Category Archives: Diet, Habits, & Other Behaviors

Eating Habits that Improve Health and Lower Body Mass Index

Susan Dudley, PhD and Sarah Pedersen, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund

More and more research studies are confirming the importance of keeping body mass index (BMI) and waistline measurements under control in order to reduce the risk of cancer, other serious diseases, and premature death. But sticking to a healthy diet – especially when we’re trying to lose weight – can be hard for lots of reasons. Keeping track of calories and fat percentages can be confusing, and the nutrition labels on the foods we buy aren’t always that helpful. How are consumers supposed to figure out which diet advice is just hype – that ultimately don’t contribute to better health – and which advice offers good, medically sound information?

Here are some basic guidelines to keep in mind:

  • Calories matter
  • Serving size matters
  • Fats and cholesterol matter
  • Fruits, vegetables and whole grains matter
  • Exercise matters
  • Sticking to it matters

The Only Way to Lose Weight is to Eat Fewer Calories Than You Burn in a Day

Simply increasing your activity level might be enough if you only need to lose a few pounds to get your BMI into a healthy range.  Most of the time, however, eating fewer calories is also going to be needed.  The calories and fat in the foods we eat add up quickly!  For example, have you eaten at a fast food chain recently?  To work off the calories from a double cheeseburger, extra large fries and a 24 ounce soft drink – about 1500 calories – you would have to run for two and half hours at a ten minute mile pace! (For more information, see Fast Food Facts: Calories and Fats).

Eating Fewer Calories Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Eating Less Food

The trick to dieting without being hungry is to choose foods that contain fewer calories and also fill you up. An example of this would be having a piece of fruit instead of fries with lunch.  It helps to remember that not all foods are created equal!  Some foods, such as nuts, are high in nutrients and essential vitamins, while others lack nutritional substance, such as products containing added sugars. “Nutrient-dense food” provides substantial amounts of vitamins and minerals and relatively few calories, but leaves you feeling fuller while also supplying valuable fuel for your body.  A person is more likely to stick to a diet-while feeling better and healthier-if calories are nutrition-dense.  Empty calories from simple carbohydrates found in foods with processed and refined sugars, such as candy, pasta and bread made from white flour, and foods with corn syrup, leave you hungry again soon after, craving more food.  This is because simple carbohydrates quickly turn into useless sugar, whereas complex carbohydrates, such as vegetables, whole-grain breads and cereals, and low-fat yogurt and milk, provide long-lasting nutrients, improve digestion, help stabilize blood sugar, and keep your energy at an even level.  Although foods such as fruit are also considered simple carbohydrates, they contain vitamins and nutrients that occur naturally, unlike those found in processed and refined foods.

A 2011 study in the respected New England Journal of Medicine found that certain foods were linked to weight change more than others. After following participants for an average of 17 years, researchers found that weight increase was most strongly linked to foods such as potato chips, sugar-sweetened beverages, and unprocessed red meats.  Foods such as vegetables, whole grains, nuts, fruits, and yogurts were closely linked to preventing weight-gain.

Eating 5 Smaller Meals Might Work Better Than Eating 3 Larger Ones

Most people are surprised to learn that eating 5 or 6 times a day can be a better way to lose weight than eating only 3 times a day! This only works, however, if you take care to control not only the calorie content but also the amount of food you’re eating.  The goal is to eat a small amount of food – like a cup of no-fat yoghurt, for example – every 3 hours or so.  Eat only enough so that you don’t feel hungry, but never so much that you feel stuffed. Some people recommend eating your meals off of smaller plates, because research has shown that people have a tendency to try to eat all of what is served to them. Unfortunately, portion sizes for restaurant meals and other prepared foods, and even in our homes – everything from breakfast muffins to a plate of spaghetti – have grown to very unhealthy proportions in the last two decades.

Eat Less Cholesterol and Less Fat – Especially Less Saturated Fat, and Almost No Trans-Fat

Most people have heard that cholesterol is bad, and eating less of it is important.  But our bodies also make cholesterol from the fats that we eat. Fats are also very high in calories. So cutting down on total fat intake is helpful.

All fats, however, are not alike, and that’s why it’s important to check food labels to be sure that you’re eating the smallest amount of saturated fat and of trans fat possible. These tend to be the kinds of fat that are found in milk and milk products, those that are solid at room temperature – like the fat in meat products, butter, margarine, shortening and lard – and the fats that come from baked goods and fried foods. The fats you do eat should be mostly “unsaturated” or “polyunsaturated” fats. Although there are some exceptions, these tend to be liquid at room temperature, like canola oil, olive oil and some of the other vegetable oils.

Eat More Fruits, Vegetables, Whole Grains, and Low- or No-Fat Dairy Products Every Day

There are many good resources to help you learn about healthy eating. For example, the US Department of Agriculture website at My Plate helps you tailor the government’s dietary recommendations to your nutritional needs. Nutritionists at the Harvard School of Public Health have similar (but not identical) healthy food guidelines. What these diets have in common includes recommendations to:

  • Aim for at least five servings of fruits and vegetables a day. Usually, the more colorful the fruit or vegetable, the more nutritious. For example, dark green spinach has more nutrients than light green iceberg lettuce.
  • Try and choose whole grain cereal, pasta, rice, and bread. Many foods that claim “whole wheat” or “whole grain” on the front of the package are really made with mostly white, processed flour – which isn’t nearly as nutritious. Always check the ingredients to see if “whole wheat” or “whole grain” is thefirstingredient listed. And don’t be fooled by how a food looks. For example, some dark brown breads are colored with coffee or other dyes, not whole grains. And remember, whole grain rice is brown, not white rice.
  • Avoid food that is high in sugar, like pastries, sweetened cereal, and soda or fruit-flavored drinks.
  • Reduced-fat or no-fat (skim) milk, reduced-fat cheese, and low-fat or no-fat yoghurt are good sources of the protein and calcium we need. Try to eat 2-4 servings of low-fat or no-fat dairy products each day.

Exercise Does More Than Burn Calories

Increasing the amount of exercise you do each day means you burn more calories to help you lose weight.  And, research has shown very clearly that 30 minutes of moderately strenuous daily exercise is also one of the most important requirements for disease prevention – even for people who are already at an ideal weight.  The exercise you choose doesn’t need to be elaborate, or to take place in a gym.  Walking, biking, swimming, or gardening can do the trick, and getting a friend or family member to exercise with you can turn this into a valued part of your daily routine.  Learn more about the health benefits of physical activity and how to get started from the CDC.

Staying Healthy is a Life-Long Proposition

When we think about dieting, most of us think about setting a weight-loss goal that will determine how long we watch what we’re eating.  A better way to think about it might be to ask yourself the question: How long do I want to try to avoid developing chronic disease? Put in those terms, it’s easy to see that getting control of BMI and eating foods that contribute to continuing good health (or that don’t directly contribute to the development of dangerous disease conditions) is not a short-term goal.  For many of us, doing what it takes to get our BMI into a healthy range and to keep it there means learning to live our lives in a new way. Scientists have found that one of the keys to success is to think about these goals every day. For example, people who get on a scale and check their weight daily are more successful at keeping their weight under control than people who don’t.

Don’t Waste Your Time, Energy, and Money on “Quick Fix” Solutions

For some people, there may be faster ways to lose weight than following the diet suggestions listed here.  But the important thing to remember is that weight loss is not the only goal.  The more important goal is to keep your risk of developing chronic disease and dying younger as low as possible.  Fad diets, diet pills, protein powders, liposuction, and even intestinal or gastric bypass surgery might provide a leaner profile, but they don’t provide the nutrients needed to keep you as healthy as you could be.


For more information about BMI and how it is calculated, see Obesity in America: Are You Part of the Problem? Mozaffarian D, Hao T, Rimm, EB, et al. Changes in Diet and Lifestyle and Long-Term Weight Gain in Women and Men. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2001;364:2392-404.

A very useful demonstration of the trend toward larger portion sizes can be found in the two “Portion Distortion” slide sets that you can view at http://hp2010.nhlbihin.net/portion/.

Some fats that are liquid at room temperature, like coconut oil, are still high in saturated fats. Check the nutrition label before you buy, to be sure that you’re choosing the product with the lowest possible saturated fat content.

Will Acai Help Me Lose Weight?

Emily Hartman, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund

If you are trying to lose weight to prevent cancer, you may notice that there are claims that the acai (AH-sah-EE) berry will help you lose weight. Dieters beware: these claims are false. Ads promising weight loss have been spotted on popular social networking sites and search engines. Before you give out your credit card number, read on!

