November kicks off the holiday season with high expectations for a cozy and festive time of year. However, for many this time of year is tinged with sadness, anxiety, or depression. Certainly, major depression or a severe anxiety disorder benefits most from professional help. But what about those who just feel lost or overwhelmed or down at this time of year? Research (and common sense) suggests that one aspect of the Thanksgiving season can actually lift the spirits, and it’s built right into the holiday — expressing gratitude.

The word gratitude is derived from the Latin word gratia , which means grace, graciousness, or gratefulness (depending on the context). In some ways gratitude encompasses all of these meanings. Gratitude is a thankful appreciation for what an individual receives, whether tangible or intangible. With gratitude, people acknowledge the goodness in their lives. In the process, people usually recognize that the source of that goodness lies at least partially outside themselves. As a result, gratitude also helps people connect to something larger than themselves as individuals — whether to other people, nature, or a higher power.

In positive psychology research, gratitude is strongly and consistently associated with greater happiness. Gratitude helps people feel more positive emotions, relish good experiences, improve their health, deal with adversity, and build strong relationships.

People feel and express gratitude in multiple ways. They can apply it to the past (retrieving positive memories and being thankful for elements of childhood or past blessings), the present (not taking good fortune for granted as it comes), and the future (maintaining a hopeful and optimistic attitude). Regardless of the inherent or current level of someone’s gratitude, it’s a quality that individuals can successfully cultivate further.

Research on gratitude

Two psychologists, Dr. Robert A. Emmons of the University of California, Davis, and Dr. Michael E. McCullough of the University of Miami, have done much of the research on gratitude. In one study, they asked all participants to write a few sentences each week, focusing on particular topics.

One group wrote about things they were grateful for that had occurred during the week. A second group wrote about daily irritations or things that had displeased them, and the third wrote about events that had affected them (with no emphasis on them being positive or negative). After 10 weeks, those who wrote about gratitude were more optimistic and felt better about their lives. Surprisingly, they also exercised more and had fewer visits to physicians than those who focused on sources of aggravation.

Another leading researcher in this field, Dr. Martin E. P. Seligman, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, tested the impact of various positive psychology interventions on 411 people, each compared with a control assignment of writing about early memories. When their week’s assignment was to write and personally deliver a letter of gratitude to someone who had never been properly thanked for his or her kindness, participants immediately exhibited a huge increase in happiness scores. This impact was greater than that from any other intervention, with benefits lasting for a month.

Of course, studies such as this one cannot prove cause and effect. But most of the studies published on this topic support an association between gratitude and an individual’s well-being.

Other studies have looked at how gratitude can improve relationships. For example, a study of couples found that individuals who took time to express gratitude for their partner not only felt more positive toward the other person but also felt more comfortable expressing concerns about their relationship.

Managers who remember to say “thank you” to people who work for them may find that those employees feel motivated to work harder. Researchers at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania randomly divided university fund-raisers into two groups. One group made phone calls to solicit alumni donations in the same way they always had. The second group — assigned to work on a different day — received a pep talk from the director of annual giving, who told the fund-raisers she was grateful for their efforts. During the following week, the university employees who heard her message of gratitude made 50% more fund-raising calls than those who did not.

There are some notable exceptions to the generally positive results in research on gratitude. One study found that middle-aged divorced women who kept gratitude journals were no more satisfied with their lives than those who did not. Another study found that children and adolescents who wrote and delivered a thank-you letter to someone who made a difference in their lives may have made the other person happier — but did not improve their own well-being. This finding suggests that gratitude is an attainment associated with emotional maturity.

Ways to cultivate gratitude

Gratitude is a way for people to appreciate what they have instead of always reaching for something new in the hopes it will make them happier, or thinking they can’t feel satisfied until every physical and material need is met. Gratitude helps people refocus on what they have instead of what they lack. And, although it may feel contrived at first, this mental state grows stronger with use and practice.

Here are some ways to cultivate gratitude on a regular basis.

Write a thank-you note. You can make yourself happier and nurture your relationship with another person by writing a thank-you letter expressing your enjoyment and appreciation of that person’s impact on your life. Send it, or better yet, deliver and read it in person if possible. Make a habit of sending at least one gratitude letter a month. Once in a while, write one to yourself.

Thank someone mentally. No time to write? It may help just to think about someone who has done something nice for you, and mentally thank the individual.

Keep a gratitude journal. Make it a habit to write down or share with a loved one thoughts about the gifts you’ve received each day.

Count your blessings. Pick a time every week to sit down and write about your blessings — reflecting on what went right or what you are grateful for. Sometimes it helps to pick a number — such as three to five things — that you will identify each week. As you write, be specific and think about the sensations you felt when something good happened to you.

Pray. People who are religious can use prayer to cultivate gratitude.

Meditate. Mindfulness meditation involves focusing on the present moment without judgment. Although people often focus on a word or phrase (such as “peace”), it is also possible to focus on what you’re grateful for (the warmth of the sun, a pleasant sound, etc.).

Friends, 

We know that Thanksgiving can be a challenging holiday when you are watching what you eat and, most importantly, what you don’t eat. If you are brining some dishes to a family celebration or cooking yourself, we suggest that you take a look at these great ideas from Mark Bittman over at the New York Times. Although we would suggest staying away from the desserts, you might surprise your family with some healthy dishes like a beet or butternut squash salad. 

You can check out the cooking videos here.

Our team at Talita Kum Clinic wishes you all a great and healthy Thanksgiving!

Sincerely, 

Talita Kum Clinic

Por Genevra Pittman

NUEVA YORK (Reuters Health) - En un estudio sobre más de 20.000 afroamericanas de Estados Unidos, las consumidoras de dos o más porciones diarias de frutas eran menos propensas a desarrollar fibroides uterinos que las que apenas probaban esos alimentos.

