Beer and belly. Photo: Paul Keleher, Flickr

From the UK comes excellent news for beer drinkers -- and their bellies: According to the results of a new study, beer bellies are caused by genetics, not beer.

After tracking 7,876 men and 12,749 women over the course of eight and a half years, a group of German and Swedish researchers discovered that while regular drinkers -- especially those who consumed the equivalent of two pints a day -- were more likely to gain weight overall, that weight did not necessarily accumulate in the abdominal region. The scientists concluded that while "beer consumption seems to be rather associated with an increase in overall body fatness," evidence of more "site-specific" weight gain was limited. Somewhat unsurprisingly, given its pivotal role in most weighty matters, genetics was the real culprit.

The news couldn't have come at a better time, i.e summer, when hot days call out for cold brews and beer aficionados seek sweet relief in air-conditioned bars across the country. It's possibly the best news since, oh, last week, when New York City declared July Good Beer Month, and will doubtless inspire countless toasts made over frosty mugs held high.

Photo: Brettf/Flickr

File under Common Sense: A new study finds that carrots cooked whole have 25 percent more cancer-fighting power than carrots that are chopped up before they're cooked.

Why? More cutting means more surface area. And more surface area means more exposure to cooking water, which leaches out the carrot's nutrients. Among those nutrients is falcarinol, an anti-cancer compound.

That discovery should come as no surprise to anyone who's ever eaten carrots that have been boiled within an inch of their life: the more they're cooked, the less flavor they retain. So it follows that if flavor can be lost, so can nutrients.

The scientists who conducted the study at England's Newcastle University also made the connection between lost nutrients and flavor, noting that the whole-cooked carrots also tasted better because they retained more of their natural sugars.

Better health and better flavor: a win-win situation, cloaked in a flattering shade of orange.

The obesity epidemic in the US has been well documented, but could it be caused, at least in part, by thinking? There's a new study out that indicates thinking could contribute to an expanding waistline.

Researchers split participants into three groups: one group just rested, one had to read, the last one had to complete mental tests on a computer. Then all the participants were allowed to eat whatever they wanted to. Even though they only used about three more calories, the groups who were using their brains ate 200 (the readers) and 250 (the computer test takers) more calories. Through extensive blood sample-taking (before, during, and after the experiment), the researchers found wide variations in blood glucose levels from different phases of the experiment.

They concluded that "the body reacts to these fluctuations by demanding food to restore glucose, a sugar that is the brain's fuel. Glucose is converted by the body from carbohydrates and is supplied to the brain via the bloodstream. The brain cannot make glucose and so needs a constant supply. Brain cells need twice as much energy as other cells in the body. "

They cautioned that people who have intellectually demanding jobs should keep this in mind when they're choosing what and how much to eat. I think we all need to keep this in mind, as well as get out of the office to go for a walk.

It's Monday morning, and if you have a lot of work to catch up on or a deadline to meet, consider popping a piece of gum.

There's a new study from Australia that found chewing gum not only raises alertness, it also reduces stress and anxiety. Study participants were subjected to a test called DISS (Defined Intensity Stressor Simulation). The gum chewers also had "significant improvement in overall performance on multi-tasking activities."

The study was done in conjunction with Wrigley, and their Wrigley Science Institute. I'm not discounting the study results, but I also think that's something to keep in mind. What do you think about this study?

MSG has long been a contentious ingredient. It is often vilified, as a lot of people believe that they are allergic to the stuff. Recently, though, MSG has had its reputation partially restored as it is thought to be a source of Umami, the much-heralded fifth taste.

A new study has raised the possibility that MSG might once again losing its good standing. A group of scientists have recently finished a study linking MSG to higher body weight. They found that "high MSG consumption was associated with a 110 per cent increase in the risk" of having a high body mass index (BMI).

Industry groups immediately responded, essentially saying "no way Jose." The Glutamate Association said that on top of flaws in the study, areas of the world that already consume large amounts of MSG do not have high BMI numbers (which would indicate they were overweight). What do you think about the new findings?

What do you take when you have minor pain? Asprin? Tylenol? Advil? According to new research, all you need to do relieve that twinge in your lower back or mild throb in your wrist is think about food.

