BMI measurement-Is it a true universal indication of "healthiness" for all?

Body Mass Index, popularly known as BMI, has been widely used since 1972, after it was coined by the renowned scientist Ancel Keys to assess the health status of human beings using the height and weight parameters. Credit must go to Adolphe Quetelet for inventing the existence of a relationship between body weight, height and health status in 1830 though it was not accepted universally. To day BMI is the golden standard to condemn any person as over weight or obese who are supposed to be more vulnerable to life style diseases like diabetes, CVD, blood pressure etc compared to those with "normal" BMI. This myth is sought to be busted by a recent study by a group of scientists in the US who found out that BMI cannot be relied upon when it comes to assessing the healthiness of an individual and whether the world will accept such a revcolutionary finding remains to be seen. Here is a take on this path breaking development.

"Over the past few years, body mass index (BMI), a ratio of a person's height and weight, has effectively become a proxy for whether a person is considered healthy. However, scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), found that using BMI to gauge health incorrectly labels more than 54 million Americans as 'unhealthy', even though they are not. "Many people see obesity as a death sentence. But the data show there are tens of millions of people who are overweight and obese and are perfectly healthy," said lead author A Janet Tomiyama, an assistant professor at UCLA. The scientists analysed the link between BMI — which is calculated by dividing a person's weight in kilogrammes by the square of the person's height in metres — and several health markers, including blood pressure and glucose, cholesterol and triglyceride levels, using data from the most recent US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The study found that close to half of Americans who are considered 'overweight' by virtue of their BMIs (47.4 per cent, or 34.4 million people) are healthy, as are 19.8 million who are considered 'obese'. Given their health readings other than BMI, the people in both of those groups would be unlikely to incur higher medical expenses, and it would be unfair to charge them more for health care premiums, Tomiyama said. The researchers also found that more than 30 per cent of those with BMIs in the 'normal' range — about 20.7 million people — are actually unhealthy based on their other health data. About 15 per cent of Americans who are considered "very obese" by virtue of having a BMI of 35 or higher are actually healthy, researchers said."

What is shocking in these findings is that a significant segment of the population who had high BMI beyond the magical figure of 25 were perfectly healthy with no evident disease symptoms while many others with BMI less than 25 were unhealthy as measured by other health parameters. How can the world get reconciled to this contradictory situation when physicians are put into a dilemma to decide millions of cases requiring medical advice on their health status.? Should there be a reconsideration about BMI and its relation to health and is there not a need to evolve a more accurate paradigm in place of BMI? Now that questions have been raised about the reliability of BMI it is time the health and medical community take note of this crucial development and come out soon with their consensus on the issue.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Are some foods more addictive than others? New findings with far reaching implications!

Can some foods be compared to alcohol, tobacco or psychotropic substances from the point of view of creating addiction?. A significant number of experts are veering around to the view that there are a few foods being manufactured by the food processing industry which are capable of inducing addiction and one suspects that the industry also is fully aware of this, exploiting this knowledge to develop more and more such foods for catering to the consumers vulnerable to addiction. If this is true can the industry get away with such sinister designs and will not they be liable for class action before the judiciary for suppressing such an evidence? We cannot forget how the cigarette industry was caught doing the same and what penalty they had to pay running into billions of dollars as reparation for destroying the health and lives of millions of people in the US. Food technology has evolved into a fine art to day and creating a food with right proportion of sugar, fat and flavor is very easy. This is what the industry seems to be doing world over to improve their bottom line! In such a situation what needs to be done to reduce such addiction which is playing with lives of people in countries like the US as manifested by obesity, diabetes, hyper tension, kidney diseases etc? Here is a critique on this important issue that is worth reading. 