Los fibroides no siempre producen síntomas, pero pueden causar dolor o hacer que el período sea más prolongado y abundante. En algunos casos, pueden causar complicaciones en el embarazo y la fertilidad.

Las afroamericanas son hasta tres veces más propensas que las blancas a desarrollarlos.

El equipo de Lauren Wise, de la Boston University, estudió a un grupo de mujeres de 30 años durante más de una década para determinar si el consumo de frutas y verduras influía de alguna manera en la probabilidad de desarrollar esos crecimientos no cancerosos en el tejido uterino.

“Muchas mujeres asumen que tener fibroides, y sus síntomas, es algo que no se puede evitar”, dijo la doctora Elizabeth Stewart, de la Clínica Mayo, en Rochester, Minnesota, y que no participó del estudio.

“Aunque no queda demostrado que modificar la alimentación reduzca el riesgo de desarrollarlos, sí revela una relación entre la dieta y los fibroides. Una alimentación saludable, rica en frutas y verduras es buena para la salud general y podría serlo para (evitar) los fibroides”, agregó.

Los resultados del estudio surgen de las participantes del ensayo Black Women’s Health Study que desde 1995 informaron con qué frecuencia ingerían distintos alimentos. Los cuestionarios anuales registraron también cuántos diagnósticos recibían las participantes.

Según las respuestas, al 29 por ciento de las 23.000 mujeres se les diagnosticaron fibroides uterinos entre 1997 y el 2009.

Las consumidoras de por lo menos cuatro porciones diarias de frutas y verduras eran un 10 por ciento menos propensas a desarrollar fibroides que las que ingerían menos de una porción diaria.

Cuando el equipo analizó por separado el consumo de frutas y verduras, observó que las que ingerían dos o más porciones diarias de frutas, por ejemplo, eran un 11 por ciento menos propensas a decir que habían desarrollado fibroides que las que consumían dos porciones semanales, según publica el equipo en American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

El equipo no halló relación entre la cantidad de vitamina C o E, folato o fibra consumida y el riesgo de desarrollar fibroides, pero los resultados sugieren que ingerir más vitamina A de productos lácteos también estaría asociado con una reducción del riesgo de tener fibroides.

Wise sugirió que los antioxidantes de las frutas reducirían ese riesgo quizás al influir en la función de los esteroides sexuales, como el estrógeno del organismo.

“Nuestro estudio sugiere que (la prevención de) los fibroides uterinos ya se puede sumar a la lista de efectos potencialmente beneficiosos para la salud de un mayor consumo de frutas y verduras”, indicó.

Por su parte, Stewart dijo: “La genética de los fibroides podría variar según la etnia. Además, hay otros factores que influyen en la aparición de los fibroides que sí dependen de la etnia (…) Pero, hasta ahora, nadie pudo explicar la gran brecha en la prevalencia y los síntomas”.

FUENTE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, diciembre del 2011

Un pequeño estudio halló que tres kiwis al día reducían los niveles más que una manzana al día

MARTES, 15 de noviembre (HealthDay News) — Una manzana al día no necesariamente garantiza no tener que ir al médico, pero quizás tres kiwis ayuden, al menos según un pequeño estudio que ha mostrado que la peluda fruta marrón podría ayudar a reducir los niveles de presión arterial.

Los hombres y las mujeres con hipertensión leve que comieron tres kiwis al día durante ocho semanas tenían niveles de presión arterial sistólica 3.6 milímetros de mercurio más baja que los voluntarios que comieron una manzana al día. La presión arterial sistólica es el número superior en una medida de la presión arterial.

Los kiwis son pequeños, pero su verde carne es muy nutritiva. Son ricos en luteína, un potente antioxidante, y quizás eso sea responsable de sus poderes para reducir la presión, dijeron investigadores liderados por Mette Svendsen del Hospital Universitario de Oslo, en Noruega. El estudio fue presentado el martes en la reunión anual de la American Heart Association en Orlando, Florida.

Los cardiólogos advirtieron rápidamente que no hay un solo alimento o ingrediente mágico que sea la clave de la salud cardiaca, pero todos concurrieron en que el kiwi podría tener un lugar en las cinco porciones diarias de frutas y verduras que actualmente se recomiendan como parte de una dieta saludable para el corazón.

El nuevo estudio incluyó a 50 hombres y 68 mujeres con una edad promedio de 55 años que se asignaron al azar a comer tres kiwis o una manzana al día durante ocho semanas. Al inicio del estudio, los participantes tenían una presión arterial en el rango ligeramente elevado de 128/85. Una presión arterial inferior a 120/80 se considera ideal. No cambiaron nada en la dieta excepto añadir la fruta. Los investigadores midieron la presión arterial mediante monitorización ambulatoria las 24 horas del día, que se cree es una forma más precisa de medición que en un solo momento del día.

El Hospital Universitario de Oslo financió el estudio.

“Tres kiwis al día mejoraron la presión arterial de 24 horas más que una manzana al día”, concluyeron los investigadores.

Entonces, ¿es el kiwi la nueva fruta “milagrosa”?

“Es biológicamente verosímil, pero no correré a comer tres kiwis al día”, señaló el Dr. Nehal Mehta, cardiólogo preventivo del Hospital de la Universidad de Pensilvania, en Filadelfia. “No son tan fáciles de encontrar como otras frutas”.

La moderación es la clave con los kiwis o cualquier otra comida, apuntó. “Tres kiwis al día o 21 kiwis por semana no parece moderación, así que aconsejaría no comer tantos”, enfatizó.

El nuevo estudio “llama la atención sobre los kiwis”, comentó. “Cuando aconsejamos comer más fruta fresca, comemos la tradicional o cualquier cosa a la que se le pueda quitar la cáscara y agarrar con la mano, pero estos hallazgos sugieren que un kiwi puede ser parte de una dieta sana para el corazón”, apuntó.

