A diabetic dilemma!-Heavy break fast vs heavy dinner

Diabetes is a dreaded disease and there is unanimity in calling it "the silent killer". A complex metabolic disorder, diabetes is still not understood well though there are well accepted treatment regime to control it. As it is related to the inability of the body to fully metabolize the glucose generated in the GI tract and absorbed by the blood stream, those affected by this disorder has to control their diet to prevent surges in blood glucose after consuming foods. The big dilemma facing diabetes affected people is how to balance the need for energy for sustenance and the ability of their metabolic system to handle the glucose derived from the foods they have consumed. Why is it called a silent killer? Most probably because the symptoms of the disease, especially during early stages, are not manifested and those affected have practically no knowledge about its onslaught. Untreated diabetes can lead to many other problems like heart disease, kidney ailments, declining eye sight, loss of pain sensation etc. How do we monitor our "sugar health"? As of now most physicians subject their patients to the "fasting sugar and postprandial sugar" testing and optimum sugar levels for normal health have been set. However these days many medical experts prefer to depend on the HbA1C or glycated haemoglobin test which is a cumulative record of unmetabolized glucose build up over a period of 3 months. Still daily monitoring is advisable to have a control of the glucose levels in the blood due to irregular consumption of food by some people. A new study coming from Israel has propounded a new diet regime that has the potential to have a control over blood glucose. Here is a take on this new development.

"A high-energy breakfast and modest dinner can control dangerous blood sugar spikes all day, says a new Tel Aviv University study published in Diabetologia. More than 382 million people in the world suffer from diabetes, predominantly type-2 diabetes. For these people, blood sugar surges - glucose spikes after meals - can be life threatening, leading to cardiovascular complications. The study proposes a new way to suppress deadly glucose surges throughout the day - eating a high-caloric breakfast and a more modest dinner. The combined consumption of a high-energy breakfast and a low-energy dinner decreases overall daily hyperglycaemia in type-2 diabetics, said the study. "We found that by eating more calories at breakfast, when the glucose response to food is lowest, and consuming fewer calories at dinner, glucose peaks and glucose levels throughout the day were significantly reduced," said professor Daniela Jakubowicz of Tel Aviv University. The new study was conducted on eight men and 10 women aged 30-70 with type-2 diabetes. Patients were randomized and assigned either a "B diet" or "D diet" for one week. The B diet featured a 2,946 kilojoule (kj) breakfast, 2,523 kj lunch, and 858 kj dinner, and the D diet featured a 858 kj breakfast, 2,523 kj lunch, and 2,946 kj dinner. The results of the study showed that post-meal glucose elevations were 20 percent lower, levels of insulin, C-peptide, and GLP-1 were 20 percent higher in participants on the B diet compared with those on the D diet. Despite the fact that both diets contained the same calories, blood glucose levels rose 23 percent less after the lunch was preceded by a large breakfast."  Read further http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150224182541.htm

The concept of Glycemic Index (GI) was developed by a group of scientists in University of Toronto in 1980-81 and to day it is the golden standard to assess different foods regarding their potential to increase blood glucose levels. Once GI of any food is known, consequent glucose load (GL) can be estimated in order to exercise self discipline while eating. Unfortunately for an average consumer it is rather difficult to think or worry about these highly scientific way of planning his daily food with the result that wide fluctuations in glucose "reading" is unavoidable and can lead to a slow process of debilitation of the body. What the Israeli scientists are proposing is some what revolutionary and if true may offer some practical guidelines in controlling the intake of glucose rich foods. It is a remarkable finding which can easily be practiced by those affected by Type 2 diabetes. Distributing the calories needed every day with 45% being consumed during breakfast, 40% during lunch and 15% during dinner, it has shown that glucose spike in the blood can be reduced as much as 23% compared to a diet with low calories consumed during breakfast. With more than 85% of calories intake coming from breakfast and lunch, glucose management is much easier and such a change in the meal pattern can be easily achieved for the sake of a better health. One criticism of above study is that the size of the experiments is rather small with hardly about one and a half dozen subjects and further studies on a much bigger scale only can help to come to a firm conclusion.

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

Added sugar in foods- Can it be the villain for unhealthy society?

The debate whether sugar is the real villain of peace when it comes to the spread of diseases like diabetes, CVD, hypertension, kidney ailments etc will go on in this world as long as conclusive and unanimous view emerge from the scientific community. But food industry seems to be "convinced" that sugar is innocent as a food adjunct used by them and its addition to millions of processed products make them palatable and enjoyable. Of course it has a right to demand for proof that sugar really does any harm to human beings if and when consumed in "moderate" quantities. There lies the rub! What is moderate quantity? Is there any definitive view regarding what is moderate consumption? The tendency of the industry to add sugar at levels far more that is really called for getting the sweet taste does not help its cause either. The emerging view that naturally present sugar and added sugar in the products while processing makes a difference cannot be brushed away easily. In almost all cases naturally occurring foods like whole grains, whole fruits and others are far superior in terms of health value to their processed counterparts and white refined sugar also must be viewed from this perspective. Probably this is the basis of the move in some countries to restrict the extent of added sugar during processing to no more than 10% of total calories in the daily diet. Though this is being stoutly resisted by the industry, this new suggestion will find acceptance among the consumers world over. Here is a take on the new guidelines being considered for nutrition labeling in the US.  

