Currently viewing the category: "nutrition"

Brain Enhancing Healthy Foods

By On · Add Comment · In Alzheimer's disease, blood nutrients, brain, diet, elderly, junk food, nutrition, omega-3 fatty acids, trans-fats, vitamin B, vitamin C, vitamin D deficiency

More bad news for junk food, as a recent study published in the journal Neurology shows that elderly people having higher levels of certain vitamins and omega 3 fatty acids in their blood score better on mental acuity tests than those who eat the junk.  Further, researchers found that eating better might even reduce the brain shrinkage associated with with Alzheimer’s disease. Booyah!

The study, conducted at Oregon State University, and one of the first of its kind, looked at 104 people at an average age of 87, and specifically measured a wide range of blood nutrient levels (instead of basing results on food questionnaires, which are less precise and less reliable).

“The vitamins and nutrients you get from eating a wide range of fruits, vegetables and fish can be measured in blood biomarkers,” said Traber Maret Traber, a principal investigator at the Linus Pauling Institute and study co-author. “I’m a firm believer these nutrients have strong potential to protect your brain and make it work better.”
Yes, so am I! I’ve been preaching for years. Always happy to see the science back up a universal truth–whole, natural foods are healing and health enhancing. We’ve gone through millions of years of evolution feeding ourselves the foods of the earth–can’t think of any Doritos shortages that challenged mankind, can you?
The principle vitamins they found to help neurological health are some of my personal favs–vitamins B, C, D and E, as well as the omega 3 fatty acids–which increased mental quickness and brain size.
Elderly people that had diets high in unnatural and unhealthy foods, like those laden with trans-fats, fared worse on cognitive tests. Although the researchers found that age and education had major effects on cognitive function and brain size, nutrient status accounted for 17% of the variation in scores, and 37% of the differences in brain volume.
Well, what can I say other than…been tellin’ ya. Eat well–it’ll take you far. This study looked at people with typical American diets–some good, some…well, not so much. But it’s not too late to make the switch–in fact, perfect time for the new year. 
I’ll leave it to study co-author Gene Bowman of the Oregon Health and Science University to conclude with, “It is very exciting to think that people could potentially stop their brains from shrinking and keep them sharp by adjusting their diet.” Indeed.

Obesity: Primarily a Food Choice Issue

By On · Add Comment · In body fat, calories, childhood obesity, food choices, French fries, genetic theory of obesity, losing weight, nutrition, weight gain

I’ve gotten to experience something very interesting over the last couple of weeks.  Resulting from my posts on childhood statin recommendations and parental responsibility for childhood obesity, I’ve gotten numerous replies, comments and tweets that have both commended and criticized my views.  Being all for intelligent discussion, I’ve welcomed the responses; but something has become very clear to me: People who are attached to a particular point-of-view will fill any holes with their own interpretations and opinions,quite apart from anything that has ever been said or implied.  It’s an interesting phenomenon.  So as promised, I will continue presenting my viewpoint on obesity in general, and specifically, childhood obesity, so I can fill those holes myself, and keep my thoughts from being assumed by others.

Let me begin with the obvious: What is obesity?  From Wikipedia:

Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have an adverse effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems.  Body mass index (BMI), a measurement which compares weight and height, defines people as overweight (pre-obese) if their BMI is between 25 and 30 kg/m, and obese when it is greater than 30 kg/m

Wikipedia is not necessarily the end all be all as a reference source…but, in this case…well, it’s right.  Weight gain, which can lead to obesity, is caused by taking in more calories than you burn, period.  It doesn’t happen from eating one tootsie roll, despite a tootsie roll being an unhealthy food-like item, or from eating one French fry, or even thirty on a Saturday night for that matter; nor does it come from eating a Twinkie, or a bag of chips, or drinking a soda.  No, gaining excessive weight, and developing obesity, comes from eating lots of crap over and over again.

It is what one does repeatedly that matters, so, in that regard, obesity is a calorie issue.  But yes, there is more to it, although I would argue very strongly that the most important factor is overeating.  As a rule, Americans eat too much.  Listen, I am an American.  I eat at restaurants.  My observation is that the portions served in most restaurants are more than most people need under most circumstances.  I also observe how others eat, and can say quite confidently that most people aren’t leaving their plates half-full.  No, most people put it away–all of it–plain and simple.  And this (as a habit) leads to excessive weight gain.