Además, el estudio observó toda la fruta, no nutrientes individuales. No comience a tomar luteína como complemento basándose en estos resultados, anotó.

La Dra. Suzanne Steinbaum, cardióloga preventiva del Hospital Lenox Hill en la ciudad de Nueva York, estuvo de acuerdo. “El kiwi no es una fruta milagrosa, pero ciertamente añadirla a la dieta puede ayudar a reducir los niveles ligeramente elevados de presión arterial”.

El Dr. Elliott M. Antman, profesor de medicina de la Facultad de medicina de la Universidad de Harvard en Boston, dijo que aunque es promisorio, el nuevo estudio es pequeño. “No cuente con que esto sea la respuesta completa a la hipertensión”, dijo. Haga lo que haga, “no deje de tomar antihipertensivos sin hablar con el médico”, añadió.

Debido a que este estudio se presentó en una reunión médica, sus datos y conclusiones deben ser considerados como preliminares hasta que se publiquen en una revista revisada por profesionales.

Foods like olive oil and avocados may help body use insulin

WEDNESDAY, Nov. 16 (HealthDay News) — A new study offers further evidence that a Mediterranean-style diet is good for your heart.

The research found that unsaturated fats from foods such as avocados, olive oil and nuts increase the body’s ability to use insulin. Reduced insulin action can lead to diabetes, which is a risk factor for heart disease.

Researchers examined how three different types of balanced diets consumed by 164 people with mild hypertension but no diabetes affected the body’s ability to maintain healthy insulin levels and regulate blood sugar levels. The three diets were rich in either carbohydrates, protein or unsaturated fats such as those found in olive oil.

The participants ate each of the three diets for six weeks in a row, with two to four weeks off in between each diet. Blood samples were used to monitor insulin and glucose levels.

The diet rich in unsaturated fats improved insulin use significantly more than the high-carbohydrate diet, which featured refined carbohydrates such as pasta and white bread.

This beneficial effect of the unsaturated fat diet occurred even though the participants did not lose weight.

“A lot of studies have looked at how the body becomes better at using insulin when you lose weight,” Dr. Meghana Gadgil, a postdoctoral fellow in the division of general internal medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, said in a Hopkins news release. “We kept the weight stable so we could isolate the effects of the macronutrients. What we found is that you can begin to see a beneficial impact on heart health even before weight loss.”

The researchers said their findings show that dietary changes can improve heart health in those at risk for cardiovascular disease, even if they don’t lose weight.

“The introduction of the right kind of fat into a healthy diet is another tool to reduce the risk of future heart disease,” Gadgil said.

The study was to be presented Wednesday during the American Heart Association’s annual meeting in Orlando, Fla. Because this study was presented at a medical meeting, the data and conclusions should be viewed as preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Two studies show diet can affect mobility of sperm, quality of semen

MONDAY, Oct. 17 (HealthDay News) — For years, nutritionists have rallied around the notion that “you are what you eat.”

Now, new research suggests this adage might even extend to the strength and quantity of sperm.

The observation stems from a pair of studies slated for presentation Monday at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine annual meeting in Orlando, Fla., both of which highlight an apparent linkage between nutrition and semen quality.

The upshot: Diets rich in red meat and processed grains seem to impair the ability of sperm to move about, while diets high in trans fats appear to lower the amount of sperm found in semen.

“The main overall finding of our work is that a healthy diet seems to be beneficial for semen quality,” said Audrey J. Gaskins, lead author of the first study. Currently a doctoral candidate in Harvard School of Public Health’s department of nutrition in Boston, Gaskins’ colleagues included researchers from both the University of Rochester and the University of Murcia in Spain.

“Specifically, a healthy diet composed of a higher intake of fish, fresh fruit, whole grains, legumes and vegetables seems to improve sperm motility,” Gaskins explained, “which means a higher number of sperm actually move around, rather than sit still.”

Gaskin’s conclusions are based on work with 188 men between the ages of 18 and 22, who were recruited in Rochester. Food questionnaires were completed, and participant diets were categorized as being either “Western” in content (including red meat, refined carbs, sweets and energy drinks) or so-called “Prudent” (composed of fish, fruit, vegetables, legumes and whole grains).

Semen tests were then conducted to assess sperm movement, concentration and shape.

Although diet seemed to have no impact on either sperm shape or number, motility was impacted, with “Western” diets linked to reduced movement, even after accounting for factors such as race, smoking history and body-mass index (BMI).

Gaskins stressed, however, that more work is needed to better understand exactly how nutrition can affect sperm.

“This was a small study, and we don’t know if there’s something else about the men that causes them to have worse motility,” she noted. “We don’t know if nutrition actually causes the change. So, for now all we can say is that there’s an association between nutrition and sperm quality.”

On a similar front, a second study led by Dr. Jorge Chavarro, an assistant professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, revealed that men who eat diets that contain a relatively high amount of trans fat had lower sperm concentration levels. What’s more, the amount of trans fat found in their sperm and semen went up.

The conclusion was drawn from work with nearly 100 men, all of whom underwent a nutritional and semen quality analysis.

Even after adjusting for a wide array of factors such as age, drinking and smoking histories, BMI, caffeine intake and total calories consumed, the authors found that although trans-fat intake appeared to have no impact on sperm movement of shape, the more trans fatty acids consumed the lower an individual’s sperm concentration.

Dr. Edward Kim, from the University of Tennessee’s graduate school of medicine in Knoxville, reacted to both studies with enthusiasm and caution.

“I think that this research is certainly very suggestive that dietary factors may have an impact on male infertility,” said Kim, who also serves as president of the Society for Male Reproduction and Urology.