"But lately, the message has gotten a lot more specific and comes down to this: If you are getting more than 10% of your calories from "added sugars" — everything from the sugar in your coffee to the high-fructose corn syrup in your ketchup —  you are getting too much. Some experts say even 10% is probably excessive, given the links between sugar and obesity, diabetes and heart disease. The latest authority to endorse the 10% or less idea: the Food and Drug Administration. Under a proposal it announced this summer, food labels would have to say how close each serving comes to providing 50 grams, or 200 calories, of added sugar — the 10% mark for a typical 2,000-calorie diet. That's 12 teaspoons of sugar. So what does that mean for your eating and drinking day? If you are a soda drinker, it's huge: 50 grams is the amount in one sugar-sweetened 16-ounce bottle, meaning if you gulp one down, the rest of your day should be an added sugar-free zone. That might be tough in a world where even pasta sauces and bread have added sweeteners.(Note: the sugars naturally found in milk and fruit don't count). "It's really worth keeping your eye on the major sources," says Michael Jacobson, president of the nutrition watchdog group Center for Science in Public Interest. "The culprits are obvious." According to a recent report from the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, the expert group that recommends U.S. dietary guidelines, the major sources of added sugar in the U.S. diet are: • Beverages: 47%. Those include soft drinks (25%), fruit drinks (11%), sweetened coffee and tea (7%), sport and energy drinks (3%) and alcohol (1%). • Snacks and sweets such as cakes, pies and cookies: 31%. • Everything else, including condiments and dressings: 22%. The report says average consumers now get 13.4% of their calories from added sugar, but that is based on what people admit to government researchers, Jacobson says. Other data suggest average intake might be 20% or higher, he says. Either way, "we have a long way to go," says Rachel Johnson, a nutrition professor at the University of Vermont and spokesperson for the American Heart Association. Even without new labeling rules — opposed by some food industry groups — consumers can cut added sugars now, she says. "The first step is to think about your drink," she says. After that: • Use current labels, which list total sugars, to estimate added sugars. "If there's no milk or fruit in it, assume all the sugar is added sugar," she says. • Look for the "ose." If an ingredient ends in those letters — sucrose, fructose, maltose and dextrose — it's a sugar. • Buy unsweetened versions of healthy foods such as oatmeal and yogurt and sweeten them yourself. Whether you use sugar, honey or maple syrup (Johnson, as a Vermonter, favors that), you probably will use less than a food company would. For further reading, refer below cited reference:"

This is a welcome development in the area of health science and the sensitivity this has created among the policy makers is noteworthy. There is lot of logic in the argument that if sugar addition in quantities more than that demanded by the taste and flavor angles can be justified only if technologically it is a necessity. In sugar preserves sugar addition serves a different purpose viz to preserve the product through the osmotic pressure exerted by high concentration of sugar on pathogenic organisms thus achieving extended shelf life and safety. Also logical is the argument that even if sugar present in a packed product is less than what is perceived to be right by individual consumers, it can always added before using at home. It is certain majority of the consumers will accept lower levels of sugar which can make a big impact on consumption of white sugar in the long term and hopefully will lead to a more healthy world.

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Using kids toys for more healthy foods-New policy ploy for improving nutrition of fast foods

Advertisements and gift attractions are integral part of promoting a product or a service. Commercial promotion has become such a critical part of any modern marketing that business volume is invariably linked to intensity of advertisement and promotion and the spending incurred by the brands. Look at to day's Television industry in India where piggy back riding on entertainment and other broadcasting programs seems to be bringing in more than adequate returns for those brands for the money invested. It is another matter that the proportion of time usurped by the commercials to the program content is increasing alarmingly, often taking up more than 50% of the slotted program time. Incredulously most advertisements are so stupid that the viewers, if given an app to skip them,  will gladly use it with great relief! On the ground level, marketeers also use the ploy to offer gifts to consumers if they buy their products and many unwary buyers fall for this trap. Children are especially vulnerable to this allurement and success in providing toys in packed foods as well as in restaurants have been clearly proved to be most successful way of persuading parents to buy junk foods succumbing to the pleadings of their kids.Taking into consideration this trend many policy makers are proposing using the same strategy to promote healthy foods through the toy route. Here is the gist of it as being suggested by researchers at the New York University Langone Medical Center based on the results of field studies establishing the soundness of this concept.   .  

"If a proposed new policy in New York City is approved, then fast food meals that come with toys would contain fewer calories overall, and fewer from fat and sodium, researchers report. "We can create policies that will nudge us toward healthier behaviors," said senior author Marie Bragg, of NYU Langone Medical Center in New York. The proposed policy, which was introduced to the New York City Council, says fast food meals that come with a small toy must include a serving of fruit, vegetable or whole grain. The law would also limit meals with toys to no more than 500 calories, and it would place additional restrictions on fat and salt. To estimate the effect of the proposal, researchers analyzed food purchases made by 358 adults for 422 children at Burger King, McDonald's and Wendy's restaurants in New York City and New Jersey in 2013 and 2014. The average child in the study was seven years old. As reported in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, the adults purchased an average of 600 calories of food for each child, with a third of those calories coming from fat. The meals contained an average of 869 mg of salt - more than half the total daily limit recommended by the American Heart Association. About 35 percent of the children ate kids' meals that came with toys - and 98 percent of those meals did not meet the proposed guidelines, the researchers write. If all the meals with toys met the proposed standards, children would consume 9 percent fewer calories and there would also be 10 percent reductions in salt and calories from fat, the researchers calculated. "It's a rather small amount in comparison to how bad the country's obesity problem really is," Bragg acknowledged. But small changes could add up, she said. "There's a lot of value in the incremental changes that can sum up to a great impact with all the other changes occurring in the environment," such as policies that create healthier workplaces and communities, Bragg told Reuters Health.

