxide and hydrogen.

In the fasting state, the healthy gastrointestinal tract contains around 100 mls of gas which is distributed almost equally among six segments of the gut: the stomach, small intestine, ascending colon, transverse colon, descending colon and lower (pelvic) colon.


Tefi/Shutterstock

After eating, the volume of gas in the gut can increase by about 65% and tends to be located around the pelvic colon.

As the stomach stretches and small bowel is stimulated, the passage of gas accelerates and you might feel the urge to fart.

But for people with a high-fat diet, fats inside the small bowel can delay this passage and make you retain the gas.

Bloaters don’t produce more gas

A 1975 study compared the amount of intestinal gas between people who reported being bloated and those who said they were not.

The researchers pumped (inert) gas through a tube directly into the participants’ intestines at a relatively high flow of 45 mls per minute. Then they recovered the gas via a plastic tube from their rectum.

The researchers found no difference in the levels of gas collected between the bloating and healthy subjects.

Not everyone who feels bloated will have a distended stomach.
siam.pukkato/Shutterstock

More recent research using abdominal CT scans has shown that people with bloating have similar volumes of intestinal gas as those who don’t feel bloated.

Likewise, although people with IBS experience more abdominal distention, they do not produce more intestinal gas than other people.

This leads us to believe the volume of gas in the gut itself isn’t the main mechanism for bloating.

When gas gets trapped

Most people tolerate intestinal gas really well because they can propel and evacuate gas very efficiently. As a result, only a relatively small amount of gas remains inside the gut at a given time.

In one study, researchers pumped just over 1.4 litres of gas in two hours into the mid-small bowel of healthy volunteers. This led to only a very small change in waist circumference: no more than 4mm.

On the other hand, people with abdominal conditions such as IBS or functional dyspepsia (indigestion), show impaired gas transit – in other words, the gas ends up being trapped in different parts of the bowel rather than moving along easily.




Read more:
What’s the best way to go to the toilet – squatting or sitting?


Studies show people with abdominal conditions tend to retain a relatively large proportion of gas pumped into the mid small bowel. They may even have notable increases in waist circumference without any gas being pumped in.

This impairment was confirmed in a study comparing 20 participants with IBS to a control group of 20 healthy participants. All received gas pumped directly into the mid-small bowel.

Some 90% of IBS participants retained the gas in their intestines compared to only 20% of control subjects. The researchers found abdominal distension was directly correlated with gas retention.

Some people also have problems evacuating this gas, or farting. People with IBS and chronic constipation, for instance, may have difficulty relaxing and opening their anal sphincter to release farts.

This can lead to intestinal gas retention and symptoms of bloating, abdominal pain and distension.

Pain without looking bloated

Despite feeling extremely bloated, some people have minimal or no distension of their stomach.

Research among people with IBS suggests this pain and discomfort may be due to a heightened sensitivity in the gut when a section of the abdomen stretches.

In fact, one study found those with bloating alone had more abdominal pain than those who had symptoms of bloating and abdominal distension.

If you’re sensitive to this stretching, are unable to move gas throughout your gut, and can’t get rid of it, you’re likely to have bloating and pain, whether or not there’s any visual sign.




Read more:
Nervous tummy: why you might get the runs before a first date


The Conversation


Vincent Ho, Senior Lecturer and clinical academic gastroenterologist, Western Sydney University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Health Check: when should you throw away leftovers?



File 20181212 110246 1ob9ss.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
If it’s been out longer than four hours, it’s best to throw it away.
By Merrimon Crawford

Enzo Palombo, Swinburne University of Technology

Refrigeration is the most important invention in the history of food. But while commercial and home refrigerators have only been used for the past 100 years or so, people have long used cool natural environments to store foods for extended periods.

Temperature is important for controlling microbial growth. Just as we find food wholesome, bacteria and fungi also enjoy the nutritional benefits of foods. They will consume the food and multiply, eventually “spoiling” the food (think mouldy bread or slimy lettuce).




