Sometimes useful insights come from unexpected places. Fortune Magazine publishes an annual report on Americas top 500 companies. Included in this is an overview of business sectors and how they have fared the previous year. Not surprisingly, 2009 was not a great year for many businesses.
There are of course exceptions. To quote Fortune, “For the drug industry it is as if the recession never happened”. Earnings in the pharmaceutical industry were up by one-third last year. Even sales of Botox came in at $1.3 billion; slightly down on 2008. A numbers of reasons were given for this. The most significant one in my opinion was that the industry is credited with the ability to raise prices even in tough times.
Given that this all occurred against the backdrop of major debate over health reform, lack of insurance cover for many, and the costs of healthcare in general, makes it all the more remarkable. So why is the pharmaceutical industry able to raise prices and make money when times are tough?
There are a few reasons for this. It is held that people are more likely to get sick in hard times, although this has been strongly disputed. Medications are seen as essential so people may cut back on other items before pills. However given that much of the cost is borne by insurers this is not the whole answer either.
In my view the reason is simple economics 101-supply and demand. There is an increasing demand for medications and this allows the suppliers a greater degree of price control than in areas where demand for product is less. Doctors, many of whom unfortunately see pills as the answer to most problems, drive much of this demand.
This was illustrated perfectly by a letter I got from a cardiologist in which he extols primary care physicians on the importance of treating diabetics with high doses of statin medication together with at least two blood pressure medications. As usual this advice is based on “evidence” which comes from trials. Whether or not pharmaceutical manufacturers funded these trials is not clear.
The letter did not mention weight loss, exercise or stress management. It also did not mention the study earlier this year, which showed once again that weight loss leads to lower blood pressure. The lead author of this study concluded, that it was important for people to know that they can try diet instead of pills and get the same results.
Other studies have shown reduced rates of heart disease and stroke in people who ate more foods containing vitamin B6 and folate. Those who ate more processed foods and foods with added sugar had higher rates of heart disease. Olive oil reduces inflammatory activity, again reducing heart disease as we see in those following a Mediterranean diet.
People see the world through their own eyes. Unfortunately doctors, in many instances have become conditioned to see pharmaceuticals as the answer to lifestyle related conditions. For some people there will be a role for pharmaceuticals. However the best solution to lifestyle related conditions are lifestyle changes.
These will not boost the profits of the drug industry though.
Showing posts with label food health wellbeing diet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food health wellbeing diet. Show all posts
Friday, May 7, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Improving Hospital Food
As an amateur chef, I like to watch some of the cooking shows, which are so prevalent on television these days. Putting the right fuels in the body, is so important for good health, yet it is sometimes the perceived difficult to do this. It is always good to see chefs who use real food and teach us that cooking is simple, fun and that using good produce is not expensive. Of course the end result is a meal that we would all like to eat.
Some celebrity chefs have branched out and taken up broader issues related to food and its role in our lives. Jamie Oliver is probably the chef who has been at the forefront of this with his Ministry of Food and Food Revolution. He has ventured into areas where hardly anyone knows how to cook and taught them simple healthy recipes. He has also tackled school canteens in the UK and more recently the USA.
This is all good TV and sells books-fair enough. If people neither watch his shows or buy his books the message does not spread. A bit of publicity either favorable or the “get out of our town” variety also helps this process.
Now another chef has taken up the issue of hospital food which, by and large, does not provide either good nutrition or even taste to people who are sick and in need of good nourishment to aid their recovery. Many elderly people are malnourished as it is, due to not eating enough fruits and vegetables and often relying on packaged foods. The situation in aged care facilities is generally little better. When in hospital, it is an opportunity to provide them with some good nutrition. This opportunity is almost always wasted.
Heston Blumenthal whose Fat Duck restaurant was named third best in the world will team up with The University of Reading and the Royal Berkshire Hospital to find ways of making meals more flavorsome and nutritious. Whilst there is no need for Michelin star foods or fusion dishes on hospital menus, there is much that can be done to improve the quality of hospital meals. When a meal is appetizing and flavorsome, we are more likely to eat it. Of course, when we do the meal needs to provide our body with the nourishment and fuels we hope.
