Celiac and Fat-Soluble Vitamins

One of the things I've been thinking about lately is the possibility that intestinal damage due to gluten grains (primarily wheat) contributes to the diseases of civilization by inhibiting the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins. If it were a contributing factor, we would expect to see a higher incidence of the common chronic diseases in newly-diagnosed celiac patients, who are often deficient in fat-soluble vitamins. We might also see a resolution of chronic disease in celiac patients who have been adhering faithfully to a long-term, gluten-free diet.

One thing that definitely associates with celiac disease is bone and tooth problems. Celiac patients often present with osteoporosis, osteopenia (thin bones), cavities or tooth enamel abnormalities (thanks Peter).

An Italian study showed that among 642 heart transplant candidates, 1.9% had anti-endomyosal antibodies (a feature of celiac), compared with 0.35% of controls. That's more than a 5-fold enrichment! The majority of those patients were presumably unaware of their celiac disease, so they were not eating a gluten-free diet.

Interestingly, celiac doesn't seem to cause obesity; to the contrary. That's one facet of modern health problems that it definitely does not cause.

The relationship between cancer and celiac disease is very interesting. The largest study I came across was conducted in Sweden using retrospective data from 12,000 celiac patients. They found that adult celiac patients have a higher overall risk of cancer, but that the extra risk disappears with age. The drop in cancer incidence may reflect dropping gluten following a celiac diagnosis. Here's another study showing that the elevated cancer risk occurs mostly in the first year after diagnosis, suggesting that eliminating gluten solves the problem. Interestingly, celiac patients have a greatly elevated risk of lymphoma, but a lower risk of breast cancer.

There's a very strong link between celiac and type I diabetes. In a large study, 1 in 8 type I diabetic children had celiac disease. This doesn't necessarily tell us much since celiac and type I diabetes are both autoimmune disorders.

One last study to add a nail to the coffin. Up to this point, all the studies I've mentioned have been purely observational, not able to establish a causal relationship. I came across a small study recently which examined the effect of a high-fiber diet on vitamin D metabolism in healthy (presumably non-celiac) adults. They broke the cohort up into two groups, and fed one group 20g of bran in addition to their normal diet. The other group got nothing extra. The bran-fed group had a vitamin D elimination half-life of 19.5 days, compared to 27.5 for the control group. In other words, for whatever reason, the group eating extra bran was burning through their vitamin D reserves 30% faster than the control group.

Unfortunately, the paper doesn't say what kind of bran it was, but it was probably wheat or oat (**Update- it's wheat bran**). This is important because it would determine if gluten was involved. Either way, it shows that something in grains can interfere with fat-soluble vitamin status, which is consistent with the staggering negative effect of wheat products on healthy non-industrialized cultures.

Add to this the possibility that most people may have some degree of gluten sensitivity, and you start to see a big problem. All together, the data are consistent with gluten grains interfering with fat-soluble vitamin status. As I discussed earlier, this could strongly contribute to the diseases of civilization. These data don't prove anything conclusively, but I do find them thought-provoking.

Thanks to Dudua for the CC photo

Celiac and Fat-Soluble Vitamins

One of the things I've been thinking about lately is the possibility that intestinal damage due to gluten grains (primarily wheat) contributes to the diseases of civilization by inhibiting the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins. If it were a contributing factor, we would expect to see a higher incidence of the common chronic diseases in newly-diagnosed celiac patients, who are often deficient in fat-soluble vitamins. We might also see a resolution of chronic disease in celiac patients who have been adhering faithfully to a long-term, gluten-free diet.

One thing that definitely associates with celiac disease is bone and tooth problems. Celiac patients often present with osteoporosis, osteopenia (thin bones), cavities or tooth enamel abnormalities (thanks Peter).

An Italian study showed that among 642 heart transplant candidates, 1.9% had anti-endomyosal antibodies (a feature of celiac), compared with 0.35% of controls. That's more than a 5-fold enrichment! The majority of those patients were presumably unaware of their celiac disease, so they were not eating a gluten-free diet.

Interestingly, celiac doesn't seem to cause obesity; to the contrary. That's one facet of modern health problems that it definitely does not cause.

The relationship between cancer and celiac disease is very interesting. The largest study I came across was conducted in Sweden using retrospective data from 12,000 celiac patients. They found that adult celiac patients have a higher overall risk of cancer, but that the extra risk disappears with age. The drop in cancer incidence may reflect dropping gluten following a celiac diagnosis. Here's another study showing that the elevated cancer risk occurs mostly in the first year after diagnosis, suggesting that eliminating gluten solves the problem. Interestingly, celiac patients have a greatly elevated risk of lymphoma, but a lower risk of breast cancer.

There's a very strong link between celiac and type I diabetes. In a large study, 1 in 8 type I diabetic children had celiac disease. This doesn't necessarily tell us much since celiac and type I diabetes are both autoimmune disorders.

One last study to add a nail to the coffin. Up to this point, all the studies I've mentioned have been purely observational, not able to establish a causal relationship. I came across a small study recently which examined the effect of a high-fiber diet on vitamin D metabolism in healthy (presumably non-celiac) adults. They broke the cohort up into two groups, and fed one group 20g of bran in addition to their normal diet. The other group got nothing extra. The bran-fed group had a vitamin D elimination half-life of 19.5 days, compared to 27.5 for the control group. In other words, for whatever reason, the group eating extra bran was burning through their vitamin D reserves 30% faster than the control group.

Unfortunately, the paper doesn't say what kind of bran it was, but it was probably wheat or oat (**Update- it's wheat bran**). This is important because it would determine if gluten was involved. Either way, it shows that something in grains can interfere with fat-soluble vitamin status, which is consistent with the staggering negative effect of wheat products on healthy non-industrialized cultures.

Add to this the possibility that most people may have some degree of gluten sensitivity, and you start to see a big problem. All together, the data are consistent with gluten grains interfering with fat-soluble vitamin status. As I discussed earlier, this could strongly contribute to the diseases of civilization. These data don't prove anything conclusively, but I do find them thought-provoking.

Thanks to Dudua for the CC photo

Celiac and Fat-Soluble Vitamins

One of the things I've been thinking about lately is the possibility that intestinal damage due to gluten grains (primarily wheat) contributes to the diseases of civilization by inhibiting the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins. If it were a contributing factor, we would expect to see a higher incidence of the common chronic diseases in newly-diagnosed celiac patients, who are often deficient in fat-soluble vitamins. We might also see a resolution of chronic disease in celiac patients who have been adhering faithfully to a long-term, gluten-free diet.

One thing that definitely associates with celiac disease is bone and tooth problems. Celiac patients often present with osteoporosis, osteopenia (thin bones), cavities or tooth enamel abnormalities (thanks Peter).