Read more:
How to keep school lunches safe in the heat


If the microbe can cause disease – such as Salmonella, Campylobacter, E. coli or Listeria – you’re at risk of food poisoning. Most disease-causing microbes can grow to dangerous levels even before the food is noticeably spoiled without changing the smell, taste or appearance of the food.

How to stop bugs growing in our food

All forms of life require a few basic things to grow: a source of energy, (sugar for us, sunlight for plants), oxygen (for higher forms of life), water and simple chemical building blocks that provide nitrogen, phosphorous and sulphur – and the correct temperature. Water is key, and denying it severely restricts microbial growth.

That’s why salt has long been used as a preservative for perishable foods like meats; salt binds the water and makes it unavailable to microbes. Acid can also be used (via pickling or fermentation), as most microbes don’t like acidic conditions.

Don’t delay – put it in the fridge as soon as you can.
Gary Perkin/Shutterstock

Of course, cooking kills the microbes of concern, but they can contaminate and grow in the food afterwards.

If the food can’t be salted or pickled, or you have leftovers of cooked food, you’ll need to store the food at a temperature microbes don’t like. Refrigeration is the most effective and economical option.

Typically, the greater the moisture level, the more perishable the food. That’s why we can store dry foods (such as nuts) in the cupboard but high-moisture foods (such as fresh meat, vegetables) will quickly spoil if unrefrigerated.




Read more:
Food safety: are the sniff test, the five-second rule and rare burgers safe?


How to store food safely

The “danger zone” is the temperature range between 5°C and 60°C, where most common food poisoning bacteria like to grow. To avoid the danger zone, keep hot foods above 60°C and store foods below 5°C.

The two-hour/four-hour guidelines can also help avoid food poisoning from leftovers. If perishable food has been in the danger zone for:

  • less than two hours, use it immediately or store it appropriately
  • two to four hours, use it immediately
  • longer than four hours, discard it.

So, if the food has been sitting on the table after a long lunch on a warm day, it’s probably best to discard or consume it soon afterwards.

If the food is OK, store it in small portions, as these will reach the right temperature sooner than larger volumes, before refrigerating or freezing.




Read more:
Monday’s medical myth: leave leftovers to cool before refrigerating


Using some common sense, and understanding how microbes grow, can help avoid a nasty case of diarrhoea – or worse. All food business must comply with food safety standards but how we prepare, store and consume food in our homes is equally important in preventing food-borne illness.The Conversation

Enzo Palombo, Professor of Microbiology, Swinburne University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Three charts on: how and what Australians eat (hint: it’s not good)



File 20181025 71011 34oau3.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Far too much of Australians’ diet comes from foods that have virtually no nutrients.
from shutterstock.com

Rebecca Golley, Flinders University

More than one-third of Australians’ energy intake comes from junk foods. Known as discretionary foods, these include biscuits, chips, ice-cream and alcohol. For those aged 51-70, alcoholic drinks account for more than one-fifth of discretionary food intake.

These are some of the findings from the Nutrition across the life stages report released by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare today.

The report also shows physical activity levels are low in most age groups. Only 15% of 9-to-13-year-old girls achieve the 60-minute target. The prevalence of overweight and obesity remains high, reaching 81% for males aged 51–70.

The food intake patterns outlined in this report, together with low physical activity levels, highlight why as a country we are struggling to turn the tide on obesity rates.




Read more:
Fat nation: the rise and fall of obesity on the political agenda


Not much change in our diets

The report shows little has changed in Australians’ overall food intake patterns between 1995 and 2011-12. There have been slight decreases in discretionary food intake, with some trends for increased intakes of grain foods and meat and alternatives.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/q7vtu/4/

The message to eat more vegetables is not hitting the mark. There has been no change in vegetable intake in children and adolescents and a decrease in vegetable intake in adults since past surveys. The new data show all Australians fall well short of the recommended five serves daily. We are are closer to meeting the recommended one to two serves of fruit each day.