"Are Americans in denial about symptoms of food addiction? But are these foods addictive?  Michael Moss, author of Salt, Sugar Fat, states: "I tried to use the "A" word sparingly because the industry argues convincingly that food lacks some of the technical definitions of addiction and narcotics. They prefer words like alluring, craveable, smackable. But the aim is the same, which is to create the perfect formula and amounts of salt, sugar and fat that will send us over the moon and make their products irresistible." (2) Moss reports, "There are estimates, of course, but we're averaging something like twice the recommended amount of salt. The best estimate of sugar is 70 pounds a year. We're averaging 11 percent of our calories [from] saturated fat, the bad one linked to heart disease, and the recommendation is to get it down to 7 percent or less." (2) New study reports that highly processed foods are shown to be addictive, leaving consumers with substance dependence symptoms and behaviors. The University of Michigan is hoping that their new study will help consumers make more informed decisions. The new study confirms what many people have suspected:highly processed foods like chocolate, pizza and French fries are the most addictive (3) This is the first study to examine which foods can truly be implicated in food addiction. This has recently become a growing interest due to rising obesity epidemic. Prior studies with animals showed that highly processed foods or foods with added fat and refined carbohydrates trigger addictive-like eating behavior.  Clinical studies performed with human subjects indicated that individuals eating processed foods meet the criteria for substance dependence. (3) U-M assistant professor, Ashley Gearhardt, explains that highly processed foods are known to be preferred for their taste, it has remained unknown whether these food elicit an addiction response. Unprocessed foods such as brown rice and salmon have not been associated with addictive behaviors. (3) Erica Schulte, lead author, explains that individuals with symptoms of food addiction or higher body mass indexes report greater difficulties with processed foods. "If properties of some foods are associated with addictive eating for some people, this may impact nutrition guidelines, as well as public policy initiatives such as marketing these foods to children," Schulte said. (3) Nicole Avena, co-author of the study, reports, "This is a first step towards identifying specific foods, and properties of foods, which can trigger this addictive response," she said. "This could help change the way we approach obesity treatment. It may not be a simple matter of 'cutting back' on certain foods, but rather, adopting methods used to curtail smoking, drinking and drug use." (3)"

To be fair to the industry it must be argued that they have to look for decent returns for their investments and efforts in the form profits by creating a market for their products and after all they can sell only products consumers demand. Whether one likes it or not, organoleptic quality of foods has been the single most driving force as far as product development programs are concerned and launching a product is invariably precede by a market acceptability study trying to gauge the reaction of the consumer. Until recently consumer always decided whether a product is acceptable based on his perception regarding over all flavor including color, taste and texture and only now health aspects are coming into focus with demands being made on the industry to make healthier foods. If foods like chocolates, pizza and others with high sugar or fat or salt content are really addictive as being made out to be, there must be restrictions against their manufacture and marketing. Can any country treat foods like alcohol and regulate their sale without impinging on the rights of the consumer to decide what he wants to eat from among the products that pass the quality and safety standards prevailing there? One has to only recall the experience of the government in New York which tried to restrict the size of bottle sizes of soda which was rejected by the courts there as violation of personal freedom! Similarly look at the resistance that is emerging in the US for a simple proposal to include extent of added sugar to a product by the processing industry on the nutritional label and it is unlikely that similar efforts in reining in food industry will ever succeed!

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Is milk unhealthy? Americans seem to think so!

Is it not a blasphemy to say that milk is unhealthy? That seems to be the views of millions of American citizens who are shunning milk as reflected by the declining consumption of this precious life saver. Why this distorted thinking? Who is responsible for developing such a thinking among American people? Why is that Americans with such high computer literacy and Internet access are not able to discern the truth that milk whether from mother or cow or any edible source is the most nutritious balanced food man has come across in his long history? Well the blame lies squarely with the health authorities in the US who have been continuously dinning into their ears of people that fat present in milk is dangerous causing a host of diseases including CVD, blood pressure, diabetes and others and how can one expect a child born 40 years ago under such an environment to shake off such a belief to day so easily! The diary industry is terribly worried that declining milk consumption is going to ruin the industry unless the milk is restored to its pedestal which it richly deserves. This is not to hold a brief for the industry which always set its sight on more and more profits, often ignoring the well being of its consumers,But truth still remains that milk's place in healthy life cannot be underestimated or belittled. Here is a take on this situation in the North America..