Of course providing a large number of meals simultaneously is not logistically simple and there will be a range of issues to address. However once there is a will, a way will be found. The first aim of the collaboration is simply to improve the flavor of simple meals like Shepherds pie.
My late mother spent some weeks in hospital after a hip fracture and the food she was served was awful. You cannot repair a house without the right materials,so how we expect the body to repair when it is not provided with the right nutrition is beyond me.
The body needs the right fuels at any time but arguably more so when ill. This move in the UK will hopefully generate plenty of publicity and start people down a similar path in other parts of the world too.
Some celebrity chefs have branched out and taken up broader issues related to food and its role in our lives. Jamie Oliver is probably the chef who has been at the forefront of this with his Ministry of Food and Food Revolution. He has ventured into areas where hardly anyone knows how to cook and taught them simple healthy recipes. He has also tackled school canteens in the UK and more recently the USA.
This is all good TV and sells books-fair enough. If people neither watch his shows or buy his books the message does not spread. A bit of publicity either favorable or the “get out of our town” variety also helps this process.
Now another chef has taken up the issue of hospital food which, by and large, does not provide either good nutrition or even taste to people who are sick and in need of good nourishment to aid their recovery. Many elderly people are malnourished as it is, due to not eating enough fruits and vegetables and often relying on packaged foods. The situation in aged care facilities is generally little better. When in hospital, it is an opportunity to provide them with some good nutrition. This opportunity is almost always wasted.
Heston Blumenthal whose Fat Duck restaurant was named third best in the world will team up with The University of Reading and the Royal Berkshire Hospital to find ways of making meals more flavorsome and nutritious. Whilst there is no need for Michelin star foods or fusion dishes on hospital menus, there is much that can be done to improve the quality of hospital meals. When a meal is appetizing and flavorsome, we are more likely to eat it. Of course, when we do the meal needs to provide our body with the nourishment and fuels we hope.
Of course providing a large number of meals simultaneously is not logistically simple and there will be a range of issues to address. However once there is a will, a way will be found. The first aim of the collaboration is simply to improve the flavor of simple meals like Shepherds pie.
My late mother spent some weeks in hospital after a hip fracture and the food she was served was awful. You cannot repair a house without the right materials,so how we expect the body to repair when it is not provided with the right nutrition is beyond me.
The body needs the right fuels at any time but arguably more so when ill. This move in the UK will hopefully generate plenty of publicity and start people down a similar path in other parts of the world too.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Pills Are Not The Answer to Better Health
In what could almost be a man bites dog story, Australian researchers have criticized Australian doctors for not prescribing enough pills. The study released this week surveyed 322 General Practitioners (family physicians) looking at their management of patients over 55 with risk factors for cardiovascular (heart) disease. Each doctor filled out a survey on 15-20 consecutive patients. The total number of patients was 5293, of which 29% had established heart disease and 22% had risk factors.
The authors concluded there was “substantial under treatment of patients…” and that “ We recommend that GPs … ensure that high-risk patients receive evidence based pharmacotherapy”. It may not come as a surprise to find of the eight authors, five have been paid, in various ways by pharmaceutical companies and two are employed by a pharmaceutical company. Only one of the eight has no financial ties.
Now I have no issue with people earning a living and no issue with the pharmaceutical industry promoting their wares. However, I do have an issue when the only recommendation to reduce the chances of people getting heart disease is to use more pills.
Treatment of risk factors is a favorite in the pharmaceutical industry as it is lifelong therapy and a “no lose” situation as it is not the disease being treated, In other words treating risk factors means you get credit if the event does not occur and can claim to have done your best even if it does
Nowhere in this piece is a recommendation that there might be other ways to reduce the risk of disease. There is no recommendation that GP's advise patients about the importance of eating more fruits and vegetables. There is no recommendation that the doctors talk to their patients about weight reduction.
There is no recommendation that people be advised on the importance of Omega 3’s. There is no recommendation that exercise be considered. There is no recommendation that stress be looked at or managed. The fact that just following a Mediterranean diet results in a 10% drop in mortality from cardiovascular disease and cancer did not get a mention either.
