Sitting or Standing: What Does Your Company Do?

Ran across this article in the San Francisco Chronicle that talks about companies adopting standing "policies" in their workplaces to reduce  sitting time.

The science is definitely solid for companies to create these type of work environments - reduction in chronic disease risk and overall higher productivity from employees.  This is great, along with other companies who stand in the meetings and pass around a medicine ball. If you have a workplace that sits a lot, this may be a good idea to increase workplace healthiness and productivity!

How Much Do You Need to Lose to Gain?

Are you trying to lose weight?  Maybe struggling to lose the goal amount of weight that you want to?  For health educators, there are plenty of individuals that you know who are also attempting to lose weight.  If the reason for this is to be "healthy" - meaning, they want to reduce their risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer and other diseases, what is the magical body weight that reduces these risks?  Well, it may be a bit easier than you think.

My professors always told us that if America would lose 10% of it's weight, we would be much healthier and reduce the risk of a handful of diseases.  Research presented at the American Psychological Association's 120th Annual Convention reaffirms this. They found drastic reductions in risk for type 2 diabetes (58%) for people who had lost an average of 14 pounds.  They go on to conclude that for overweight or obese individuals, just a 10% reduction in weight  have been shown to have long term impact on sleep apnea, hypertension, qaulity of life, and a slow in the decline of mobility as they age.

So don't be stressed about losing "half your body weight" (such as the show "Extreme Makeover: Weight Loss Edition" aims to achieve), modest amounts can have a huge impact on your future.

Turns out that my professors knew a thing or two about health!

Cheers to making big improvements in our health with small steps!

A Better Measurement than BMI

I think we all know the fallacies of BMI: it doesn't take into account frame size or muscular mass so it gives a skewed result when someone has larger amounts of lean muscle mass.  It was originally developed by insurance companies to categorize people for disease risk, and in my opinion, that isn't where these measurements come from.  Unfortunately, many health organizations still use it, simply for the fact that an easier calculation doesn't exist.  Most often times, however, when BMI is used outside of the insurance industry, it takes the weight of a grain of salt.  Still, there needs to be a better, and still quick measurement to give people an accurate estimation of disease risk.

That's where the ABSI comes in.  Developed recently and published on PLoS ONE, the calculation looks like this:

ABSI = (Waist Circumference) / ( (BMI)^(2/3) (Height)^(1/2) )

Sorry about the poor representation of the formula, it's easier to understand by following the link.  Here's an online calculator.  Basically, the formula is a beefed up version of BMI, but takes waist circumference into account.  Waist circumference helps the formula take into account visceral fat (note the waist to hip ratio) - aiding in the prediction of cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and other mortality risks.

 This is still a very new measurement, so it still needs to undergo the rigorous tests of the scientific community before it gets the seal of approval, but it does hold some promise.  I'll keep an eye on this one to see how it trends.

Artificial Sweeteners: Are the Scary Claims Real?

I'm an avid user of StumbleUpon - I'm kind of a random fact sort-of-guy.  So, being able to hit a button and learn about random stuff is pretty cool.  Although "Health" is one of my interests on there, I rarely spend much time reading the pages that come up.  Why?  They're either not very informative, a picture of someone exercising, or a blog/website that is based on false information.  Sometimes a good one will pop up here or there... but it's not very common.  There's been a certain topic that always catches my eye, however, and that's the use of artificial sweeteners.  Many media outposts have claimed them as chemicals that can cause us to be fat, carcinogenic, toxic, and are just flat out bad for us.  Some websites even say they would prefer to eat foods that are laced with sugar than to eat any amount of artificial sweetener.  Is this really true?                            Let's take a look:



Artificial sweeteners fall into a category of "non nutritive sweeteners" - meaning, they don't provide any nutrition in the form of calories, vitamins, minerals, etc.  The only thing that they provide is sweetness.  The Food and Drug Administration has come up with an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for each of the sweeteners, whose levels are set at 100 fold less than any known toxic levels.  In effect, consuming these sweeteners at the ADI you are no where near the known toxic levels and are safe from any potential harm.
Acesulfame-K - 15mg/kg
Aspartame - 50mg/kg
Saccharin - 5 mg/kg
Sucralose - 5 mg/kg