The acai palm produces a very small berry that is found in South and Central America. It has become popular in the United States over the last few years. While there are plenty of good things about the fruit, make no mistake-there are no special properties that make you suddenly or quickly lose weight. Acai does have antioxidants-a substance our bodies need-but no more than cranberries or cherries, and less than blueberries, pomegranate, and grapes.[1]

Here are some tips that have been scientifically proven to help you lose weight:

  • Exercise on a regular basis-most days of the week
  • Eat well-balanced, nutritious meals
  • Start each day off with breakfast
  • Get enough sleep (at least 7-9 hours)

It is important to remember that if a product claims fast weight loss, either the product is risky or the claims are false. Healthy, safe weight loss consists of losing no more than two pounds per week-that’s 7,000 fewer calories consumed than burned off each week, since one pound equals 3,500 calories. Weight loss at the rate of .5 to 2 pounds per week is more likely to be permanent. If acai really were a miracle weight loss product, there would be no obesity epidemic in the United States! So please, use your better judgment next time you are tempted to buy an acai weight loss product.

Reference:

  1. Navindra P. Seeram, Michael Aviram, Yanjun Zhang, Susanne M. Henning, Lydia Feng, Mark Dreher, David Heber. Comparison of Antioxidant Potency of Commonly Consumed Polyphenol-Rich Beverages in the United States. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2008 56 (4), 1415-1422.

Fast Food Facts: Calories and Fat

Blossom Paravattil, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund

Fast Food Facts

Let’s face it: With so much to do, it’s hard to eat right on the go.  And no matter how compelling you found the movies Fast Food Nation or Super Size Me, you sometimes find yourself making the occasional purchase at the nearest Wendy’s. While avoiding fast food may be the wisest and most health-conscious option, it may not be the most realistic.

With so many Americans being obese, President Obama signed a new law into the health care reform bill that requires every big restaurant chain (more than 20 stores) to post calorie information on every menu and drive-thru sign, as well as the amount of calories a healthy person should eat. The bill went into effect in this year.  The law also requires vending machines to have nutritional information on them

How Many Calories Should I be Consuming in a Day?

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has recommended dietary guidelines that include the number of calories you should consume a day, depending on your age, level of activity, and whether you are a man or woman. The chart below will help you find out how many calories you should be getting. If you regularly consume more than the recommended amount, you will gain weight.

Recommended Daily Calorie Intake by Gender and Age based on Activity Level

Activity Level

Gender

Age (years)

Sedentary

Moderately Active

Active

Child

2-3

1,000

1,000-1,400

1,000-1,400

Female

4-8
9-13
14-18
19-30
31-50
51+

1,200
1,600
1,800
2,000
1,800
1,600

1,400-1,600
1,600-2,000
2,000
2,000-2,200
2,000
1,800

1,400-1,800
1,800-2,200
2,400
2,400
2,200
2,000-2,200

Male

4-8
9-13
14-18
19-30
31-50
51+

1,400
1,800
2,200
2,400
2,200
2,000

1,400-1,600
1,800-2,200
2,400-2,800
2,600-2,800
2,400-2,600
2,200-2,400

1,600-2,000
2,000-2,600
2,800-3,200
3,000
2,800-3,000
2,400-2,800

Source: HHS/USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005 

Sedentary means a lifestyle that includes only the light physical activity associated with typical day-to-day life. Moderately active means a lifestyle that includes physical activity equivalent to walking about 1.5 to 3 miles per day at 3 to 4 miles per hour, in addition to the light physical activity associated with typical day-to-day life.  Active means a lifestyle that includes physical activity equivalent to waling more than 3 miles per day at 3 to 4 miles per hour, in addition to the light physical activity associated with typical day-to-day life. The calorie ranges shown are to accommodate needs of different ages within the group. For children and adolescents, more calories are needed at older ages. For adults, fewer calories are needed at older ages. So we at the Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund give you the skinny on a variety of menu choices offered by some of the most popular fast food chains. Take a look–you may be surprised!

Fast Foods by Category

Pizza: Calories Fat
California Pizza Kitchen Original BBQ Chicken (whole pizza) 1136 19 grams
Domino’s Medium Ultimate Deep Dish EXtravaganZZa Feast, 1 slice 12″ 320 16 grams
Domino’s Cheese, 1 slice 12″ 210 8 grams
Papa John’s Garden Fresh on Original Crust, 1 slice 12″ 200 7 grams
Papa John’s Spinach Alfredo on Original Crust, 1 slice 12″ 210 8 grams
Pizza Hut Thin n’ Crispy, Pepperoni, 1 slice 12′ 200 9 grams
Pizza Hut Fit n’ Delicious Pizzawith Green Pepper, Red Onion, and Diced Tomato, 1 slice 150 4 grams
Hamburgers: Calories Fat
Burger King Whopper (with cheese) 770 48 grams
Five Guys (with cheese) 610 34 grams
McDonald’s Quarter Pound with cheese 510 26 grams
Wendy’s ¼ Pound Single Hamburger 470 21 grams
Chicken Strips: Calories Fat
Burger King 8 Piece Chicken Tenders 360 21 grams
McDonalds Chicken Selects Premium Breast Strips (5) 660 40 grams
Wendy’s 10 Piece Chicken Nuggets 450 29 grams
French Fries: Calories Fat
Burger King Medium Fries 440 22 grams
Five Guys 310 15 grams
McDonald’s Medium Fries 380 19 grams
Wendy’s Medium Fries 410 19 grams
Burritos: Calories Fat
Baja Fresh Chicken Burrito Ultimo 880 36 grams
Baja Fresh Bean and Cheese Burrito 840 33 grams
Chipotle Chicken (with rice, beans, sour cream and cheese) 950 37 grams
Taco Bell Burrito Supreme, Chicken 390 12 grams
Sandwiches: Calories Fat
Burger King Tender Grill Chicken (no mayo) 410 7 grams
McDonald’s Premium Grilled Chicken Classic 420 10 grams
Panera Turkey Artichoke Panini 750 24 grams
Panera Bacon Turkey Bravo 830 29 grams
Quiznos Honey Mustard Chicken Sub, Regular 830 41 grams
Quiznos Tuna Melt, Regular 1220 94 grams
Subway Turkey, 6 inch (no mayo) 280 3.5 grams
Wendy’s Ultimate Chicken Grill 370 7 grams
Salads (no dressing): Calories Fat
Burger King Tendergrill Chicken Garden 300 10 grams
McDonald’s Premium Southwest Salad with Grilled Chicken 320 9 grams
Panera Greek Salad 380 34 grams
Panera Strawberry and Poppyseed Chicken Salad 280 8 grams
Quiznos Chicken Caesar, Regular 440 16.5 grams
Quiznos Raspberry Chipotle Chicken, Regular 520 25 grams
Subway Oven Roasted Chicken, Fat-Free Italian dressing 130 2.5 grams
Wendy’s Mandarin Chicken Salad 390 16 grams
Muffins: Calories Fat Sugar
Au Bon Pain Cranberry Walnut 540 25 grams 28 g
Dunkin Donuts Blueberry 510 16 grams 51 g
Dunkin Donuts Honey Bran Raisin 500 14 grams 48 g
Starbuck’s Blueberry 470 24 grams 23 g
Starbuck’s Lowfat Blueberry 430 2.5 grams 57 g
Donuts: Calories Fat Sugar
Dunkin Donuts Glazed Donut 220 9 grams 12 g
Krispy Kreme Original Glazed Donut 200 12 grams 10 g
Starbuck’s Old-fashioned Glazed Donut 420 21 grams 34 g
Bagels: Calories Fat
Dunkin Donuts Everything 350 4.5 grams
Einstein’s Asiago Cheese Bagel 310 5 grams
Einstein Everything 270 2 grams
Starbuck’s Plain 300 1 gram
Other Breakfast: Calories Fat
Burger King Sausage, Egg, and Cheese Biscuit 550 37 grams
Dunkin Donuts Egg and Cheese Bagel 510 6 grams
McDonald’s Sausage McMuffin with Egg 450 27 grams
Starbuck’s Cheese Danish 420 25 grams
Starbuck’s Banana Walnut Loaf 350 16 grams
Coffee: Calories Fat Sugar
Dunkin Donuts Mocha Swirl Latte (10 oz) 220 6 grams 32 g
Dunkin Donuts Coolatta with Skim Milk (16 oz) 210 0 grams 49 g
Dunkin Donuts Latte (10oz) 120 6 grams 10 g
Dunkin Donuts Coffee (14oz), (no milk or sugar) 10 0 grams 0 g
Starbuck’s Caramel Frappuccino, Grande with Whip 390 15 grams 59 g
Starbuck’s Caffè Mocha, Grande 2% Milk, no Whip 260 8 grams 31 g
Starbuck’s Caffè Latte, Grande 2% Milk 190 7 grams 17 g
Starbuck’s Coffee Frappuccino Light 110 0 grams 23 g
Starbuck’s Caramel Macchiato, Grande 240 7 grams 31 g
Where to find this information?