Bragg hopes fast food restaurants won't try to sidestep any new policies. "We're at a point where we have to move the needle and we have to do it with policies like this," she said. (http://www.ajmc.com/newsroom/happy-meal-study-gives-new-life-to-nyc-council-proposal)"

This is a welcome development because earlier policy makers were worried about the negative impact of the successful use of toys by the manufacturers of junk foods in making fortunes made by exploiting the soft minds of young kids who easily get tempted by the toys offered and involuntarily flock to such restaurants and kids section of super markets offering such incentives. There are restrictive policies in some places to allow including toys only if the foods sold are within certain parameters of nutrition. Now this policy is being expanded to insist inclusion of toys in food packets or restaurant items for foods with high nutritive and health benefits. How far industry will go along with such a paradigm shift in marketing strategy remains to be seen. Possibly to begin with governments can provide financial incentives to manufacturers for making more and more healthy foods in the form of lesser taxes and reimbursing the cost of the toys given away.

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Indian diet changing for the worse? New findings

Recent findings that the nutrient intake among Indian population is steadily changing for the worse are some what strange considering that the economic health of the nation is considered healthy with higher income and lower inflation prevalent during the last few years. A deeper look at the figures based on which these conclusions have been drawn will tell a different story. Generally average figures do not reflect the ground reality and if these figures are true, it means there are many, mostly poor, who do not consume even the average level nutrition because higher income people consume far higher amount of foods getting much more than the recommended levels of nutrients. But can this be true? How long a human survive with lesser calories and other vital nutrients like proteins? If the nutrient intake is tending to be lower, in spite of the progress the country has made, the implication is that the productive capacity of the working population is becoming poorer day by day. Here is the gist of the argument put forward by some critics on this issue which may be some what far fetched. 

"The average protein intake of a person through normal diet has dipped 6-10% in the past two decades with almost 80% of rural population and 70% of urban people not getting the government-designated 2,400kcal per day worth of nutrition, latest data shows. Comparative estimates drawn by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (Ficci) reveal that in urban areas the gap in nutrition intake is worse. While the richest get over 2,518kcal each per day, the poorest get less than 1,679kcal — a difference of nearly 50%. "The situation has very harmful health implications, apart from its sheer inhumanity," says Vaibhav Kulkarni, chairman-nutraceuticals committee (western region), Ficci.  The data shows daily protein consumption at the national level dipped from 60.2g for a person in 1993-94 to 56.5g in 2011-12 in rural areas and from 57.2g to 55.7g in urban areas. Experts say though there are many reasons behind the dip, change in eating habits and decline in quality of natural products are some of the key reasons for the reducing nutrition intake".

The reason attributed to this "dip" in nutrition status is the undesirable change in food habits though it is not clearly spelt why there should be a lowering of calorie intake?. Globally with affluence among low income groups, calories intake usually shoots up while overall nutritive value of the diet suffers with respect to many essential nutrients. The word "empty calorie" has been coined to reflect the poor quality of such calorie rich diets containing high sugars and fats. If human physiology is taken seriously, humans will not compromise on hunger if they have money in their hands and there is no reason why Indians cannot spend on calorie adequate foods such as cereals which are supplied at low prices through the Public Distribution system of the country to the poor people? In the light of these realities, it is difficult to take the figures trotted out above as true reflection of the situation existing in the country. National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) with its nutrition monitoring net work has not raised this matter so far and Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) is a reliable agency to forewarn about any such alarming trend, if it really is true.  

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

Prosperity, thy name is "nemesis"-Great food inflicted health crisis staring us!

Umpteen number of treatise emphasize the uncomfortable truth that an average a denizen, living in any part of the globe with high income, consumes a diet that is drastically different from that consumed 50 years ago. The catch here is that the quality of the diet has taken a beating with more and refined foods, low quality carbohydrates, less and less of fibers, fruits and vegetables, more of fats of lower quality, predominating the food that is consumed day in day out. The result is there for every one to see. Diseases like obesity, CVD, blood pressure, diabetes, kidney ailments, liver problems, cancer etc have become common and billions of dollars are being spent to treat them, the only beneficiary being the drug industry. Here is a telling commentary on this vicious situation in a super rich country like the US which is revealing.

"Today, novelty dominates American food. Those yellow arches are now golden arches and we are now a nation addicted to sugar, fat and drive-through windows. Food is mere fuel, and we eat more of it in our family car than at our family table. For proof, look how we — you and me — have changed our food patterns in the last 40 or so years.
• In 1960, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data, we spent 26 cents of our food dollar on restaurant meals; in 2013 it was 50 percent.
• In 1950, the standard soft-drink bottle contained 6.5 ounces; in 1960 it grew to 12 ounces and, in the 1990s, 20 ounces became the norm.
• In 1970, according to numbers in a 2011 article published by Grist, the U.S. "churned out 2,168 calories per day per person, 402 of which came from added sugar and 410 from added fat ... or, combined, about 37 percent of the total."
• In 2008, the U.S. produced 2,673 calories per day person (" ... powerful evidence that [America's] cheap food policy ... succeeded ... ") of which "added fats and sugars [grew] to 459 and 641 calories, respectively, a 35 percent jump over the 1970 level ... "
• In 2013, according to Harvard University, Americans spent "an estimated $190 billion treating obesity-related health conditions."
• Also, in 2013, U.S. organic sales (which USDA does not track) totaled an estimated $35.1 billion, an 11.5 percent increase from 2012 but still only 18.4 percent of the amount spent we spent to treat obesity-related health problems that year. 