In other words the whole solution is to put more people on more pills in the hope that if enough people take enough pills that all would be well with the world.Call me one of the “bad” doctors if you like, and I am sure our researcher friends would, but I do not buy this. Conditions like heart disease, strokes, diabetes, obesity and many others are not due to a shortage of circulating pharmaceuticals in the blood stream, they are a consequence of the choices we have made over an extended period of time. The solution then is to make the changes in our diets and daily life not just to pop more pills. After doing all this, there will still be a role for some pharmaceuticals in some people, but far less than is currently suggested be prescribed.
Meanwhile, just to show that not all research is a way to sell drugs, a study in the European Heart Journal has shown being happy can reduce heart disease by around 40%. The connections between the heart and happiness are legendary and like many things, which are part of human existence; there is a basis which science has not caught up with yet.
To get the benefit, people did not have to be happy all the time and it did not matter if they had down periods. What mattered is that they enjoyed life overall and had some fun. This could be as simple as listening to music for 15 minutes or walking in the park, anything which you enjoyed doing. This is Pillar 8 of DIY Health 101.
Advising people with their lifestyle choices and the importance of some fun in their lives is a much better role for doctors than dishing out pills even if that makes me a bad doctor in the eyes of certain researchers and their bosses.
Monday, November 30, 2009
A weighty issue- time to think differently
Here we go, another piece on weight-hasn’t it all been done to death? Well maybe its time to look at it a different way. I have written previously about the importance of putting the right fuels into your body and how this means you will feel better and probably eat less.
There is no question that carrying excess weight is not healthy for a number of reasons. The question is what constitutes overweight? This article (see link) looks at some of the politics of obesity. It describes the background to the Body Mass Index (BMI), which derives from work done in the 1940s by insurance actuaries and work on “normal “ weight from the 1830s. The arbitrary cutoffs came from the International Obesity Task Force. All this seems a bit out of date and perhaps of questionable relevance today.
What is so special about a BMI of 25 as against 27? Many sports people are classed as overweight because they are muscle bound. Arnold Schwarzenegger was “obese” when he won Mr. Olympia. Many football players would also be technically overweight. The BMI also does not include a differentiator for men and women.
A recent study has followed over 11,000 people for 12 years and found those who were technically overweight (BMI 25-29.9) had lower death rates than those with a “normal” BMI (18.5-24.9). Now I am always suspicious of studies but whenever there is one, which challenges conventional wisdom, I am more interested. Whilst research is presented as “scientific “, to publish findings, which are against the herd, mentality is difficult.
There has been a whole industry set up to deal with the obesity “epidemic”. This includes countless jobs for health officials to set up taskforces and attend meetings. The pharmaceutical industry has tried to get on board, although with limited success as some “weight loss” pills had to be taken off the market. More recently weight loss surgery has been a winner for surgeons.
To get a drug to market requires years of development including trials to establish that the drug works and that the side effect profile is acceptable. New surgical procedures are not subject to this. The long-term effects of weight loss surgery may be only just becoming visible. Two recent reports show
increased rates of fractures and kidney stones for people in the years after surgery.
It does not surprise me that when you interfere with the absorption of food that there will eventually be consequences. Belatedly a study is being done to see if there actually are long-term benefits from weight loss surgery.
The central question in all this is what constitutes overweight and obesity. We can probably all spot it when we see it but can we define it? More importantly can one measure be applied to all people in all circumstances – the answer to that one is no.
Like most things with the body there is a “right” level above and below which there are health issues. With weight there is a level, which will impact on your health. That level may not be a BMI of 25. The likelihood is that the “correct “ BMI for most people is somewhere between 20 and 30.The other likelihood is that there are much better markers for health issues than the BMI.
As I say in my book, Dr Joes DIY Health-Putting you in charge of your health, focus on eating food that until recently was moving around or growing somewhere, food that your ancestors from 100 years ago would recognize as food, food that if not eaten would have to be thrown out next week. Following these simple guidelines will make it far more likely that your weight will be in the zone that is right for you.
There is no question that carrying excess weight is not healthy for a number of reasons. The question is what constitutes overweight? This article (see link) looks at some of the politics of obesity. It describes the background to the Body Mass Index (BMI), which derives from work done in the 1940s by insurance actuaries and work on “normal “ weight from the 1830s. The arbitrary cutoffs came from the International Obesity Task Force. All this seems a bit out of date and perhaps of questionable relevance today.