Several fast food chains and restaurants have their nutrition information on their websites. If your favorite foods are not listed above, go to the chain’s website and look for the calorie information. You may be shocked…or pleasantly surprised! Remember: knowledge is power. Knowing how many calories are in your favorite snack or meal-on-the-go can help you watch your weight and stay health.
Reference:

1http://healthreform.gov/documents/title_iv_prevention_of_chronic_disease.pdf

2 USDA. (2008). Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005.

What’s a Woman to Eat?

Susan Dudley, PhD and Jacqueline Britz, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) began in 1992 as a long term national health research effort focused on disease prevention among postmenopausal women.  Over 161,000 women have participated in this research, which has provided information that has saved lives of women across the country.  The original study, lasting 15 years, was aimed at finding evidence-based strategies for prevention of many health conditions, including heart disease, breast and colorectal cancer, and fracture in postmenopausal women.  The WHI Extension Study, carried out from 2005 to 2010, followed up with 115,400 participants from the original study to gather more data and answer additional questions.

Many experts were disappointed when a 2006 dietary trial that was part of the original WHI study showed that a low-fat diet did not reduce women’s risks of heart attacks, strokes, breast cancer, or colon cancer.  Since then, other studies have come out, including subsequent diet trials with women enrolled in the WHI.  The results have been inconsistent: some positive and some negative.

So, what’s a woman to eat?  Is there, in fact, a right combination of fats, carbohydrates, proteins, and other nutrients?  Studying and understanding the effects of diet and changes to diet is always complicated.  Consider the following:

  • Any time we limit our intake of one type or category of food, we tend to fill the gap by eating more of another type of food.  In the WHI, women were not encouraged to cut calories or lose weight.
  • Our bodies have an astonishingly efficient “thermostat” that works hard all our lives to return us to whatever body weight and body composition it has been set at, based on what has been normal for us over the long-term.  That is why keeping weight off after just about any kind of crash diet is so hard to do.

The Women’s Health Initiative: Diet Trials

The main goal of the initial WHI dietary trial was to determine whether low-fat diets could reduce the risk of developing breast cancer, colon cancer, stoke, and heart disease.

The 19,541 women participating in the low-fat diet trial were divided into two groups: one group was encouraged to continue eating as they always had, while study participants in the other group were encouraged (through participation in a series of training sessions) to modify their diets by reducing fat and increasing their consumption of fruits, vegetables, and grains.  By later comparing the rates of health problems, including breast and colon cancer and cardiovascular disease, between the two groups of women, scientists hoped to see whether the training sessions would work and whether the low-fat diet would improve women’s health.

The results, reported in 2006, were not encouraging, since few differences emerged in the health status of the women in the two groups.  However, there were a number of weaknesses in the investigation that made the results difficult to interpret.  Two are especially important:

  • All dietary fat is not alike. For example, we now know that saturated fats and trans-fats can have particularly negative health effects and that certain fats-like those found in walnuts or some fish oils-can actually be beneficial. However, the trial did not attempt to influence which types of fats the women were eating.
  • The women who were in the group that was trained to improve their diet didn’t improve their diet as dramatically as the researchers hoped. The “low-fat” group for this study averaged 29% calories from fat instead of the targeted 20%. The 29% finding is not much different from the average adult in the U.S. who gets 32.7% or more of his or her calories from fat. The study participants’ reported consumption of fruits and vegetables was only slightly raised, and their consumption of grains did not change. It’s impossible to know if there would have been a bigger difference in the incidence of cancer, stroke, and cardiovascular disease in the two groups if the “low-fat” group had improved their eating habits more dramatically.

When the researchers studied the women in the diet modification group whose total fat intake was reduced the most, they found that they didsignificantly lower their risk for invasive breast cancer.  And those who consumed less saturated fat and ate more fruits and vegetables reduced their blood pressure, cholesterol and other problems that may eventually reduce their risk of heart attack, stroke, and heart disease.

Results from More Recent Studies

Since the publication of the initial results in 2006, subsequent diet trials with women enrolled in the WHI have shown a mix of positive and discouraging results.  Below are descriptions of four additional trials. While these studies also have limitations, their findings have implications for disease prevention among women.

Low-Fat dietary pattern and Cancer incidence (2007):

The same group of women from the original WHI study was followed for 8 years for a trial that investigated low fat dietary patterns and their effect on cancer incidence.  Despite the discouraging results from the first published investigation on the effects of a low-fat diet, this study found lower rates of ovarian cancer among the group of women who followed a low-fat diet.  For every 100,000 participants on a modified low-fat diet per year, there were 36 cases of ovarian cancer diagnosed, compared to 43 cases of ovarian cancer among the women who did not modify their diet.  This difference in ovarian cancer rates between the two groups was statistically significant, meaning that it was unlikely to have happened by chance.  So, while a low-fat diet was not associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer, colorectal cancer, or cardiovascular disease, it was associated with a lower risk of ovarian cancer.

Low-Fat dietary pattern and risk of treated Diabetes Mellitus in postmenopausal women (2008):

The same participants from the original 2006 trial were also subjects of an 8 year long investigation looking at the relationship between a low-fat diet and diabetes.  Just as was true in the initial trial, the group of women following a low-fat diet did not appear to have substantial health gains over the group of women who did not follow the low-fat diet.  The participants with a modified diet had only a 4% reduced risk of developing diabetes as compared with the participants in the usual diet group.  While that may not seem very impressive, the participants in the low-fat diet group maintained a lower weight, on average, than participants in the usual diet group.  The researchers noted that the participants with the biggest reduction of fat in their diets did have a lower diabetes risk that was statistically significant.  Based on this study, they concluded that losing weight is more important for reducing one’s chances for developing diabetes than the quantity of fat, carbohydrates or other nutrients consumed.  The women in the study who followed a low-fat diet were more likely to maintain a lower weight and, therefore, indirectly may have a reduced their risk of diabetes.

Calcium/Vitamin D supplementation may help prevent weight gain in postmenopausal women (2007):

A large portion of the participants from the initial 2006 trial were used for another study published in 2007 to determine the influence of calcium and vitamin D on weight gain.  Research suggests that these two nutrients may be able to initiate the decline of fat cells, reduce the generation of new fat cells, and consequently decrease the amount of weight gain.  For 7 years, researchers monitored a group of women taking pills with active calcium plus vitamin D, and others taking placebos.  The women taking pills with active calcium plus vitamin D gained on average about a quarter of a pound less than women in the placebo group.  Although this tiny difference was statistically significant, it isn’t a meaningful difference.   More important, the women in this first group were less likely to gain weight at all during the trial.  The women who benefited the most were those who, prior to the start of the study, consumed less than the recommended 1,200 mgs per day of calcium (this is the amount recommended for women in the age range of 50-79). Therefore, while taking active calcium and vitamin D may help women maintain their weight, its benefits are likely to be more substantial in women who lack sufficient calcium and vitamin D.

Multivitamin use and risk of Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease (2009):

Finally, a 2009 study used data collected from all participants in the Women’s Health Initiative throughout the hormone trials, observational study, and dietary study (a total of 161,808 participants).  Study enrollment took place between 1993 and 2008, with follow up conducted through 2005.  Data were collected for a median of 8 years in the clinical trials and 7.9 years in the observational study.  Participants using multivitamins (41.5%) were compared to participants not taking multivitamins to see which group had higher rates of breast, colorectal, endometrial, renal, bladder, stomach, lung, and ovarian cancer.  Researchers were also interested in seeing if there was a difference between the two groups in terms of cardiovascular events such as stroke or heart attack.  The women who took a daily multivitamin were no less likely to develop or die from cancer or cardiovascular disease than the women who did not take a multivitamin.