Here’s some basic nutritional physiology: Take in more calories than you expend, you gain weight.  Expend more calories than you take in, you lose weight.  When intake and output (over time) are relatively equal…you maintain weight, no gain, no loss.  Duh.  It blows me away that some people actually try to argue against this simple fact.  Why not, then, argue against the Pythagorean Theorem while you’re at it?

Listen, it doesn’t make sense to try to disprove what we already know about any science.  If it’s an established principle, why try to reinvent the wheel?  Oh no, the Law of Gravity is wrong, and that’s why we can’t unify all theories on physical forces.  No serious thinker would go that route.  Instead they would take what is already known and try to formulate a theory around that.  Freakin’ duh!   So why do some self-proclaimed experts attempt it with nutritional physiology?

There is no doubt that food types matter when it comes to weight gain and obesity.  It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to understand that French fries are a worse food choice than broccoli.  And it doesn’t take a theoretical physicist to understand that eating wholesome foods, as a habit, is better than simply cutting your French fry intake in half.  Freakin’ duh!


What amazes me is that some people think that somehow my previous posts suggested that I advocate a low calorie diet.  When have I ever said that?  Let me be perfectly clear: I’ve never said anything about a diet of any sort.  When I speak of “diet,” I speak in terms of how one eats, the types of foods one eats, and NOT a freakin’ fad diet (and that includes Atkins, or rehashed Atkin’s-like theories).  I simply cannot be any clearer.  The types of foods you eat matters, and how much of them you eat matters too, and how much you burn with physical activity also matters a whole hell of a lot more than your mutated skinny genes (and you thought those were just clothing trends).

Interestingly, the notion that calories in vs. calories out and food type both contribute to obesity presents somewhat of a conundrum to people battling weight.  Some will say, “I don’t eat junk food, and I just cannot seem to lose weight.”  Then you eat too much, is my answer.  No, I don’t eat too much.  Then the types of foods you are eating are poor choices.  No, that’s not it either.  Okay, then what is it?  It’s genetics.  Oh, you mean fatness runs in your family.  Well, no…I have a gene.  But nobody else in your family is fat?  Well yes…both my parents.  Listen that’s called nurture–what you were exposed growing up, your learned behaviors–not necessarily genetics, or nature.  All you are doing when you blame it on your genetics is pulling yourself out of the equation, and I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t cut it.  Genetics, hormones, lack of sleep, blah, blah, blah…yes, okay, they contribute…but not more than your food choices do, both in quantity and quality.

I’m going to discuss hormonal factors in weight gain in the next post on the subject, as well as list some factors that are primary in the development and maintenance of obesity.  Just remember that food choices matter–the types of foods you eat (whole, natural foods that you prepare yourself are best), as well as how much you eat.  Denying basic physiological principles isn’t going to make one dent in the obesity epidemic, so the fools doing just that are merely perpetuating the problem.

Cap’n Crunch Sabathia No More: His Surefire Weight-Loss Plan

By On · Add Comment · In calories, Cap'n Crunch, CC Sabathia, diabetes, New York Yankees, nutrition, obesity epidemic, soda, sugar
New York Yankees pitcher CC Sabathia is reporting to spring training 25 lbs lighter.  The secret: He kicked the Cap’n Crunch.  Aw yeh, the former fat-boy is weighing in at a svelte 290, not bad for a 6’7″ frame.  And to think he did it all with one simple change.  Just think of what that might mean for you or your kids!

Sabathia, the Yankees ace, weighed in at a whopping 315 lbs last season, when he was knocking down a full box of Cap’n Crunch every day!  Each box of Cap’n Crunch has 12.59 servings, each serving has 12 grams of sugar, making a box of the sugary cereal contain a total of 151 grams of sugar.  Further, the nutritional info on the box lists the number of calories at 217 per double serving.  Therefore, a full box of Cap’n Crunch contains 1,366 calories.  Dang!

