As a former academic (and fully aware of the importance of scientific publications), there are times when I scratch my head and wonder, “Federal dollars were spent on this!”In nearly all cases, outcomes are predictable within an expected range. It’s called the scientific method. With no desire to get into a discussion of the scientific method, a recent study looked at the role of diet on recovery from colon cancer. You can read the summary. Here is the first paragraph:“Patients with stage III colon cancer who have undergone surgery and chemotherapy with the goal of cure may have a higher risk of relapsing and dying early if they follow a predominantly “Western” diet of red meat, fatty foods, refined grains, and desserts, according to research led by investigators at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.”As I read this summary, all I could think was, “What type of diet do you think got . . . → Read More: How did they get there in the 1st place?
|
||||
|
“Scientists in Indiana are reporting progress toward development of low glycemic and slowly digestible starch, a form of starch that would be less apt to cause the spike in blood sugar – and perhaps sharp hunger pangs – that many individuals experience after eating bread, baked goods, and other high-carbohydrate foods.” The rest of the summary can be read here. My only question is why? I can understand the need for people to consume healthier foods – particularly than those listed in the quote above. But what if we just ate less of that food and more fruits and vegetables, healthier meats and drank more water? What if we just ate grains as they grow in the field? Look in your pantry. Foods in plastic bags and carboard boxes are loaded with things that used to be good, healthy foods. Take enriched white flour for example. Out in the field, its a perfectly healthy . . . → Read More: Why do they do this?  4 comments - (Comments are closed)  fitness, news, nutrition, obesity, other health, personal trainer, research, weight loss Reading this summary, I felt an urge to blurt out: “No blank, Sherlock!” A recent study published in JAMA, a leading pillar of medical research dissemination, compared low GI diets with low-fat diets on insulin secretion in high insulin secreters. On the surface, this appears to be a legitimate research question. Insulin is related to glucose metabolism and given the current state of obesity and type II diabetes in America, this might be something we should know. However, most people in the medical fields should intuitively know this. The glycemic index of any food indicates the level it raises blood sugar when consumed. The higher the glycemic index, the higher the blood sugar response. For example, twinkies rate rather high on the glycemic index. Consume two or three of them and your blood sugar will spike. At least for a while. In response, your body will release (secrete) insulin to bring . . . → Read More: Answering this research question Press Release 1: Walking not enough for significant exercise benefits.Press Release 2: “No time to exercise” is no excuse, study shows. By most publications, walking is the most popular form of physical activity. And why not? It’s easy to incorporate walking into your daily routine. You can make a concerted effort to take the stairs rather than the elevator, walk down the hall to speak with a colleague rather than emailing or phoning them, or even take a quick 10 minute walk on your lunch hour. For the longest time, many health-related organizations trumpeted the healthy effects of walking on cardiovascular disease, chronic disease, mental disorders and weight control. In fact, Shape Up America has dedicated a large part of their mission to their 10,000 steps a day program. The main message of this program (and others like it) is to accumulate 10,000 steps (about 5 miles) each day and your health will . . . → Read More: The fallacy of "fat-burning" zones and low-intensity exercise The text between the dashed lines comes directly from the press release. A link to view the press release is at the bottom of this post. Unless otherwise stated, the text between the dashed lines is exactly as it appears in the press release.All text after the dashed line contains my comments. —————————————— A study in the September, 2006 issue of Cell Metabolism evaluated normal and obese individuals for their response to the hunger-fighting hormone peptide YY (PYY). In previous research reports, it was shown to reduce food intake by up to 1/3 when given by injection. “We’ve now found that increasing the protein content of the diet augments the body’s own PYY, helping to reduce hunger and aid weight loss,” said Medical Research Council clinician scientist Rachel Batterham of University College London. (Emphasis added by me). Further investigation in mice . . . → Read More: Eat Meat, Lose Weight? Could Dr. Atkins have been right? |
||||
|
Copyright © 2012 Dr. Sekula's Blog - All Rights Reserved |
||||
Recent Comments