What We Have Learned from These Studies

Don’t let the negative headlines of some of these studies fool you.  Although these studies provide conflicting results, with only some supporting the relationship between certain diets and disease prevention, and others proving inconclusive, the studies taken altogether still provide a lot of important information:

  • Women whose fat intake was lowered the most had better health outcomes.
  • The women in the WHI were not encouraged to reduce their calories.  That may have been a mistake.  Research now clearly shows that being overweight increases the risk of breast cancer, heart disease, arthritis, and many other diseases, so more targeted dietary modifications that include emphasis on achieving and maintaining healthy body weight might be more effective.
  • Even when evidence does not conclusively show that a particular kind of diet, such as low-fat, can prevent or reduce the risk of disease, the dietary change may still improve health by lowering or controlling weight.  Excess weight and obesity increase the risk for many diseases and cancer.
  • There is no way to know whether the dietary intervention in this study would have been more effective if it had been started earlier in the women’s lives-when the women were in their 20’s, 30’s, or 40s, rather than at 50-79 years of age.
  • We know that many cancers and other health conditions take 15-20 years to develop and usually show up among older individuals.  We still don’t know what impact dietary modifications will have on the women’s health 10 years after the study’s end.
  • One of the most important messages is that dietary changes are easier to talk about than to do something about.  The participants in the dietary modification groups probably started out with very good intentions about following the recommended diet, but that turned out to be impossible for many of them.  Whether this is because of pressure to join the family for dessert, the endless temptation created by advertisements for foods that were not compatible with the diet, or other causes, it is important for us to take such real-world obstacles into account.  It doesn’t make sense to measure the effectiveness of dietary change by focusing on women in a “diet modification group” if the women didn’t substantially modify their diet.   It makes more sense to study the women who succeeded in modifying their diet compared to those who didn’t. Those are the women whose health tended to benefit most.

Maintaining moderation and balance

So, given the findings of these various studies, are there changes in our diet that we should make?  Even though the results are mixed, it’s clear that most people will benefit from a well-balanced diet that is low in sodium, added sugars, and saturated- and trans-fats, and a diet that is high in fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and heart-healthy unsaturated fats, with moderate amounts of dairy products and meat protein.  The USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans gives specific recommendations for dietary intake, suggesting that women should strive to consume between 1.5 and 2 cups of fruit each day, between 2 and 2.5 cups of vegetables, and 3 cups of low fat milk products.  Women should eat approximately 6 oz. of grains each day (with a minimum of 3 oz. coming from whole grains), and between 5 and 5.5 oz. of meat/beans.  “Good” fats, found in fatty types of fish (i.e. salmon, herring, sardines), plant oils like extra-virgin olive oil, avocados, seeds, and nuts, are also an essential part of a healthy diet and have been found to help prevent incidence of disease.

General guidelines for healthy eating may need to be modified to accommodate specific health problems or disease risks.  For example, people with high cholesterol may need to reduce the amount of fat and food they consume each day that comes from animals (red meats, eggs, and dairy products).  Helpful nutritional guidelines are available at: http://www.mypyramid.gov/index.html.

Also, do not forget to watch calories, because excess weight can cause or complicate so many health problems.  Reaching and maintaining a healthy body weight is important.  In order to lose weight, it is important to make sure that a person burns more calories than he or she consumes.  As a result it is essential to find a healthy balance between food consumption and physical activity.

Remember that serving size and portion size are not the same thing. Serving size is a standardized quantity of food that we use to measure nutrients.Portion size is the amount we pile on our plates.  Keep in mind that one serving of cooked vegetables is usually about one-half cup (about a hand-full!) and a serving of meat is about the size of a deck of cards.  This means that most people can fit in all those recommended servings of fruits and vegetables every day while still reducing their total calorie intake and losing weight.  But it also means that the portions you serve yourself may be much higher in calories than the standard serving size would be.

And don’t forget that beverages have calories too!  Try to limit your intake of high calorie or sugary drinks, as well as alcoholic drinks.  They should be consumed in moderation, or not at all.  It is recommended that women limit alcoholic intake to a maximum of one drink per day (i.e. 12 fl. oz. beer, 5 fl. oz. wine, or 1.5 fl. oz. 80-proof distilled spirits).  More resources regarding a healthy diet for women can be found at http://womenshealth.gov/FitnessNutrition/eatinghealthy/.

Lastly, women over 50 may want to take calcium and vitamin D supplements. There appears to be little risk in taking them and many potential benefits, including help in maintaining weight-particularly if their diet and indoor lifestyles are causing them to have low levels of these essential nutrients.

References:

  1. The original reports of the WHI findings on low-fat diet can be found in the Journal of the American Medical Association, February 8, 2006 – Vol 295, No. 6, pages 629, 643, and 655.
  2. This report, in addition to the other reports cited in this article, can be accessed online through the Women’s Health Initiative website: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/whi/index.html.
  3. Dietary Guidelines for Americans [Current Guidelines – 2005 Dietary Guidelines]. (n.d.). Retrieved from USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion website: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2005Guidelines.htm
  4. Vitamin D [Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet]. (n.d.). Retrieved from National Institutes of Health – Office of Dietary Supplements website: http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-QuickFacts/
  5. Calcium [Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet]. (n.d.). Retrieved from National Institutes of Health – Office of Dietary Supplements website: http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Calcium-Consumer/

How Do I Get My Child to Eat Healthier Foods?

Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund

A Guide for Parents of On-The-Go Kids and Picky Eaters

Between parents’ work schedules, after school activities, homework, and chores, you may find it impossible to make time for healthy meals that your kids actually want to eat.  The challenge is even greater when kids get hooked on the pizza, soda, and chips provided at friends’ houses, activities, and parties.  Even the most conscientious parent may find it hard to avoid the temptation of fast food and favorite snacks.  But there are solutions!

  • Have easy foods on hand for last minute meals.  Keep healthy food on hand for quick and easy meals-frozen food can be an easy and healthy choice, especially all-in-one bag frozen family meals that are low on calories and fat (check out the many combinations of grilled chicken, rice or pasta, and vegetables in one bag).  If those family meals aren’t quite large enough for your family, you can easily add more fresh or frozen peas, green beans, or corn to make it more filling.
  • Plan meals in advance.  This is hard for most families, but if you cook on the weekend you can freeze meals (or at least one major ingredient, such as cooked beans or rice) that you can use to make several meals during the week.  You can even look online for Once a Month Cooking (OAMC) plans that designate one day each month as “cooking day” and free up the rest of your time for other things.  Ask your kids to help you select and even help prepare the dishes-that way they are more likely to eat them when they are served.
  • Out of sight, out of mind.  Don’t keep cake, candy, cookies, or chips (the 4 Cs!) in the house.  If you want to splurge occasionally, buy a small bag or individual portion as a treat.  Keep healthy snacks where kids can reach them.  You can “disguise” healthy foods by combining them with favorites-for example, try apple slices with low-fat peanut butter, baby carrots with veggie dip, or make your own trail mix with a combination of nuts, seeds, and dried fruit.
  • Shopping Tips.  When you buy groceries, try to buy “whole foods” instead of processed foods – for example, buy fish, chicken, turkey, whole grain breads and cereals, brown rice, and fresh fruits and vegetables.  If fresh fruits and vegetables are too expensive or inconvenient, look for frozen ones without sauces, salt, sugar, or additives.  Whole foods are preferable because they have all their nutrients and they don’t have added chemicals, sugars, salt, or fat.  Experts call these foods “nutrition dense” because you get more nutrients per calorie than you do with processed foods.  Try to pick foods that look good together because they have different colors and textures.  It sounds funny-like you’re trying to have a “fashion forward” plate-but this is a great way to maximize taste and nutrition!
  • Avoid misleading “health” claims.  Grilled chicken or fish are great choices, but fried chicken or fried fish are no healthier than hamburgers.  Remember that how food is prepared (fried, grilled, baked) is almost as important as what is in the food.  Most “juice drinks” have more sugar than the fruit they are made from, and contain little or no fiber, and many vegetable soups have more salt than vitamins.  If a salad has ham, eggs, cheese, and lots of salad dressing, it may be more fattening than a cheeseburger.  Remember that just because a label says “low calorie” or “sugar-free,” doesn’t mean the food or beverage is healthy.  Check food and beverage labels for nutrients like vitamins, protein, fiber, and minerals, not just for “bad” things like fat, calories, and salt.
  • Transition slowly.  If you and your family are used to eating a lot of fast food and prepared meals, your kids will need to slowly get used to other foods.  For example, try adding some extra fruits and vegetables to your usual meals, gradually decreasing the portion size of other items on the plate.  Start using whole grain bread, lean meat, low-fat cheese in a sandwich.  Try applesauce for dessert.  Our taste buds adjust over time, so cravings for very sweet or salty foods will decrease if you gradually take those foods out of your children’s diets.
  • Get young children involved in the kitchen.  The more kids are involved in making meals and snacks, the more they will enjoy eating healthy food.  Ask your kids to help you wash fruits and vegetables or do simple tasks like snapping the stems off of green beans, or making a salad.  Give children a few healthy choices for their sandwich or salad, so that they are involved and interested in eating healthy.  You can also teach kids where their food comes from by helping them start a small garden-even if all you have is a windowsill or fire escape.

All articles have been reviewed by Dr. Diana Zuckerman and senior staff.

References:

  1. Diana Zuckerman & Brandel France de Bravo, The Survival Guide for Working Moms (and Other Stressed-Out Adults), 2009.
  2. United States Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services, Dietary Guidelines for Healthy Americans 2010, available at: http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/.