To put this into perspective, a soda (Coke, let’s say) contains 40 grams of sugar and 150 calories per 12 oz. can.  More perspective: one teaspoon of sugar equals about six grams; therefore, a can of soda has about seven teaspoons of sugar (see video below**).  Even more perspective: Most sugar packets found in the U.S. have approximately 4 grams of sugar, thus a can of soda contains ten packets of sugar (U.S.).

Now back to Sabathia.  His one full box of Cap’n Crunch a day gave him a sugar equivalent of drinking 4 sodas, 25 teaspoons of sugar, or 38 sugar packets.  Nice, CC…nice.

*A report released in 2009 by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale gave Cap’n Crunch’s Crunch Berries the worst nutritional score of any cereal marketed to children and families. ~ from Wikipedia

How about your kids?  Do they eat Cap’n Crunch?  Fruit Loops?  Frosted Flakes?  Do they drink soda?  These cereals and soft drinks have been staples in the American diet for the last fifty years, and it’s not because people aren’t consuming them.  It’s not just 6’7″ professional athletes eating this junk, either.  It’s little Timmy, and little Rainflower, and maybe even you.

Listen, next time you’re thinking about feeding Junior the Cap’n Crunch, why not just give him a Snickers bar?  Same amount of sugar as in a two-serving bowl of the Crunch.  And is it any wonder we are in the midst of an obesity (and diabetes) epidemic?

**Please watch the video below to get great perspective on the amount of sugar contained in a soda:

My Daughter Takes Kids Vitamins

By On · Add Comment · In children, diet, nutrients, nutrition, parents, supplements, vitamins

Most everybody knows that I place a high importance of supplementing with vitamins. I think it’s pretty impossible for the average person to get the full amount of nutrients they need from food alone. It’s possible but unlikely.

So if I think adults need to take vitamins, do you think I feel it’s necessary for children, too? You bet I do; so I make sure my children take their daily vitamins as a supplement to their healthy diets. I like Jarrow Kids Multi because they taste good, and Jarrow products have exactly what their label says they do. They’ve been tested by a third party organization, so I know I’m giving my children the best.

If you want to make sure your children are getting the best nutrition possible, consider supplementing their healthy diets with vitamins. You’ll get to see them grow vibrantly into healthy and energetic little beings. That’s the greatest gift any parent can ask for.

We Need MORE Statins!

By On · Add Comment · In cholesterol, nutrition, statins
More, more, more. We need more statins. What’s the delay: MORE STATINS! Is anybody listening?

Somebody must be, because statin use jumped 156% from 2000 to 2005. Woowee! Anybody, get the implications of this? Let me explain it this way. Either Americans are ignoring conventional wisdom and wolfing down cholesterol causing fatty foods like there’s no tomorrow–foods that we all know we should be avoiding (Don’t our doctors, and television commercials, and magazine articles, and New York City government, and Hollywood movies, and our neighbors, and the newspapers and radio stations all tell us endlessly that we should avoid fatty foods and trans fats and all the other cholesterol increasing substances, I mean, don’t we all know that?), yet cholesterol levels are spiraling out of control, and millions of us are on the verge of a heart attack or worse! right now–orrrr,  we are being duped like never before? Hmmm, let me think about this.

In 2000 15.9 million people were taking statins; in 2005, 29.7 million. That’s 10% of the entire population. Ten percent of the entire country has dangerously high cholesterol levels and needs to be on statins? Yeah. B.S.

OK, OK, let’s look at it this way instead: In 2000 Americans spent about $484 a year on statins for a total cost of $7.7 billion. In 2005, we spent $661 per year for a total of $19.7 billion.

So, let’s see, what makes more sense to you? Are the numbers of statin prescriptions going up because we are all so pathetically ignorant and weak-willed that we just can’t possibly stop our indulgences, despite pervasive dietary and nutritional information being pumped at us from all directions OR is somebody making a shipload of money from this crock of cow dung?

You decide.

Good Nutrition Leads to Bigger Bucks

By On · Add Comment · In childhood, childhood feeding programs, earning power, feeding, growth, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), nutrient, nutrition, nutritious foods, poverty, real food

There’s a popular belief that earning power leads to better nutrition. Seems like a simple cause and effect. I personally don’t buy it, as I know that fast-food restaurants do quite well in poorer neighborhoods; and fast-food isn’t cheap. Nutritious foods can be purchased for the same amount of money–or less!