"As Americans continue turning away from milk, an industry group is pushing back at its critics with a social media campaign trumpeting the benefits of milk. The association says it needs to act because attitudes about milk are deteriorating more rapidly, with vegan groups, non-dairy competitors and other perceived enemies getting louder online. Julia Kadison, CEO of Milk Processor Education Program, which represents milk companies, says the breaking point came last year when the British Medical Journal published a study suggesting drinking lots of milk could lead to earlier deaths and higher incidents of fractures. Even though the study urged a cautious interpretation of its findings, it prompted posts online about the dangers of drinking milk. "I said, 'That's enough.' We can't have these headlines that 'Milk Can Kill You' and not stand up for the truth," Kadison said in a phone interview. She said MilkPEP's consumer surveys have indicated a noticeable deterioration in attitudes about milk over the past year or so, although they declined to give specific survey results. On Tuesday, the "Get Real" social media campaign will be announced at a dairy industry gathering in Boca Raton, Florida in conjunction with the National Dairy Council and Dairy Management Inc., which represent dairy farmers. The campaign is intended to drown out milk's detractors with positive posts about milk on Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere. Milk brands, their employees and others in the industry will post the messages and direct people to a website where they can get more information. Online ads will also tout the superiority of dairy milk over almond milk, which is surging in popularity. The campaign comes as milk's dominance in American homes continues to wane as beverage options proliferate. According to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, people drank an average of 14.5 gallons of milk a year in 2012. That's down 33 percent from the 21.8 gallons a year in 1970. Total milk sales volume has declined 12 percent since 2009, according to market researcher Euromonitor International. One factor chipping away at milk's dominance is the growth of non-dairy alternatives. While soy milk's popularity has faded, retail sales for almond milk are estimated to be up 39 percent last year, according to Virginia Lee, a packaged food analyst with Euromonitor. Meanwhile, the USDA recommends adults get three cups of dairy a day, including options like fat-free, low-fat milk or calcium-fortified soy milk. And the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, which represents nutrition professionals, is supporting the Get Real campaign and its push to underscore "the decades of research reinforcing low-fat milk as one of the most nutrient-rich beverages available." But milk's wholesome image is nevertheless being muddied by diet trends and divergent attitudes about nutrition. Many who follow the popular Paleo diet, for instance, shun dairy because people didn't drink it during the Stone Age. Animal welfare groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are also a thorn in the milk industry's side. On its website, PETA notes that "no species drinks milk beyond infancy or drinks the milk of another species" and details the cruel conditions dairy cows are often subject to."

Probably over fed Americans do not need milk because of their easy access to cheap protein foods from animals and therefore the argument that "no species on earth drinks milk from another species" may be true in theory. Similarly east Asians do not have the habit of drinking milk. But for hundreds of years in countries like India where vegetarian population is very significant, milk is the only source of proteins with high PER values, responsible for the robust health of its population since time immemorial. One big difference between India and America is that the pattern of milk consumption is totally opposite. While Indians drink fluid milk in abundance, Americans consume milk based products like cheese and frozen desserts. All said and done, milk was, is and will be world's most versatile food from a food scientist's whether Americans like it or not!

  

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Olive oil and cancer-What can be the relation?