Do Chemicals in our Environment Cause Weight Gain?

Keris Krenn Hrubec, Diana Zuckerman, PhD, and Sarah Miller, RN, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund

Today’s obesity epidemic is also an epidemic of the health problems resulting from excess weight, such as diabetes, heart disease, some types of cancer, and early onset of puberty. The best way to combat obesity is to exercise more and eat less. However, it is not clear that eating more and exercising less are the only reasons for the current increase in obesity in the U.S. and many other countries. Our current obesity epidemic coincides with an increase in industrial chemicals being released into the environment over the past 40 years.

Humans are exposed to so many different chemicals that it is difficult to figure out which are the ones causing harm. This is why studies with animals are important. While researchers can’t experiment on humans, they can experiment on mice by deliberately exposing a group of mice to one particular chemical (at different doses for different periods of time) and comparing that group to a group of mice who have not been exposed. For instance, we know now that exposure to specific chemicals while in the womb can affect the size and weight of mice after they are born.This suggests that the chemicals we are exposed to before we are born could potentially increase our likelihood of becoming obese later in life.

Hormones, Environmental Chemicals, and Obesity

For any kind of developmental change to happen in the body, cells need signals from hormones telling them what to do. Hormones are involved in almost every process in the human body, including how much fat the body stores, and where in the body it is stored. Usually, hormones help to control how many of our calories to burn right away and how many to store as fat for the body’s energy needs.

Many of the chemicals from industry that are released into the environment resemble hormones. These chemicals can provoke the same response in the body that a natural hormone would.

In addition, some chemicals that we are exposed to through our food, water, and the products that we use can interfere with our natural hormones, including our sex hormones. The chemicals that do this are called “endocrine disruptors” because they change the way our hormones (our endocrine system) operate. Chemicals can cause the body to “think” that it has to store more fat than it actually does, or they can interfere with the processes our bodies use to make fat cells. Babies developing in the womb are especially vulnerable to these kinds of chemicals. There is evidence that babies who are exposed to endocrine disrupting chemicals in the womb may be at higher risk for obesity and other problems as adults.DES: A miscarriage treatment gone wrong

Diethylstilbestrol, or DES, is a synthetic version of the hormone estrogen that was given to pregnant women in the 1940s through the 1970s to prevent miscarriages. It was later learned that DES did not prevent miscarriages but instead harmed the babies, increasing the risk of cancers when those babies were young adults, and even increasing the risks of cancer in the next generation.

If pregnant mice are treated with DES, we see similar cancers in their offspring to those we saw in humans. Mice that are exposed to DES in the womb also have higher levels of body fat, even when they eat the exact same diets and do the exact same activities as mice who are not exposed. They are also hungry for more food than they actually need.

Today, DES is no longer used as a medication because of its deadly risks. Based on what we know about DES, however, scientists are studying the long-term effects of other hormone-disrupting chemicals, because those chemicals may act similarly to DES and “trick” pregnant women’s bodies into reacting as if the chemicals were estrogen. Some chemicals can also bind to receptors and block hormones from getting to the receptors. These chemicals can cause changes in the development of babies, many of which are not obvious until after the babies grow up.

Chemicals that influence our hormones and can lead to obesity are called “obesogens.”  These chemicals are not just causing us to gain weight. They are actually modifying our genes and changing which ones get used and which ones don’t. They may turn off genes that we need to keep us trim, or turn on genes that will make us store more fat but still feel hungry. We still don’t know the full extent to which they affect us, but one thing seems likely: obesity may no longer just be influenced by food and exercise.

Bisphenol A (BPA)

Bisphenol A (BPA) was also developed as a synthetic estrogen, although it stopped being used for that purpose when DES was developed, because DES was more similar to estrogen. BPA is now used in many hard plastics, including some food and beverage containers, and until recently was used in plastic baby bottles and sports water bottles. It is still used in the lining of all canned food and beverages. BPA has been linked to heart disease and diabetes in adults, possibly because it increases the risk of obesity.

Studies of mice exposed to BPA in the womb found that these mice tended to put on more body fat after birth., However, as adults, the BPA-exposed mice were the same size and weight as mice who were not exposed to BPA in the womb. This finding does not mean that the BPA had no effect on the mice’s development as adults, but no one is quite sure yet what that effect is. For more information on BPA, read “Are Bisphenol A (BPA) Plastic Products Safe?”

Phthalates

Phthalates are another category of hormone-disrupting chemicals. They are used to soften plastic (for soft plastic books and toys) as well as to provide fragrances for many household and personal care products, such as lotions. Although a law passed in 2008 that prevents the riskiest phthalates from being used in baby and toddler toys and plastic products, babies, children, pregnant women, and other adults are still exposed to phthalates every day, in products such as nail polish, creams, shampoo, and air fresheners.

Unlike BPA, phthalates do not act like estrogen, but rather block androgens (male hormones). What BPA and phthalates have in common is that they appear to contribute to a similar imbalance of sex hormones. There is research evidence, for instance, that they could potentially cause abnormal genital development, especially in baby boys, and that exposure may increase the risk of testicular cancer.

Based on what we know about the effects of phthalates on our cells, it is also possible that exposure to phthalates could increase a person’s risk of becoming overweight or obese.A study of 1,443 men in the U.S. found that those who had higher levels of some types of phthalates in their urine samples at the time of the study also had larger waist measurements and were more resistant to insulin, which put them at higher risk for diabetes.

One study has also linked phthalate exposure to girls developing breasts at an early age. It is not clear, though, whether this is because the girls are more likely to be overweight or whether the breast development is more likely regardless of the girls’ weight.,

Studies with mice have been more difficult to interpret, in part because mice do not respond to phthalates the same way humans do. For instance, in one study, one group of mice was engineered to have the human type of a gene that is activated by phthalates and the other group was not interfered with genetically. This study found that for the group that kept the mouse version of the gene, the phthalate DEHP was surprisingly protective against obesity, while in the group of mice with the human gene, DEHP was not protective against obesity. This research may help explain why some mice studies found no connection between phthalate exposure and adult obesity. For more information on phthalates, read “Phthalates and Children’s Products.”

Tributyltin (TBT)

Tributyltin (TBT) is a chemical used to kill fungi (for example, mold). This fungicide disrupts hormones by blocking estrogen from being made in the body. This causes higher than normal levels of testosterone. Testosterone is a male hormone and therefore a type of androgen; females have testosterone too, but at lower levels than males.

TBT was formerly in paint used for boats to keep mold and barnacles away, but this use is now prohibited because it was found to be causing abnormalities in fish (including fish that people eat) and even causing some species of female fish to become male. It is still in use, however as a fungicide in fruit, vegetable, and grain crops; as a component of PVC pipes (where it can get into our drinking water); and in various other consumer products, including disposable diapers.

A study found that undifferentiated cells from humans and mice that were exposed to TBT were more likely to become fat cells, even though those undifferentiated cells had the potential to become either bone, cartilage, or fat cells.

Another study, in which one group of adult mice was not fed TBT and three other groups were fed three different amounts of TBT, found that the mice who were fed the second-highest amount of TBT had higher levels of body fat even though they ate the same amount and had the same activity levels as the other mice. The mice with the second-highest dose of TBT also had higher levels of insulin in their blood but similar blood sugar levels to the other mice, meaning that they were more resistant to the effects of insulin. All of the mice who ate TBT had higher levels of leptin in their blood than the mice who did not eat TBT, but ate the same amount of food. Leptin is a hormone that is secreted by fat cells, and which turns off the “hunger signal” to our brains, letting us know when we have eaten enough. This could mean either that they were more resistant to the effects of leptin or that they simply had more fat cells, which were releasing more leptin. All the mice that ate TBT had fattier livers than the mice that did not eat TBT.

The researchers speculate that the reason only the mice who ate the second-highest amount of TBT and not the highest amount had the most significant effects was that the high dose of TBT was toxic to the liver, which interfered with the body’s ability to convert calories into body fat.Other researchers have found similar results.

Other Chemicals

Many other chemicals also disrupt hormones, including those found in pesticides and in air near manufacturing facilities and trash incinerators. A study of people who were tested for various chemicals by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that people who tested positive for endocrine-disrupting chemicals from pesticides and air pollution were more likely to be overweight.

How Does This Happen?

At very high doses, many of these chemicals cause a person’s body to burn fat rather than storing it., So, why have several studies shown that people are more likely to be overweight it they were exposed to these chemicals while they were infants or whose mothers were exposed while pregnant?