Australians are consuming around four serves of grains, including breads and cereals, compared to the recommended three to seven serves.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/dJD6n/4/

One serve of vegetables is equivalent to ½ cup of cooked vegetables. For fruit, this is a medium apple; grains is around ½ cup of pasta. A glass of milk and 65-120g of cooked meat are the equivalent serves for dairy and its alternatives, and meat and its alternatives respectively.




Read more:
Food as medicine: why do we need to eat so many vegetables and what does a serve actually look like?


The data show a trend of lower serves of the five food groups in outer metro, regional and remote areas of Australia. Access to quality, fresh foods such as vegetables at affordable prices is a key barrier in many remote communities and can be a challenge in outer suburban and country areas of Australia.

There was also a 7-10 percentage point difference in meeting physical activity targets between major cities and regional or remote areas of Australia. Overweight and obesity levels were 53% in major cities, 57% in inner regional areas and 61% in outer regional/remote areas.

The CSIRO Healthy Diet Score compares food intake to Australian Dietary Guidelines. You can use these to see how your diet stacks up and how to improve.

Discretionary food servings

Discretionary foods are defined in guidelines as foods and drinks that are

not needed to meet nutrient requirements and do not fit into the Five Food Groups … but when consumed sometimes or in small amounts, these foods and drinks contribute to the overall enjoyment of eating.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ZyNXL/4/

A serve of discretionary food is 600kJ, equivalent to six hot chips, two plain biscuits, or a small glass of wine. The guidelines advise no more than three serves of these daily – 0.5 serves for under 8-year-olds.

Since 1995, the contribution of added sugars and saturated fat to Australians’ energy intake has generally decreased. This may be a reflection of the small decrease in discretionary food intake seen for most age groups.

But across all life stages, discretionary food intakes remain well in excess of the 0-3 serves recommended. Children at 2-3 years are eating more than three servers per day, peaking at seven daily serves in 14-to-18-year-olds. The patterns remains high throughout adulthood, still more four serves per day in the 70+ group.




Read more:
Junk food packaging hijacks the same brain processes as drug and alcohol addiction


The excess intake of discretionary foods is the most concerning trend in this report. This is due to the doubleheader of their poor nutrient profile and being eaten in place of important, nutrient-rich groups such as vegetables, whole grains and dairy foods.

Our simulation modelling compared strategies to reduce discretionary food intake in the Australian population. We found cutting discretionary choice intake by half or replacing half of discretionary choices with the five food groups would have significant benefits for reducing intake of energy and so-called “risk” nutrients (sodium and added sugar), while maintaining or improving overall diet quality.

Main contributors to discretionary foods

Alcohol is often the forgotten discretionary choice. The NHMRC 2009 guidelines state:

For healthy men and women, drinking no more than two standard drinks on any day (and no more than four standard drinks on a single occasion) reduces the lifetime risk of harm from alcohol-related disease or injury.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/cqgYQ/2/

For adults aged 51–70, alcoholic drinks account for more than one-fifth (22%) of discretionary food intake. Alcohol intake in adults aged 51-70+ has increased since 1995. This age group includes people at the peak of their careers, retirees and older people. Stress, increased leisure time, mental health challenges and factors such as loneliness and isolation would all play a part in this complex picture.




Read more:
Four ways alcohol is bad for your health


Young children have small appetites and every bite matters. The guidelines suggest 2-to-3-year-olds should have very limited exposure to discretionary foods. In, studies the greatest levels of excess weight are seen in preschool years.

Biscuits, cakes and muffins are the key source of added sugars for young children. These are also the top source of energy and saturated fat and a key source of salt in young children. This is the time when lasting food habits and preferences are formed.


Sign up for the newsletter

Sign up to Thrive, a weekly dose of evidence to help you live well.The Conversation


Rebecca Golley, Associate Professor (Research) Nutrition and Dietetics, Flinders University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Health Check: should I take vitamin C or other supplements for my cold?