What is so special about a BMI of 25 as against 27? Many sports people are classed as overweight because they are muscle bound. Arnold Schwarzenegger was “obese” when he won Mr. Olympia. Many football players would also be technically overweight. The BMI also does not include a differentiator for men and women.
A recent study has followed over 11,000 people for 12 years and found those who were technically overweight (BMI 25-29.9) had lower death rates than those with a “normal” BMI (18.5-24.9). Now I am always suspicious of studies but whenever there is one, which challenges conventional wisdom, I am more interested. Whilst research is presented as “scientific “, to publish findings, which are against the herd, mentality is difficult.
There has been a whole industry set up to deal with the obesity “epidemic”. This includes countless jobs for health officials to set up taskforces and attend meetings. The pharmaceutical industry has tried to get on board, although with limited success as some “weight loss” pills had to be taken off the market. More recently weight loss surgery has been a winner for surgeons.
To get a drug to market requires years of development including trials to establish that the drug works and that the side effect profile is acceptable. New surgical procedures are not subject to this. The long-term effects of weight loss surgery may be only just becoming visible. Two recent reports show
increased rates of fractures and kidney stones for people in the years after surgery.
It does not surprise me that when you interfere with the absorption of food that there will eventually be consequences. Belatedly a study is being done to see if there actually are long-term benefits from weight loss surgery.
The central question in all this is what constitutes overweight and obesity. We can probably all spot it when we see it but can we define it? More importantly can one measure be applied to all people in all circumstances – the answer to that one is no.
Like most things with the body there is a “right” level above and below which there are health issues. With weight there is a level, which will impact on your health. That level may not be a BMI of 25. The likelihood is that the “correct “ BMI for most people is somewhere between 20 and 30.The other likelihood is that there are much better markers for health issues than the BMI.
As I say in my book, Dr Joes DIY Health-Putting you in charge of your health, focus on eating food that until recently was moving around or growing somewhere, food that your ancestors from 100 years ago would recognize as food, food that if not eaten would have to be thrown out next week. Following these simple guidelines will make it far more likely that your weight will be in the zone that is right for you.
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1409/big-fat-beat-up
Monday, November 16, 2009
Getting real about our children
The adage about our children being our future remains true today. So that being the case what are we doing about the health of our children? Statistics suggest that 25% of Australian children are overweight or obese. Figures from the USA are comparable and many European countries like Greece Portugal and Spain are in the same boat.
The figures from Greece are the most interesting as they reveal one of the key reasons we have this problem. Between 1982 and 2002 there had been a trebling in the number of overweight Greek 12 year olds. During this time there had been a move away from the “traditional” Mediterranean diet and an embracing of processed high sugar foods. The traditional diet was based on vegetables fruit, unrefined grains olive oil for cooking with a bit of fish nuts poultry and eggs thrown in. There was not a lot of red meat consumed and virtually no refined sugars. This diet provides lots of nutrition and is not calorie dense.
Contrast this with a diet of hamburgers, soft drinks, biscuits and other processed foods which make up, a “typical” western diet. This is the exact opposite - calorie dense with not much nutrition. If you then add into the mix that many children are not physically active, spending hours in front of screens, we can see why children like adults are getting heavier.
There is much hand wringing going on about childhood obesity. There is no shortage of opinions on how to “manage the crisis”. As is usually the case, calls are made to ban advertising of “junk foods” and for government to provide “funding” for various programs. Of course this funding goes mainly to program providers, often the same people who are arguing for funding for such programs.
Then there are the ridiculous suggestions like banning children under two from watching TV. Not only is this pointless but how on earth would it be implemented? The most bizarre one recently was for lap banding surgery for children. Not only is this completely the wrong approach to take with children but no one has considered the long term effects on their growth if one interferes with food absorption.(It is emerging that long term issues with bones and kidneys may follow lap band surgery but this takes years to appear).
In amongst the nonsense, there is a shining light. A school in Queensland (Australia) has won an award for teaching children how to grow and cook fresh food. Angela Skerman,the teacher in charge of this was quoted as saying "There's a lot of benefit of getting children to go back to the basics and being able to grow their own food and see the relevance and importance of eating seasonal produce rather than things that have been held in a fridge for eight months “
In my view this sums it up. Rather than berate children and parents about all the wrong things they are supposedly doing or treat them like imbeciles who will do anything just because it was on an ad, teach useful skills and provide useful information. This is best done at a grass roots level.