Why are some people so much obsessed with consuming olive oil? Is it for its flavor or nutrition? It depends on the perception of those who are prepared to pay a much higher price to buy it in spite of the fact that this is the most adulterated food items in the world. Since it is high cost oil, fraudsters find in this an excellent opportunity to make a fortune in double quick time. On an average a liter of organic olive oil can fetch almost Rs 3000 while the so called extra virgin olive oil with less than 0.8% free fatty acids costs Rs 300-1000 per liter depending on the brand. Though olive oil has been claimed to be helpful in preventing CVD and other arterial diseases, no conclusive scientific evidence has yet been generated to justify the same. No health authority any where in the world allow use of such unqualified claims on the label of the bottle. In Mediterranean countries olive oil is a common cooking medium and across the world it is cherished as an excellent salad oil for dressing. Of the 3 million tons world production Spain accounts for more than 40% followed by Greece and Italy. Greeks consume the highest quantities of olive oil, the annual per capita consumption being a whopping 26 liters! Olive oil contains many phenolic compounds some of which are of significance in human health and therefore unprocessed oil commends high prices as non-exposure to heat protects these phytochemicals. A recent report about the cancer curing property of a particular polyphenolic constituent viz, Oleocanthal if confirmed, may boost the intrinsic value of this plant oil in the coming years. Please read further below.  

"

An ingredient found in extra-virgin olive oil called oleocanthal has been known as a compound capable of killing a variety of human cancer cells, but how this process actually played out was not understood. Now, a team of researchers has uncovered not only how oleocanthal destroys cancer cells, but that it is able to do so while leaving healthy cells unharmed. Paul Breslin, a professor of nutritional sciences at Rutgers University, had thought that oleocanthal killed the cancer cells by targeting a key protein in cancer cells that triggers apoptosis, a process that sees dangerous or damaged cells self-destruct by upsetting the balance of ions in the cell membranes. In investigating this theory, he teamed up with David Foster and Onica LeGendre, two cancer biologists from New York City's Hunter College to more closely examine the process. "We needed to determine if oleocanthal was targeting that protein and causing the cells to die," says Breslin. What first surprised the scientists was how quickly the oleocanthal destroyed the cancer cells. While apoptosis requires between 16 and 24 hours to take effect, the oleocanthal was killing off the cancer cells within 30 minutes to one hour. This led the team to believe that there were some other factors at play. What they discovered was that the oleocanthal was piercing the cancer cell's vesicles, the containers that store the cell's waste. By puncturing these "dumpsters," as Breslin describes them, it creates an outpouring of enzymes that then cause the cell to die. "Once you open one of those things, all hell breaks loose," says Breslin. And when it came to the healthy cells, the researchers found that they remain completely unharmed. While the application of oleocanthal caused a temporary halt in their life cycles, after 24 hours they returned to normal. With the testing thus far carried out in the lab, the researchers say that they will now look to establish the effects of oleocanthal on cancer cells in living animals".

Originally the healthy aspect of oil was more related to the presence of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) like oleic acid with some beneficial effect on arterial health but there are less expensive oils like Sunflower oil which has more MUFA than that present in Olive oil (84% vs 72%. If so why go for Olive oil which is 10 times costlier than Sunflower oil? Probably demand for olive oil is driven more because of its delicate flavor imparted to it by the bitter poly phenolic chemicals, numbering of 30 in it expressed during cold mechanical pressing. Also there is a perception that olive oil is a good cosmetic ingredient with beneficial effect on skin besides its use in some pharmaceutical products. Ultimately the price in the market will be determined by the demand-supply dynamics and the prices are bound to rule high as long as its production is restricted to a few countries in the Mediterranean region.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Cholesterol is no more a villain, so say the experts now!-Can we believe it?

After fat in the food was exonerated from its villainous role in CVD, Obesity and other life style disorders, it is now the turn of the Cholesterol to be liberated from the plethora of indictments in the past implicating it in heart disease. It was a gospel truth till recently that Cholesterol containing foods like meat and egg must be consumed very moderately and if possible must be avoided all together if one has to maintain good health. Same is true with dairy products like butter and cheese also avoided altogether or consumed less frequently for fear of Cholesterol build up and the consequent presumed arterial plaque development. It was only recently that health experts came out with a clear cut stand that butter and cheese need not be considered as unhealthy food and therefore can be consumed regularly by normal healthy consumers. The Cholesterol story also follows essentially the same logic and scientists seem to have realized rather late that after all Cholesterol is a biological nutrient present in the cells required for making Vitamin D by the sun light. Here is a commentary on this new twist in the nutrition science making people more comfortable with foods like egg without any guilty feeling.    . 