What's it all mean, fellow foodies? According to that brief survey, most of us ate less sugar and less fat when we ate more fresh, local food at home 40 or 50 years ago than what we buy and eat (mostly) in town today. Also, most of us were skinnier and healthier (as were our parents in comparison to us today) and all of us had more neighbors and more "community" — local banks, medical care, grocery and clothing stores and the like — than almost any of us have anywhere in rural America today. In short, we had it very, very good — despite Grandma pushing the pickle beets and lima beans every chance she got. Little wonder, then, that a new food culture, a foodie culture, is taking root across the U.S. now."

Though the above study, analyzing the hard data is considered reliable, there is no cogent answer as to what can be done to redeem the world from the curse of bad food and distorted food culture which are slowly but surely making the quality of life progressively deteriorating. While many blame the industry for this sorry situation, some blame will have be apportioned to the government regulatory agencies who have allowed this situation to develop by shirking their bounden responsibility to protect the lives of the citizens. Where does the consumer come in this complex scenario? Of course it is the weak will power and weakness for tasty foods abandoning the health concerns (similar to tobacco and alcohol) on the part of the consumer that is driving this insane rush towards health catastrophe staring at them! Unless consumers, regulatory agencies, health experts and the food business get together to deal with the crisis, this sordid "death dance" will continue unabated!

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

"Let thy food be thy medicine!---"- How true it is!

Though Socrates said 2000 years ago that "let thy food be thy medicine", the modern world does not want to have any thing to do with this famous "truth". How else we can explain the reckless living style people have adopted depending increasingly on a plethora of drugs churned out by the pharma industry for treating, ironically, the diseases caused by over eating, imbalanced eating and irregular eating? The recent report that the American population, about one third of them being obese, does not suffer from want of calories but is severely "malnourished" is indeed a shocking revelation. According to many health pundits if people are educated early enough the close linkage between food and health and if balanced foods are consumed regularly almost all diseases now raging in that country due to bad foods would not have been there! There is a strong view that it is time to think differently when it comes to dealing with the life style disorders which are eating into the vitals of American society and through better food and balanced diet only any future catastrophe can be avoided. Here is a commentary on this issue as put forward by one of the reputed surgeons who has a close ring side view about the health scenario unfolding in that country. 

"The number of people who are malnourished despite being obese is scandalous, a leading weight loss surgeon has said today. A recent study showed despite high levels of obesity in the U.S., many people are undernourished.  A diet of pizza, fries, crisps, pasta, rice, biscuits, cakes leaves many people consuming a lot of calories but few nutrients, says Dr Sally Norton, an NHS consultant specialising in weight loss and upper gastrointestinal surgery. The problem is exacerbated by coffee shops serving sugary and fatty drinks appearing in hospital foyers and junior doctors being given minimal training on nutrition. Drug companies push the sales of expensive drugs which treat the symptoms of the disease but not the cause, she says.Instead we should treat disease with nutrition, letting food be our medicine".

It is a tragedy of Himalayan proportion that the food environment in this so called "most powerful" country in the world is so vitiated that people are behaving like zombies rushing to wards food service joints serving most unhealthy foods offered by the latter rich in sugar, saturated fat, salt, carbohydrates and practically free from that vital food component, viz dietary fiber so necessary for maintaining good health. Modern generation has no clue regarding the advantages of whole cereals, unrefined flours, fruits, vegetables and other health protecting food materials. Blaming food industry.for churning out unhealthy foods will not take the country far, unless citizens assume more responsibility for their own health through scientific and rational food selection. The golden words of Socrates that "thy food is thy medicine" should be the "national icon" for the US for the next one decade if the current trend of over eating and wrong eating practices are to be reversed.

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

School meals more nutritious than mom's own food? May be!

There was a time when mom's food was considered the ultimate in taste and flavor though grandma recipes still rule the roost, often recalled with nostalgia! Why is that mom's food is often ranked high in the pecking order of foods ranked in terms of acceptance? Is it sheer habit of people cultivated over long time of association with mother or some other factors are contributing to this perception? Sociologists and psychologists some how feel that mom's food served by mom herself offers some thing else besides taste and flavor and that is "love" which has no measuring scale to gauge. It is another matter that in many house holds to day cooks employed by the families do the routine of making and serving foods to the members as every one in a family is busy with their own daily chores. A recent observation by a social auditing group in to day's America reports that school lunches turned out to be more nutritious than home cooked foods brought by those children not eating the school prepared lunches. How significant is this cannot be gauged because lunch is only a part of the daily diet and what these children eat for breakfast and dinner is any body's guess. Here is a take on this interesting survey which may make little sense in countries like India.