The two key ways to help our children with their eating is to teach them the basics and the connections between nature, what we eat and our health. The other key is to lead by and set a good example.
The figures from Greece are the most interesting as they reveal one of the key reasons we have this problem. Between 1982 and 2002 there had been a trebling in the number of overweight Greek 12 year olds. During this time there had been a move away from the “traditional” Mediterranean diet and an embracing of processed high sugar foods. The traditional diet was based on vegetables fruit, unrefined grains olive oil for cooking with a bit of fish nuts poultry and eggs thrown in. There was not a lot of red meat consumed and virtually no refined sugars. This diet provides lots of nutrition and is not calorie dense.
Contrast this with a diet of hamburgers, soft drinks, biscuits and other processed foods which make up, a “typical” western diet. This is the exact opposite - calorie dense with not much nutrition. If you then add into the mix that many children are not physically active, spending hours in front of screens, we can see why children like adults are getting heavier.
There is much hand wringing going on about childhood obesity. There is no shortage of opinions on how to “manage the crisis”. As is usually the case, calls are made to ban advertising of “junk foods” and for government to provide “funding” for various programs. Of course this funding goes mainly to program providers, often the same people who are arguing for funding for such programs.
Then there are the ridiculous suggestions like banning children under two from watching TV. Not only is this pointless but how on earth would it be implemented? The most bizarre one recently was for lap banding surgery for children. Not only is this completely the wrong approach to take with children but no one has considered the long term effects on their growth if one interferes with food absorption.(It is emerging that long term issues with bones and kidneys may follow lap band surgery but this takes years to appear).
In amongst the nonsense, there is a shining light. A school in Queensland (Australia) has won an award for teaching children how to grow and cook fresh food. Angela Skerman,the teacher in charge of this was quoted as saying "There's a lot of benefit of getting children to go back to the basics and being able to grow their own food and see the relevance and importance of eating seasonal produce rather than things that have been held in a fridge for eight months “
In my view this sums it up. Rather than berate children and parents about all the wrong things they are supposedly doing or treat them like imbeciles who will do anything just because it was on an ad, teach useful skills and provide useful information. This is best done at a grass roots level.
The two key ways to help our children with their eating is to teach them the basics and the connections between nature, what we eat and our health. The other key is to lead by and set a good example.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Chocolate Its better than OK
Easter Sunday is the day when everyone can indulge their love of chocolate without feeling guilty-and rightly so. Chocolate is universal. It is said that nine out of ten people say they like chocolate and the tenth is lying.
So why the guilt about chocolate and do we need to feel guilty? Simple answer -NO Chocolate is not intrinsically bad for us. At levels of cocoa of 70% it is actually good for us. What applies to you will depend on how much you eat and the quality.
Chocolate is viewed with suspicion because it tastes so good. As a “pleasure” it has been seen as sinful. There are also linkages between chocolate and that other great “sin” of humanity-sex.
So lets look at the “health benefits” of chocolate. The good feeling you get is not imagined. Chocolate contains a phyto-nutrient, which is an endorphin. The “high” from eating chocolate can be similar to the high runners get. It comes from the endorphins (the bodies natural happy hormone). Chocolate is virtually an antidepressant. Is it any wonder people turn to chocolate when they feel down?
Dark chocolate has lots of minerals including potassium, zinc, copper, chromium and magnesium. Many women turn to chocolate if they have pre menstrual symptoms. This is related to low magnesium. Again the body knows what it needs.
Cocoa is rich in antioxidants (10g dark chocolate has the same amount as a cup of green tea). The glycaemic index(GI)of chocolate is 40. Polyphenols in cocoa can reduce LDL(bad cholesterol). There are also good fats in chocolate.
Above all else fun is one of the pillars of health. Apart from providing goodness for us, our food needs to give us joy. Chocolate scores ten out of ten on this one.
So as I said above, there is no need to feel guilty about eating a bit of chocolate today or on any other day. This does not mean a bar a day and yes you can get all the above nutrients from other sources, perhaps without the same amount of fun. The best is 70% cocoa and organic is great if you can get it.