An Italian study showed that among 642 heart transplant candidates, 1.9% had anti-endomyosal antibodies (a feature of celiac), compared with 0.35% of controls. That's more than a 5-fold enrichment! The majority of those patients were presumably unaware of their celiac disease, so they were not eating a gluten-free diet.

Interestingly, celiac doesn't seem to cause obesity; to the contrary. That's one facet of modern health problems that it definitely does not cause.

The relationship between cancer and celiac disease is very interesting. The largest study I came across was conducted in Sweden using retrospective data from 12,000 celiac patients. They found that adult celiac patients have a higher overall risk of cancer, but that the extra risk disappears with age. The drop in cancer incidence may reflect dropping gluten following a celiac diagnosis. Here's another study showing that the elevated cancer risk occurs mostly in the first year after diagnosis, suggesting that eliminating gluten solves the problem. Interestingly, celiac patients have a greatly elevated risk of lymphoma, but a lower risk of breast cancer.

There's a very strong link between celiac and type I diabetes. In a large study, 1 in 8 type I diabetic children had celiac disease. This doesn't necessarily tell us much since celiac and type I diabetes are both autoimmune disorders.

One last study to add a nail to the coffin. Up to this point, all the studies I've mentioned have been purely observational, not able to establish a causal relationship. I came across a small study recently which examined the effect of a high-fiber diet on vitamin D metabolism in healthy (presumably non-celiac) adults. They broke the cohort up into two groups, and fed one group 20g of bran in addition to their normal diet. The other group got nothing extra. The bran-fed group had a vitamin D elimination half-life of 19.5 days, compared to 27.5 for the control group. In other words, for whatever reason, the group eating extra bran was burning through their vitamin D reserves 30% faster than the control group.

Unfortunately, the paper doesn't say what kind of bran it was, but it was probably wheat or oat (**Update- it's wheat bran**). This is important because it would determine if gluten was involved. Either way, it shows that something in grains can interfere with fat-soluble vitamin status, which is consistent with the staggering negative effect of wheat products on healthy non-industrialized cultures.

Add to this the possibility that most people may have some degree of gluten sensitivity, and you start to see a big problem. All together, the data are consistent with gluten grains interfering with fat-soluble vitamin status. As I discussed earlier, this could strongly contribute to the diseases of civilization. These data don't prove anything conclusively, but I do find them thought-provoking.

Thanks to Dudua for the CC photo

Celiac and Fat-Soluble Vitamins

One of the things I've been thinking about lately is the possibility that intestinal damage due to gluten grains (primarily wheat) contributes to the diseases of civilization by inhibiting the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins. If it were a contributing factor, we would expect to see a higher incidence of the common chronic diseases in newly-diagnosed celiac patients, who are often deficient in fat-soluble vitamins. We might also see a resolution of chronic disease in celiac patients who have been adhering faithfully to a long-term, gluten-free diet.

One thing that definitely associates with celiac disease is bone and tooth problems. Celiac patients often present with osteoporosis, osteopenia (thin bones), cavities or tooth enamel abnormalities (thanks Peter).

An Italian study showed that among 642 heart transplant candidates, 1.9% had anti-endomyosal antibodies (a feature of celiac), compared with 0.35% of controls. That's more than a 5-fold enrichment! The majority of those patients were presumably unaware of their celiac disease, so they were not eating a gluten-free diet.

Interestingly, celiac doesn't seem to cause obesity; to the contrary. That's one facet of modern health problems that it definitely does not cause.

The relationship between cancer and celiac disease is very interesting. The largest study I came across was conducted in Sweden using retrospective data from 12,000 celiac patients. They found that adult celiac patients have a higher overall risk of cancer, but that the extra risk disappears with age. The drop in cancer incidence may reflect dropping gluten following a celiac diagnosis. Here's another study showing that the elevated cancer risk occurs mostly in the first year after diagnosis, suggesting that eliminating gluten solves the problem. Interestingly, celiac patients have a greatly elevated risk of lymphoma, but a lower risk of breast cancer.

There's a very strong link between celiac and type I diabetes. In a large study, 1 in 8 type I diabetic children had celiac disease. This doesn't necessarily tell us much since celiac and type I diabetes are both autoimmune disorders.

One last study to add a nail to the coffin. Up to this point, all the studies I've mentioned have been purely observational, not able to establish a causal relationship. I came across a small study recently which examined the effect of a high-fiber diet on vitamin D metabolism in healthy (presumably non-celiac) adults. They broke the cohort up into two groups, and fed one group 20g of bran in addition to their normal diet. The other group got nothing extra. The bran-fed group had a vitamin D elimination half-life of 19.5 days, compared to 27.5 for the control group. In other words, for whatever reason, the group eating extra bran was burning through their vitamin D reserves 30% faster than the control group.

Unfortunately, the paper doesn't say what kind of bran it was, but it was probably wheat or oat (**Update- it's wheat bran**). This is important because it would determine if gluten was involved. Either way, it shows that something in grains can interfere with fat-soluble vitamin status, which is consistent with the staggering negative effect of wheat products on healthy non-industrialized cultures.

Add to this the possibility that most people may have some degree of gluten sensitivity, and you start to see a big problem. All together, the data are consistent with gluten grains interfering with fat-soluble vitamin status. As I discussed earlier, this could strongly contribute to the diseases of civilization. These data don't prove anything conclusively, but I do find them thought-provoking.

Thanks to Dudua for the CC photo

Green Kababs

"Shami Kababs" are prepared with cooking lamb with lentil and spices. The cooked meat is processed to a smooth dough which is then shaped and roasted. To make the kababs healthier i'm using some of my favorite greens like spinach ,cilantro and mint. These roasted kababs are very rich in protein and excellent to stuff in sandwiches or eat with plain rice and dal.

Green Shami Kababs

What you'll need is
1 lb lean Beef or lamb cut in small pieces
1/2 cup cilantro chopped
1/2 cup spinach chopped
1/2 cup mint chopped
1/4 cup Chana Dal(Yellow split lentils)
1/2 teaspoon turmeric
1/2 teaspoon chilly powder
1/2 teaspoon Cumin and coriander powder
2 whole Cloves and Cardamon
1 cinnamon stick
2 cloves garlic
1/2 inch ginger root or 1/2 teaspoon ginger garlic paste
1/2 teaspoon sea salt
EVOO for roasting the kababs

To make the Green Kababs
Soak the lentil in cold water for an hour.
Clean meat by running it through cold water and squeeze any excess water. pat dry with a paper towel.
Mix all the ingredients besides oil in a pressure cooker or a skillet. Cover and cook for 12 minutes in a pressure cooker and about 40 minutes in a covered skillet. When the meat is tender , cook on medium high flame until all the water is dry.
Blend in to a dough consistency. Make round or diamond patties .
Heat a non stick pan on medium low flame.

Roast the patties on both sides now add a tablespoon EVOO and let roast until light brown on both sides.

Serve with Rice and lentil soup or make a sandwich.

Health nut substitute
If you don't like whole spices in your kababs add a teaspoon of garam masala instead(Powdered cinnamon cloves cumin and cardamom)

This protein rich recipe has been sent for the Protein Rich Contest


Green Baked Kababs
Baked kababs have no lentils in them just minced meat and blend of spices. Again i'm making these kababs greener by using herbs and spinach.Eat with salads or rice, these kababs can be part of your healthy and protein rich diet.

1 lb minced lean Beef or lamb or chicken
1/2 cup cilantro finely chopped
1/2 cup spinach finely chopped
1/2 cup mint finely chopped
1/2 cup onion chopped
1/2 teaspoon turmeric
1/2 teaspoon chilly powder
1/2 teaspoon Cumin and coriander powder
1/2 teaspoon garam masala(Powdered cinnamon cloves cumin and cardamom)
1/2 teaspoon ginger garlic paste
1/2 teaspoon sea salt


To make the Baked Kababs
Preheat oven to 400F.
Clean meat by running it through cold water and squeeze any excess water. pat dry with a paper towel.
Mix all the ingredients besides oil in a mixing bowl. Keep aside for few minutes . take the bamboo skewers and stick the meat mixture. Brush your Kababs on skewers with a little EVOO. Too much could break the kababs .Line your cookie sheet and lay the skewers on the sheet.

Bake for about 8 minutes. Turn once and bake for another 7 minutes before serving with tangy Mint Chutney.





Tangy Mint Chutney

What you'll need is

2 cups chopped mint leaves
1 teaspoon tamarind
1 teaspoon cumin seeds
1 green chilly (or more depending on you taste)
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon EVOO

To make the chutney
Blend all the ingredients to a smooth consistency. Serve with kababs .




Posted by Yasmeen at 7:12 AM

Special offer on probiotic acidophilus

Special offer on probiotic acidophilus

Probiotic acidophilus are proving to be important for people’s health in all sorts of ways. They help repopulate your gut with the good bacteria that are important for health.

Probiotic supplements can help people with digestive problems, such as diarrhoea, and now research is also showing they are great for baby eczema, for hay fever and for helping the immune system.

But it’s important to choose the right strains. Some strains just do not survive the acid environment of the stomach – they get broken down before they get to the intestine where they do their work. Different strains are more effective for different problems.

If it all sounds confusing, we’ve done the hard work for you by picking supplement combinations that do specific things: for babies and pregnant women, for travellers, for immune support, etc. There’s even a diarrhoea combination that works as well as Imodium, and helps your digestive system get healthier.

We are currently running a special offer on two probiotic formulae: the Travel formula and the Diarrhoea formula. Buy one of these and get a travel first aid kit free.

Probiotic drinks are often expensive, full of sugar and don’t always contain the right strains to do the job.

Check out our full range of probiotic supplements.

And remember we offer a 60-day money-back guarantee on everything on our site.

10 Ways To Be A Gentleman At The Gym

Perhaps it is the rush of testosterone and the feeling of primal power that accompanies working out, but many men seem to check their manners at the door to the gym. But just because you’re getting in touch with your inner man beast, doesn’t mean you should turn into an inconsiderate boob. Gyms should give new members a course on etiquette, but they don’t, leaving many men wholly ignorant of how to act civilly while pumping iron. Here are the rules of etiquette every man should know and keep. Feel free to tape them up in your gym’s locker room.

1. Rack your weights. Would you whip up a meal in the kitchen and then leave the dirty dishes from someone else to do? Well maybe you would, but then your roommates are currently plotting how to get you kicked out of the house. Show some respect to your fellow gym patrons and rack your weights. And rack them correctly. Nothing pisses me off more then when there’s a 25 lb plate racked behind three 45 lbs plates. Take those few extra steps to put the same weight with the same weight.

2. Don’t hog the machines. Get in, get your work done, and leave. A gym is a community, so sharing is required. And no, you can’t lay claim to a machine by simply laying your towel on it. Not being a hog on a machine can get difficult when you’re doing super circuits. Before you move to the next machine, tell the person who’s using the machine after you that you’ll be coming back shortly to finish up your circuit.

3. Use a spotter. If you’re throwing around heavy weight, make sure you have someone spotting you. First, it’s a safety concern. Second, you’ll look like an idiot struggling with a bar over your chest.

4. Don’t hover. While hogging machines at the gym is a faux pas, what irks me more is when people start hovering over a machine that you’re in the middle of using. These hoverers passive-aggressively lurk by the machine to give you the signal that they want you to leave. If you want to use the machine, wait until the person has finished their set to approach them. Then politely ask if you can get a set in.

5. Wipe down the equipment. I am convinced that many men feel that their gyms’ “please wipe down your equipment” sign applies to everyone but themselves. How else to explain why a man who has soaked his shirt through with sweat would walk away from a machine he’s coated with perspiration? Nobody wants to sit in a pool of a guy’s sweat, much less a layer of it composed of an afternoon of inconsiderate gym goers. If you moisten a piece of equipment, wipe it down with your towel. If you are sweating profusely, also use the disinfectant spray that the gym provides.

6. Don’t drop the weights. When you’re finished cranking out a set of dumbbell presses, lay them down like a normal person. Don’t just drop them off your shoulders. First, it’s dangerous to do so. You don’t know if there are any feet or hands that the weight can land on. Second, it’s bad for the weights and the floor. Even if your gym has those rubber floors, dropping the weights from great heights will eventually cause some wear and tear. Finally, it’s distracting. Dropping weights creates a bunch of ruckus that can distract other gym patrons.

7. Don’t hit on women. The gym is not a bar. You’re there to work, and so are the women. Don’t bother them. Most women feel sweaty and messy when they’re working out, and are not in the mood for love. If the woman is not sweaty and messy, and instead has perfectly coiffed hair and a full face of make-up, you should still steer clear; you don’t want to date the kind of woman who gets guzzied up for the gym.

8. Don’t give unsolicited advice. So what if you got your college degree in sports nutrition and exercise? No one cares what you have to say about how to get chiseled abs. Only if someone asks for some advice, or is in serious danger of hurting themselves, should you step in and let loose a river of all the workout knowledge that’s stored in that big cranium of yours.

9. Leave the cell phone in the car. One of the most obnoxious things to see at a gym is a person yapping away on their cell phone while walking on the treadmill. Usually the culprits of this gym crime are snooty soccer moms, but I’ve seen men do this as well. Nothing is unmanlier than a man whose focus is somewhere else and not on developing and strengthening his body.