“And the studies point us in a direction that suggest that a healthy lifestyle may correlate with better quality sperm,” he added. “But clearly further research in this area is needed to come up with definitive conclusions.”

Because both studies were presented at a medical meeting, the data and conclusions should be viewed as preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Por Amy Norton

NUEVA YORK (Reuters Health) - Las personas que beben menos de un par de vasos diarios de agua serían más propensas a desarrollar niveles de azúcar en sangre anormalmente altos.

Cuando eso ocurre, aunque no de manera suficiente como para encajar en la definición clínica de diabetes, los médicos consideran que la persona tiene “prediabetes”.

En el nuevo estudio, los adultos que bebían medio litro de agua (dos vasos) o menos por día eran más propensos que los que bebían más agua a tener los niveles de azúcar en sangre en el rango prediabético.

Esto demuestra una correlación entre el consumo de agua y el azúcar en sangre, pero no prueba una relación causa-efecto entre ambos, según confirmó la autora principal, Lise Bankir, del instituto francés de investigación INSERM.

Aun así, la relación sería biológicamente viable, aclaró Bankir.

Una hormona llamada vasopresina podría ser el eslabón perdido.

La vasopresina, u hormona antidiurética, regula la retención de líquido en el organismo. Cuando nos deshidratamos, sus niveles aumentan para que los riñones conserven agua. Pero algunos estudios habían sugerido que altos niveles de vasopresina también elevarían la glucosa (azúcar) en sangre.

Hay receptores de vasopresina en el hígado, el órgano que produce la glucosa en el organismo.

Los resultados surgen de 3.615 adultos franceses, de entre 30 y 65 años, con niveles normales de glucosa en sangre al inicio del estudio.

Un 19 por ciento dijo que bebía menos de medio litro de agua por día; el resto consumía un litro o más.

En los nueve años siguientes, 565 participantes tuvieron niveles anormalmente elevados de azúcar en sangre y 202 desarrollaron diabetes tipo 2.

Cuando el equipo analizó el nivel de riesgo de los participantes, según el consumo de agua, halló que los que bebían por lo menos medio litro por día eran un 28 por ciento menos propensos a tener un aumento de la glucosa en sangre que los que bebían menos agua aún.

Pero no se observó una relación estadísticamente sólida entre el consumo de agua y el riesgo de desarrollar diabetes.

Una explicación obvia de la conexión con el aumento del nivel de glucosa en sangre sería que las personas que beben poca cantidad de agua consumirían más bebidas azucaradas.

Pero el equipo consideró el consumo de ese tipo de bebidas y alcohol, como así también el peso, el ejercicio y otros factores asociados con la salud, y la relación entre el bajo consumo de agua y el alto nivel de glucosa en sangre se mantuvo.

“Las conductas más saludables que están asociadas con un mayor consumo de agua podrían explicar la relación observada”, escribe el equipo.

Según Bankir, se necesitan más estudios para confirmar estos resultados. Pero, por ahora, recomendó reemplazar con agua las bebidas azucaradas ricas en calorías.

FUENTE: Diabetes Care, 12 de octubre del 2011

By Mark Bittman

THE “fact” that junk food is cheaper than real food has become a reflexive part of how we explain why so many Americans are overweight, particularly those with lower incomes. I frequently read confident statements like, “when a bag of chips is cheaper than a head of broccoli …” or “it’s more affordable to feed a family of four at McDonald’s than to cook a healthy meal for them at home.”

This is just plain wrong. In fact it isn’t cheaper to eat highly processed food: a typical order for a family of four — for example, two Big Macs, a cheeseburger, six chicken McNuggets, two medium and two small fries, and two medium and two small sodas — costs, at the McDonald’s a hundred steps from where I write, about $28. (Judicious ordering of “Happy Meals” can reduce that to about $23 — and you get a few apple slices in addition to the fries!)

In general, despite extensive government subsidies, hyperprocessed food remains more expensive than food cooked at home. You can serve a roasted chicken with vegetables along with a simple salad and milk for about $14, and feed four or even six people. If that’s too much money, substitute a meal of rice and canned beans with bacon, green peppers and onions; it’s easily enough for four people and costs about $9. (Omitting the bacon, using dried beans, which are also lower in sodium, or substituting carrots for the peppers reduces the price further, of course.)

Another argument runs that junk food is cheaper when measured by the calorie, and that this makes fast food essential for the poor because they need cheap calories. But given that half of the people in this country (and a higher percentage of poor people) consume too many calories rather than too few, measuring food’s value by the calorie makes as much sense as measuring a drink’s value by its alcohol content. (Why not drink 95 percent neutral grain spirit, the cheapest way to get drunk?)

Besides, that argument, even if we all needed to gain weight, is not always true. A meal of real food cooked at home can easily contain more calories, most of them of the “healthy” variety. (Olive oil accounts for many of the calories in the roast chicken meal, for example.)In comparing prices of real food and junk food, I used supermarket ingredients, not the pricier organic or local food that many people would consider ideal. But food choices are not black and white; the alternative to fast food is not necessarily organic food, any more than the alternative to soda is Bordeaux.

The alternative to soda is water, and the alternative to junk food is not grass-fed beef and greens from a trendy farmers’ market, but anything other than junk food: rice, grains, pasta, beans, fresh vegetables, canned vegetables, frozen vegetables, meat, fish, poultry, dairy products, bread, peanut butter, a thousand other things cooked at home — in almost every case a far superior alternative.

“Anything that you do that’s not fast food is terrific; cooking once a week is far better than not cooking at all,” says Marion Nestle, professor of food studies at New York University and author of “What to Eat.” “It’s the same argument as exercise: more is better than less and some is a lot better than none.”