Healthbolt posted this last week and it got me thinking. There's a study that suggests that thinking about food you find delicious can help manage pain. But could I really just fantasize about, say, corned beef and cabbage, and poof, my headache is gone? I'm sure that example is pushing it a little, but still.

Maybe I'm not giving this idea a chance, though. There's a lot to be said about the power of the mind. What's your opinion about the idea of thinking of food as a pain reliever?

A lot of people enjoy an adult beverage now and then (some of them more than others). Did you ever wonder, though, if one was worse for you? I know that thought never has crossed my mind, but apparently it occurred to some researchers and so they set about to look into it.

In a new study published in the journal Alcohol and Alcoholism, scientists scanned the brains of people diagnosed with alcoholism and found differences in the size of the hippocampus. That's the area of the brain responsible for spatial tasks and memory. Beer drinkers came out with the least damage, followed by those who preferred spirits and wine, respectively.

"The size of the hippocampus was largest in the healthy group – 3.85ml. In beer drinkers it was 3.4ml, while the average for spirit drinkers was 2.9ml, and for wine drinkers, 2.8ml."

Of course there are a lot of other factors that could have played a part here, and this is only very early research. The study does suggest that beer is either less bad for your brain or that it protects your brain a little more than the other beverages. What do you think? Is this all hogwash, or is beer better?

[Via Real Beer]

Despite urges from various British food organizations, the European Food Safety Authority decided against banning additives in food.

Their reasoning? A recent £750,000 study, which found a link between eating food loaded with additives and colorants and impulsive/hyperactive behavior in kids, was not a substantial enough reason to ban the additives entirely. In the study, eight and nine year olds who had ingested food with additives could not sit still long enough to complet simple tasks, like a 15-minute computer exercise. (Yeah, but neither could most of the eight year olds I know, with or without stimulants. Heck, most 25 year-olds I know don't have the patience to finish a 15-minute computer task).

But the study did prompt some retailers to change their ways: Marks and Spencer, a British department store that sells everything from shirts to iPods to gourmet foods, vowed to stop selling food and drink that contain additives by the end of the month.

The study results should not be ignored, but I don't blame the EU for not jumping to conclusions. Banning food with additives falls along the same lines as banning food with trans-fats, and I have the same opinion in each case: use your own good judgment and discretion. If packaged foods make your kid hyperactive, don't buy the foods, or at least limit their intake. Simple as that.

[via] Times Online

To discover what long term effects regular alcohol consumption has on the average make life span, Dutch researchers tracked over 1,300 men (all born between 1900 and 1920) for four decades (1960-2000, or until death) and periodically surveyed them about eating, drinking and smoking habits, weight and medical problems. After compiling all their data, the researchers found that there was a correlation between drinking small amounts of wine and a longer life expectancy in these men. Those who drank about 1/2 glass per day had lower mortality rates than their spirit- and beer-drinking buddies. The average increase in life expectancy was 2 years. The wine-drinkers even lived an average of 3.8 years longer than those who abstained from alcohol completely.

This study did not examine the properties of wine to come up with concrete reasons for the increase in life expectancy, but it is the first study to confirm that the effects previously noted in animal experiments translate to people.

It's well known by this time that whole grains are good for you. One of the most important benefits that they offer is that they have been shown to help lower the blood pressure of those with slightly elevated cholesterol levels. A new study takes this one step further and has found that eating whole grain breakfast cereals (those with at least 25% oat or bran) can reduce the risk of heart failure. Presented at the American Heart Association's 47th Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention, the study showed that eating 2-6 servings of whole grain breakfast cereals each week decreased their risk by 22%, while those eating 1 serving per week lowered theirs by 14%.

Critics of this particular study say that the fact that whole grains came from cereal, as opposed to from some other source, has nothing to do with the results. The whole grains could have come from any source and as long as the same serving sizes was reached, the results should be the same. The benefit in associating the results with cereals is that it is relative easy to find healthy cereals that meet the minimum standards set by the study. Additionally,because people often skip breakfast (or don't have whole grains with it), eating cereals adds extra servings of whole grains above and beyond what they would normally eat throughout the day.