As part of a balanced DIY health program chocolate hits the spot.
Happy Easter Enjoy!
So why the guilt about chocolate and do we need to feel guilty? Simple answer -NO Chocolate is not intrinsically bad for us. At levels of cocoa of 70% it is actually good for us. What applies to you will depend on how much you eat and the quality.
Chocolate is viewed with suspicion because it tastes so good. As a “pleasure” it has been seen as sinful. There are also linkages between chocolate and that other great “sin” of humanity-sex.
So lets look at the “health benefits” of chocolate. The good feeling you get is not imagined. Chocolate contains a phyto-nutrient, which is an endorphin. The “high” from eating chocolate can be similar to the high runners get. It comes from the endorphins (the bodies natural happy hormone). Chocolate is virtually an antidepressant. Is it any wonder people turn to chocolate when they feel down?
Dark chocolate has lots of minerals including potassium, zinc, copper, chromium and magnesium. Many women turn to chocolate if they have pre menstrual symptoms. This is related to low magnesium. Again the body knows what it needs.
Cocoa is rich in antioxidants (10g dark chocolate has the same amount as a cup of green tea). The glycaemic index(GI)of chocolate is 40. Polyphenols in cocoa can reduce LDL(bad cholesterol). There are also good fats in chocolate.
Above all else fun is one of the pillars of health. Apart from providing goodness for us, our food needs to give us joy. Chocolate scores ten out of ten on this one.
So as I said above, there is no need to feel guilty about eating a bit of chocolate today or on any other day. This does not mean a bar a day and yes you can get all the above nutrients from other sources, perhaps without the same amount of fun. The best is 70% cocoa and organic is great if you can get it.
As part of a balanced DIY health program chocolate hits the spot.
Happy Easter Enjoy!
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Investing in your health
A report in the New York Times shows that sales of vitamins have been going up whilst the economy has been going down. Sales nationally in the USA were up 8% in the last quarter of 2008 compared to 2007.
Different reasons are given to explain this. One theory is that people are buying supplements instead of going to the doctors. According to an economics professor at Princeton, Uwe Reinhardt people are initially trying to “tough it out” rather than go to a doctor. There is also the view that people are concerned about costs of medical care in the USA and particularly their inability to control costs once in the system.
As usual this trend is knocked by doctors. Indeed in February a study was published in the Archives of Internal medicine which claimed no benefit to post menopausal women in taking multi vitamins. It apparently didn’t stop them dying.
Yet the sales figures show that people do benefit. As the old saying goes you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. If there was no benefit to people in taking supplements eventually they would stop. Consumption would certainly not increase and even less so at a time when using your dollars wisely is so important.
Taking supplements does not mean you will live forever. It does not guarantee that you will never get any form of disease. It is about putting the right fuels into your body. This is why there is no absolute one size fits all. Whilst fish oils and multi vitamins are the biggest sellers many people have their own favourites which work for them. Furthermore the body may have different needs at different times.
It is also important to use a good quality supplement.
Professor Reinhardt also described a move to “consumer directed healthcare” which is essentially people taking more preventative measures (especially if insurance premiums or other disease related costs rise.) This is criticised as leading to delay in treatment.
This misses the main point. If you have just had a heart attack, then no vitamin is immediately going to fix it. The role of supplements, healthy eating, regular exercise and the other pillars of health make it less likely you will get disease and hence less likely you will need treatment. This is about reducing the requirement not delaying what may be required.
The best way not to get sick is in fact to be healthy. Consumer directed healthcare is all about you taking control of your own health. DIY health is about you being able to have the knowledge base and empowerment to take action.
http://tinyurl.com/cjwxjv
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/169/3/294
Different reasons are given to explain this. One theory is that people are buying supplements instead of going to the doctors. According to an economics professor at Princeton, Uwe Reinhardt people are initially trying to “tough it out” rather than go to a doctor. There is also the view that people are concerned about costs of medical care in the USA and particularly their inability to control costs once in the system.
As usual this trend is knocked by doctors. Indeed in February a study was published in the Archives of Internal medicine which claimed no benefit to post menopausal women in taking multi vitamins. It apparently didn’t stop them dying.
