Want to lose weight? Plan your next vacation in a mountain resort!

Conventional wisdom holds that your chance of becoming obese depends mainly two obvious factors: your diet and how much exercise you get.
But recently, some scientists have been testing the notion that an entirely unrelated factor can play a role.

That's the conclusion of a new study by Air Force public health researcher Jameson Voss and others, published in the journal PLOS ONE. Rather than pointing to diet or exercise-related factors that have to do with high altitude (like, say, going hiking in the mountains), they point to the impact that low levels of oxygen can have on the body.
 

The evidence for it
Previous work has found that at higher altitudes — when less oxygen is present in the air — the human body produces higher levels of leptin, a hormone that reduces hunger.
Experiments have also shown that production of the hormones cholecystokinin (which also suppresses appetite) and norepinephrine (which reduces blood flow to the stomach, indirectly reducing hunger) also go up at high altitudes.
There's also the possibility that your body has to do more overall work just to sustain its normal activities with less oxygen present, causing it to burn more fat over time.

In the most recent study, a team of American researchers sought to investigate whether long-term residence at high altitude actually confers benefits in humans when it comes to losing weight. The study analyzed about 100,000 U.S. Army and Air Force servicemen and women, all with at least two years of service, from January 2006 to December 2012. During that time period, they moved between assignments at high altitude (1.2 miles above sea level or higher) and low altitude (0.6 miles or lower). All the participants had an overweight but not obese body mass index (BMI) equal to or less than 25, but no greater than 30.

The findings revealed overweight people serving at high altitudes had a 41% lower risk of progressing to obesity than those serving at low altitudes. This led the researchers to suggest high altitude residence predicts lower rates of new obesity diagnoses among overweight service members in the U.S. Army and Air Force.

“These results suggest that moving to high altitude would protect an overweight person from moving to obesity,” said, Dr. Jameson D. Voss, lead author of the study and a consultant with the United States Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine. The researchers speculate leptin and other hormones that are involved in appetite control rise at high altitudes, which may help explain the finding.

Naturally, there's still a lot more study to be done, but it does give researchers some...well, you know. Food for thought.

What do you think of this research? And do you live in a high altitude or a lower one?  

Sources: http://www.medicaldaily.com/, http://www.glamour.com/, http://www.vox.com/

The Best Diet? It Isn’t a Diet at All: It’s Just Real Food - Study Finds

What should you do to get back in shape this Summer? Try a paleo-diet, go vegan? How about the Mediterranean diet, or even experiment with a low-carb diet? It turns out, according to a study recently published in Annual Reviews by a highly credentialed medical expert, Dr. David Katz, that the best food – is REAL food.

A recent comparison of popular diets (yes, including the Paleo diet) found none to be a “best diet” for optimal health compared with a well-balanced and generally healthy approach to eating focused on real food. Low-carb, low-fat, low-glycemic, vegan, vegetarian, Paleo and Mediterranean diets were among those compared for their health benefits. But none seemed to be as effective in providing the health benefits as author and food expert Michael Pollan’s sage advice: Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.

We all have had inclinations of eating better – whether it was to cure ourselves from a serious disease like cancer or diabetes, or for more superficial reasons, like wanting to look better in a bathing suit, but real, and dramatic changes can happen in lifespan, and the reduction of chronic illness when we eat right. Study after study has compelled us to eat more nutritious foods, and now the latest compares all the ‘popular’ or ‘fad’ diets, and finds, unequivocally, that real food still wins.
Dr. David Katz works at Yale University’s Prevention Research Center, and he rebels against a sea of disinformation about what people should eat to be healthy. He looks down on of-the-moment diet fads and dangerous crazes that many of his contemporaries – even other doctors promote without sound reason. In a recent interview, he said “I don’t care which diet is best. I care about the truth.”

The study
Katz published his findings with colleague, Stephanie Meller in a paper titled, “Can We Say What Diet Is Best for Health?” They compared all the trend diets of the day: Low carb, low fat, low glycemic, Mediterranean, mixed/balanced (DASH), Paleolithic, vegan, and elements of other diets.
Katz says that despite the prevalent promotion of these diets in mainstream media, there are few studies proving they actually work:

“There have been no rigorous, long-term studies comparing contenders for best diet laurels using methodology that precludes bias and confounding. For many reasons, such studies are unlikely.”

Conversely, he found that:

“A diet of minimally processed foods close to nature, predominantly plants, is decisively associated with health promotion and disease prevention.”