But now we know for sure that the reverse is true; that better nutrition, especially in early childhood, can lead to greater earning power later in life. So says a long-term study conducted in Guatemala, which researchers point out could lead to less poverty through childhood feeding programs. Hallelujah! Now that’s science that makes sense. Finally a study that doesn’t try to squeeze the data to fit a particular (and often political when it comes to poverty) viewpoint. Just plain ol’ data collection, analysis and final conclusions. Crazy thing that science.

The study looked at 1,500 people that had been involved in a nutrition study between 1969 and 1977 with some receiving a nutrient-rich protein porridge-like drink and others receiving a less nutritious placebo. They found that men who had received the nutritious porridge before the age of three earned 46% more per hour than those who did not. Children over three years old receiving the nutritious porridge showed no increase in earning power. These results show that early childhood nutrition through feeding is crucial, especially since many well-known programs–like the United Nation’s World Food Program–focus on early childhood nutrition through supplementation and save the feeding programs for older kids.

I always say that there is no substitute for real food–regardless of age. Supplements are good to supplement real food, not substitute for them. And real food should be the focus for all children, especially at the early age. So much development happens in the first few years of life, and young children need basic building blocks for proper growth and tissue formation; and this can only be gotten from real food. Bravo to the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) for conducting this study–it should help developing nations, and it should help us here at home.

A Welcomed–If Not Temporary–Victory

By On · Add Comment · In calorie content, calories, fast-food, nutrition, real food

Yay! A judges ruling last week has allowed New York’s fast food restaurants to ignore posting calorie and fat counts on their menus. Basically, a pre-existing federal law takes restaurants that voluntarily provide this information off the hook. As long as they provide nutritional information somewhere–on tray papers or Web sites, for instance–they cannot be restricted in how they comply with city law.

Thank goodness. As I’ve said in earlier posts (here, and here), nothing is dumber than the government stepping in where individual discretion is warranted. Do we really need the government to tell us what’s junk and what’s real food? Please. All that would do is hurt businesses that provide a product the public wants–junk food. And it takes the responsibility away from the individual. We’ll never see an increase in national health until people become responsible for theirs, plain and simple.

Interestingly, this is being proved by yet another recent study. Researchers have found that people consistently underestimate the calorie content of foods served at restaurants they consider healthier, like Subway, for example. In the study, researchers asked people who had just finished eating at Subway or McDonalds to estimate how many calories they had just consumed. On average, Subway diners underestimated their calorie intake by 151 calories–that is, they mistakenly believed they were eating less calories by eating a 12-inch turkey sandwich than by eating a Big Mac, although both have exactly the same amount of calories. What this then led to was the Subway diners ordering more sodas and cookies than the McDonalds diners, giving them actually more calories overall. This meant that, on average, Subway diners wound up consuming 1,011 calories, compared to 648 calories for the people eating McDonalds. Whoa. Get it? People make assumptions about food, and these assumptions lead to poor food decisions.

But wait, if calorie and fat content is posted won’t it lead to people making better decisions? Not necessarily, because only fast food restaurants would be required to post such information (more on this concept here). So, in my opinion, people will go to the local Whole Foods and pig out because they assume it’s healthier. Should Whole Foods then post calorie content? How about Spago? I’ve got a better idea: How about understanding two basic principles instead:

  1. Fast food is junk that should only be eaten periodically
  2. How much one eats is as important as what one eats

Got it? Eating too many carrots, falafel, or soy veggie burgers is just as detrimental to the health as an occasional Big Mac. True, carrots have a greater vitamin and nutrient content, but people aren’t using this as their criteria yet.

I just don’t see calorie reporting at fast food restaurants as being the answer, and worse, I think it will lead people down the wrong road. Just understand the basics about food, and practice prudent principles. Don’t know what they are? Get yourself a copy of The Six Keys To Optimal Health–it’s all in there–and you’ll be sure to make the right decisions.