Yet the sales figures show that people do benefit. As the old saying goes you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. If there was no benefit to people in taking supplements eventually they would stop. Consumption would certainly not increase and even less so at a time when using your dollars wisely is so important.
Taking supplements does not mean you will live forever. It does not guarantee that you will never get any form of disease. It is about putting the right fuels into your body. This is why there is no absolute one size fits all. Whilst fish oils and multi vitamins are the biggest sellers many people have their own favourites which work for them. Furthermore the body may have different needs at different times.
It is also important to use a good quality supplement.
Professor Reinhardt also described a move to “consumer directed healthcare” which is essentially people taking more preventative measures (especially if insurance premiums or other disease related costs rise.) This is criticised as leading to delay in treatment.
This misses the main point. If you have just had a heart attack, then no vitamin is immediately going to fix it. The role of supplements, healthy eating, regular exercise and the other pillars of health make it less likely you will get disease and hence less likely you will need treatment. This is about reducing the requirement not delaying what may be required.
The best way not to get sick is in fact to be healthy. Consumer directed healthcare is all about you taking control of your own health. DIY health is about you being able to have the knowledge base and empowerment to take action.
http://tinyurl.com/cjwxjv
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/169/3/294
Friday, March 13, 2009
You and your car- the right fuels
Occasionally, the obvious is borne out by scientific studies. It is amazing how really important but obvious facts are overlooked in the health sphere particularly when it comes to diet and nutrition.
The study in Diabetes journal looked at the effect of a low Glycaemic Index(GI) diet on the need for insulin use in pregnant women with diabetes. No prizes for guessing that the women who ate more whole foods (fruits and vegetables) halved their need for insulin compared to those eating a “more conventional” high GI diet which contained more processed food.
Given that eating too much processed food is the key driver in the development of diabetes this result should not have surprised the researchers. In simplest terms by putting the right sorts of foods into the body, the body does better and has less need for any sort of pharmaceutical, even if the pharmaceutical is a hormone like insulin.
The New England Journal study showed that for those wanting to reduce weight the most important factor was reducing the number of calories consumed irrespective of what type of “diet” was followed. In other words all the diets out there “work” providing you consume fewer calories and thus use up the bodies reserves (fat stores.)
You wouldn’t dream of putting diesel into a petrol (gasoline) driven car because it wouldn’t run well. Yet sadly we put all sorts of fuels into our bodies that cause it to not run well and eventually become dis-eased.
Keep it simple . Eat “whole” foods which until recently were growing somewhere or moving around. Minimise the foods which have use by dates beyond next week, and come out of boxes and packages. Make water your main beverage.
Putting the right fuels into the body gives it the best chance of running better for longer. You are more important than your car!!
Tip for today
Try fruit or rolled oats for breakfast instead of boxed cereal.
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/dc09-0007v1
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/360/9/859
The study in Diabetes journal looked at the effect of a low Glycaemic Index(GI) diet on the need for insulin use in pregnant women with diabetes. No prizes for guessing that the women who ate more whole foods (fruits and vegetables) halved their need for insulin compared to those eating a “more conventional” high GI diet which contained more processed food.
Given that eating too much processed food is the key driver in the development of diabetes this result should not have surprised the researchers. In simplest terms by putting the right sorts of foods into the body, the body does better and has less need for any sort of pharmaceutical, even if the pharmaceutical is a hormone like insulin.
The New England Journal study showed that for those wanting to reduce weight the most important factor was reducing the number of calories consumed irrespective of what type of “diet” was followed. In other words all the diets out there “work” providing you consume fewer calories and thus use up the bodies reserves (fat stores.)
You wouldn’t dream of putting diesel into a petrol (gasoline) driven car because it wouldn’t run well. Yet sadly we put all sorts of fuels into our bodies that cause it to not run well and eventually become dis-eased.
Keep it simple . Eat “whole” foods which until recently were growing somewhere or moving around. Minimise the foods which have use by dates beyond next week, and come out of boxes and packages. Make water your main beverage.
Putting the right fuels into the body gives it the best chance of running better for longer. You are more important than your car!!
Tip for today
Try fruit or rolled oats for breakfast instead of boxed cereal.
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/dc09-0007v1
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/360/9/859
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