One theory is that this increased tendency to burn fat may cause a baby’s body to think that it is malnourished and cause the baby to develop a “slow” metabolism for life, which tends to store more fat to prevent starvation. This is similar to the paradoxical effect of extreme dieting, which can result in a body conserving calories to prevent starvation, and thereby storing extra fat.

It is possible that people whose metabolisms develop in this way may be less sensitive to certain hormones. One of these hormones is leptin, which as noted earlier, is secreted by fat cells and lets us know when we have eaten enough. People who are less sensitive to leptin are more likely to continue to feel hungry even after they have consumed enough food.

People whose metabolisms have developed in this way may also be less sensitive to insulin, which is a hormone secreted by the pancreas. Insulin brings sugar from our bloodstream into our cells so that we can use it for energy. People who are less sensitive to insulin may develop chronically high blood sugar levels. When these levels become very high, this is what is known as type 2 diabetes.

Research on human cells shows that some hormone-disrupting chemicals can activate hormone receptors in the parts of our cells that house DNA. This could be especially harmful to developing babies because some of their cells are “undifferentiated,” meaning they have the potential to become different types of cells. Hormones can turn genes in a cell’s DNA on or off to determine what type of cell it will become. The research suggests that hormone disrupting chemicals may interfere with this process and cause more cells to develop into adipocytes or “fat cells.”

Is This Why I Can’t Lose Weight?

If you are like many people who struggle with weight loss, you may eat the number of calories you are told that you need, but still feel hungry, or eat the same number of calories as thinner people but still gain weight when others stay thin. When you exercise, you may not see results as quickly as expected.

After reading this article, you may wonder whether exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals is contributing to the difficulties so many people have with weight loss.

There are no human studies that can conclude whether exposure to chemicals in infancy or later in life contributes to these weight control problems. It would be unethical to intentionally expose anyone to these chemicals, and it is difficult to measure all the many factors that might affect weight. However, as shown in this article, there is growing evidence to suggest that reducing exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals could help to prevent obesity as well as other health problems.

Web Resources for Avoiding Harmful Chemicals

Environmental Working Group:

http://www.ewg.org/

Green Guide

http://www.thegreenguide.com/

References:

Grun, F; & Blumberg, B; Endocrine disruptors as obesogens; Molecular & Cellular Endocrinology, 2009, 304(1-2) pp. 19-29.

Grun, F; & Blumberg, B; Endocrine disruptors as obesogens; Molecular & Cellular Endocrinology, 2009, 304(1-2) pp. 19-29.

Newbold, RR; Padilla-Banks, E; & Jefferson, WN; Environmental estrogens and obesity; Mollecular and Cellular Endocrinology, 2009, 304 (1-2) pp. 84-89.

Lang, IA; Galloway, TS; Scarlett, A; Henley, WE; Depledge, M; Wallace, RB; & Melzer, D; Association of urinary bisphenol A concentration with medical disorders and laboratory abnormalities in adults; JAMA; 2008, 300(11), pp. 1303-9.

Somm E, Schwitzgebel VM, Toulotte A, Cederroth CR, Combescure C, Nef S, Aubert ML, Hüppi PS. Perinatal exposure to bisphenol a alters early adipogenesis in the rat. Environ Health Perspect. 2009 Oct;117(10):1549-55.

Ryan KK, Haller AM, Sorrell JE, Woods SC, Jandacek RJ, Seeley RJ; Perinatal exposure to bisphenol-a and the development of metabolic syndrome in CD-1 mice. Endocrinology. 2010, 151(6):2603-12.

Main, KM; Skakkebaek, NE; Virtanen, HE; & Toppari, J; Genital abnormalities in boys and the environment; Best Practice and Research in Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism; 2010 24(2), pp. 279-89.

Stahlhut, RW; Van Wijngaarten, E; Dye, TD; Cook, S; & Swan, SS; Concentrations of uninary phthalate metabolites are associated with increased waist circumference and insulin resistance in adult U.S. males; Environmental Health Perspectives; 2007, 115(6), pp. 876-81.

Colo´n I, Caro D, Bourdony CJ, Rosario O 2000 Identificationof phthalate esters in the serum of young Puerto Rican girls with premature breast development. Environmental Health Perspectives; 108:895-900

 

Diamanti-Kandarakis, E; Bourguinon, JP; Guidice, LC; Hauser, R; Prins, GS; Soto, AM; Zoeller, RT; & Gore, AC; Endocrine-disrupting chemicals: An endocrine society scientific statement; Endocrine Reviews;2009, 30(4) pp. 293-342.

.Feige JN, Gerber A, Casals-Casas C, Yang Q, Winkler C, Bedu E, Bueno M, Gelman L, Auwerx J, Gonzalez FJ, Desvergne B; The pollutant diethylhexyl phthalate regulates hepatic energy metabolism via species-specific PPARalpha-dependent mechanisms. Environ Health Perspect. 2010;118(2):234-41

Casals-Casas C, Feige JN, Desvergne B; Interference of pollutants with PPARs: endocrine disruption meets metabolism Int J Obes (Lond). 2008;32 Suppl 6:S53-61.

Kirchner S, Kieu T, Chow C, Casey S, Blumberg B. Prenatal exposure to the environmental obesogen tributyltin predisposes multipotent stem cells to become adipocytes. Mol Endocrinol. 2010; 24(3):526-39. Epub 2010 Feb 16.

Zuo Z, Chen S, Wu T, Zhang J, Su Y, Chen Y, Wang C. Tributyltin causes obesity and hepatic steatosis in male mice. Environ Toxicol. 2009.

Grun F, Blumberg B.. Environmental obesogens: Organotins and endocrine disruption via nuclear receptor signaling. Endocrinology 2006 147:S50-S55.

Elobeid, MA; Brock, DW; Allison, DB; Padilla, MA; & Ruden, DM; Endocrine disruptors and obesity: An examination of persistent organic pollutants in the NHANES 1999-2002 data; International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health; 2010; 7, pp. 2988-3005.

Hanson, MA, & Gluckman, PD; Developmental originsof health and disease: New insights; Basic and Clinical Phramacology and Toxicology; 2008 102(2), pp. 90-3.

Sargis, RM; Johnson, DN; Choudhury, RA; & Brady , MJ; Environmental Endocrine Disruptors Promote Adipogenesis in the 3T3-L1 Cell Line through Glucocorticoid Receptor Activation; 2010 Obesity, 18(7) pp. 1283-8.

The Cost of Obesity: a Higher Price for Women—and Not Just in Terms of Health

Margaret Aker and Brandel France de Bravo, MPH, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund

By now nearly everyone knows that being obese is bad for your health, but did you know that it is also bad for your wallet? This is especially true for women.

Obesity is usually defined as being 20% over ideal weight or as having a body mass index of 30 or higher (body mass index or BMI is calculated using height and weight). Obese people are more likely to suffer from chronic health problems, such as diabetes and heart disease, and they don’t usually live as long as people who are not overweight. The latest research indicates that obese men and women are at higher risk of colon cancer, and obese women are also more likely to get breast cancer and endometrial cancer (cancer of the womb). Obese people also experience a diminished quality of life because of physical difficulties and discrimination. While many reports have discussed the “cost to society” of obesity, none have looked at the additional costs in dollars for an obese woman or man.

A 2010 study by Avi Dor and his colleagues at the School of Public Health at George Washington University found that it costs an obese woman $4,870 more per year to live in America than a woman of healthy weight. Obesity costs less for men — an additional $2,646 per year.[1] Some of those costs are paid directly by the obese person and part by employers and the government.

How did the Researchers Come Up with Those Figures?

They looked at all the data available on direct medical costs, work-related costs, and personal costs. Direct medical costs include out-of-pocket as well as insurance-covered expenses related to doctor visits, hospital care, and medications; work-related costs include differences in wages, missed work days and disability payments. Personal costs refer to the yearly dollar amount spent on transportation and life insurance.

The researchers believe that their estimates are on the low side because they did not take into account other expenses that typically are higher for obese people, such as clothing, air travel, or furniture.

Lower Wages

Most surprising, the researchers discovered that obese women do not earn as much as normal-weight female employees. No such wage differential was found for obese men who earn the same as normal-weight men. While no one knows for sure why it is that obese women have lower wages, one likely explanation is a double standard that places greater emphasis on women’s physical appearance than men’s. If obese women’s lower wages were the result of something else, like lower productivity or more missed days of work, wouldn’t that  be true for obese men as well?

The chart below shows the breakdown in obesity costs for men and women. For men, direct medical costs account for over half of their additional “cost of living,” whereas for women, reduced wages are the biggest contributor.

TOTAL COST OF OBESITY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL

cost-of-obesity-for-men-and-women1 

Overweight vs. Obese: Do Costs go Down When Weight goes Down?