File 20180801 136673 1u5k9n7.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Once you have a cold, taking vitamin C supplements won’t do anything.
From shutterstock.com

Clare Collins, University of Newcastle

Last week I had a shocking cold. Blocked nose, sore throat, and feeling poorly. This made me think about the countless vitamins and supplements on the market that promise to ease symptoms of a cold, help you recover faster, and reduce your chance of getting another cold.

When it comes to the common cold (also called upper respiratory tract infections) there is no magic cure (I wish) but some supplements may deliver very minor improvements. Here is what the latest research evidence says.




Read more:
Health Check: can you treat the common cold?


Vitamin C

For the average person, taking vitamin C does not reduce the number of colds you get, or the severity of your cold.

In terms of how long your cold lasts, some studies have looked at people taking vitamin C every day, while others have focused on participants taking it once they develop a cold.

In 30 studies comparing the length of colds in people regularly taking at least 200 milligrams of vitamin C daily, there was a consistent reduction in the duration of common cold symptoms.

However, the effect was small and equates to about half a day less in adults, and half to one day less in children. These types of studies also found a very minor reduction in the amount of time needed off work or school.

Among studies where vitamin C was only started once a cold had developed, there was no difference in duration or severity of a cold.

There are some risks to taking vitamin C supplements. They can increase the risk of kidney stones in men, and shouldn’t be taken by people with the iron storage disease haemochromatosis, as vitamin C increases iron absorption.




Read more:
Feeling worn out? You could have iron overload


Special considerations

Although in the general population vitamin C has no impact on the number of colds people get, there is an exception. For people who are very physically active – such as marathon runners, skiers and soldiers exercising in very cold conditions – vitamin C halved their chance of getting a cold.

Many people take vitamin C supplements in hope it will treat their cold.
From shutterstock.com

A few studies have also found some benefit from vitamin C supplements of at least 200 milligrams a day for preventing colds among those with pneumonia.

However, taking vitamin E supplements in combination with a high intake of vitamin C from food markedly increased the risk of pneumonia.

Zinc

A review of studies testing zinc supplements in healthy adults found starting daily supplements of at least 75 milligrams within 24 hours of the onset of a cold shortened the duration by up to two days or by about one-third. It made no difference to the severity of the cold.

There was some variability in the results across trials, with insufficient evidence related to preventing colds. Researchers suggested that for some people, the side effects such as nausea or a bad taste from zinc lozenges might outweigh the benefits.

Take care to stop zinc supplements as soon as your cold resolves because taking too much zinc can trigger a copper deficiency leading to anaemia, low white blood cell count, and memory problems.

Garlic

Only one study has tested the impact of garlic on the common cold. Researchers asked 146 people to take garlic supplements or a placebo daily for 12 weeks. They then tallied the number and duration of their colds.

The group that took garlic reported fewer colds than those who took the placebo. The duration of colds was the same in both groups, but some people had an adverse reaction to the garlic, such as a rash, or found the garlic odour unpleasant.

Because there is only one trial, we need to be cautious about recommending garlic to prevent or treat colds. We also need to be cautious about interpreting the results because the colds were tracked using self-report, which could be biased.




Read more:
Science or Snake Oil: will horseradish and garlic really ease a cold?


Probiotics

In a review of 13 trials of probiotic supplements that included more than 3,700 children, adults and older adults, those taking supplements were less likely to get a cold.

Their colds were also likely to be of shorter duration and less severe, in terms of the number of school or work days missed.

There is some evidence that probiotics, which can be found in yoghurt, may reduce the incidence of colds.
From shutterstock.com

Most supplements were milk-based products such as yoghurt. Only three studies used powders, while two used capsules.

The quality of the all the probiotic studies, however, was very poor, with bias and limitations. This means the results need to be interpreted with caution.