"The study found that lunches packed in home paled in comparison to school meals. According to the study, the home-packed lunches were offering lower nutritional quality during the study. Home-packed lunches often include fat and more calories than school lunches. Adding to that, parents make meals unhealthy by packing sugary drinks and desserts. In the study, home-packed lunches were also found higher in iron and vitamin C, but it was lacking in vitamin A, fiber, protein and calcium. Public elementary and secondary schools in the US have more than 50 million children. About 60% of the children rely on school lunches while the rest of the children bring their food from home. According to the study, school lunches had about 512 calories while on the other side, home-packed lunches had approximately 608 calories. When it comes about protein, school lunches had 26 grams and home-packed lunches offered just 18 grams. School lunches included vegetables, fruits, sugar-free juice and milk, homemade food had more snacks. Home-packed food had about 880 mg of sodium while schools lunches offered 1,000 mg of sodium to the children. Connie Diekman, University nutrition director at St. Louis' Washington University, said she is not surprised with the study's result. "This study provides outcomes that are similar to other studies that show the positive benefits of school lunch", said Diekman."

School lunch becomes acceptable only when there is a variety in the offerings and nutrition is secondary to the recipients as most of them, with tradition bound eating habits, are looking for foods which meet with their sensory perception like taste, texture and flavor. Indian school lunch programs invariably are based on the ready receptivity of children to hot foods served fresh though there is no evidence to support such a theory. Such "on the site" cooking practices have inherent dangers as brought out by several food poisoning episodes reported during the last few years. One of the least appreciated facts in this confusing scenario is that one lunch in the school does not create much of an impact on the health of the child in a family if the same child goes hungry at home due to abject poverty. The consolation is that at least he gets one meal a day in which some nutrients like proteins, vitamins and minerals can be loaded. In a scenario where calorie intake itself is in jeopardy, talking about balanced nutrition may not have any bearing. With the food security act of government of India the situation may improve provided the logistics of distribution of food grains at heavily subsidized prices are worked out with least vulnerability to pilferage.  

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

HUNGRY FOR CALORIES OR HUNGRY FOR MICRO NUTRIENTS? THE GLOBAL PARADOX

What is hunger? How does one feel hunger? How can one satisfy hunger? Very complex questions eliciting different responses from different experts, each looking at this phenomenon from their own perspectives. Many administrators feel that by supplying adequate quantity of food  the problem hunger can be solved! But nutrition and health pundits do not agree with this approach because such a simplistic solution does not take into consideration the vital needs of human body vis-a-vis micro nutrients such as minerals and vitamins. Take the case of India where a misguided political class came up with the idea of a food security act to confer upon its citizens the right to access food at low cost and if the assumptions of the government are to be taken seriously, there would be no hunger when citizens are provided cereals practically free of cost. Unfortunately the hunger does not not seem to be coming down in spite of all these freebies and India ranks a lowly 120th position in the Global Hunger Index with just about 8 countries worse than it. Imagine India being worse than its neighbors like Nepal and Sri Lanka! Whether this "good achievement" is due to government efforts or through statistical jugglery is a matter of speculation. The distinction between calorie hunger and nutrient hunger makes a lot of difference as good healthy individual with maximum human productivity can be ensured only when nutrient hunger is also eradicated eventually. Here are some data released by some international agencies recently highlighting the position in India and 127 other countries which offers some clue regarding the direction India is going in dealing with hunger among its population.  

"Is it possible to have food on your plate, but still go hungry? Yes, is the answer, according to the latest Global Hunger Index, compiled by German World Hunger Aid together with the Irish aid and development organization Concern Worldwide and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). "Eight hundred million suffer from not having enough to eat, so it is quantity, it is calories," said Shenggen Fan, general director of IFPRI. "But 2 billion people suffer from lack of micronutrients." "The question is the timing, how soon the people will die. So lack of food, particularly lack of calories, can lead to death very quickly," Fan said. "But the lack of micronutrients is equally damaging."

It has to be borne in mind that India is a huge country with a large population but low income levels which restricts many of its citizens access to food whether good or otherwise and it calls for herculean effort to lift those who are still impoverished above the poverty line. How far the statistics by the government agencies can be relied upon to draw any conclusion about the extent of poverty prevalent in the country is any body's guess! Indians are known to be reluctant to share their true personal information to statisticians surveying for such data for various reasons. If one takes the example of income tax paying population in the country, almost 90% of those who qualify for IT payment escape the net by suppressing their income and never filing their returns regularly.The farming community is in distress because of the nonviable land holdings and uncertainties of weather as most of them rely on rains to raise their crops. If any tangible improvements are to be realized, land consolidation is a prerequisite which only can make agriculture an income generating avocation. Can any government do this? Do they have the courage to think in this direction leaving aside the politics of vote consolidation? Sending condolences and paying ex-gratia payments to farmers committing suicide due to unbearable debt burden cannot achieve any thing. As long as this situation does not change, India is consigned to the bottom of the GHI for decades ahead.

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

FOOD-WEIGHT RELATIONSHIP-A GENETIC NEXUS!

One of the riddles that has been defying rational scientific explanation is why some people gain weight while others are immune to weight gain when same amount of food with identical composition is consumed. It is too common to hear many people lamenting about their body system that does not readily respond to reduction of calories though physical exercise has often been cited as the most important critical factor that decides how much body weight is put on from a given diet. According to some recent scientific studies such aberrations can be explained by the peculiarities of the genes present in people whose response to food intake defies current logic. Here is a take on this new development vis-a-vis obesity epidemic that is haunting the world to day.   