THE fact is that most people can afford real food. Even the nearly 50 million Americans who are enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps) receive about $5 per person per day, which is far from ideal but enough to survive. So we have to assume that money alone doesn’t guide decisions about what to eat. There are, of course, the so-called food deserts, places where it’s hard to find food: the Department of Agriculture says that more than two million Americans in low-income rural areas live 10 miles or more from a supermarket, and more than five million households without access to cars live more than a half mile from a supermarket.

Still, 93 percent of those with limited access to supermarkets do have access to vehicles, though it takes them 20 more minutes to travel to the store than the national average. And after a long day of work at one or even two jobs, 20 extra minutes — plus cooking time — must seem like an eternity.

Taking the long route to putting food on the table may not be easy, but for almost all Americans it remains a choice, and if you can drive to McDonald’s you can drive to Safeway. It’s cooking that’s the real challenge. (The real challenge is not “I’m too busy to cook.” In 2010 the average American, regardless of weekly earnings, watched no less than an hour and a half of television per day. The time is there.)

The core problem is that cooking is defined as work, and fast food is both a pleasure and a crutch. “People really are stressed out with all that they have to do, and they don’t want to cook,” says Julie Guthman, associate professor of community studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and author of the forthcoming “Weighing In: Obesity, Food Justice and the Limits of Capitalism.” “Their reaction is, ‘Let me enjoy what I want to eat, and stop telling me what to do.’ And it’s one of the few things that less well-off people have: they don’t have to cook.”

It’s not just about choice, however, and rational arguments go only so far, because money and access and time and skill are not the only considerations. The ubiquity, convenience and habit-forming appeal of hyperprocessed foods have largely drowned out the alternatives: there are five fast-food restaurants for every supermarket in the United States; in recent decades the adjusted for inflation price of fresh produce has increased by 40 percent while the price of soda and processed food has decreased by as much as 30 percent; and nearly inconceivable resources go into encouraging consumption in restaurants: fast-food companies spent $4.2 billion on marketing in 2009.

Furthermore, the engineering behind hyperprocessed food makes it virtually addictive. A 2009 study by the Scripps Research Institute indicates that overconsumption of fast food “triggers addiction-like neuroaddictive responses” in the brain, making it harder to trigger the release of dopamine. In other words the more fast food we eat, the more we need to give us pleasure; thus the report suggests that the same mechanisms underlie drug addiction and obesity.

This addiction to processed food is the result of decades of vision and hard work by the industry. For 50 years, says David A. Kessler, former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and author of “The End of Overeating,” companies strove to create food that was “energy-dense, highly stimulating, and went down easy. They put it on every street corner and made it mobile, and they made it socially acceptable to eat anytime and anyplace. They created a food carnival, and that’s where we live. And if you’re used to self-stimulation every 15 minutes, well, you can’t run into the kitchen to satisfy that urge.”

Real cultural changes are needed to turn this around. Somehow, no-nonsense cooking and eating — roasting a chicken, making a grilled cheese sandwich, scrambling an egg, tossing a salad — must become popular again, and valued not just by hipsters in Brooklyn or locavores in Berkeley. The smart campaign is not to get McDonald’s to serve better food but to get people to see cooking as a joy rather than a burden, or at least as part of a normal life.

As with any addictive behavior, this one is most easily countered by educating children about the better way. Children, after all, are born without bad habits. And yet it’s adults who must begin to tear down the food carnival.

The question is how? Efforts are everywhere. The People’s Grocery in Oakland secures affordable groceries for low-income people. Zoning laws in Los Angeles restrict the number of fast-food restaurants in high-obesity neighborhoods. There’s the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, a successful Pennsylvania program to build fresh food outlets in underserved areas, now being expanded nationally. FoodCorps and Cooking Matters teach young people how to farm and cook.

As Malik Yakini, executive director of the Detroit Black Community Food Security Network, says, “We’ve seen minor successes, but the food movement is still at the infant stage, and we need a massive social shift to convince people to consider healthier options.”

HOW do you change a culture? The answers, not surprisingly, are complex. “Once I look at what I’m eating,” says Dr. Kessler, “and realize it’s not food, and I ask ‘what am I doing here?’ that’s the start. It’s not about whether I think it’s good for me, it’s about changing how I feel. And we change how people feel by changing the environment.”

Obviously, in an atmosphere where any regulation is immediately labeled “nanny statism,” changing “the environment” is difficult. But we’ve done this before, with tobacco. The 1998 tobacco settlement limited cigarette marketing and forced manufacturers to finance anti-smoking campaigns — a negotiated change that led to an environmental one that in turn led to a cultural one, after which kids said to their parents, “I wish you didn’t smoke.” Smoking had to be converted from a cool habit into one practiced by pariahs.

A similar victory in the food world is symbolized by the stories parents tell me of their kids booing as they drive by McDonald’s.

To make changes like this more widespread we need action both cultural and political. The cultural lies in celebrating real food; raising our children in homes that don’t program them for fast-produced, eaten-on-the-run, high-calorie, low-nutrition junk; giving them the gift of appreciating the pleasures of nourishing one another and enjoying that nourishment together.

Political action would mean agitating to limit the marketing of junk; forcing its makers to pay the true costs of production; recognizing that advertising for fast food is not the exercise of free speech but behavior manipulation of addictive substances; and making certain that real food is affordable and available to everyone. The political challenge is the more difficult one, but it cannot be ignored.

What’s easier is to cook at every opportunity, to demonstrate to family and neighbors that the real way is the better way. And even the more fun way: kind of like a carnival.

Por Adam Marcus

NUEVA YORK (Reuters Health) - Los porotos y el arroz son una combinación clásica del hemisferio occidental, pero un estudio de Costa Rica revela que comer más porotos que arroz sería mejor para la salud.