Echinacea

Echinacea is a group of flowering plants commonly found in North America. These days you can buy echinacea products in capsules, tablets or drops.

A review of echinacea products found they provide no benefit in treating colds. However, the authors indicated some echinacea products may possibly have a weak benefit, and further research is needed.

Chicken soup

Yep, I’ve saved the best until last.

In a novel experiment on 15 healthy adults, researchers measured the participants’ nasal mucus flow velocity – our ability to break down and expel mucus to breathe more clearly. They tested how runny participants’ noses were after sipping either hot water, hot chicken soup or cold water, or sucking them through a straw.

Sipping hot water or chicken soup made participants’ noses run more than cold water, but sipping chicken soup worked the best. The researchers attributed this to the chicken soup stimulating smell and/or taste receptors, which then increased nasal mucus flow.

Another study on chicken soup found it can help fight infection and recovery from respiratory tract infections.

The ConversationOther researchers have shown comfort foods, such as chicken soup, can help us feel better.

Clare Collins, Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Newcastle

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

ABC Four Corners: five articles to get you informed on sugar and Big Sugar’s role in food policy


File 20180430 135848 1ircyer.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
The sugar industry has employed various tactics to influence health policy in its favour.
from shutterstock.com

Sasha Petrova, The Conversation

Tonight’s ABC Four Corners program investigates the influence of the sugar industry on global policy efforts to curtail the rise of obesity. This includes the industry’s involvement in thwarting implementation of a sugar tax, and in watering down Australia’s now largely ineffective health star rating system.

Called Tipping the Scales, the program will highlight some of the tactics the industry employs. The ABC reports companies such as Coca-Cola, Pepsico, Unilever, Nestle and Kelloggs “have a seat at the table setting the policies that shape consumption of their own sugar-laced products”.

A public health advocate is quoted as saying:

The reality is that industry is, by and large, making most of the policy. Public health is brought in so that we can have the least worse solution.

The Conversation’s experts in health policy and economics have weighed into this debate over the years. Here’s our pick of five analysis pieces that will get you informed before tonight’s program.

1. How industry influences research

The sugar industry hasn’t only had its finger in the policy pie, it has also pulled some strings behind the scenes of scientific research into sugar’s health effects.

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in November 2016 revealed that, in the 1960s, the sugar industry paid scientists at Harvard University to minimise the link between sugar and heart disease. The paper’s authors suggested the sugar industry may largely have shaped many of today’s dietary recommendations. And some experts have since questioned whether such misinformation may have led to today’s obesity crisis.

The sugar industry has influenced research in the past.
from shutterstock.com

In an essay on health, the University of Sydney’s Professor Lisa Bero – an internationally renowned expert in the integrity of scientific research and its use in policy-making – has outlined how food companies can sneak bias into scientific research:

She writes:

Pharmaceutical, tobacco or chemical industry funding of research biases human studies towards outcomes favourable to the sponsor…

A 2007 paper that compared over 500 studies found those funded by pharmaceutical companies were half as likely to report negative effects of corticosteroid drugs (used to treat allergies and asthma) as those not funded by pharmaceutical companies.




Read more:
Essays on health: how food companies can sneak bias into scientific research


2. Sugar’s role in health star ratings

The ABC’s Four Corners team interviews the Obesity Policy Coalition’s executive manager, Jane Martin, who is frustrated that industry lobbying has scuttled efforts to make the health star system mandatory.

The health star rating system was introduced in June 2014. It’s a front-of-pack labelling system that rates the nutritional profile of packaged food and assigns it a rating from ½ a star to 5 stars. The more stars, the healthier the choice.

As Deakin University’s public health and nutrition professor, Mark Lawrence, and Curtin University’s public health research fellow, Christina Pollard, explained:

The system is supposed to help consumers discriminate between similar foods within the same food category that contain different amounts of undesirable ingredients. It should, for instance, help compare two loaves of bread in terms of their salt content …

Writing a year after the rating system’s implementation, the authors note the flaws in the policy. The main flaw is its voluntary nature, which can lead to manufacturers putting labels on only those foods that will get a high rating:

While manufacturers might be happy to display stars on foods that attract between two and five stars, they are less likely to put one or half a star on their products.