Oh the Irony…

By On · Add Comment · In adverse drug reactions, calories, fast-food, fat, health, junk food, nutrition, obesity, saturated fat, trans fat, unnecessary surgeries
The American Medical Association has said it wants fast-food restaurants to post nutritional factson their menus as a means to combat obesity. These facts should include calories, grams of fat, grams of saturated fat, and grams of trans fat in each fast food item.You probably already know how I feel about this notion if you’ve read my June 18th post, Barking up the Wrong Tree. Not only do I think it’s ludicrous to penalize fast-food chains (what about pizza parlors, ice cream shops, candy stores, Chinese restaurants and burger stands, like Fat Burger and every other junk food supplier?), it ain’t gonna do diddly if people don’t value there health to begin with.

“No, you’re wrong Campos. People will make better choices if they can see how many calories they’re consuming.” Poppycock! This information has been on food packaging for years at our country’s biggest supplier of junk food – the good ol‘ fashioned grocery chain. That’s right, the American institution known as the grocery store is the largest pusher of junk food in the world, and they’ve been advertising calories and fat counts for ever. It hasn’t stopped people yet from stuffing their faces full of Dinty Moore Beef Stew. And neither will it help people choose between the Double Quarter Pounder and the MacSoy Melt.

I find it especially hysterical that the AMA is promoting this idea. Wait. I’ve got a better idea. Why don’t fast-food restaurants include this information on the back of their receipts in technical language and with the smallest print the human eye can distinguish – just like they do with prescription medications? That’ll at least put them up to par with the medical/pharmaceutical industries as responsible informers.

And here’s another good idea: why not have medical offices post the number of deaths associated with adverse drug reactions (also see here) and unnecessary surgeries (and here, and here) in their waiting rooms so that people know just what they’re in for. Think the AMA will push for that kind of responsible advertising anytime soon?

More links on unnecessary surgeries:
Life Extensions Magazine,
Dr. Joeseph Mercola
New York Times

Google unnecessary surgeries or adverse drug reactions and get blown away.

Obesity and Malnutrition

By On · Add Comment · In calories, energy, malnourished, malnutrition, nutrients, nutrition, obese, vitamins

Some people mistakenly believe that malnutrition is a condition restricted to the underfed and starving. The truth is that anyone can be malnourished regardless of body shape and size. Malnourishment means simply–lack of adequate nutrition. Case in point: Experts in Britain have disclosed that 2 million obese people in that country are also malnourished.

Total calories is not the definitive factor in the amount of nourishment – energy, nutrients and sustenance – a body receives. To be healthy, and to function adequately, the human body needs calories (for energy), vitamins and minerals (for metabolic processes), and enzymes and antioxidants. If one takes in a large amount of nutrient poor foods – like most processed fast foods – then malnutrition, and obesity, will result.

As I point out in my upcoming book, The Six Keys To Optimal Health, obesity can actually be countered by adopting a diet high in nutrient rich foods. By making sure the body is getting adequate nutrients, one can actually stave off the hunger response, which, along with other things, can then lead to a decrease in weight.

WARNING: OVERUSE OF SPORTS CREAMS CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH

On another note, many chiropractors, including me, use sports muscle cream to massage sore, stiff and spasmed muscles before administering a chiropractic adjustment. They are very useful in working out those tense, tight areas and they feel good, giving the client a warm soothing feeling for about a half an hour following treatment.

A story has just broke of 17-year-old girl in New York who has died following the overuse of such creams. It seems that the girl, a cross country runner, was using the creams “to excess” according to the medical examiner, which included spreading the cream on her legs, wearing adhesive pads, and also using an unspecified third product. These products contain methyl-salicylate, an anti-inflammatory and pain reliever (or analgesic).

As this story gets more attention, please don’t be afraid to have this product used occasionally. As with any medication, it’s overuse that causes problems – addictions, toxicity, death – and not moderate use. Having this lotion used as an adjunct to massage is totally safe, as was pointed out by the medical examiner in the case, this was “the first time that her office had reported a death from using a sports cream”. And another important aspect to the story is just because a medication, spray, salve or ointment is sold over the counter doesn’t mean it is safe to be used indiscriminately. Read labels and use medical products MODERATELY. Nuff said.

Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved.