"health" news and stories

The newest food stuff to come under scrutiny isn't a member of the fast-food circuit but rather of Native American culture: fry bread. This doughy hole-less puff is best centered under a helping of chili, soaking in juices to be eaten by the finger-pluck-full.

But according to Health magazine's June 29 report, it's among the 50 fattiest foods in the country, reports Argus Leader, a local newspaper of Sioux Falls South Dakota, whose large Native American population named fry bread the state bread in 2005. "The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that one slice of fry bread the size of a large paper plate has about 25 grams of fat," the magazine's report notes. And a recent episode of fitness show "Losing it with Jillian" depicts the bread as "poisonous," the Leader reports.

Bright-red soda, rainbow-hued kid's cereal, electric-yellow popsicles...most of us have eaten them. But unlike the public health uproar over salt and trans fats, there hasn't been much said about the dangers of food dyes. Fed up with consumer apathy, The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is calling for a complete government ban of food dyes. The advocacy group says the three most widely used dyes -- Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 -- contain cancer-causing substances. Another dye, Red 3, has actually been identified as a carcinogen by the FDA, but you can still find it on supermarket shelves.

"These synthetic chemicals do absolutely nothing to improve the nutritional quality or safety of foods," says Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the nonprofit group. "[They] trigger behavior problems in children and, possibly, cancer in anybody."

Think you're immune to the problem because you don't gobble Fruit Loops in the morning? Think again. The dyes are in a staggering array of foods, from salad dressing to matzo balls. In fact, manufacturers put about 15 million pounds of eight synthetic dyes into the food supply each year, according to CSPI. Even scarier? Per capita consumption of dyes has risen five-fold since 1955. A lot of it has to do with the kinds of foods now marketed to children. The wilder the color, the more cash a product often brings in.

A new trend piece in the New York Times suggests that too much parental emphasis on healthy eating could create neurotic kiddies who are too scared to eat a slice of birthday cake.

Nutritionists and eating disorder specialists say they're seeing an increasing number of children who are terrified of "bad" foods, whether that means non-organics, trans fats, or just regular old sugar, to such an extent that it disrupts their daily lives. "We're seeing a lot of anxiety in these kids," says Cynthia Bulik, director of the eating disorders program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "They go to birthday parties, and if it's not a granola cake they feel like they can't eat it"

Some say that "orthorexia," as one specialist has dubbed the extreme obsession with healthy eating, is a pathway to anorexia and other eating disorders. They say the problem is in rigidly categorizing foods as "good" or "bad" instead of talking about moderation - children often take moral categories very, very seriously. Of course kids shouldn't be downing liters of Coke, but nor should they be paralyzed by guilt over eating a "bad" Oreo or forced to binge on potato chips in private because eating fatty foods is "naughty."

I had two friends growing up whose parents wouldn't let them eat refined sugar and who never had anything in the pantry tastier than whole wheat crackers. When they'd come to play at my house they'd plunder our kitchen cabinets for chocolate and cookies, which they would sneak home in plastic bags to eat under the covers at night. I can't help but think that being allowed a small dish of ice cream after dinner at their own houses might have taught them better eating habits.

How did your parents teach you healthy eating habits (or not)? How do you try to encourage your own kids to eat right?

Source

Half of all American adults take some kind of dietary supplement, but a number of new studies have failed to show any link between multivitamin pills and better health or longer life among people with already adequate nutrition, reports the New York Times. Researchers at an eight-year-long study from the Women's Health Initiative showed that multivitamins did not reduce risk for heart disease or any kinds of cancer; a decade-long study on men showed that taking vitamins C and E made no differences in cancer or heart disease rates. Selenium was also not shown to have any effect on prostate cancer rates, as was previously believed.

Some studies have even shown potential harmful effects from vitamins, such as an increased risk of lung cancer among those taking high-dose beta carotene supplements.

But no one denies the health benefits of a balanced diet. Many physicians and researchers believe that the protective effects of vitamins may not translate from whole foods to vitamin pills, for reasons not completely understood. "There may not be a single component of broccoli or green leafy vegetables that is responsible for the health benefits," says one researcher. "Why are we taking a reductionist approach and plucking out one or two chemicals given in isolation?"

Do you take vitamin supplements? Do you think they help?

Source

I was always the kind of kid who put stuff in my mouth that didn't belong - wooden stacking blocks, my mom's car keys, the occasional earthworm. I loved the feel of a bit of sand in my sandwich, and I could never keep my teeth off my deliciously grimy fingernails. Now, as an adult, I rarely get sick, despite my predilection for taco trucks, Indian street food and pork products of dubious origin. Is there a connection?

In this week's New York Times health section, Jane Brody writes about what's known as the hygiene hypothesis - the theory that ingesting plenty of bacteria and viruses as a child can help develop a healthy immune system. Though no one disputes that public health measures like sewer systems and food production regulation have improved overall health immeasurably, studies have also shown higher rates of autoimmune disorders, allergies and asthma in people raised in ultra-clean environments. Basically, their systems don't "learn" to deal with foreign bodies, and become ultra-sensitive, attacking even normal tissue. Some research even suggests that deliberately infecting patients with worms can help treat certain auto-immune issues.

While most of us aren't going to go out and deliberately swallow pig whipworms, I think the hygiene hypothesis lends support to the increasingly widespread idea that it's OK to eat foods that fall outside the (supposedly) sterile confines of corporate agriculture. So let's all eat some raw milk cheese, cook some antibiotic-free meat, buy some gnobbly farmers market carrots with clods of earth still clinging to the tops. And maybe a little mud pie for dessert.

Source