Among the important points made by the article are these:

• Plant-based diets (non-GMO,organic, real plants, I might add) are nutritional powerhouses which support a wide variety of favorable health outcomes. These include lower rates of heart disease and cancer. These diets don’t just include fruits and vegetables, but real grains, nuts and seeds.

• Katz and Meller found that ‘low-fat’ diets are no better than diets high in real, healthful fats (not fake, man-made ones). The Mediterranean diet is only successful because it contains a lower omega-6 to omega-3 ratio than the typical American diet. Americans also rely far too much on unhealthy fats like trans-fats.

• Moderating meat intake, and alcohol improves health.

• Increasing natural fiber improves health, including, “defense against neurodegenerative disease and preservation of cognitive function, reduced inflammation, and defense against asthma.”

• Carbohydrate-selective diets are better than simply low-carb diets. Attention to glycemic index is important, but not the most important thing – since carrots, for example have a high glycemic index, but can cure cancer. Again, it goes back to eating real food.

• One of the most important points of the study was this one: “if Paleolithic eating is loosely interpreted to mean a diet based mostly on meat, no meaningful interpretation of health effects is possible.”
  

Katz is frustrated with the misinformation about how diet affects health:

“It’s not just linguistic, I really at times feel like crying, when I think about that we’re paying for ignorance with human lives . . . At times, I hate the people with alphabet soup after their names who are promising the moon and the stars with certainty. I hate knowing that the next person is already rubbing his or her hands together with the next fad to make it on the bestseller list.”

It’s a radical notion in today’s GMO-promoted, FDA-ignorant, pharmaceutical-pushing world, but real food can cure you.

Sources: http://www.theatlantic.com/, http://naturalrevolution.org/

Get Ready for Swimsuit Season in few moves! Read These Fitness Dos & Don’ts Before You Hit the Beach - Slideshow

Tank tops, shorts, and swimsuits… It’s May, which means you’ll have to peel off your winter clothes soon. While only you know what you’ve been hiding underneath all those layers, you’re not the only one who feels insecure this time of year.

Although you can safely lose only about 1 to 2 pounds of body fat a week, you can feel more confident by swimsuit season if you begin making changes today.

Slideshow


Sources: http://www.webmd.com/, http://thehormonedoctor.com/

Three cups of coffee a day could help keep diabetes away, scientists say

Drinking more coffee may slightly reduce your risk of diabetes, and people who drink three or more cups appear to be at the lowest risk of all, an American study has suggested.

The study
Researchers at Harvard University’s School of Public Health analysed data on more than 120,000 people’s coffee consumption over several years. For the study, the scientists analysed the results of three large US diet and lifestyle surveys involving health professionals. The diets of participants were assessed every four years by questionnaire and those developing Type 2 diabetes identified. In total, 7,269 cases were recorded.

Researchers found that those who increased their intake by more than a cup a day over a four-year period had an 11% lower chance of developing diabetes in the following years. Those who had consistently higher coffee consumption – of three or more cups a day – had a risk which was 37% lower than people who consistently drank one or fewer cups a day.

The findings
The American researchers, led by Professor of Nutrition Frank Hu, said: “Our findings demonstrate that change in coffee consumption is associated with both immediate and long-term diabetes risk. It appears to affect risk in a relatively short amount of time.”

The report said: “We observed that increasing coffee but not tea intake over a four-year period was associated with a lower Type 2 diabetes risk in the next four years. Decreasing coffee intake was associated with a higher Type 2 diabetes risk. These changes in risk were observed for caffeinated but not decaffeinated coffee and were independent of initial coffee consumption and changes in other diet and lifestyle factors.”

There was no evidence that tea consumption had an effect on diabetes risk but the researchers said this may have been because there were fewer people drinking tea or who altered their tea consumption.

Co-author Dr Shilpa Bhupathiraju said: “Our findings confirm those of previous studies that showed that higher coffee consumption was associated with lower Type 2 diabetes risk. Most importantly, they provide new evidence that changes in coffee consumption habit can affect Type 2 diabetes risk in a relatively short period of time.” She said that while exercise and maintaining a healthy diet were by far the best ways to cut the risk of type 2 diabetes, there were also “biologically plausible” theories as to why coffee might also help.
“Coffee has a lot of bio-active compounds, including chlorogenic acid, which we know improves glucose metabolism when tested in animals,” she said. “Coffee is also a rich source of magnesium, which is known to be associated with a  lower risk of type 2 diabetes. The biological plausibility is actually very strong.”

Current health advice suggests that around 400mg – roughly four mugs of instant coffee – is the safe limit for caffeine consumption, although pregnant women are advised to consume half that amount. The cups of coffee referred to in the study had roughly 100mg of caffeine.