The mice were eating their usual chow and exercising normally, but they were getting fat anyway. The reason: researchers had deleted a gene that acts in the brain and controls how quickly calories are burned. Even though they were consuming exactly the same number of calories as lean mice, they were gaining weight. So far, only one person — a severely obese child — has been found to have a disabling mutation in the same gene. But the discovery of the same effect in mice and in the child — a finding published Wednesday in the journal Science — may help explain why some people put on weight easily while others eat all they want and seem never to gain an ounce. It may also offer clues to a puzzle in the field of obesity: Why do studies find that people gain different amounts of weight while overeating by the same amount? Scientists have long thought explanations for why some people get fat might lie in their genes. They knew body weight was strongly inherited. Years ago, for example, they found that twins reared apart tended to have similar weights and adoptees tended to have weights like their biological parents, not the ones who reared them. As researchers developed tools to look for the actual genes, they found evidence that many — maybe even hundreds — of genes may be involved, stoking appetites, making people voraciously hungry. This rare gene-disabling mutation, though, is intriguing because it seems to explain something different, a propensity to pile on pounds even while eating what should be a normal amount of food. Investigators are now searching for other mutations of the same gene in fat people that may have a similar, but less extreme effect. The hope is that in the long term, understanding how this gene affects weight gain might lead to treatments for obesity that alter the rate at which calories are burned. "The history of obesity for many many years has been one of blaming people for lack of self control," said Dr. Joseph Majzoub, chief of endocrinology at Boston Children's Hospital and lead author of the new paper. "If some of it is due to a slow metabolism, that would completely change the perspectives of parents and patients. It really would change the way we think of the disease."

Of course the above findings are only an indicator that needs to be pursued further but it definitely gives hope of tackling obesity ultimately at the gene level. It is some what scary to know that slow metabolic system can make the utilization of dietary components more efficient resulting in accumulation of weight and such situation can exist in many people with mutated genes, either inherited or formed during early childhood. Probably genetic scientists need to pursue this line of research much more vigorously to clinch the issue with least delay. If such studies can result in evolving tools to attack diseases like diabetes and obesity through genetic manipulation, mankind will greatly be benefited!

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

CALORIES IN FOODS-A NEW WAY OF SENSITIZATION

To day's world is on a desperate search for the proverbial magical bullet for meeting the challenges of the epidemic of obesity in many countries, an out come of prosperity and never ending desire of the humans for leisure and relaxation. It is by now known that every creature on this earth has a mechanism to balance its body weight through the satiety signaling system embedded in its brain but due to many factors, mostly man made, this system goes haywire which causes over eating food much beyond what the body requires. It is the basic nutrition principle that if intake of calorie is balanced with outgo or expenditure by the body for the basal metabolic activity and the physical activity indulged, there probably may not be any extra body weight gained by any person. Unfortunately those who develop over weight consume or gorge on foods rich in sugar and fat, major food components that contribute calories for sustenance and day to day activity. Binge eating caused by cheap and highly palatable foods rich in the above food constituents is recognized as the main reason for putting on weight without the consumer being aware of it. Many countries try out different strategies to persuade the consumer to restrict calories and calories yielding foods but with very little success and food industry's aggressive marketing of such products does not help the cause. Latest strategy that is being proposed to curb food consumption depends on the "shock" factor by letting the consumer know the consequences of eating too much by including information on the label or the menu as to how much walking is needed to burn the calories ingested through the food served. Here is a take on this new strategy still under trial.

Victoria Taylor, senior dietician at the British Heart Foundation, said clearly signposting healthy options and nutritional content helped people make informed choices when ordering food. But she added: "While displaying the amount of exercise needed to burn calories is an interesting idea, there's more to a heart-healthy diet than calorie counting. "Restaurants can also take steps to make meals healthier by serving appropriate portion sizes and reducing the amount of salt, saturated fat and sugar in their dishes."Whether eating at home or dining out, a balanced diet with plenty of fruit and veg is the best way to protect your heart." 

Whether this strategy will really work is very difficult to predict. It will definitely sensitize the consumer for some time but in the long run there is the possibility that he may learn to ignore such warnings. History is replete with instances of consumer insensitivity developing to such good intentioned warnings and consumers reverting back to their old habits. Cigarettes and Alcoholic drinks are classical example. It will be interesting to watch the progress of the new approach being tried over a longer period of time before coming to any definitive conclusion. 

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

WHETHER CALORIES OR NUTRIENTS, IT IS NO WIN SITUATION IN INDIA!

In spite of dire predictions about the fate of the country, in the face of crushing burden of poverty, hunger and malnutrition, India seems to be plodding on without any catastrophe as being talked about for a long time. But if the statical figures coming out of this country with a massive population of almost 2 billion are taken seriously, billions of rupees invested by successive governments in the name of poverty alleviation and welfare of the so called "aam aadmi" or the "common man",  do not seem to have made any lasting impression at the ground level. Poor people continue to be poor and hungry ones reconcile to their fate! More shockingly some of the parameters used to measure human development progress reveal a distressing trend with no ready answer for this pitiable state or ready solution to lick the problem. GDP figures or per capita income growth does not tell the true story because here is a country which has made rich people richer and poor ones poorer and average figures do not reflect the agony and anguish most people are going through! Every Indian has to hang his head in shame when confronted by global reports about the tragedy  of Indian children under a democratic dispensation! Is this the cost of development which appears to be not inclusive, benefitiing only a few people in the country?. Is there no hope or salvation to millions of impoverished people in the country who dream of just a simple life with adequate food, security and self respect? Some how the government of the day is imagining that distributing food grains at subsidized cost or badly implemented welfare schemes which never reaches the beneficiaries, will mislead the world. Reports about muti billion rupees scams in the telecom sector or coal sector or in the real estate sector, even if not proven conclusively and the alleged black money hoardings in foreign countries, do not inspire confidence that there can be a turn around in the fortunes of the poor in the forseable future. Here is an incisive analysis about the situation that is unfolding in India.