Read more:
A year on, Australia’s health star food-rating system is showing cracks


3. How a sugar tax would benefit health

Since Mexico introduced a sugar tax in 2014, nearly 30 countries have gone on to do the same. Last month the UK introduced a levy that manufacturers must pay for their high-sugar products.

More than 20 countries have taxed sugary drinks.
from shutterstock.com

Companies will have to pay 18 pence per litre on drinks with more than 5g of sugar per 100g. Drinks with more than 8g per 100ml will face a tax rate equivalent to 24p per litre.

But the ABC reports efforts to introduce such a policy in Australia have failed, due to the lobbying efforts of the Beverages Council.

The evidence for sugar’s negative effects on our health is well known. A study published in the journal PLOS ONE in April 2016 showed a tax on sugary drinks in Australia would prevent 4,000 heart attacks and 1,100 strokes.

The researchers examined the potential impact of a 20% rise in the prices of sugar-sweetened carbonated soft drinks and flavoured mineral waters on health, healthcare expenditure and revenue.

Writing for The Conversation, the study’s authors note:

As expected, the tax would result in people decreasing their consumption of sugary drinks. The influence of a price increase would be greatest on those who drink a lot of sugary drinks, so the greatest impact would be on younger age groups. This is an important result that is difficult to achieve through other obesity-prevention measures.




Read more:
Australian sugary drinks tax could prevent thousands of heart attacks and strokes and save 1,600 lives


4. How a sugar tax would save us money

The UK’s Treasury is estimating the sugar tax will raise £240 million per year. Modelling done in Australia by the Grattan Institute shows that a tax of 40 cents per 100 grams of sugar could raise about A$400-$500 million per year.

The Institute’s Stephen Duckett and Trent Wiltshire write that the sugar industry’s concerns over the tax are overblown. They say:

A sugar-sweetened beverages tax will reduce domestic demand for Australian sugar by around 50,000 tonnes, which is only about 1% of all the sugar produced in Australia. And, while there may be some transition costs, this sugar could instead be sold overseas (as 80% of Australia’s sugar production already is).




Read more:
A sugary drinks tax could recoup some of the costs of obesity while preventing it


5. How bad is sugar, really?

And finally, if you’re wondering how much sugar you can eat to stay healthy, here’s an article written by Flinders University nutrition lecturers Kacie Dickinson and Louise Matwiejczyk that explains exactly that.

In brief:

If you’re an average-sized adult eating and drinking enough to maintain a healthy body weight (roughly 8,700 kilojoules per day), 10% of your total energy intake from free sugar roughly translates to no more than 54 grams, or around 12 teaspoons, per day.

A 600ml bottle of Coke contains more than 14 teaspoons of sugar.


The Conversation


Read more:
Health Check: how much sugar is it OK to eat?


Sasha Petrova, Deputy Editor: Health + Medicine, The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

‘Successful failures’ – the problem with food banks



File 20171109 14215 1gs7rqe.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Pasta and bolognese sauce were on the menu provided at this Sydney venue by not-for-profit organisation Foodbank.

Nick Rose, William Angliss Institute and Susan Booth, Flinders University

From their inception in the early 1990s, Australian food banks were supposed to be a temporary solution to food poverty.

They have since morphed from “emergency to industry” – lauded for reducing food insecurity and helping to solve the food waste problem by diverting tonnes of produce from landfill.

It’s the ultimate win-win that big food corporations and retailers love: feed the needy and save the planet at the same time. This logic has been enshrined in Canada’s National Food Waste Reduction Strategy and in European laws that require supermarkets to donate surplus produce to charities.

Can foodbanks end food insecurity?