"(TRFW News) For over decades the nation's top nutrition advisory panel has debated the health benefits of cholesterol. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), a group that provides dietary guidelines based on scientific findings, has portrayed cholesterol as the worst food one can consume, but several other studies have conflicted their notion. The guidelines for cholesterol have been recommended to keep it as low as possible in order to avoid potential consequences. However, recently the DGAC reconvened for their meetings to examine the recommendations on cholesterol and they reported that cholesterol should no longer be considered as a "nutrient of concern for overconsumption," which is a stark contrast from five years ago. (1) Eggs may no longer have to be feared Ever since 1961, cholesterol has been established in the dietary warnings developed by the American Heart Association. Years later, the federal government adopted the guidelines a,h these guidelines, a single yolk of an egg contains 200 milligrams leaving only a small amount to spare. (1,2) As a result, eating habits among Americans have shifted. Per capita egg consumption dropped about 30% and the egg farmers' business suffered. In addition, through various studies, the scientific community still remains divided due to differential research conclusions. (1) It is still unclear what the final decision for the new guidelines that will be due by the end of this year. According to Reuters, Dr. Robert Eckel, a past president of the American Heart Association and a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver, stated that there is not enough evidence to make a good recommendation yet, however, "no evidence doesn't mean the evidence is no." (2) For a long while, fats were feared and the guidelines established with cholesterol levels came as a result. It is unfortunate that the myths of cholesterol is actually harming people's health since biologically cholesterol is one of the most important molecules in the human body. It's vital for building of cells, and producing vitamin D, stress, and sex hormones. (3,4) Over the years, the recommendation for low-fat, low-cholesterol, and cholesterol lowering medications including statins, has been doing more harm than good. (3) When viewing cholesterol, one must consider the following:
    1. Vital for health. Cholesterol is found the body cells, which helps produce cell membranes, hormones, and bile acids, as well as in the bloodstreams. It helps the skin convert sun into vitamin D. It also insulates the nerve cells and protects brain health.
    2. No such thing as "good" or "bad" cholesterol. Cholesterol is divided into two parts HDL and LDL, containing lipoproteins, which are fats combined with proteins. Rather, there are "good" or "bad" lipoproteins and large LDL particles can be harmful causing damage and inflammation. It's good to focus on raising HDL levels.
    3. Focus on food quality. Replace processed foods with whole, plant-based foods. Stop obsessing on low-fat or no-fat foods and increase healthy consumption of fats. Optimize your vitamin D levels with sun exposure or good quality supplements. Consume plenty of fermented foods to keep your gut healthy. Get plenty of exercise (a good way to get more sun exposure is to go outdoors). Avoid statin drugs. And if you must, consume meat and eggs that come from organic, grass-fed sources. (5)"

Though this 180 degree turn by the health pundits can cause some outrage among consumers, it is better late than never. The erstwhile "guidelines" seem to have helped the pharmaceutical industry which have been hawking its Statin formulations to unsuspecting consumers based on certain maximum levels fixed arbitrarily by safety agencies few years ago.Between 1994 and 2006 massive promotion of statin drugs brought down the high cholesterol population (65-74 age bracket) from 87% to 54% in the US but did it bring down the number of people dying because of CVD? Absolutely not! It remained almost the same! However the statin industry world over increased their business reaching $ 29 billion per year at present. Probably most people taking statin drugs regularly may not need them at all but massive promotions, motivated or well financed scientific "findings" put out by the industry and unwary physicians have contributed this euphoria or mysteries about cholesterol! Will the 200 mg maximum limit under the present guidelines continue to be held as "sacred" as before? Probably we will have to wait to achieve unanimity on this issue before throwing our much revered statin drugs from the medicine chest at home.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Calories restricted diets-Do they ensure good quality life also besides longevity?