You may have noticed that these are units of measurement based on kg of your body mass.  Here's a simple calculator that will tell you how many cans of pop or packets of sweetener you can have in a day at the ADI.  That page doesn't really show you the whole picture since artificial sweeteners are being more commonly used beyond these two types of foods, but it puts it in perspective.  The UK's Food Standards Agency goes further about the discussion of ADI and states that it is not expected that everyone knows them and religiously calculates them and stays under their limit.  That's why they are set at 100 times less than the unsafe limit.

chemistryexplained.com

Non nutritive sweeteners are not all new:  a handful have been around for nearly four decades.  There are some new players to the field because companies are looking for sweeteners that provide better sweetening power that have fewer "off" tastes (like bitterness).  Essentially, the more palatable they can make a sweetener, the better the food tastes and the more product they will sell.

Now the baseline is set, let's get into the meat of the discussion:

In looking for sound research or good website articles, it should go without saying that there are some things that need to be considered:

1. Who is the publisher?  Do they have any conflicts of interest?
2. Is the article looking at the research as a whole, or picking and choosing research that supports a viewpoint? (You can truly find research to support any theory you want)
3. How old is the research?  Is it current? (I consider current anything that has been published within the last 10 years)
4. What could be other causes to the outcomes of the research?  Do they use good research methodology?

To me, this should be common sense, but it seems many bypass this understanding.  A couple of great, well-rounded, thoroughly researched meta-analysis, recently published articles by top-notch organizations (citations between the two are above 270):

Nonnutritive sweetener consumption in humans: effects on appetite and food intake and their putative mechanisms.  American Journal of Clinical Nutrition - Published 2008

Nonnutritive Sweeteners: Current Use and Health Perspective.  American Heart Association and American Diabetic Association - Published June 2012.

Should You Sour on Aspartame? Professional Report by Tufts University - Published 2007.

Here's the lowdown on what they say about sweeteners.  "At this time, there are insufficient data to determine conclusively whether the use of NNS to displace caloric sweeteners in beverages and foods reduces added sugars or carbohydrate intakes, or  benefits appetite, energy balance, body weight, or cardiometabolic risk factors." (AHA and ADA article)

"There is no clear evidence that NNS augment appetite by activating cephalic phase responses, altering osmotic balance, or enhancing food palatability. Indeed, there is emerging evidence that selected NNS may stimulate the release of satiety hormones, although the link between these hormones and energy intake in free-living individuals is also open to debate. With respect to energy intake, there is no substantive evidence that inherent liking for sweetness or NNS activation of reward systems is problematic." (AJCN Article).


The last article written by Tufts speaks specifically about the toxicity of aspartame, a concern when aspartame either breaks down in the body or when it is heated about 86 degrees Faranheit.  "Besides cancer concerns, you might be prompted to avoid aspartame because of the claims rocketing around the Internet that it causes everything from lupus to multiple sclerosis to Gulf War Syndrome. These “dangers” are little more than urban legends, according to the American Council on Science and Health: “The scientific evidence does not support any of these alleged associations.”"

From these articles, the acute effects of sweeteners seems to have been found OK, but long term studies are needed to determine further risks.  Keep in mind, however, that's not really a radical statement.  Also, the correlation between artificial sweetener consumption and weight gain may not be causation:  instead it may be caused by the mindset, "I had a diet pop today instead of sugared, so I can have desert tonight".  People over consume sugar as a reward for substituting in artificial sweeteners.  This claim needs more research, but interesting nonetheless. 


There is certainly much more to these research articles that talk about specific concerns with non nutritive sweeteners, so I encourage you to read them - at least the abstracts and conclusions.


As with anything, keep in mind the source of the information your reading.  There are LOTS of bad articles out there about nutrition and exercise.  Don't fall into the trap of websites like these (it's an "all-natural" website looking to sell their products, founded and funded by Joseph Mercola, a known alternative medicine physician that believes sunscreen, drugs, and vaccinations are bad for you).  Media outlets such as newspapers, TV shows (like the TLC article in the first paragraph), blogs (that's ironic, isn't it?) aren't always trustworthy, either.


Feel free to share any further concerns you may have!


Cheers to looking for for the real facts!