Sources: http://www.sciencedaily.com/, http://www.newswise.com/, http://www.express.co.uk/, http://www.independent.co.uk/, http://www.thecrimson.com/

How seaweed could help us lose weight - study

Wouldn't it be great if we could eat what we want without putting on weight? It's seen by many as the Holy Grail of dieting and if it were possible it could transform the lives of those struggling with obesity.
Well, it appears that scientists at Newcastle University are close to achieving just that, and they are doing it using seaweed. It has long been known that seaweed has many healthy properties but this research has the potential to allow us to control weight gain as we eat. Researchers identified specific natural seaweed fibres called alginates that prevent the body absorbing fat.

Alginates – chemicals from seaweed – are already used in foods, such as stabilisers in jam and to maintain the head on a pint of beer.

However, their potential as a food supplement which prevents the absorption of fat is now being investigated. New research has identified the chemical properties of alginates which prevent fat from being digested, allowing experts to produce a league table of the most effective seaweeds.
If added to everyday foods these seaweeds could help curb the growing obesity problem.

The study

Researchers investigated the ability of alginate to reduce fat break-down by a digestive enzyme, pancreatic lipase. Blocking the action of the enzyme results in lower amounts of fat being absorbed by the body.

Lead scientist Professor Jeff Pearson, from the University of Newcastle's Institute for Cell and Molecular Biosciences, said: "We have already added alginate to bread and initial taste tests have been extremely encouraging. Now the next step is to carry out clinical trials to find out how effective they are when eaten as part of a normal diet."

The researchers found that alginates containing more of a sugar molecule called guluronate were best at blocking fat digestion. They compiled a list of the most promising seaweeds, including a brown sea kelp known as "tangle" or "cuvie", bladderwrack, and bull kelp.

Dr Matthew Wilcox, from Newcastle University, said: “The study shows that certain seaweeds can be used in the fight against obesity, in conjunction with a healthy diet and increase in exercise.” The five-year study builds on previous work by the team which found that alginate, a natural fibre found in sea kelp and one of the world’s largest commercially-used seaweeds, could reduce the amount of fat available for absorption by the body by around 75%.

This is better than most anti-obesity treatments currently available over the counter. Dr Wilcox says that the alginates he has discovered can be mixed with fatty foods. This could mean manufactures would be able to add the correct amount of alginates to make them healthier.
This has all the makings of a super food which you can eat and eat without putting on an ounce.
The reality may not be as simplistic as that, but this bio-technology does have huge potential and could prove to be a game changer not only in the personal battle of the bulge but also in the shadow of an increasingly worrying obesity epidemic.

Sources: http://www.mirror.co.uk/, http://www.thejournal.co.uk/, http://www.itv.com/news/

Paleo diet twice as effective for weight loss: study

The best way for a woman to lose weight may be to eat like her Stone Age ancestors.

New research shows a cavewoman diet is potentially one of the most effective ways to slim.

Scientists came up with the findings after tracking female dieters for up to two years and comparing weight loss among those on the cavewoman - or paleolithic - diet with those complying with modern nutritional guidelines.

Women who adopted a so-called Palaeolithic diet lost twice as much weight within six months as those who followed a modern programme based on official health guidelines. Researchers also saw a greater reduction in their waist circumference, although the difference between the two groups became smaller after two years of dieting. 

The Palaeolithic diet involves eating plenty of berries, vegetables and lean meats such as chicken, but some types of food such as bread, rice, pasta and dairy products are banned. Scientists said it could be preferable to other forms of diet, such as those which are low in carbohydrates but high in fat, because it strips out all unhealthy foods meaning there are unlikely to be negative side effects.

It is designed to simulate what our ancestors ate before the advent of farming, meaning followers can eat whatever they like except for certain types of food including grains, refined sugars and salt.
One previous experiment found that men who followed the Palaeolithic diet for just three weeks were less likely to suffer from heart attacks and strokes.

The study in detail
In the latest study, published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, researchers divided 70 postmenopausal, heavily overweight women into two groups.
One was told to follow a Palaeolithic diet, and the other a Nordic diet based on whole-grain cereals, low-fat dairy products, fruit, pulses, fish and vegetable oils.
Dr Caroline Mellberg, who led the study along with colleagues at Umeå University and researchers at Cambridge University, said: “Since pasta and rice and such things were excluded, most [participants] ate pretty normal things like a chicken fillet, but they excluded pasta and added vegetables instead.”
Participants were asked to design their diet to get about 30% of their total energy intake from protein but found it difficult to reach that level and compensated by eating extra carbohydrates and five to seven portions of fruit and vegetables each day, she added.
“They lost weight probably due to a low energy intake,” she said. “It is quite hard to eat enough fruit and vegetables to fill your energy needs. None of them complained about being hungry, so I guess the foods are quite filling. They ate a lot.”

