Author Archives: dianne rishikof

Habits for a healthy gut

Leave a reply

“The gut is swarming with about 100 trillion bacteria, or flora, which outnumber human cells in our body 10 to 1. Bacteria are often considered “good” or “bad…Essentially, the gut is your body’s gatekeeper, letting in helpful compounds and evicting harmful ones. It’s home to 70 to 80% of our immune cells. When the gut is in good shape, our systems run efficiently, but when it’s not, we may experience upset stomach, be at risk for weight gain or digestive problems like heartburn and constipation, or just feel vaguely out of sorts.”

This is from a recent article on cnn.com.

This article is a good summary of why good bacteria is so important and what to do. I agree with everything, except the prebiotics. Prebiotics are food for the good bacteria. This is extremely important so that the good bacteria thrive. However, some of the foods that contain prebiotics (onions, chicory root, etc) can make IBS symptoms worse because they contain fodmaps (fermentable cabohydrates).

 

Exercise affects gut bacteria

Leave a reply

We all know exercise is good for you. We all know at least a couple reasons why:

  • helps facilitate weight loss and maintenance by:
  • burning calories and:
  • building muscle and increasing metabolism
  • reduces risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer
  • improves mood

The list could go on. But a new study has shown that gut bacteria diversity improves with exercise. The gastrointestinal (GI) tract – the stomach and intestines – is home to a complex community of bacteria referred to as the gut microbiota. Gut bacteria is important for our digestion and our immune system. And we are always looking for ways to increase the good bacteria and minimize the growth of bad. We know about probiotics, various foods but it looks like exercise is also one of the ways to increase the variety (which means more good bacteria). The diet of the study participants was different as well and certainly influenced the study’s results. I would even say that the diet might have been such a confounding variable that this study just shows that exercise might play a positive roll, when combined with the proper diet.

 

Does gluten sensitivity exist?

Leave a reply

 

Gluten is the protein in wheat, barley and rye. It has received a lot of attention lately, as more and more people are cutting gluten out of their diets.

Celiac disease is an auto-immune disease where a person is allergic to gluten and eating it causes their immune system to attack the lining of the gastrointestinal tract. This causes an array of unpleasant symptoms including pain and diarrhea. It affects 1% of the population.

Gluten sensitivity describes the remaining number of people who can not tolerate gluten (the stats are 6% or a lot more depending on where you look). There is no allergy, no immune response, and no damage to the lining of GI tract but still symptoms. Gluten is hard to digest and can cause diarrhea, cramping, gas, bloating, headaches, brain fog, or skin rashes. Cutting out gluten removes these symptoms.

Another portion of the population is giving up gluten because they are trying to be more healthy (jumping on the dump gluten bandwagon). I think this is fine. Given that gluten is found in wheat and wheat is highly processed and processed foods are at best useless (and at worst, very bad for you. stay tuned for a future post). But some people think this is just a silly fad.

A study came out recently where gluten sensitivity was actually tested. One group was fed gluten, and other groups were not, but all groups were blind to what they were being fed. Thus preventing bias. And the gluten group did NOT have more symptoms than the control groups. Pretty solid evidence against the existence of gluten sensitivity, huh?

No study is definitive and there were still confounding variables (such as FODMAPs) Here is an article that totally refutes the study point by point and brings the possibility of gluten sensitivity back to life. Or perhaps just wheat sensitivity. Since this research study was giving participants isolated gluten, it doesn’t tell us much about the real world (who sits around eating isolated gluten apart from food?). Perhaps it is wheat that gives people those symptoms and not gluten or a combination of all the components in wheat, including gluten. But you know your own body, and if cutting out gluten solves your problems, that’s compelling research for you.

Why all the confusion?

Leave a reply

Why is there so much confusion over nutrition?

Here is a comprehensive article about the various factors that interplay to cause this confusion. The ‘health industry’ (trying to sell you something you ‘need’), the government, the media, and our own psychology.

“At the end of the day, the reason why there’s so much confusion is because there’s too much to be gained by keeping us all confused and looking for guidance. Similarly, the fact that nutrition and health science is difficult and slow doesn’t engender much faith from a quick-fix addicted public.”