10. Don’t use the girly machines. No man should ever be caught on that machine that works your inner and outer thighs.

from: www.artofmanliness.com

DRUGS VS. OZONE THERAPY

Just one more bit of evidence that drugs almost always have deleterious side effects. When will the public become aware that there are much, much better alternatives? Big money talks and the media listens. We only hear what they want us to. If you want more Truth you have to SEEK.

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is investigating whether four drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other immune system diseases might increase the risk of cancer in children.The FDA has received reports of 30 cases of cancer among children and young adults treated with the drugs. The agency did not make clear how many children had taken the drugs.The drugs involved are:

1. Enbrel, sold by Amgen and Wyeth2. Remicade, sold by Johnson & Johnson and Schering-Plough 3. Humira, sold by Abbott Laboratories4. Cimzia, sold by the Belgian company UCB."

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/28/do-arthritis-drugs-cause-cancer.aspx?source=nl

(Be sure to read Dr. Mercols’s comments too.)

One more reason to seek out the benefits of alternative medicine in its many forms. Most effective alternative therapies have very low if any side effects. One example is ozone therapy.

“Ozone has been used successfully on scores of diseases in Europe, especially Germany, for over 50 years. Over 6,000 articles on the medical usage's of ozone are in the world literature. Nearly every disease process responds favorably to any therapy that effectively increases cellular oxygen content. Furthermore, the safety profile of proper ozone administration is virtually unparalleled. I had the opportunity to witness multiple intravenous ozone treatments in the office of Dr. Horst Kief in West Germany. It is a very simple, very safe procedure. In a survey of German ozone therapists, 5,579,238 ozone treatments on 384,775 patients demonstrated a side effect rate of only 0.0007%, and the side effects were uniformly minor and not even remotely life-threatening. On the other hand, over a million patients are hospitalized annually in the US. due to side effects of prescription medication, and over 100,000 of such individuals die from such drug usage. If one person in the U.S. dies even indirectly from the usage of a vitamin product or an herbal concoction, the FDA quickly moves to outlaw accessibility to such a product, but they remain strangely blinded to the carnage wrought annually by our pharmaceutical industry.”

The politics of AIDS and Ozone
by Thomas Levy, MD

http://www.oxygenmedicine.com/politicsofozone.html

How to Cure Acne Overnight - Here Are the Astonishing Secrets You Have Always Been Looking For

We are always told not to pop, squeeze or even touch them but what can one do to really get rid of them? We always get bombarded by thousands of advertisements of creams and lotions which claim they can help us get rid of acne but do they really work? Well some do and some don't but do you know that you can naturally get rid of acne overnight without using any of these cosmetic products? Read on to discover some of the most stunning tips on how to cure acne overnight and achieve earth shattering results fast........

First wash your face properly- You must always cleanse your face thoroughly before you start doing anything. For this purpose you must use a good face wash preferably the one's sold in the market which specifically help you get rid of acne. Once your face is clean dry it with a clean towel and get ready.

Here is the secret- Get a toothpaste and apply a bit of it only on the acne affected area and not the whole face. The one big mistake most people make is that they apply toothpaste on their whole face which causes a lot of irritation and redness of the skin. Only apply it on the affected area and don't overdo it. Leave it on for some time then wash off with Luke warm water. You must always use a normal white toothpaste and not a gel based toothpaste as that can cause harm.

This is not for sensitive skin- If you have a highly sensitive skin then this solution is not meant for you. If you are not sure about it then you must test it out by applying very tiny amount and see it's results. If it burns too much then your skin is sensitive.

What you don't know yet- I know that what I am about to reveal to you can be almost impossible to believe. But it is 100% truth! Do you know what you can cure any sort of acne within 3 days? Seems impossible right? Well see for yourself follow this link- Click Here

What the Motherhood Mafia Never Told You

The miracle of giving birth has endured a lot of superstition over time. Its important to sift constructive advise from the fallacies. Learn what's true and what's not as some of the most common pregnancy myths are put under scrutiny.
Pregnancy Myth 1 - Eating for two

This erroneous belief has to top the list for its global prevalence! One of the first things a pregnant woman gets to hear is now she will have to start eating for two – which is of course not the truth. You do need extra intake of nutrients when you are expecting a child, but this does not translate into doubling your food intake! What is required is that you pay attention to what you eat.

In the normal course Indian women require 1800 calories daily. During pregnancy this increases by another 300 calories. The nutrient needs are increased in view of the development of maternal organs such as the uterus, placenta, and breast tissue and to build up body reserves that would be utilised at the time of delivery and later on also during lactation. The requirement for calcium, proteins and iron is much more. All vitamins and supplements are also needed in greater quantity. On the other hand carbohydrates and fats do not need to be increased.

The meals need not be large meals but their frequency should increase. Instead of having three large meals you can try having three light meals with 2-3 snacks in between. The last meal you eat at night should be light and be preferably eaten early. About two hours before you go to bed.

Remember eating for two will only make it tougher to lose all the weight that you will gain. During pregnancy your increasing metabolic rate will lead to your having a larger appetite than normal. However, there's no need to over-eat thinking that it will make your baby healthier or bigger. Remember, it is the quality of the food you eat that is important, not the quantity! While it is satisfactory to indulge in food cravings, bear in mind to eat as much as you want without overdoing it. Invest your appetite in healthy foods rather than the fattening ones, which is of course easier said than done!!
Pregnancy Myth 2 - It's dangerous to exert any effort, let alone exercise while pregnant

Doctors recommend and it has been proven that regular, moderate exercise during pregnancy improves your blood circulation, which increases the blood flow through the placenta. It is also known that exercise helps keep your mood elevated.

However, it is not advisable to start a sport routine that you have not tried before. Remember also to always exercise at a pace that is comfortable for you, decreasing the intensity as and when you feel the necessity.

If you decide to exercise, it's important to start a pregnancy exercise program carefully and seek the advice of your doctor. Pregnancy and labor represent some of the most difficult and rewarding work a woman will ever do. It makes sense to prepare oneself physically. If you haven't been participating in a regular program of exercise, walking is a good place to start. Start from day one! Begin with a five-minute warm up with slow gradual stretching of all muscles. Find a nice path and some walking buddies or some good music and walk at a brisk pace for 30 to 40 minutes every day. Finish with five minutes of a slower pace or stretching, which should help you "cool down."

Or, consider joining a prenatal exercise or yoga class and build it into a support group and even future playgroup for your child. Very few women should not exercise in pregnancy, what is important to remember is that it should be always under the guidance of your doctor.
Pregnancy Myth 3 - Swimming is Dangerous

Swimming, walking and prenatal yoga are rated as being on top of the list as far as pregnancy exercises are concerned. Swimming is a great overall body workout and is considered safe as the water makes you feel weightless and you are less likely to sustain an injury or a fall.

As long as the pool is disinfected using the recommended concentrations of chlorine, then swimming in a pool poses no threat to a pregnant woman or her fetus. Care should be taken to avoid swimming in a crowded pool. Congested areas increase the possibility of being accidentally hit in the abdomen by another swimmer. Being hit on the abdomen is not a big concern for the fetus because it is in a comfortable cushion of amniotic fluid. But it is painful for the mother and dangerous in instances of low-lying placentas, in which case there isn't enough uterine wall to protect it and there could be fatal/non-fatal bleeding. For those who are sea aficionados, avoid swimming in rough waters.
Pregnancy Myth 4 - Drinking too much water will cause increased water retention

Au contraire, drink plenty of water! Not only does drinking increased amount of water reduce the possibility of water retention in the body, it also lessens the occurrence of constipation and lowers the load on the kidney by regularly washing it out.

Many women do complain of water retention and swelling of feet, during pregnancy and the blame is ignorantly put on the water they drink. Truth be known that is totally incorrect, because our kidneys can flush out even a bucket of water if the need arises! The edema is actually due to:

* Progesterone - the hormone of pregnancy has water retaining properties
* Veins getting blocked by the pregnant uterus temporarily

So ladies don’t be frugal with the H2O, it’s a good idea to drink more and more of it. On the flip side, rushing to the loo every half hour is not exactly the prenatal exercise you had in mind, is it?
Pregnancy Myth 5 - You can tell your baby's gender by the way you are carrying, or by the fetal heartbeat.

Other than an ultrasound or an amniocentesis or by chorionic villi sampling (side effects of this procedure still not established enough, so not recommended), there is no way to determine the gender of the baby you are carrying.

Pregnant women carry babies differently based on the following features:

* Their presentation (breech, vertex, transverse)
* Their position (anterior, posterior)
* Their gestational age and weight
* The maternal weight and stature
* The mother’s parity (whether or not this is her first or eighth baby)

Judging fetal heartbeat is really no help either. Some say that a fast heart rate indicates a girl, based on the fact that women’s heart rates are faster than men’s. But we have to remember that until about 20 weeks, it is not unusual to have a fetal heartbeat in the 150 to 160 range. As the baby’s heart develops and the neurological system matures, the count may fall to between 130 to 140 (the normal range is 120 to 160). So if we try to guess the gender of the unborn baby, we would all start out as girls and turn into boys!
Pregnancy Myth 6 - Sleeping on your back can hurt the baby

During a normal pregnancy, a woman may assume any position to sleep, which she finds comfortable. It will not harm the baby in any way.

But it is beneficial for the mother to lie on a side and change from one side to the other frequently. How so? Lying on the side when you are pregnant and getting up sideways will prevent strain on the back. This will in turn prevent lower back-pains, which may be mistaken for false labour pains.

Remember if the pregnancy is high risk and there is hypertension, maternal kidney malfunction, severe water retention or fetal compromise is suspected, rest in the manner advised by the doctor.
Pregnancy Myth 7 - You can tangle the umbilical cord by raising your arms above your head

The common person is generally ignorant about the fact that about 20 to 25 percent of all babies are born with the cord around the neck, and many are born with cords around the legs. Some cords are even tied into knots! Therefore, very important to remember that - There is nothing that a mother can do to cause this.

Entanglements occur due to fetal activity during early gestation. Long umbilical cords, defined as longer than about 100 cm (most cords are 32 to 80 cm long), seem to contribute to entanglements. Excessively long cords are actually caused by excessive fetal movement.

This myth is one of the few, which benefit a pregnant mother. Going by this fallacy if pregnant women were advised not to lift their arms above their bodies, they may have been given less strenuous jobs. This in turn would have resulted in a more rested mom, and possibly a healthier baby!

So ladies, lift your arms, turn them around and do the boogie-woogie! Or balle balle as the case might be!
Pregnancy Myth 8 - Having sex during pregnancy can hurt the baby.

In a normal pregnancy, sex is not harmful to the baby. Sex is safe, because as mentioned already, the fetus is in a well-buffered medium. On a lighter vein, the man will have to be unnaturally well endowed for him to disturb the baby!

In fact the sexual experience will reach new heights for the woman in the enhanced ability to orgasm, due to an increase in blood flow to the pelvic floor. Its nirvana ten out ten!
Pregnancy Myth 9 - You lose a tooth for every baby.

Today, with the availability of supplements and fortified foods, no woman should lose a tooth for every baby!

Preconception nutrition is critical for preserving maternal health. It is during the critical pre-adolescent and adolescent years that women build stores of iron and calcium that prepare them for childbearing. If a woman’s diet is deficient in these key minerals, the demands of the growing baby often take precedence. Calcium may be lost from the maternal bones and teeth. Women should take in 1500 mg of calcium each day, either from food sources or supplement. Teeth can be lost if stores are deficient or depleted due to malnutrition or close inter-conceptional periods.

It’s a good idea therefore to prepare a year before you think of conceiving. You can make a start by taking the special nutrients and supplements under the guidelines of your personal doctor.
Pregnancy Myth 10 - Mother and the newborn should go through a 40 days confinement period

In the olden days the benefits of a medical team were still out of reach during birthing time. An age when antibiotics and other such cures were not available, the confinement period was the only way to combat possible infection. The mother also got a much needed rest period, instead of being back on her feet and working as usual.

Now most births take place in the hospital under hygienic conditions and the instances of the mother and child contracting an infection are very rare. There are enough facilities to take care of infections or deal with any medical emergency if need be.

The thought behind this myth might again have been to give some resuscitating period for the woman to recover from the rigors of giving birth. Traditionally, confinement did not mean complete bed rest. The woman would be active as during her pregnancy, and also get all sorts of traditional treatments like oil massages to get her body in shape.
Conclusion

In many cases, hearing predictions about the baby's sex or how much hair the baby will have is fun and harmless. In most cases however, caution is advised. Here's when you should beware:

* When the myth suggests that you contradict your doctor's advise
* Medical treatment (such as discontinuing prenatal vitamins)
* When you have to ingest or inhale something that isn't recommended by your doctor (such as herbs or drugs)
* When the myth makes you extremely fearful for your baby's health (stress on the mother can adversely affect the baby)

Pregnancy myths may vary from generation to generation and from region to region. Myths your grandmother in south claims are true might be different from what your uncle in north swears by. There is no surefire way of dealing with them, when in doubt check with the doctor!

from www.purpleparka.com

Two Things That Get on My Nerves, Part II

Confusing Correlation and Causation

Recently, a paper was published that examined the association between sleep duration and the risk of death. Ferrie et al. showed that in their study population, subjects who slept either more or less than 7 hours a night had an increased overall risk of death. Here's how it was reported in Medical News Today:

Too Little Or Too Much Sleep Increases Risk Of Death

And here's a gem of a quote from one of the study's authors (excerpt from the article above):

In terms of prevention, our findings indicate that consistently sleeping around 7 hours per night is optimal for health and a sustained reduction may predispose to ill-health.