Man's search for longevity is endless and no one has yet found the magic bullet that will ensure or guarantee a life at least up to 100 years. Among the most talked about regime to live long is the notorious Calorie Restriction diet (CR) being promoted by some segments of health experts  and many consumers seem to be convinced about its efficacy. But CR is not scientifically proved to be capable of extending one's life span without contracting some of the most debilitating diseases that afflict mankind to day. It is true that in animal experiments with short duration using Rhesus monkeys, supposed to be similar in their metabolic system to that of man, the longer life span was reported when CR was used but the same conclusion was also found to be untrue by other similar studies. Here is a critique on this subject which has far reaching implications either way. 

Caloric restriction, defined as reducing calorie intake by at least 30 percent, has gained a cult following since it was first studied in the 1930s. Scores of people swear that by dialing consumption way down, and eating far less, you can gain vitality and longevity. And while studies cited by the National Institutes of Health report that caloric restriction (often referred to as "CR") did have some positive effects on health in rhesus monkeys, the NIH announced in 2012 that it has not been shown to boost overall longevity. (These findings conflicted with those published in 2009, which found that caloric restriction did, in fact, extend life in monkeys.) The final word on these studies has yet to be published. But I don't believe we need to wait for it. If you want to live a longer, better life, portion control plays a role, sure— but the reason I'm not one for the CR diet is because I believe you should be far more focused on what's ON your plate, rather than what isn't. The danger inherent to the idea of caloric restriction is the belief that simply consuming less food is enough to fend off chronic disease and give you optimal health— without much concern for the food itself. If this were true, we'd all be able to eat cheeseburgers and french fries in smaller portions every day and call ourselves healthier. If you put emphasis on what you're not eating rather than what you are, you're missing the mark. A great example of what I mean is the popular diet program Weight Watchers and similar plans such as Nutrisystem, which completely flop in terms of nutritional benefits. They certainly restrict your daily caloric intake and you may lose weight, but with Weight Watchers, you could still end up eating a slice of pizza at each meal and stay within your allotted "points" for the day. You're still consuming a high-carbohydrate, low-nutrient diet— essentially an inflammatory diet— and this puts you at risk of all the top killers, including cancer, heart disease, and even Alzheimer's disease and dementia later in life. Eating a limited number of calories does not necessarily equal a health-promoting, life-extending diet.

The point raised by the above commentator about the inadequacy of many calorie restricted formulated diets with respect to some of the vital nutrients required by the body is very valid. No one can expect to lead a quality life by consuming 30% less calories ( about 1400 calories per day) if the diet is made of junk foods with empty nutrition. After all man does not live on calories alone and nutrients like proteins, essential fatty acids, vitamins and minerals are required at certain minimum levels to ward of ill health and infectious diseases. All said and done there is no effective substitute to living a disciplined life, eating a mixed diet that includes adequate calories, proteins, vitamins, minerals and fiber. Physical activity that moves the limbs and the body regularly besides other routine activity in life is a prerequisite for a good quality life. People must realize without delay the cardinal principle that there is no short cuts to maintain their health and they must go through the drill of adopting balanced diet and regular exercise day in and day out.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

EVOLUTION OF LOW NUTRIENT FOODS-A HISTORICAL PERSEPECTIVE

When one looks at the phenomenal growth of organic food industry, there is an inescapable yearn among the people to day for things of the past, their ancestors were used to centuries ago! Why this change in attitude towards food that is consumed every day? Because the rampant spread of modern day diseases like CVD, Obesity, Diabetes, Blood Pressure, Cancer, Kidney disorders etc is awakening people regarding the link between the food and diseases. To day awareness about health is rising rapidly as educational levels are increasing due to economic development. This is precisely the reason why organic foods are finding increasing shelf space in supermarkets all over the world. To what extent the modern civilization must take responsibility for destroying the old culture that ensured production of nutritionally healthy agricultural crops, replacing it with "nice" looking food crops through mechanized cultivation techniques and hybridized crops that contain progressively less and less nutrients. Whether it is modern tomato or the good looking white maize the story is same. Man seems to have dug a hole for himself by these reckless short sighted evolutionary activities from where it is difficult to climb! Here is a critique on the transformation of old age agriculture into the modern industrial agriculture which is indeed very revealing! 

"Is the quality of our food decreasing as quantities increase? There is no doubt that industrial agriculture is extremely successful in producing food abundantly, but does the plant breeding that delivers big yields - along with the pesticides and fertilizers that compromise environmental safety - also result in lower-quality food? In a recent column I reported that tomatoes are now a pale facsimile of their formerly delicious selves, containing fewer nutrients and more sodium than they did when they tasted good. It seems that tomato breeders looking for qualities like transportability neglected nutrition. Now scientists are reporting that many of our foods have also become low in certain nutrients, including phytonutrients, the compounds that help reduce the incidence of four major modern health threats: cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and dementia. Declining food quality is not a new thing, but industrial agriculture's emphasis on volume over quality has accelerated the pace of nutrient loss. "Each fruit and vegetable in our stores has a unique history of nutrient loss," journalist Jo Robinson reports in the New York Times, "but there are two common themes. Throughout the ages, our farming ancestors have chosen the least bitter plants to grow in their gardens. It is now known that many of the most beneficial phytonutrients have a bitter, sour or astringent taste. Second, early farmers favoured plants that were relatively low in fibre and high in sugar, starch and oil. These energy-dense plants were pleasurable to eat and provided the calories needed to fuel a strenuous lifestyle. The more palatable our fruits and vegetables became, however, the less advantageous they were for our health."

Nutrition and health paradigm has significantly changed during the last 6-7 decades and human beings are discovering what they have lost by their reckless pursuit of high productivity, increased profitability and palate comfort. Foods devoid of fiber, phytonutrients, antioxidants, vitamins and minerals etc are wreaking havoc with the health of humans and if diseases like CVD, Diabetes, Cancer, Blood Pressure, Kidney disorder etc are becoming the norm rather than exception, only the modern agriculture system needs to be blamed. Added to these woes comes the much hyped GMO foods which has divided the world vertically into opposing camps vis-a-vis their relevance and safety. There needs to be a paradigm shift in the thinking of the industry, scientists, consumers, policy makers and farmers regarding the best way to make the food more healthy and nutritious, forgetting the past baggage! 

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

BROWN FATS VS WHITE FATS-NEW POTENTIAL APPROACH FOR BODY WEIGHT CONTROL

Fat is no doubt a bad word for most people concerned about maintaining body weight and in to day's market low fat or fat free food products outnumber normal ones to meet the increasing demand from such worried consumers. Whether it is fat or carbohydrate, diets containing these two constituents provide energy needed for basal metabolism and day to day work regimen. It is only when the intake of food provides more energy than needed, the body starts storing the excess ones in the form of fat deposits which in turn contribute to over weight, obesity, metabolic syndrome, CVD, blood pressure, kidney disorders etc. The logic of cutting down on calories by reducing fat and sugar/carbohydrates is fairly well accepted and there are many slimming diets offered by the health food industry with low caloric density. As against this a new approach is being tried to tinker with the existing body fat so that it is burned fast in stead of storing in different parts of the body. This involves transforming the white fats to brown fats through therapeutic or nutritional intervention as the latter has the major role in burning for calories, just like carbohydrate. Though no conclusive therapy has yet been developed the attempts by scientists are showing encouraging signs and here is a report that highlights the efforts in the laboratory. 

"Scientists from ETH Zurich in Switzerland have shown for the first time that brown and white fat cells in a living organism can be converted from one cell type to the other. Their work, using mice as a model organism, provides important new insights into the origin of brown fat cells, which is a prerequisite for the development of successful anti-obesity therapies. Two types of fat cells can be found in mammals and hence in humans: White fat cells function mainly as highly flexible energy stores which are filled in times of calorie abundance. The fat is stored in the form of lipid droplets, which are mobilized when energy is needed. Diametrically opposed in function are the so-called brown adipocytes: These cells specialize in burning energy in the form of fat and sugar to produce heat. New-born babies possess substantial amounts of brown fat and utilize it to maintain body temperature. Since it was recently shown that brown adipocytes also exist in adult humans, research has focused on understanding how brown adipocytes are formed. The ultimate goal of these efforts is to increase brown adipocyte number and activity in obese humans, allowing them to burn excess calories and thus reduce weight".

The findings cannot be taken seriously yet as the experiments are confined to laboratory mice and till this is proven beyond doubt it may still be a possibility for future. More over the empirical observations must be validated in human beings through clinical studies. While it is a fact that interconversion  between white and brown fat has been demonstrated, man is still in the dark regarding the means to achieve this so that it can be applied under real life situation. There is a possibility that suitable drugs might be evolved for such an intervention at the cellular level or achieving it through nutritional route by appropriate design of special foods with such functions. It may take quite some time to arrive at this point and humanity will have to wait in baited breath for such a development!  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

MACRO ALGAE POLY PHENOLS - HELPING DIABETES MANAGEMENT?

World over renewed attention is being focused on Algae for use in food formulations, extracting food ingredients, deriving nutraceutical substances, producing edible fat and as a source of bio-fuel. Preparations based on some strains of Algae like Spirulina have already found their way to the market as health boosting products and considerable investments are being made for developing commercial models of Algae production to augment the bio-fuel supply in future. Use of Algae as a source of poly phenolic chemicals has not received much attention and the recent findings that extracts rich in poly phenolic materials with very high potential for protecting health probably may pitchfork this humble unicellular microorganism as a major nutraceutical in the coming years.

Edible marine macroalgae, such as seaweeds form an important part of the diet in many far Eastern countries, whilst they are less used as foods in Western countries, their use is well documented. Apart from food uses, including their main industrial use as thickeners and gelling agents, seaweeds are widely used as ingredients in cosmetics and as fertilizers. However, edible seaweeds contain a range of components which have been suggested to have potential health benefits. They are good sources of dietary fibre, especially soluble fibre such as alginates, which can influence satiety and glucose uptake from foods – These soluble polysaccharides may also act as prebiotics, stimulating growth of beneficial bacteria in the colon. The authors stated that as well as being sources of polyunsaturated fatty acids, minerals and certain vitamins, "edible seaweeds can contain appreciable amounts of polyphenols, which are effective antioxidants and may have particular biological activities." "For example, polyphenol-rich extracts and isolated phlorotannin components have been shown to inhibit proliferation of cancer cells and to influence anti-inflammatory responses," wrote the researchers. Nwosu and colleagues reported that recent, but limited, information suggests that polyphenol rich extracts from edible seaweeds have potential anti-diabetic effects through the modulation of glucose-induced oxidative stress, and inhibition of starch-digestive enzymes such as alpha-amylase and alpha-glucosidase. In the new study, phenolic-rich extracts from four edible marine macroalgae commonly found in U.K. waters (Ulva, Ascophyllum, Alaria, and Palmaria) were tested for their potential biological effects towards cultured colon cancer cells and for their ability to inhibit digestive enzymes to achieve potential anti-diabetic effects.

Seaweeds are an integral part of oriental food preparations while the Alginate derived from them is one of the best thickeners available to the processed food industry all over the world. If the findings by the UK scientists can be confirmed by further studies with large size of subjects with regard to the health claims, algal poly phenolic extracts may become a universal health ingredient in thousands of food formulations in future. If the specific poly phenol responsible for the versatile health benefits can be identified, work of the food scientists is made easier to develop products with least flavor taint contributed by the isolated poly phenol. Biggest beneficiaries of this development will be diabetic people and obese consumers who can improve the quality of life very significantly.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com