"While nutritionists and economists debate the importance of targets defined solely in calories, other data shows gains in nourishment also stalled. In the 2005 National Family Health Survey, when India last weighed, measured and counted its children for signs of hunger, it found 46 percent -- 31 million -- weighed too little for their ages, almost an entire Canada of malnourished under-three-year-olds. In 1999, that number was 47 percent. Some indicators worsened: 79 percent of children had anemia, against 74 percent in 1999; 19 percent were wasted -- weighed too little for their height -- up from 16 percent. Anemia prevents the absorption of nutrients; as do the diarrhea and other diseases caused by poor hygiene and sanitation. In sheer numbers, 4 out of 10 malnourished children in the world are Indian, more than in all of Africa. War-torn Sudan and famine-struck Eritrea had smaller percentages of malnourished children, at about 32 percent, according to the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute. India's hungry children are likely to have lower cognitive skills, grow up to be weakened workers, suffer from chronic illnesses and die prematurely, according to the United Nations Children's Fund. Hunger stalks them into adulthood too: 21 percent of all Indians are undernourished, according to Ifpri, up from 20 percent a decade ago. All of which costs the country about $68 billion a year, or almost 4 percent of GDP, according to Veena S. Rao, who heads nutrition initiatives for the government of Karnataka, the Indian state that encompasses the city of Bangalore. "The problem of malnutrition is a national shame," Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in January, in one of about 50 public speeches where he has mentioned the subject. "Despite impressive growth in our gross domestic product, the level of under-nutrition in the country is unacceptably high." India has collected reliable and consistent national data on nutrition since 1972, soon after setting minimum daily intakes of about 2,100 calories a day for city residents, who are assumed to be less physically active. The level for rural- dwellers was pegged at 2,400 calories on the basis that tilling fields, harvesting crops and drawing water require greater exertion".

To add insult to injury, the head of the government proclaims from the roof top that nutrition problem is a national shame without giving any clue as to what he was doing during the last 7 years he has been in power or what plans he has, different from the past, to tackle the problem! His minister for environment seems to be obsessed with programs for building toilets in rural areas where open defecation is commonly accepted practice though one cannot find fault with his focused efforts. If people do not have sufficient food to eat what difference it makes where they defecate. The realization does not seem to be dawning on the rulers that poverty and unhygienic situation go hand in hand and unless an integrated approach is thought about no amount of money invested will show any result at the ground level. It was not long ago that administrators of toilet building program in Karnataka realized, how, within a matter of a few months , most toilets were converted into additional rooms for day to day use including for pooja purpose! The present proposal to increase the toilet grant from Rs 3500 to Rs 10000 is unlikely to improve the situation dramatically unless the hunger in the belly is doused. For this to happen, government will have to ensure that corruption in welfare programs so rampant in the country is eradicated ruthlessly so that beneficiaries get fully what is due to them. Unless and until this happens, the wheel of poverty and hunger will roll on and on with no let up!

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

MIDDAY "MEMORY LOSS"-EFFECT OF CALORIES

Those who are embarrassed often because of sudden forgetfulness during day time know how frustrating it is to remember or recall some thing when required. Though many start worrying whether they are victims of the dreaded "Dementia" or it is the early sign of Alzheimer's disease recent reports suggest that same might not be very serious to be unduly alarmed about. Cognitive ability does decline with progress of age. For a normal individual it is a minor consequence of aging, with declining faculties like vision, hearing, taste perception, skin sensitivity, tooth decay etc, which one eventually learns to live with.. According to new studies food can cause mild cognitive impairment if consumed in quantities beyond what is really required in terms of calories. Here is a take on this important revelation that may help people to avoid over eating.   

"Older people who consumed more than 2,143 calories a day had more than double the risk of a type of memory loss called mild cognitive impairment compared to those who ate fewer than 1,500 calories a day, according to a study being released Sunday by the American Academy of Neurology on its website (aan.com). The more calories older people consumed, the more likely they were to have mild cognitive impairment, says Yonas Geda, lead author of the study and a neuropsychiatrist at Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz. Other investigators from Australia have shown that excessive calorie intake is associated with a greater risk of mild cognitive impairment, he says. MCI is the condition between normal forgetfulness due to aging and early Alzheimer's disease. People with MCI have problems with memory, language or thinking severe enough to be noticeable to other people and to show up on tests, but not serious enough to interfere with daily life, according to the Alzheimer's Association. People are often aware of the forgetfulness".

It is by now well established that a diet low in calories is healthful and helps extending one's life span. Distinct from a starvation diet, sub-optimal calorie load is considered perfectly in order, especially for fully grown adults and elderly persons without causing any disorders. This is an area where some more clarity is needed before fully subscribing to such an eating regime. The 1200 kc diet supposed to be ideal for longevity cannot be a universal recipe because energy requirement, beyond the need for basal metabolism, is proportional to the physical activity and an active human with heavy work style obviously cannot be expected to sustain on such a sub-optimal diet. Similarly the 1500 calories diet that is claimed to help avoid MCI also needs appropriate corrections depending on the rigorousness of daily work. Nonetheless this is an important finding warning against overeating that can be detrimental, viewed from all angles.

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

DECEPTION, THY NAME IS BEVERAGE INDUSTRY!