After six months those on the Palaeolithic diet had lost an average of 6.2kg of fat and 11cm from their waistline, compared with 2.6kg and 5.8cm in the other group, and levels of harmful blood fat known as triglyceride were also lower.
By the end of the two-year study the difference between the groups had narrowed, but Dr Mellberg suggested there could be a simple explanation – people on the Palaeolithic diet grew tired of it.
“I think the participants weren’t compliant,” she said. “It is quite a hard diet [to follow] in the Western world. We eat a lot of foods like bread, pasta, cereals.”
“They were quite satisfied too, after the first year. They had lost a lot of weight and many of the participants did not want to lose any more, so they started to eat more normal foods.”
Catherine Collins, chief dietitian at St George’s Hospital in London, added that the low protein intake could have slowed the rate at which participants’ bodies burned calories over time.
“As the metabolic rate declines, at some point that will stop you losing weight,” she explained.



Sources: http://sciencenordic.com/, http://food.ninemsn.com.au/, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/, http://www.iol.co.za/

Can Menus With Low-Calorie Sections Make Us Fat?

You know those "light and healthy" sections more and more restaurants are putting on their menus? They could be sabotaging your weight-loss efforts: a new study shows that when restaurants create special low-calorie sections on their menus, people tend to automatically rule out those options.

The study, published in the Journal of Consumer Research, shows that when menus have a separate section specifically for low-calorie options, people are less likely to pick dishes from that section.
"Because most restaurant menus are quite complex -- offering numerous dishes composed of multiple ingredients -- diners try to simplify their decision. People have come to expect low-calorie food to taste bad or not fill them up," study researchers Jeffrey R. Parker, of Georgia State University, and Donald R. Lehmann, of Columbia University, said in a statement. "We propose that by calorie organizing a menu, restaurants make it easier for people to use the general 'low-calorie' label to dismiss all low-calorie options early in the decision process."

The study
The study included four experiments, all of which involved having study participants view menus and then indicate which dish from the menu they would choose, as well as estimate or recall how many calories were in that dish.
For one of the experiments, researchers had 272 people with an average age of 31 look at a menu for Timmy's Diner (a restaurant none of the participants had ever visited before) and choose a dish and beverage. However, not all the participants' menus were the same.

There were three formats for menus: one of them was a traditional menu that just listed all the items, the second was the same as the first one except there was calorie information labeled by each item, and the third was organized by calorie content and included a separate section specifically for dishes under 700 calories. There were two versions of each of these three menus, with one version having the price positively correlated with calories and the other version having the price negatively correlated with calories. (When price is positively correlated with calories, that means people pay less for low-calorie items, and so in theory would be more likely to pick low-calorie items; the opposite goes for when price is negatively correlated with calories.)

The study participants were randomly assigned to have one of these six menus. Researchers found that people given the menus where the calories were listed next to each item (but where low-calorie dishes were not split up into their own category) tended to choose lower-calorie options, compared with those given the traditional menus.

However, people who were given the menus where the low-calorie dishes were in their own separate category chose dishes that were about 11% higher in calories, compared with the dishes chosen by people whose menus only listed the calories by each item.

Bottom line
"Thus, additionally organizing the calorie-posted menus by caloric content largely (though not completely) erased the positive impact of calorie posting," the researchers wrote in the study.
They also noted that the impact of posting calories by each dish in choosing lower-calorie foods was even greater for the menus where the price was positive correlated with calories, "suggesting that price, unsurprisingly, plays a role in consumers' choices."
However, researchers did not find that the calorie-price correlation seemed to affect food choices at all when the participants were given the menus where the low-calorie foods were spun out into their own category. "This supports our contention that consumers use menu categories as a screening criterion," the researchers wrote in the study. "Since many participants likely screened out the under-700-calories options in the consideration set formation process, they would be unlikely to notice the calorie-price correlation, resulting in this factor playing little to no role in their choices."

What do you think about the findings? Do you usually skim right over the "low-calorie" or "diet" sections of menus, since you don't expect the food to be as good? 
My opinion? Don't get freaked out or intimidated by these special labels or menus. Healthy food can be super filling and tasty—so just pick the most appetizing thing you see and stop overthinking it!  

Sources: http://www.eurekalert.org/, http://www.sciencedaily.com/, http://www.womenshealthmag.com/, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/