This study also found that there is an added cost for being overweight (BMI of 25 to 29.9), although not as high as for being obese. It costs an overweight woman an extra $524 per year to live in the United States, compared to $432 extra per year for men. So, how overweight you are matters. If a person is only overweight by a few pounds, losing those pounds could potentially save quite a bit.

The economic downturn has affected nearly all of us in one way or another, but this study reveals that its impact may be even greater for people who are overweight or obese. If health concerns aren’t enough incentive to change eating and exercise habits, knowing the economic costs might be.

Lastly, while many of us need to lose weight, all of us should be finding ways to fight discrimination. This study draws needed attention to another way obese people — particularly women — are discriminated against.

All articles on our website have been approved by Dr. Diana Zuckerman and other senior staff. 


  1. Dor, A., Ferguson, C., Langwith, C., Tan, E.: A Heavy Burdern: The Individual Costs of Being Overweight and Obese in the United States. The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services 2010.

Breastfeeding: the Finest Food for your Infant Isn’t Sold in any Store

Margaret Aker, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund

For years evidence has been mounting about the health advantages of breastfeeding for both mother and child. From a reduced risk of obesity to an increased resistance to disease, study after study shows that breast milk is the ideal food for your newborn child. Can you believe it? Our own bodies produce the best food we can give our children? And for free!

How is Infant Formula Different from Breast Milk?

Infant formula is an imitation of human breast milk. It is made by blending various dairy substitutes. Formula, however, can never exactly duplicate a mother’s breast milk. Formula is more difficult for a baby to digest, it lacks antibodies that help infants fight off diseases and infections, and it doesn’t change to accommodate a growing baby’s nutritional needs the way natural breast milk does.

What are the Health Benefits of Breastfeeding?

Breastfeeding has significant health benefits for you and your child. Exclusive breastfeeding (meaning no formula or other food) during at least the first three months offers the greatest benefits, although some breastfeeding is better than none.

Benefits for your Child

Protection from Disease: Breastfed infants have lower rates of allergies, infections, and respiratory disorders, such as asthma. They also have lower rates of diseases such as diabetes and leukemia.

  • Antibodies that protect infants from disease are transferred from a mother to her child through breast milk.
  • Infant formula can’t provide these antibodies. Breast milk is the first example of “personalized medicine.”

Defense against Obesity: Breastfeeding decreases the likelihood that an infant will become overweight or obese.[1]

  • Breastfeeding is better for teaching infants how to stop eating when they are full. While parents sometimes find it reassuring that they can tell by looking at the bottle how much food their baby has consumed, they also tend to overfeed when bottle-feeding. Instead of looking for cues from their baby showing that he or she is full, parents look at whether the bottle is empty or not.
  • Breast milk contains the flavors of the food the mother is eating. It therefore exposes infants to a wider range of tastes at an early age. This may lead the infant to later accept a well-balanced diet containing a wide variety of foods.

Benefits for You

Protection from Disease: Breastfeeding reduces the mother’s risk of certain types of cancers.

  • Women who breastfed for 18 months or longer are much less likely to develop ovarian cancer than women who never breastfed.[2]
  • The risk of breast cancer decreases the longer a woman breastfeeds her child. Research now shows that this decreased risk has less to do with the number of children a woman breastfeeds and more to do with the length of time she spent breastfeeding each child.[3]
  • Many experts believe these benefits are the result of the delayed return of a woman’s period while she is breastfeeding. Other factors may play a part as well.

Weight loss after Pregnancy and Childbirth:

  • Breastfeeding helps women return to their pre-pregnancy weight. Exclusively breastfeeding is said to burn up to 600 calories a day![4] That’s about the same number of calories burned by running 6 miles or doing the Stair Master for about an hour. (Of course, breastfeeding will only help you lose weight if you don’t eat 600 calories more each day.)
  • Breastfeeding may help to delay the return of your period. The hormones that trigger the production of breast milk may also delay the release of hormones that bring on your period. This does not always happen, however, so if you don’t want to have another child anytime soon you should not be rely on breastfeeding as a form of contraception. For more information about safe contraceptives to use while breastfeeding check out our “Guide to Selecting Safe Medical Contraception.”

Benefits for you Both: Building a Close Relationship Between Mother and Child.

  • Women who breastfeed often have more physical contact (skin-to-skin) with their babies than women who bottle feed. This kind of close contact promotes closeness between mother and child. With breastfeeding, nothing comes between a baby and mother.
  • Feeding-whether by breast or bottle-is an important demonstration of love and an opportunity for bonding. One of the advantages of bottle-feeding is that others can participate in the duty and pleasure of feeding, but that can sometimes be a drawback. Because it is easy to pass the baby to someone else for feedings, and even to teach the infant to hold the bottle and feed himself, a mother who is rushing to get everything done may miss out on some of the time she would otherwise spend bonding with her child.

The Health Benefits of Breast Milk are Unmatched by Baby Formula. So Why Would any Mother not Breastfeed?

Given the multiple benefits mentioned above, there are many reasons why it is a good idea for you to breastfeed your child. It is important to keep in mind, however, that there are also many reasons why a mother might not be able to or might choose not to breastfeed. Every mother’s situation is different. It does not make you a bad mother if you don’t breastfeed your child.

In addition to the physical inability of some women to produce sufficient milk, some reasons that women may be unable or unwilling to breastfeed include:

  • Cost: Breast milk is free, but most newborn babies request around 8-12 feedings each day. So, committing to exclusively breastfeed may entail taking paid-time off work to stay at home with the child, go home for feeding breaks, or pump breast milk. While this type of commitment may be feasible for women whose employers offer great maternity-leave benefits or who do not work, for many it isn’t.
  • Disease: Many women are concerned about breastfeeding when they are sick, have an infection, or are taking a medication. For most illnesses and many medications, it is safe for the mother to continue to breastfeed as normal. Women infected with HIV/AIDS, active tuberculosis, or undergoing certain medical treatments, however, may be required to stop breastfeeding temporarily or permanently. The best thing to do if you are concerned about whether or not breastfeeding is safe for you and your child is to ask your doctor.
  • Food Habits: You are what you eat, and breast milk is essentially what a mother eats. It is important, therefore, that a breastfeeding mother eat well in order to provide good nutrition to her child. Mothers who are not likely to eat a balanced diet or limit their intake of caffeine and alcohol might find it in the best interest of their child to refrain from breastfeeding. No mother using illegal drugs should breastfeed. Talk to your doctor if you have any questions about whether your lifestyle is compatible with breastfeeding your child.
  • Discomfort: Some women simply do not enjoy breastfeeding. They may find it uncomfortable or frustrating. This is not a reflection on the type of mother that you are. Since the pain and difficulty almost always goes away, women are encouraged to try breastfeeding for at least 14 days before giving up.[5] A mother who is having trouble should consider asking her doctor where she can get free advice or help on breastfeeding. However, it is important that each mother considers her own needs when deciding whether to breastfeed. If a mother finds the breastfeeding experience incredibly unpleasant, it will only get in the way of mother-child bonding. Try to be patient, but don’t be a martyr.

When it is possible, breastfeeding is the ideal way to feed your child. Breast milk is naturally manufactured to protect and nourish a growing infant, as well as to help your body bounce back from pregnancy-and, it does a great job at both of these tasks. It is amazing that women’s bodies have outdone the efforts of thousands of scientists and food manufacturers to create the perfect food for infants!

Breastfeeding is not a feasible option for every mother. The multiple benefits of breastfeeding for you and your child, however, make it worthwhile to try to make breastfeeding work. And remember, if you need to supplement breastfeeding with bottles while you’re at work or sometimes in the middle of the night so you can get more sleep, that kind of compromise will still give you and your baby most of the benefits of breastfeeding.

In the end, each mother must personally decide the best way to feed her child. While the health benefits of breast milk are great, there are many other factors that will determine if breastfeeding is right for you and your family.

References:

  1. Breastfeeding: The First Defense Against Obesity. California WIC Association and the UC Davis Human Lactation Center. (2006 March). http://www.calwic.org/docs/reports/bf_paper1.pdf.
  2. Danforth K, Tworoger S, Hecht J, Rosner B, Colditz G, and Hankinson S. Breastfeeding and Risk of Ovarian Cancer in Two Perspective Cohorts. Cancer Causes & Control. Vol. 18, No. 5 (2007 June), pp. 517-523.
  3. Chang-Claude J, Eby N, Kiechle M, Bastert G, and Becher H. Breastfeeding and Breast Cancer Risk by Age 50 among Women in Germany. Cancer Causes & Control. Vol. 11, No. 8 (2000 Sept), pp. 687-695.
  4. Kramer F. Breastfeeding reduces maternal lower body fat. Journal of American Dietician Association. (1993), pp. 429-33.
  5. Love S, Lindsey K. Dr. Susan Love’s Breast Book. Perseus Publishing. 3rd Ed, (2000), pp. 33-50.