There's only one small problem: the study indicated no such thing. What the study showed is that people who sleep more or less than 7 hours tend to die more often than people who don't, not that the lack or excess of sleep caused the increased mortality. Have you ever noticed that you sleep more when you're not feeling well? Have you ever noticed that you sleep less when you're stressed? Could the increased mortality and sleep disturbances both be caused by some other factor(s), rather than one causing the other? We don't know, because the nature of the study doesn't allow us to answer that question!

The message the public ends up hearing is that no matter what feels right for your body, 7 hours of sleep is the optimum for health. Even though you'll have to go to work with bags under your eyes, feeling like crap, it's healthy. Even though you have the flu, you'd better not sleep more because it might give you a heart attack. That paper is just another example of perfectly good data being misinterpreted, and leading to an absurd conclusion.

The only way we could say that 7 hours of sleep is the healthiest amount (for the "average" person), would be to do an "intervention study", in which the subjects are manipulated rather than simply observed. Here's how it would work: we would take a large group of people and randomly assign them to either 5, 7 or 9 hours of sleep a night. We would then look at mortality over the course of the next few years, and see who dies more.

Intervention studies are the only way to establish causality, rather than simple association! At the end of our study, we could rightfully say that X amount of sleep causes an increase or decrease in mortality. Obviously, these types of studies are challenging and expensive to conduct, so it's tempting to over-interpret epidemiological studies like the one I mentioned initially.

This has to be one of the gravest, most frequent mistakes in the realm of health research and reporting. So many of the health recommendations we get from the media, the government, and even so-called scientists are entirely based on associations! Things like fiber is healthy and saturated fat is unhealthy. Those are conclusions that were drawn from studies that could only determine associations, yet neither has been consistently supported by intervention trials!

Misinterpreted data is worse than no data at all. Just say no to bad science!

Two Things That Get on My Nerves, Part II

Confusing Correlation and Causation

Recently, a paper was published that examined the association between sleep duration and the risk of death. Ferrie et al. showed that in their study population, subjects who slept either more or less than 7 hours a night had an increased overall risk of death. Here's how it was reported in Medical News Today:

Too Little Or Too Much Sleep Increases Risk Of Death

And here's a gem of a quote from one of the study's authors (excerpt from the article above):

In terms of prevention, our findings indicate that consistently sleeping around 7 hours per night is optimal for health and a sustained reduction may predispose to ill-health.

There's only one small problem: the study indicated no such thing. What the study showed is that people who sleep more or less than 7 hours tend to die more often than people who don't, not that the lack or excess of sleep caused the increased mortality. Have you ever noticed that you sleep more when you're not feeling well? Have you ever noticed that you sleep less when you're stressed? Could the increased mortality and sleep disturbances both be caused by some other factor(s), rather than one causing the other? We don't know, because the nature of the study doesn't allow us to answer that question!

The message the public ends up hearing is that no matter what feels right for your body, 7 hours of sleep is the optimum for health. Even though you'll have to go to work with bags under your eyes, feeling like crap, it's healthy. Even though you have the flu, you'd better not sleep more because it might give you a heart attack. That paper is just another example of perfectly good data being misinterpreted, and leading to an absurd conclusion.

The only way we could say that 7 hours of sleep is the healthiest amount (for the "average" person), would be to do an "intervention study", in which the subjects are manipulated rather than simply observed. Here's how it would work: we would take a large group of people and randomly assign them to either 5, 7 or 9 hours of sleep a night. We would then look at mortality over the course of the next few years, and see who dies more.

Intervention studies are the only way to establish causality, rather than simple association! At the end of our study, we could rightfully say that X amount of sleep causes an increase or decrease in mortality. Obviously, these types of studies are challenging and expensive to conduct, so it's tempting to over-interpret epidemiological studies like the one I mentioned initially.

This has to be one of the gravest, most frequent mistakes in the realm of health research and reporting. So many of the health recommendations we get from the media, the government, and even so-called scientists are entirely based on associations! Things like fiber is healthy and saturated fat is unhealthy. Those are conclusions that were drawn from studies that could only determine associations, yet neither has been consistently supported by intervention trials!

Misinterpreted data is worse than no data at all. Just say no to bad science!

Two Things That Get on My Nerves, Part II

Confusing Correlation and Causation

Recently, a paper was published that examined the association between sleep duration and the risk of death. Ferrie et al. showed that in their study population, subjects who slept either more or less than 7 hours a night had an increased overall risk of death. Here's how it was reported in Medical News Today:

Too Little Or Too Much Sleep Increases Risk Of Death

And here's a gem of a quote from one of the study's authors (excerpt from the article above):

In terms of prevention, our findings indicate that consistently sleeping around 7 hours per night is optimal for health and a sustained reduction may predispose to ill-health.

There's only one small problem: the study indicated no such thing. What the study showed is that people who sleep more or less than 7 hours tend to die more often than people who don't, not that the lack or excess of sleep caused the increased mortality. Have you ever noticed that you sleep more when you're not feeling well? Have you ever noticed that you sleep less when you're stressed? Could the increased mortality and sleep disturbances both be caused by some other factor(s), rather than one causing the other? We don't know, because the nature of the study doesn't allow us to answer that question!

The message the public ends up hearing is that no matter what feels right for your body, 7 hours of sleep is the optimum for health. Even though you'll have to go to work with bags under your eyes, feeling like crap, it's healthy. Even though you have the flu, you'd better not sleep more because it might give you a heart attack. That paper is just another example of perfectly good data being misinterpreted, and leading to an absurd conclusion.

The only way we could say that 7 hours of sleep is the healthiest amount (for the "average" person), would be to do an "intervention study", in which the subjects are manipulated rather than simply observed. Here's how it would work: we would take a large group of people and randomly assign them to either 5, 7 or 9 hours of sleep a night. We would then look at mortality over the course of the next few years, and see who dies more.

Intervention studies are the only way to establish causality, rather than simple association! At the end of our study, we could rightfully say that X amount of sleep causes an increase or decrease in mortality. Obviously, these types of studies are challenging and expensive to conduct, so it's tempting to over-interpret epidemiological studies like the one I mentioned initially.

This has to be one of the gravest, most frequent mistakes in the realm of health research and reporting. So many of the health recommendations we get from the media, the government, and even so-called scientists are entirely based on associations! Things like fiber is healthy and saturated fat is unhealthy. Those are conclusions that were drawn from studies that could only determine associations, yet neither has been consistently supported by intervention trials!

Misinterpreted data is worse than no data at all. Just say no to bad science!

Two Things That Get on My Nerves, Part II

Confusing Correlation and Causation

Recently, a paper was published that examined the association between sleep duration and the risk of death. Ferrie et al. showed that in their study population, subjects who slept either more or less than 7 hours a night had an increased overall risk of death. Here's how it was reported in Medical News Today:

Too Little Or Too Much Sleep Increases Risk Of Death

And here's a gem of a quote from one of the study's authors (excerpt from the article above):

In terms of prevention, our findings indicate that consistently sleeping around 7 hours per night is optimal for health and a sustained reduction may predispose to ill-health.

There's only one small problem: the study indicated no such thing. What the study showed is that people who sleep more or less than 7 hours tend to die more often than people who don't, not that the lack or excess of sleep caused the increased mortality. Have you ever noticed that you sleep more when you're not feeling well? Have you ever noticed that you sleep less when you're stressed? Could the increased mortality and sleep disturbances both be caused by some other factor(s), rather than one causing the other? We don't know, because the nature of the study doesn't allow us to answer that question!

The message the public ends up hearing is that no matter what feels right for your body, 7 hours of sleep is the optimum for health. Even though you'll have to go to work with bags under your eyes, feeling like crap, it's healthy. Even though you have the flu, you'd better not sleep more because it might give you a heart attack. That paper is just another example of perfectly good data being misinterpreted, and leading to an absurd conclusion.

The only way we could say that 7 hours of sleep is the healthiest amount (for the "average" person), would be to do an "intervention study", in which the subjects are manipulated rather than simply observed. Here's how it would work: we would take a large group of people and randomly assign them to either 5, 7 or 9 hours of sleep a night. We would then look at mortality over the course of the next few years, and see who dies more.

Intervention studies are the only way to establish causality, rather than simple association! At the end of our study, we could rightfully say that X amount of sleep causes an increase or decrease in mortality. Obviously, these types of studies are challenging and expensive to conduct, so it's tempting to over-interpret epidemiological studies like the one I mentioned initially.

This has to be one of the gravest, most frequent mistakes in the realm of health research and reporting. So many of the health recommendations we get from the media, the government, and even so-called scientists are entirely based on associations! Things like fiber is healthy and saturated fat is unhealthy. Those are conclusions that were drawn from studies that could only determine associations, yet neither has been consistently supported by intervention trials!

Misinterpreted data is worse than no data at all. Just say no to bad science!

Green Pancakes(Dosa)

Green Pancakes(Dosa)
Greens make your life better . Green pancakes are made using Whole Green Moong Lentil. This lentil is packed with nutrients like calcium , iron and above all much needed fiber.

Ingredients you'll need is
2 cups Whole Green Moong Lentil
1 inch ginger root peel and chopped
2 green chillies(exclude if you want a milder flavor)
1 big Onion chopped
1 teaspoon sea salt
Extra Virgin Olive Oil(EVOO)

To Make the Green Pancakes
Soak the lentils in water over night.
Next morning blend all the ingredients in a processor. Use a cup of water to make it consistency just right to pour and spread.
Heat the non stick pan on medium high. Pour one ladle of batter right in the middle. Spread by making circles. Leave it alone for 2-3 minutes. Flip and let cook for another 2-3 minutes. It takes longer to cook a green dosa than a plain dosa.

Now flip again add some chopped onion ,fold the dosa and serve with ginger chutney.


To make Ginger chutney
2 medium plum tomatoes halved
1/2 inch ginger root peeled and chopped
1/4 teaspoon chilly powder
1/2 teaspoon sea salt
1 table spoon EVOO

Heat EVOO and saute all ingredients for 8-10 minutes until tomatoes are tender. Blend and serve with any Indian pancakes(Dosa) or Rice cakes(Idlis)

Health Nut Substitute
Yellow moong Split lentils can also be used ,which have lesser fiber.

This is my entry for Sangeeth's Eat Healthy :Calcium rich Event

Two Things that Get on My Nerves, Part I

The "Thrifty Gene" Hypothesis

The thrifty gene hypothesis is the darling of many obesity researchers. It was proposed in 1962 by the geneticist James V. Neel to explain the high rates of obesity in modern populations, particularly modernizing American Indians. It states that our species evolved under conditions of frequent starvation, so we're designed to store every available calorie. In today's world of food abundance, our bodies continue to be thrifty and that's why we're fat.

Obesity researchers love it because it dovetails nicely with the equally dim "calories-in, calories-out hypothesis", whereby calories alone determine body composition. You practically can't read a paper on overweight without seeing an obligatory nod to the thrifty gene hypothesis. The only problem is, it's wrong.

The assumption that hunter-gatherers and non-industrial agriculturalists lived under chronic calorie deprivation has been proven false. The anthropological evidence indicates that most hunter-gatherers had abundant food, most of the time. They did have fluctuations in energy balance, but the majority of the time they had access to more calories than they needed, just like us. Yet they were not fat.

The Kitavans are a good example. They are an agricultural society that eats virtually no grains or processed food. In Dr. Staffan Lindeberg's studies, he has determined that overweight is virtually nonexistent among them, despite an abundant food supply.

The cause of obesity is not the availability of excess calories, it's the deregulation of the bodyweight homeostasis system. We have a very sophisticated set of feedback loops that "try" to maintain a healthy weight. It's composed of hormones (insulin, leptin, etc.), certain brain regions, and many other elements, known and unknown. These feedback loops influence what the body does with calories, as well as feeding behaviors. When you throw a wrench in the gears with a lifestyle that is unnatural to the human metabolism, you deregulate the system so that it no longer maintains an appropriate "set-point".

Here's what Neel had to say about his own theory in 1982 (excerpts from Good Calories, Bad Calories):

The data on which that (rather soft) hypothesis was based has now largely collapsed.

And what does he think causes overweight in American Indians now?

The composition of the diet, and more specifically the use of highly refined carbohydrates.

RIP, thrifty gene.


For more information on bodyweight regulation, see:

Insulin Controls Your Fat
Leptin and Lectins
Thoughts on Obesity Part I
Thoughts on Obesity Part II
Body Composition

Two Things that Get on My Nerves, Part I

The "Thrifty Gene" Hypothesis

The thrifty gene hypothesis is the darling of many obesity researchers. It was proposed in 1962 by the geneticist James V. Neel to explain the high rates of obesity in modern populations, particularly modernizing American Indians. It states that our species evolved under conditions of frequent starvation, so we're designed to store every available calorie. In today's world of food abundance, our bodies continue to be thrifty and that's why we're fat.

Obesity researchers love it because it dovetails nicely with the equally dim "calories-in, calories-out hypothesis", whereby calories alone determine body composition. You practically can't read a paper on overweight without seeing an obligatory nod to the thrifty gene hypothesis. The only problem is, it's wrong.

The assumption that hunter-gatherers and non-industrial agriculturalists lived under chronic calorie deprivation has been proven false. The anthropological evidence indicates that most hunter-gatherers had abundant food, most of the time. They did have fluctuations in energy balance, but the majority of the time they had access to more calories than they needed, just like us. Yet they were not fat.

The Kitavans are a good example. They are an agricultural society that eats virtually no grains or processed food. In Dr. Staffan Lindeberg's studies, he has determined that overweight is virtually nonexistent among them, despite an abundant food supply.

The cause of obesity is not the availability of excess calories, it's the deregulation of the bodyweight homeostasis system. We have a very sophisticated set of feedback loops that "try" to maintain a healthy weight. It's composed of hormones (insulin, leptin, etc.), certain brain regions, and many other elements, known and unknown. These feedback loops influence what the body does with calories, as well as feeding behaviors. When you throw a wrench in the gears with a lifestyle that is unnatural to the human metabolism, you deregulate the system so that it no longer maintains an appropriate "set-point".

Here's what Neel had to say about his own theory in 1982 (excerpts from Good Calories, Bad Calories):

The data on which that (rather soft) hypothesis was based has now largely collapsed.

And what does he think causes overweight in American Indians now?

The composition of the diet, and more specifically the use of highly refined carbohydrates.

RIP, thrifty gene.


For more information on bodyweight regulation, see:

Insulin Controls Your Fat
Leptin and Lectins
Thoughts on Obesity Part I
Thoughts on Obesity Part II
Body Composition

Two Things that Get on My Nerves, Part I

The "Thrifty Gene" Hypothesis

The thrifty gene hypothesis is the darling of many obesity researchers. It was proposed in 1962 by the geneticist James V. Neel to explain the high rates of obesity in modern populations, particularly modernizing American Indians. It states that our species evolved under conditions of frequent starvation, so we're designed to store every available calorie. In today's world of food abundance, our bodies continue to be thrifty and that's why we're fat.

Obesity researchers love it because it dovetails nicely with the equally dim "calories-in, calories-out hypothesis", whereby calories alone determine body composition. You practically can't read a paper on overweight without seeing an obligatory nod to the thrifty gene hypothesis. The only problem is, it's wrong.

The assumption that hunter-gatherers and non-industrial agriculturalists lived under chronic calorie deprivation has been proven false. The anthropological evidence indicates that most hunter-gatherers had abundant food, most of the time. They did have fluctuations in energy balance, but the majority of the time they had access to more calories than they needed, just like us. Yet they were not fat.

The Kitavans are a good example. They are an agricultural society that eats virtually no grains or processed food. In Dr. Staffan Lindeberg's studies, he has determined that overweight is virtually nonexistent among them, despite an abundant food supply.

The cause of obesity is not the availability of excess calories, it's the deregulation of the bodyweight homeostasis system. We have a very sophisticated set of feedback loops that "try" to maintain a healthy weight. It's composed of hormones (insulin, leptin, etc.), certain brain regions, and many other elements, known and unknown. These feedback loops influence what the body does with calories, as well as feeding behaviors. When you throw a wrench in the gears with a lifestyle that is unnatural to the human metabolism, you deregulate the system so that it no longer maintains an appropriate "set-point".

Here's what Neel had to say about his own theory in 1982 (excerpts from Good Calories, Bad Calories):

The data on which that (rather soft) hypothesis was based has now largely collapsed.

And what does he think causes overweight in American Indians now?

The composition of the diet, and more specifically the use of highly refined carbohydrates.

RIP, thrifty gene.


For more information on bodyweight regulation, see:

Insulin Controls Your Fat
Leptin and Lectins
Thoughts on Obesity Part I
Thoughts on Obesity Part II
Body Composition

Two Things that Get on My Nerves, Part I

The "Thrifty Gene" Hypothesis

The thrifty gene hypothesis is the darling of many obesity researchers. It was proposed in 1962 by the geneticist James V. Neel to explain the high rates of obesity in modern populations, particularly modernizing American Indians. It states that our species evolved under conditions of frequent starvation, so we're designed to store every available calorie. In today's world of food abundance, our bodies continue to be thrifty and that's why we're fat.

Obesity researchers love it because it dovetails nicely with the equally dim "calories-in, calories-out hypothesis", whereby calories alone determine body composition. You practically can't read a paper on overweight without seeing an obligatory nod to the thrifty gene hypothesis. The only problem is, it's wrong.

The assumption that hunter-gatherers and non-industrial agriculturalists lived under chronic calorie deprivation has been proven false. The anthropological evidence indicates that most hunter-gatherers had abundant food, most of the time. They did have fluctuations in energy balance, but the majority of the time they had access to more calories than they needed, just like us. Yet they were not fat.

The Kitavans are a good example. They are an agricultural society that eats virtually no grains or processed food. In Dr. Staffan Lindeberg's studies, he has determined that overweight is virtually nonexistent among them, despite an abundant food supply.

The cause of obesity is not the availability of excess calories, it's the deregulation of the bodyweight homeostasis system. We have a very sophisticated set of feedback loops that "try" to maintain a healthy weight. It's composed of hormones (insulin, leptin, etc.), certain brain regions, and many other elements, known and unknown. These feedback loops influence what the body does with calories, as well as feeding behaviors. When you throw a wrench in the gears with a lifestyle that is unnatural to the human metabolism, you deregulate the system so that it no longer maintains an appropriate "set-point".

Here's what Neel had to say about his own theory in 1982 (excerpts from Good Calories, Bad Calories):

The data on which that (rather soft) hypothesis was based has now largely collapsed.

And what does he think causes overweight in American Indians now?

The composition of the diet, and more specifically the use of highly refined carbohydrates.

RIP, thrifty gene.


For more information on bodyweight regulation, see:

Insulin Controls Your Fat
Leptin and Lectins
Thoughts on Obesity Part I
Thoughts on Obesity Part II
Body Composition

CIMS ONLINE

THis is a good news for indian medical practitioners.our famous drugs data book CIMS launched their online version . www.cimsasia.com for India and www.mims.com for other Asian countries ,which enables to search Drug information, Interactions, Diagnosis confirmation and Search medica dedicated healthcare search engine.
To download the cims ebook visit
Mobile Drug data book CIMS or MIMS pdb isilo book free download