As Martin Caraher has suggested on The Conversation, we argue that food banks “depoliticise hunger” and address symptoms rather than causes.

Laudable and regrettably necessary as their work is, food banks are a band-aid solution for a patient – contemporary society – suffering from what John McMurtry evocatively terms “the cancer stage of capitalism”. We are seeing ubiquitous and intensifying inequality, brought about by decades of dogmatic adherence to market fundamentalism.

If we are serious about tackling the causes of food insecurity, we must turn away from neoliberalism to an inclusive and values-based political economy. And if we are serious about ending food waste, we need a “paradigm shift” away from productivism towards a food system “designed for well-being, resilience and sustainability”.

From emergency to industry

According to Foodbank Australia’s 2017 Hunger Report, 625,000 Australians are seeking emergency food relief every month. That’s a 10% increase on the previous 12 months.

Despite their rapid expansion, food banks are unable to meet the demand produced by stagnating wages, rising costs of living and a shrinking welfare state. They have been called “highly visible successful failures”. As well as stepping into the state’s shoes to provide a minimal social security safety net, they offer very useful services to food manufacturers and retailers.

First, they divert millions of tonnes of waste from landfill. Food donors save considerable sums in disposal charges.

Second, donors receive tax deductions for all produce donated to food banks, which are registered charities. And, perhaps most significantly, donors can enhance their social licence to operate as good corporate citizens and receive cheap publicity into the bargain.

Band-aids, not solutions

In a recent paper for the UK Food Research Collaboration, Martin Caraher and Sinead Furey undertook a cost-benefit analysis of the current consensus that food insecurity is best addressed by increasing donations of surplus food to food banks. Their conclusion was unequivocal:

While there are benefits to diverting surplus food away from landfill, the reasons for pessimism outweigh the reasons for optimism. This is because the benefits of using food waste to feed people accrue primarily to the food industry, whilst absolving responsibility of the government to address food insecurity.

This is of particular concern in a liberal democracy such as Australia that professes to be committed to the principle of universal human rights, including the right to adequate food. Research in the Netherlands and Scotland has confirmed the humiliation, shame and loss of dignity experienced by food bank users.

Dignified access to good food is a fundamental component of the human right to adequate food. Feeding people food waste directly undermines this right.

Reframing the debate

The dominant win-win approach that says we can solve food insecurity by diverting food waste into food banks is patently failing. Both phenomena are increasing. In any case, a state of food security is not achieved via emergency food relief.

A breakthrough was achieved on March 25, 2015, when leading community food organisations and food security researchers in Canada issued the Cecil Street Statement. The statement clarified that food insecurity was due to inadequate income and the solution lay in people having enough money to buy good food in a dignified way. Further, it stated that the conflation of food insecurity with food waste was unhelpful and counterproductive.

In Australia, the Right to Food Coalition last year issued a position statement, The Human Right to Food. This included a detailed set of recommendations, drawing on the work of the United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food.

These recommendations specified the actions required from all levels of government, as well as industry, philanthropical and community organisations. The statement called on the federal government to:

  • adequately finance income support payments so that all Australians can access a weekly basket of healthy foods

  • ensure that initiatives to rebuild local food systems are adequately supported.

What is the solution?

Broadly, what’s needed is a paradigm shift towards sustainable, healthy, resilient and rational food systems. The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES) has clearly articulated the pathways towards such systems.

The principal barriers to such systems, according to the experts, reside in excessive concentration of political and economic power in the hands of mega-food corporations. This is documented in the new IPES report, Too Big to Feed.

The ConversationIn the words of visionary UK economist Kate Raworth, the necessary paradigm shift begins with a reframing of our societal priorities, away from the mantra of “an economy that grows regardless of whether we thrive” and towards “an economy that enables us to thrive regardless of whether it grows”.

Nick Rose, Lecturer, William Angliss Institute and Susan Booth, Casual Academic, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.