Do Hair Dyes Cause Cancer?

Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund

Permanent hair dyes produced before 1980 contained ingredients that are now known to cause cancer. These were eliminated from dyes produced in the United States in 1979, when industry-wide changes in the formulation of hair dyes were instituted.

It has generally been assumed that personal use of today’s hair dyes is safe, even though there is some evidence that at least one cancer causing agent–known as 4-ABP–can be present in some dyes or dye-lots. It is not a deliberate ingredient, but an unintentional by-product of the manufacturing process. Another problematic chemical–known as 2,3-Naphthalenediol–was banned from hair dyes in Europe in 2006, but may be present in some US hair products.

Because of continued concerns about the potential risks of such chemicals, along with the observation that the incidence of a type of cancer known as lymphoma has doubled in the last 20 years–while the popularity of permanent hair dyes has also increased–scientists have investigated whether hair dye increases the risk of lymphoma.

The term “lymphoma” refers to cancers of the lymphatic system, including Hodgkin’s disease, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. More that 60,000 people in the United States were diagnosed with lymphoma in 2005, and about half of all lymphoma diagnoses and deaths are among women. However, many more women than men use hair dyes.

A study published in July 2006 looked at the relationship between the use of hair dye and development of lymphoma among almost 5,000 people living in 6 European countries.[1] The researchers determined how many of the lymphoma patients had a history of using hair dyes, compared to a similar population that did not have lymphoma.

Many of the media stories about this research, with headlines like “Study Links Hair Dyes to Cancer,” were misleading, considering the actual findings that were reported. The strongest relationship that the researchers found is a 62% higher risk of lymphoma among people who said they had dyed their hair before 1980 but not after. The next strongest is a 37% higher risk among those whose use of hair dyes started before 1980 and continued after that date. Even though these percentages may sound large, they actually represent extremely small increases in individual and population risk. One way to keep this in perspective is to remember that more than 80% of the people who developed lymphoma said they had never used permanent hair dye. Only 4% of those who did have lymphoma used hair dyes prior to 1980.

When looking at a range of cancer types, including lymphoma, there was still a lack of statistically significant evidence linking hair dye use to risk of cancer. In 2008, researcher Michael Kelsh and his colleagues pooled data from 12 different studies (a meta-analysis) of personal hair dye exposure among men and women and bladder cancer.[2] They found that using hair dye did not increase the risk of bladder cancer.

While most hair dye studies have looked at Caucasian populations, a 2009 study   examined the relationship between personal hair dye use and cancer risk by following a group of 70,366 Chinese women. One interesting finding was that women using hair dyes for 20 or more years were at significantly greater risk for ovarian cancer-with nearly six times the risk of non-users. But, it is important to consider that this is based on a small number of long-time hair dye users, and further research is needed. In general, however, no statistically significant evidence was found between the personal use of hair dye and risk for most cancer types.[3]

Other recent studies have produced similar results. A 2007 article by German researchers Hermann Bolt and Klaus Golka analyzed existing evidence and found no bladder cancer risk from permanent oxidative dyes (these are the kind that are mixed right before using).[4] A 2009 study evaluated the association between personal hair dye use and risk of multiple myeloma among U.S. women. Again, no association was found between “ever reporting hair coloring product use” and myeloma risk among all users, including semi-permanent dye users, permanent dye users, and dark permanent dye users.[5]

Ultimately, the results of previous studies on this topic have been inconsistent and though a few have found small increases in cancer risk, the most convincing ones have not. The results of the current studies, however, do underscore the greater toxicity of older dyes compared to newer ones. The bottom line for now, pending additional research, is that  people who have been using permanent hair dyes since the 1980s appear to be at little to no increased risk of lymphoma or other cancers.

References:

  1. Sanjose S, Benavente Y, Nieters A, Foretova L, Maynadie M, Cocco PL et al (2009). Association between Personal Use of Hair Dyes and Lymphoid Neoplasms in Europe. American Journal of Epidemiology 164(1):47-55. Retrieved from: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/164/1/47
  2. Kelsh MA, Alexander DD, Kalmes RM, & Buffler PA (2008) Personal use of hair dyes and risk of bladder cancer: a meta-analysis of epidemiologic data. Cancer Cause & Control 19(1):549-558.
  3. Mendelsohn JB, Li Q, Ji B, Shu X, Yang G, Li H et al (2009) Personal use of hair dye and cancer risk in a prospective cohort of Chinese women. Cancer Science, Japanese Cancer Association 100(6):1088-1091. Retrieved from:  http://www.statsci.amss.ac.cn/QZLiPage/Publications_files/J2009/J2009CS.pdf
  4. Bolt HM & Golka K (2007). The Debate on Carcinogenicity of Permanent Hair Dyes: New Insights. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 37(6): 521-536. Retrieved from: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a780908126&db=all
  5. Koutros S, Baris D, Bell E, Zheng T, Zhang Y, Holford TR et al (2009). Use of hair colouring products and risk of multiple myeloma among US women. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 66(1): 68-70. Retrieved from: http://oem.bmj.com/content/66/1/68.abstract

Harmful Chemical Found in Fruit Juices

Julie Bromberg, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund

A 2010 study found that some fruit juices contain too much antimony, a potentially harmful chemical. This study of juices sold in Europe found that certain juices have over twice as much antimony as is allowed in drinking water in Europe and the United States. Should we stop drinking fruit juices?  At this point, the answer is no.[1]

There is no reason to panic. First, there are no studies of antimony in fruit juices or other drinks in the United States, so we don’t know if they have high levels or not. Secondly, the study only tested 42 bottles, all of which were sold in Europe.

On the other hand, there is reason for concern and more research is needed. Little is known about the health effects of long-term exposure to low doses of antimony, but scientists are concerned that antimony can cause cancer and damage the reproductive system of men and women.[2] Scientists are particularly concerned about children because they are more likely to drink juices than adults, and children tend to be more vulnerable to the negative health effects of chemicals. And, remember that most fruit juices are high in sugar and calories.[3] So, there is little benefit to drinking large quantities of fruit juices, and that might be a better reason to cut back.

Antimony is a metal that exists in very low levels in our environment. Small amounts of antimony are often present in our air, drinking water, and food. You can also be exposed to antimony through skin contact with soil, water, or other substances that contain antimony.[4]

Antimony is used to create a type of plastic called polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which is frequently used as packaging material in the food industry. Researchers believe that antimony can leach out of the PET packaging and into the juice (or other drinks/food), but they are not sure if PET is actually the source of antimony in fruit juices. Since antimony can come from a variety of places in our environment, it is also possible that antimony could enter the juice before or during the manufacturing process.

Previous studies of bottled water in Europe and Canada also found traces of antimony, but in much lower concentrations than was found in the 2010 study.[5,6,7] Juices in the 2010 study had up to 17 times higher concentration of antimony than the bottled water that was analyzed in previous reports.

To protect our health, the first and easiest step is to determine if most or all of the antimony is coming from the fruit, the plastic, or the manufacturing process. Once that is determined, the next step is to determine how high the levels are in fruit juices and in other foods or beverages and in different countries. If high levels of antimony are common, it will be important to do the more complicated research needed to find out if antimony increases the risk of cancer or other diseases.

References:

  1. Hansen C, Tsirigotaki A, Bak SA, Pergantis SA, Sturup S., Gammelgaard B, and Hansen HR. (2010).  Elevated antimony concentrations in commercial juices.  Journal of Environmental Monitoring, DOI: 10.1039/b926551a.
  2. Choe S-K, Kim S-J, Kim H-G, Lee JH, Choi Y, Lee H, and Kim Y.  (2003)  Evaluation of estrogenicity of major heavy metals.  The Science of the Total Environment, 312: 15-21.
  3. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Nutrition. (2001) The use and misuse of fruit juice in pediatrics.  Pediatrics, 107(5): 1210-1213.
  4. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). (1992) Toxicological profile for antimony. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.  Accessed March 3, 2010 at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs23.html
  5. Westerhoff P, Prapaipongb P, Shockb E, and Hillaireau A.  (2008). Antimony leaching from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic used for bottled drinking water.  Water Research, 42(3): 551-556
  6. Shotyk W, Krachler M, and Chen B. (2006).  Contamination of Canadian and European bottled waters with antimony from PET containers, Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 8: 288-292
  7. Keresztes S, Tatár E, Mihucz VG, Virág I, Majdik C, and Záray G. (2009)  Leaching of antimony from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles into mineral water.  Science of the Total Environment, 407: 4731-4735