Nutritionists and researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston set out to try and discover whether dairy foods in general had any effect of fertility on humans, as there was "pretty strong evidence" that an excess of lactose in animals could have a negative effect on the ability of females to conceive. Everyone was surprised to find that the same result was not found in humans. The records, taken from 1991-1999, of nearly 19,000 women from the ages of 24-42 were examined.

It turned out that they found that women who ate two or more servings of low-fat/non-fat dairy foods and no whole fat dairy had an 85% higher risk of becoming infertile. Eating one serving of whole fat dairy per day significantly reduced the odds of developing infertility. The type of infertility most commonly found in this study was anovulatory, a failure to produce eggs. One possible reason for this result is that low fat dairy foods tend to have more lactose in them than full fat products, but scientists say that more research is needed before anything can firmly be concluded. And they do "not recommend that women trying to conceive use this as an excuse to eat "buckets and buckets of ice cream."

Garlic is one of those foods to which a very high number of cures are attributed. A quick search reveals citations that it can cure asthma, back pain, yeast infections and even prevent cancer. An analysis undertaken by the researchers at the Stanford Prevention Research Center at Stanford University found that the studies that showed allicin, the ingredient in garlic said to lower cholesterol levels, were all sponsored by the supplement companies that used it and that many of the studies used poor methodology. They did their own test of the stuff and found that, while allicin does lower cholesterol in cells in test tubes and in rats, it does nothing for humans. Stanford says that theirs was the first independent, long-term study to look at both raw garlic and garlic supplements in relation to cholesterol levels and they feel very confident about their results.

Participants and garlic fans alike have reported disappointment on learning that garlic-heavy diets aren't always a medical fix. Fortunately, the study didn't find that it has a negative effect on health, so they can still eat all the garlic they want. And, from the comments of the researchers, it is clear that many of them will because they simply don't believe the study results. One researcher said, "They were such zealots. They were going to keep taking it [in spite of the conclusions found]."

A team of archaeologists has recently made a discovery that, while it probably won't make it into may children's picture books - unlike many of the discoveries about past civilizations - could very well make it into a cookbook someday. They discovered the remains of the world's first home-grown chili peppers in what is now western Ecuador. The discovery derailed the long-standing belief that residents of higher and more arid areas, like what are now Peru and Mexico, were the first to grow chilies by more than 1,000 years. There is no question about the time frame for the existence of the chili plants that were identified by "microfossils from grinding stones and charred ceramic cookware" because there has been so much study done of the pottery that "the dates [are] all very tight."

This discovery shows that chili peppers were one of the oldest domesticated foods in the world. More research is planned to try and discover exactly how the people living in villages in Ecuador at that time used the chilies.

Attention all mothers-to-be: some new research done by the U.S. National Institutes of Health has shown that eating more fish and seafood while pregnant could have a positive effect on the intelligence of children in the long run compared to the children of those women who ate less seafood, or none at all. The omega-3 fatty acids in seafood play an important role in fetal brain development, and the additional benefit that can come from eating more than 12-ounces of seafood (about two meals' worth) a week. Lower consumption, in spite of the fact that the government recommends no more than 12-ounces a week, did nothing to help fetal development.

The study looked at the children of 8,000 British women, tracking them from before birth to the age of 8. On average, they "were more advanced in developmental tests measuring fine motor, communication and social skills as toddlers, behaved better at age 7, and earned higher verbal IQ scores at age 8."

One of the controversial things about this study is the fact that so much seafood is affected by pollution - specifically mercury, which can damage the nervous system. In this study, a negative impact on the children was not found, but researchers say that solid evidence of the benefits of seafood should motivate the legislature to "take [further] actions to keep pollutants out of seafood."

We already know that not all kids like vegetables and that preferences may even be genetic when it comes to overall eating habits, but that doesn't explain why kids entering adolescence eat fewer veggies than they did when they were younger.

In a report that appeared in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, researchers noted that there were two big drops during a five year period in the amount of fruits and vegetables that teens, both jr. high and high school students, ate. One dip occurred early in adolescence and another occurred late. In both cases, consumption dropped by 1/2 serving - which could be a substantial percentage if the kids were not eating the recommended minimum number of servings a day to begin with. Researchers don't yet know why these drops occur, although it is possible that access to vending machines at jr. high schools (not present in elementary schools) and access to cars/fast food in high school may contribute.