En 2.000 hombres y mujeres, los autores hallaron que los que comúnmente reemplazaban una porción de arroz con una de porotos tenían un 35 por ciento menos posibilidades de presentar síntomas precursores de la diabetes.

“El organismo convierte fácilmente el arroz en azúcar. Es altamente procesado, puro almidón, que es una cadena larga de glucosa”, explicó Frank Hu, profesor de nutrición y epidemiología de la Escuela de Salud Pública de Harvard, quien participó del estudio.

“Comparados con el arroz, los porotos contienen más fibra, más proteína y un índice glucémico más bajo, lo que quiere decir que induce respuestas más bajas a la insulina”, dijo Hu.

El equipo analizó la dieta de casi 1.900 hombres y mujeres de Costa Rica que participaban en un estudio sobre factores de riesgo de la enfermedad cardíaca entre 1994 y el 2004. Ningún participante tenía diabetes al inicio del estudio.

A medida que Costa Rica se volvió más rica y urbanizada, creció el consumo de arroz y disminuyó el de porotos. En tanto, aumentó enormemente la tasa de diabetes del país. Y el arroz podría ser parcialmente responsable.

El equipo de Harvard halló que las personas que más arroz habían consumido tenían mayor incidencia de presión alta y de elevados niveles de azúcar y grasas peligrosas en sangre, como así también valores más bajos de colesterol “bueno”.

Esos factores, junto con elevados perímetros de cintura, son elementos del síndrome metabólico, un importante factor de riesgo de la diabetes tipo 2.

Los participantes que habían consumido por los menos dos porciones de porotos por cada porción de arroz solían tener bajo riesgo de desarrollar síndrome metabólico.

En los que habían reemplazado una porción de porotos con una de arroz blanco, el riesgo de desarrollar síndrome metabólico era un 35 por ciento más bajo, según precisan los investigadores en American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Los estadounidenses están consumiendo más arroz que nunca: de 4,31 kilogramos (kg) por persona en 1980 a 9,53 kg en el 2008, según informes oficiales. El consumo de porotos secos es significativamente menor, con 3,18 kg por persona, según el Departamento de Agricultura de Estados Unidos.

Esa, para Hu, es una tendencia negativa, en especial si la población consume arroz blanco en lugar de arroz integral. Una porción de arroz blanco “es como una barra de caramelo”, explicó. La tendencia “tendrá efectos metabólicos de largo plazo”.

El autor recomendó incluir más legumbres a la alimentación para reemplazar el arroz blanco y algo de carne roja.

Estos hallazgos no prueban que el arroz blanco aumente el riesgo de diabetes ni que los porotos lo reduzcan. En estudios previos, el mismo equipo había descubierto que comer arroz integral protegería de la diabetes tipo 2.

“No me sorprende que se hayan obtenido mejores resultados en los consumidores de porotos”, dijo David Jenkins, de la University of Toronto.

Jenkins, que desarrolló el concepto de índice glucémico para ayudar a los diabéticos a medir los efectos de distintos alimentos en el nivel de la glucosa en sangre, agregó: “Los porotos se destacan entre los alimentos de origen vegetal” por su efecto leve en el azúcar en sangre”.

“Como clase, (los porotos) son mucho más uniformes que otros alimentos”, finalizó Jenkins.

Findings point up another reason to keep blood sugar levels in check, researchers say

MONDAY, Sept. 19 (HealthDay News) — People with diabetes are at significantly higher risk of developing all types of dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, finds a new study that bolsters previous research connecting the two illnesses.

The study of more than 1,000 people in Japan found that 27 percent of those with diabetes developed dementia, compared to 20 percent of people with normal blood sugar levels.

Further, the study showed that pre-diabetes — higher than normal blood sugar levels — also raised the risk of dementia.

“We have clearly demonstrated that diabetes is a significant risk factor for the development of dementia, especially of Alzheimer’s disease, in (the) general public,” said Dr. Yutaka Kiyohara, a professor in the graduate school of medical science at Kyushu University in Fukuoka.

The study, conducted from 1988 to 2003, is published Sept. 20 in Neurology.

Noting the global increase in type 2 diabetes, Kiyohara said controlling the illness is more important than ever.

The study followed 1,017 men and women, age 60 and older, who took a glucose test to find out if they were diabetic or pre-diabetic. They were then tracked over an average of 11 years each. In all, 232 developed dementia, either Alzheimer’s, vascular dementia, all-cause dementia or another form.

Of the 150 who had diabetes, 41 developed dementia, compared to 115 of the 559 people without diabetes. Among the 308 people with pre-diabetes, 76, or 25 percent, developed dementia.

Even having high levels of sugar two hours after taking glucose was linked to dementia, the researchers said, noting the importance of consistent blood sugar control.

Diabetes affects close to 26 million children and adults in the United States, with 7 million of them undiagnosed, according to the American Diabetes Association. Another 79 million have pre-diabetes. Obesity increases the risk of diabetes, and as Americans become heavier, more are developing diabetes.

In type 2 diabetics, the more common form of the disorder, people don’t have enough of the hormone insulin to convert glucose in food into energy, or they don’t process insulin properly.

Diabetes control demands a careful diet, exercise and, in some cases, insulin or other medications. If not properly managed, the illness can cause blindness, kidney and heart disease, and even death.

While prior research has shown a link between diabetes and dementia, the Japanese study is important because of its size and duration, said another expert.

“This is a large study over a long period of time showing a possible connection between diabetes and dementia,” said Heather Snyder, senior associate director of medical scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association in Chicago. “We do know that diabetes increases the risk of dementia, but we don’t really know why.”

Snyder said the Alzheimer’s Association is funding the next step in recently reported research that showed success treating early dementia with insulin.

“The last two years have been a very exciting time in research about Alzheimer’s,” she said. Alzheimer’s, an age-related brain disorder, gradually interferes with thinking and functioning.