The beverage industry which has been thriving on caffeinated cola drinks and synthetically flavored sugar syrups appears to have adopted a new strategy to boost their business in the light of universal criticism against their product basket for contributing to over weight, obesity and other life style disorders so rampant to day. Who does not know that their product portfolio is devoid of any nutrients and are based on snow white sugar or the much maligned High Fructose Corn Syrup. As sugar is a habit forming food ingredient, once hooked on to these sugar rich products it is very difficult, especially for youngsters to chuck the habit. Sustained campaign by consumer activists is forcing the manufacturers to indulge in some deception by introducing fruit based drinks giving the consumer the impression that they are healthy! Ironically these so called fruit drinks have only about 10% natural juice, the rest being water, synthetic flavor and sugar! Here is a take on this disturbing trend in promotion of unhealthy foods in many parts of the world.

"A new report from the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity,  a non-profit research and public policy organization, found that many popular fruit drinks marketed to children can have the same, if not more sugar as a candy bar, and many use artificial sweeteners. Dr. Marlene Schwartz, deputy director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, said, "The companies really are misleading both the parents and their children. (These drinks are) essentially water and sugar and artificial sweeteners ... and they're trying to package them to look like they are juice." The report also found companies specifically target young kids in advertisements to sell their products. In a statement, the American Beverage Association called the report "another attack by known critics in an ongoing attempt to single out one product as the cause of obesity," adding that soft drink advertising has dropped by 96 percent since 2004 during children's programming. But the industry is still self regulated -- something Schwartz says she believes must change. Schwartz said, "I don't believe self-regulation is the answer, I think in some ways government regulation would be easier because it would guarantee a level playing field." Nutritionist Keri Glassman, author of "The O2 Diet," said on average fruit drinks, soda and caffeinated energy drinks have seven teaspoons of sugar in an eight-ounce serving -- the equivalent of about 10 Hershey Kisses".

In India also to access to any 100% natural juice is a logistical nightmare because of deceptive labeling practices indulged in by the industry making it difficult to distinguish between drinks and juices. It is true that 100% juice based drinks are costlier with profit margins very thin, while fruit flavored drinks are low cost products that can be sold easily with killing margins. There was a time in India almost 4 decades ago when GOI was promoting fruit pulp "containing" soft drinks in order to promote juice making industry in a big way but at that time the health angle was not in focus and the purpose was to find outlet for fruit pulp which could have strengthened fruit processing industry. Now is the time to promote policies and introduce initiatives that can support 100% juice beverages which will better serve the purpose of protecting health. If experts are to be believed industry must promote 100% juice or pulp of different fruits and advise the consumers to dilute the same with adequate water to make their own drink. Canned pulps of some fruits are available in the market but are very expensive to most of the consumers. Probably 50% pulp containing products without addition of sugar also must be allowed, in order to bring down the prices significantly to enable a large section of the consumer community to have access to nutritious fruit drinks..

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

CALORIE VS NUTRITION-THE PERPETUAL DILEMMA

Food consumption is often viewed by most consumers from the body weight perspective because it is the single most critical input from the diet that causes weight gain over a period of time if the intake of calories is more than the expenditure due to daily physical activity. Almost all labels on packed foods distinctly bring out the extent of total calories and calories from fat that can be expected by consuming the prescribed serving size. Recent moves in some countries to force all food serving agencies including theaters, food trucks, aviation sector etc to make calories declaration may serve the limited purpose of putting the consumers on an alert regarding the potential for weight gain by consuming high calorie food preparations. Insisting on these marginal players to comply with nutrition labeling regulations may be far fetched and it may not serve any purpose as these consumers are taking these foods only occasionally.

"So too with food, where calories count, but they are far from all that matters. Calories tell a truth about food, but nothing remotely like the WHOLE truth. This is an important consideration as mandatory calorie labeling expands from chain restaurants to other venues, such as theatres and airplanes. For instance, let's consider two orders of french fries. One is small and, say, 100 calories; the other is large and say, 350 calories. The calorie difference might encourage you to go with the smaller order. So far, so good. But now imagine that the small order of fries was prepared in trans fat, and the large order was prepared in a healthful oil. If they are fries on the same menu board, that's unlikely, I know -- but nonetheless indicative of the fact that calories don't tell all. Calorie counts are potentially valuable in helping you see the cost -- in calories -- of larger portions. But they tell you nothing about the return on that investment, in terms of either nutrition, or the fullness and satisfaction you are hoping to achieve. And the evidence suggests that while providing a reality check that does, at times, encourage the more moderate choice. Theeffect of posting calories is variable, and modest. One likely reason for this is that people don't generally eat to fill a calorie quota, they eat to fill themselves. If you like a large burger and fries, you might order a smaller version of each with the calories on display. But you might, then, finish and still want more. So maybe you order another, or maybe you eat something else just a little while later. Calories may have gone down at the time of the initial selection, without going down for the day".

It is very true that calorie number does not convey the full details regarding the quality of the food consumed vis-à-vis one's health and there are may other factors like the extent of fat calories, presence of trans fats, sodium level, sugar content, fiber content etc which also influence the effect of foods on health. But providing such information details in casual eating points is neither desirable nor practical. As it is rightly said eating is primarily a function of hunger and sensory pleasure and health considerations invariably are marginal especially with most consumers not aware of the dynamics of nutrition. Eating disorder involves many social, economical, environmental and psychological factors and no matter how efficiently labels are formatted, most consumers are unlikely to be persuaded to willingly give up high calorie/high fat foods till health disorders visit them with all their dangerous ramifications.

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