“Natural foods are what’s healthy, nutrients and the controversies they cause are what keeps research dollars flowing and flip-flops popping up every couple weeks. It’s important to get nutrients, but it’s wise to get them mostly through food, and only after that supplement what you need in a very targeted manner.”

http://lifehacker.com/why-theres-so-much-confusion-over-nutrition-and-fitness-1572870867/all

Saturated fat’s history

Leave a reply

Another great article about the saturated fat debate: is it bad or good? The debate continues. This author writes from the perspective that saturated fat is not so bad. This author talks about the faulty science behind the anti-saturated fat movement. Learn why we were mislead in the first place-bad research and big politics. And how too many carbs and processed vegetable oils are the real culprit. (Note: The author talks about too many carbohydrates from any source, including fruit, as a problem. I disagree wholeheartedly. Fruit is not a problem. period)

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303678404579533760760481486

 

Sitting is dangerous

Leave a reply

Sitting is the new smoking. It is bad for you on so many levels and we didn’t know it. It is bad for your joints and muscles and has shown to increase your risk of diseases too. Read the following article for more details.

http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-11907/why-sitting-is-killing-you-9-things-you-can-do-about-it.html

 

 

How food tricks your brain

Leave a reply

This is a new article from The Atlantic about all the ways our brain gets tricked and leads to us eating more or making bad food choices. Things like menu layout, food texture, restaurant tricks as well as restaurant ambiance are all on the list.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/04/how-your-brain-lies-to-you-about-health/360900/

 

Fed up Trailer

1 Reply

A new documentary is coming out on May 9th. I can’t wait to see it. I sounds like a wonderfully clear portrait of processed foods and sugar-why they are bad for us and why the food industry is not to be trusted. I hope everyone sees this (even though that means they might not need me to educate them anymore!)

 

Saturated fat- it is a mystery

Leave a reply

For decades we were told that saturated fat (the kind in dairy and meat, among other places) was bad for us and increases the bad cholesterol (LDL).  But some studies recently have showed that it is NOT associated with heart disease after all.

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638

Saturated fat raises HDL (the “good”) cholesterol and changes the LDL from small, dense to Large LDL, which is benign and doesn’t increase the risk of heart disease.

There are many who believe the new studies wholeheartedly and say the old studies (that showed saturated fat as bad) were bad research.  Yet there are still others that insist that the old evidence is right and the new evidence is from poor research. (Read below for a more elaborate answer to the debate.)

But what should you do? I think there is enough evidence to show, at least, that saturated fat is not as bad as we were once told. It seems to be neutral. I think even if it is one contributing factor to heart disease, it isn’t the most important or most influential. And some of the foods that saturated fat is found in (specifically organic whole fat dairy and grass fed beef), are valuable and shouldn’t be avoided.

A similar take, from someone much more articulate than me:

Joe Schwarcz

The end of a debate? Fat chance.

“The bloggers are abuzz about a paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine that after reviewing 72 major studies found no relationship between saturated fat intake and heart disease. The reaction was predictable. On the one hand we have the bacon and doughnut lovers who see this info as a license to indulge with impunity, while on the other hand we have the sprout worshippers who refuse to accept the validity of the data.

As anyone who has followed the nutritional research over the last couple of decades knows, both sides are wrong. There has been way too much emphasis on manipulating specific dietary components, too much concern about ratios of omega-6 to omega-3 fats, too many worries about how many eggs we should consume and too much discussion about whether we should drink green tea or black. The importance of such dietary changes has been exaggerated. Yes, what we eat is surely one of the determinants of health, but only one. The most consistent and reproducible beneficial dietary alteration is to reduce caloric intake. Studies in rodents, dogs and primates have shown that caloric restriction leads to greater longevity. The main problems with the western diet is that we just eat too much. Especially sugar.

Cutting back on fat is still important but probably more for reducing caloric intake than for reducing cholesterol. The general advice is still to eat mostly vegetables, fruits and whole grains but there’s no need to be neurotic about the type of fat being consumed. Except of course for trans fats, which everyone agrees should be avoided. And don’t forget an apple a day. You can, however, forget about the Environmental Working Group’s ramblings about the risks of eating apples grown with the aid of conventional agrochemicals.”