Another expert noted that diabetes could be connected to dementia because it contributes to vascular disease, disrupting the flow of oxygen to the brain and other organs.

“Diabetes is a major risk factor for vascular disease,” said Dr. Spyros Mezitis, a clinical endocrinologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “If the blood vessels are not allowing enough oxygen to get to the brain, you can get dementia.”

The study will “change the way we practice medicine” and could lead to quicker referral of diabetics to neurologists when they show signs of memory loss or other cognitive problems, he said.

The goal for patients is to avoid the progression of vascular disease and to maintain proper blood sugar levels, he noted.

More research on the scale of the Framingham heart study is needed, said Snyder, referring to a multi-generational study begun in 1948 in Framingham, Mass., that has contributed enormous amounts of data about cardiovascular disease.

Due to recent changes in the regulatory environment in the State of Texas, Talita Kum Clinic will be modifying various aspects of its operations. Our clients should be aware that new legal documents will be added to all our intake formats.

Moreover, starting today we will begin 24/7 audiovisual surveillance of our premises for the safety of our clients and clinic staff. You will be advised on these changes and how they might affect you. 

In the coming days, we will be launching a legal section on this website which will include important legal information.  

Talita Kum Clinic will continue to maintain outside and in-house counsel in order to have the most accurate advice and robust representation in all legal and regulatory matters. 

Finally, you should be aware that as an alternative holistic clinic we do not provide medical services and have no licensed physicians on staff. 

If you should have any questions, feel free to email us at support@talitakumclinic.com. Simply address your concerns to our Director of Innovation, Legal and Regulatory Affairs and we will respond as soon as possible. 

In June 2011, senior military medical leadership met with The Bravewell Collaborative and renowned scientists and physicians to discuss improving pain management for warriors and veterans through the use of integrative medicine. This meeting, held at the Pentagon, was part of the Army’s effort to provide “a standardized DoD and VHA vision and approach to pain management to optimize the care for warriors and their families.”

The 2009 Army Pain Management Task Force (PMTF) report called for building best practices for the continuum of acute and chronic care based on a “holistic, multidisciplinary, integrative approach to care.”  The Army Comprehensive Pain Management Campaign Plan Symposium is an important step in implementing the PMTF recommendations. 

“This is a unique, historic moment to capitalize on what we know works to effectively treat pain,” said Army Surgeon General Lt. Gen. Eric B. Schoomaker, MD, PhD.  “It marks the beginning of a cultural shift in how health care is practiced in the military.”

Symposium participants reviewed the latest science in pain management and how integrative interventions can not only help improve pain management but also advance the overall health and “mission readiness” of the DoD and VHA, which is vital to the safety of our nation.

“We have an extraordinary generation in the military right now,” Schoomaker noted.  “Today’s wounded warriors do not want to be defined by their injuries.” They want to live fully and in some cases, they want to return to active duty.

Brig. Gen. Richard Thomas, the assistant Surgeon General (Force Projection), noted that many medical advances have come through wartime medicine, such as the development of the yellow fever vaccine by Walter Reed and the discovery by Dr. R. Adams Cowley of the golden hour in emergency medicine, the time period following traumatic injury during which if proper treatment is administered, lives can be saved.  “Many innovations in military medicine have changed American health care,” said Col. Kevin Galloway, Chief of Staff for the Army Pain Management Task Force, “…and we are approaching the tremendous need for improvement in pain management with this same spirit.”

It is estimated that millions of our nation’s warriors and veterans live with chronic pain and research shows that pain reduces quality of life, work and relationships.  Integrative strategies, such as those presented by leadership from the Allina Health System in Minnesota and the Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine in California, have been shown in clinical research to reduce pain scores by as much as fifty percent.

  “The nine integrative medicine centers in the Bravewell Clinical Network have been developing successful models of integrative care for the past nine years and we are pleased to be able to share these with the military and the VHA,” explained Christy Mack, President of The Bravewell Collaborative. 

  For more information about the Army Pain Management Task Force, please visit:

http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/prr/pain_management.html.

How old is the man in the photo below? 

Hint #1: His first full-time salary as a lawyer was $12,000 a year. 

Hint #2 : He drew a low number in the Vietnam War draft lottery. 

That my husband, Jim, looks good for his age has been true throughout our 20 years of marriage, but never more so than now. He is 62. 

It’s been a fun parlor trick. When the “Guess Your Age” guy at the West Virginia State Fair guessed he was 37, Jim had to whip out his driver’s license to prove he was really 55. “Man, you look good,” the carnie said. 

I have always assumed that my husband benefits from especially good genes. But now that Jim is in his 60s, people aren’t just shocked to learn his age, they also want to know how he does it. It has made me wonder if the real reason he’s aging so well is the nutrition-exercise-supplement-skin-care-lifestyle regimen he has created for himself. Jim has been honing his routine for decades, ever since he was deferred from the draft, at the age of 22, because of high blood pressure. “I knew I could do something about it, and I didn’t want to take drugs,” he recalls. 

If the health and fitness habits he’s been developing since then are the reason he looks so young now, that would be really good to know. 

I took the question — and Jim’s picture — to experts in aging, nutrition, cell function, dermatology, genetics and vitamin research. The answer, pretty clearly, is that his efforts have in fact had a big impact on the way he looks, good genes or not. 

“The older you get, the more influence you have, so that by the time you’re 50, it’s about 70 percent choices, about 30 percent genetics,” said Michael Roizen, chair of the Wellness Institute at the Cleveland Clinic. Roizen has spent years studying aging and runs a hugely popular Web site, RealAge.com, that offers health and fitness advice. Luigi Ferrucci, scientific director at the National Institute on Aging, agreed that genes are only a piece of the puzzle, and probably not the biggest. 

As director of the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, which has followed about 5,000 people since 1958, Ferrucci has been able to see firsthand what makes a difference in the way people age. 

“You don’t get the genes for being younger,” he said. “You get the gene that allows you [to] do the right things to slow down your aging process.” 

So let’s look at what Jim does. 

Avoids the big no-no’s 

Virtually everyone I spoke with listed one or more of these factors working in my husband’s favor right from the start: He doesn’t smoke, doesn’t have sun damage and drinks only moderately. The vigor with which these researchers voiced these opinions reminded me to scare my kids even more about smoking and drinking — and about the importance of sunscreen. 

Gets moderate exercise 

Ferrucci calls exercise “the strongest beneficial behavior intervention that we know about.” Moderate exercise makes the biggest difference, he said. 

That would be Jim’s style. His exercise routine is limited by a busy law practice, three young kids and a wife who also works. So he squeezes in a 20- to 30-minute aerobic workout on the bike or rowing machine three to four days a week in our basement, followed by 10 to 20 minutes of weight training. 

Roizen said he laughed out loud when he read an e-mail from me outlining my husband’s exercise program: It was almost the exact same workout plan Roizen promotes as the ideal routine to retard the effects of aging. 

Eats a healthy diet and eats moderately 

Jim’s weight has never fluctuated much, but in the past five to 10 years he has eliminated many unhealthful foods from his diet and reduced his portion sizes, causing him to drop 10 pounds without much effort. The trick, I think, has been making these changes gradually so the adjustment has been easy. 

Despite a weakness for chocolate chip cookies, Jim now eats more whole grains, much less fat, more fish and more fruit and vegetables. He also eats virtually no red meat, which Roizen applauds. 

“It could be the saturated fat; we’re not sure. But something in red meat accelerates inflammation in arteries,” he said. “And it turns out that inflammation in arteries ages your skin, ages your heart, ages all the things where your blood vessels go.” 

Eats a diet high in antioxidants 

Jim devours dark fruits and vegetables such as blueberries, blackberries, watermelon, dark romaine lettuce and other dark greens. I scour the supermarket ads for BOGO deals: buy one for Jim, get one free for the rest of us. 

These foods are good because they are full of antioxidants, which are thought to bind with the unstable molecules that are constantly released as a byproduct of metabolism. 

Although the science is still not conclusive for humans, there is strong evidence that these free radicals, knocking around in search of other molecules to bind to, damage healthy cells in the process. This oxidative stress can lead to inflammation and other adverse effects, said Josephine Briggs, director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health. 

“I have become a very strong believer in a diet rich in antioxidants,” Briggs said. “These things have a very strong observational correlation with health.” 

Takes Vitamin E 

Jim has been taking moderate Vitamin E supplements daily for 40 years. Vitamin E is a powerful antioxidant that, in animal testing, has been shown to prolong the life of cells and reduce cell proliferation. 

Could it be helping Jim maintain his youthful looks? 

“Yes, of course,” said Maret Traber, one of the nation’s lead researchers on Vitamin E. A professor of nutrition at Oregon State University, she is also a principal investigator at the university’s Linus Pauling Institute, which investigates the role of vitamins and micronutrients in health and aging. She said Vitamin E, working alone or in concert with other vitamins, is doing more for Jim than improving his appearance. 

“Your husband’s insides, I think, look way better than his outsides, and you can quote me,” she said. (This was backed up by my husband’s annual checkup last month, with ideal or better-than-ideal results on every physical exam and blood test. “He’s going to put me out of business with a physical like that,” his longtime internist, Elliott Aleskow, told me.) 

Traber’s position is somewhat controversial: Several major studies in humans have shown little benefit from Vitamin E supplements and possible harm from high doses of about 800 milligrams a day. (Jim takes 200 milligrams a day.) 

Demetrius Albanes of the National Cancer Institute led one of the few major studies that showed a positive influence for Vitamin E in humans. In this study of 29,000 Finnish men, all of them smokers, those with the highest levels of Vitamin E in their blood had a “significant” reduction in the incidence of prostate cancer, cardiovascular disease and overall mortality after 12 to 20 years, he said. “Designing a good study is complicated,” he said, adding that more research on Vitamin E is needed. 

* * * 

Jim does other things that various experts say affect the aging process: He moisturizes his skin daily, he flosses regularly, manages stress well, has a job he often finds rewarding, has a hobby that he enjoys (photography), has a good marriage and healthy kids. Many experts said living a happy life is a key element in aging well, and Jim, even though he works long hours, is pretty happy. 

“Yeah, I’d say that’s true,” he told me. I was only slightly stepping on his small toe when I asked that. 

But I was left with one lingering doubt about the role of genetics. Surely it’s genetic that he has no gray hair, right? 

“I wouldn’t count on that,” said Ferrucci. “There is some observation that gray hair has a lot to do with oxidative stress.” 

Like so much in the field of aging, this is a new area of research. It was discovered only a few years ago that the pigment in hair comes from stem cells in the hair follicle. If they stop working, usually later in life, the hair turns gray. 

This is a bit perplexing, though, because stem cells have the ability to self-renew, said Mayumi Ito, an assistant professor of cell biology at NYU’s Langone Medical Center and one of the few U.S. researchers in this field. No one has demonstrated what factors keep particular stem cells functioning. “I personally assume it is both a genetic process and an environmental process,” she said, “as it is with so much else.” 

The aging process is complicated; it makes sense that if someone is aging especially well, the reasons would be just as complicated. In my husband’s case, it is more than good genes; it’s everything he’s done on top of that, including the right kind of exercise, a beneficial diet and the many other ways he takes care of himself. 

The message, at least, is simple: Making an effort can really pay off. 

presslerm@washpost.com