Give the gift of IQ

Want to know one of the most un-sexy, yet effective types of foreign aid?  Providing iodized salt to the world's poor. 

Almost one-third of the world’s people don’t get enough iodine from food and water. The result in extreme cases is large goiters that swell their necks, or other obvious impairments such as dwarfism or cretinism. But far more common is mental slowness.

When a pregnant woman doesn’t have enough iodine in her body, her child may suffer irreversible brain damage and could have an I.Q. that is 10 to 15 points lower than it would otherwise be. An educated guess is that iodine deficiency results in a needless loss of more than 1 billion I.Q. points around the world.

For more information, this 2006 story examines the challenge and progress of delivering this crucial nutrient.

Cleaning blog house - #1

I came to the realization that America is in the grips of a nefarious chicken-finger pandemic, in which a blandly tasty foodstuff has somehow become the de facto official nibble of our young.

This essay bemoans the children's menu at restaurants, noting that instead of downsizing adult portions, the kids menu often simply offers a few marginally nutritious comfort meals to quite the children while the adults eat. At a Chinese place, how about chicken fingers for the kids? Italian, chicken fingers! Thai, chicken fingers!

She notes that some restaurants are trying to adapt, reverting to the tradition of simply shrinking big people portions (and prices) for kids. But I found it interesting that restaurants have been catering to the parents' desire to have a good dining experience by catering to kids' comfort food (and waistlines).

The silliness of athletic "recovery" products

Despite the sleek runner in the TV ad and the bold claims on the crinkly package, special "recovery" food for athletes often takes advantage of unfounded science to make itself a market. It truth, regular old food (fruit, bread, juice) is more than enough to provide the nutrition the working body needs.

I like my pre-ultimate frisbee PBJ and my special "carb-loaded" beverage (read: beer) for afters.

Artificial sweeteners may screw with your appetite

Think a switch to diet drinks will help cut pounds? Possibly not.

Scientists found that rats consuming artificial sweeteners actually ate more than other rats and gained more weight. The hypothesis is that the body controls appetite by learning to match food flavor and sweetness to fullness. When the body gets sweetness but not as many calories, it may get fooled into thinking that sweetness doesn't provide fullness and cause the body to eat more to compensate.

Caveats:

• The research was in rats, not humans
• The rats had never encountered artificial sweeteners before. Most humans have.

Maybe this finding will eventually play out in humans as well, reminding us that there's no such things as a (calorie) free lunch.

• 
  

Book review: Deep Economy

I recently finished reading Deep Economy by Bill McKibben and it was an excellent book. The overall theme is that Americans have come to be obsessed with more. More economic growth, more material goods, bigger! better! McKibben begins his analysis by noting that for most Americans, wealth and material goods are not related to happiness and that we need to refocus on a "deeper" economy.

First, the main point. McKibben notes that once a country's per capita income exceeds $10,000, there is not a commensurate increase in the happiness of the population. Once basic needs of food and shelter are met, little happiness (if any) is gained from additional wealth. Economists call this the diminishing marginal utility of income (pdf).

One of the other main issues McKibben addresses is the issue of agriculture, health and the environment. Modern food systems generally involve large monocultures (a single plant covering thousands of acres), massive processing and packaging, and long-distance shipping. Thus every visit to the supermarket can offer local vegetables or exotic fruits, in any season. And it also serves up a healthy dose of pesticides, herbicides, and a massive carbon footprint.

McKibben notes that both our health (in terms of nutrition) and our land's productivity suffer. First, health suffers because when modern agriculture comes to the developing world, it tends to displace sufficiency farming. The former involves large monocropping of corns or soybeans or other commodities for export, the latter a mix of vegetables and grains to serve local nutritional needs. Modern agriculture actually reduces the self-sufficiency of the developing world and increases malnutrition.

Modern science has helped combat this with discoveries such as golden rice (infused with vitamin A) that replaces the vitamin A lost when other vegetables are not longer planted alongside rice. It's ironic, though, that it is really just a fix to another solution of modern times, the green revolution.

Even more intriguing, organic small-scale farming is actually more productive per acre and per unit of energy. That's right, you get more food for your land and inputs farming in a more traditional style, where corn can be planted in the same field as beans, instead of lined up for mechanical harvesting. And that is the tradeoff, of course. This more natural style of farming is labor-intensive and more expensive in dollars per pound of food, but more productive per acre of land.

The other big issue McKibben addresses as part of his exploration of happiness is community. Americans have a society committed to maximizing individual time: houses with more bedrooms than people, cable TV instead of movie theaters, cars instead of mass transit. The tradeoff is that people feel more alone and depressed than their parents.

McKibben suggests that community is a balancing act. Too much feels repressive, like having your parents or neighbors constantly at your door or in your space. To little leaves people vulnerable to anxiety and other products of social isolation.

Overall, I thought his book an interesting look at how to re-envision the modern economy to better respect the environment and the sense of human community. Highly recommended.

$1 billion for nutrition isn't buying much

No one tuned into regular news has missed the rising obesity epidemic in the United States, so it's no surprise the federal government has ponied up over $1 billion to help encourage kids to eat healthy. Sadly, this initiative hasn't shown much effect:

an Associated Press review of scientific studies examining 57 [nutrition] programs found mostly failure...

Last year a major federal pilot program offering free fruits and vegetables to school children showed fifth graders became less willing to eat them than they had been at the start...

In studies where children tell researchers they are eating better or exercising more, there is usually no change in blood pressure, body size or cholesterol measures; they want to eat better, they might even think they are, but they're not.

What's the problem? A clear misunderstanding of the right pressure points. Point one - parents.

Experts agree that although most funding targets schools, parents have the greatest influence, even a biological influence, over what their children will eat.

Point two - Advertising

Children ages 8 to 12 see an average of 21 television ads each day for candy, snacks, cereal and fast food - more than 7,600 a year, according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation study. Not one of the 8,854 ads reviewed promoted fruits or vegetables.

There was one ad for healthy foods for every 50 for other foods.

Ironically, one of the major failures of the programs might be that increased pressure from other federal legislation - No Child Left Behind - pressures schools to drop physical education and recess for more class time. And yet,

School programs that increase physical activity are also more likely to have an impact than nutrition education.

Summary: the government's program is ineffective, even more so because of advertising for junk food.

Great.

A summer week roundup

I've been doing a lot of "spending time outside" in the all-to-brief northern hemisphere summer, so that's why the posting volume has decreased here at the Moldy. Anyway, just to keep you interested, here's some quick looks from around your world.

1. The Chinese keep finding new ways to innovate when it comes to food processing.
   

Baozi are a common snack in China, with an outer skin made from wheat or rice flour and and a filling of sliced pork. Cooked by steaming in immense bamboo baskets, they are similar to but usually much bigger than the dumplings found on dim sum menus familiar to many Americans.

Sound good? Here's what a Beijing TV station found is really being put into your local baozi:

Squares of cardboard picked from the ground are first soaked to a pulp in a plastic basin of caustic soda -- a chemical base commonly used in manufacturing paper and soap -- then chopped into tiny morsels with a cleaver. Fatty pork and powdered seasoning are stirred in.

Maybe this TV coverage will be the modern-day version of The Jungle?

2. How walkable is your house? This Google Maps mashup finds local hardware, grocery, and dry cleaning stores (and parks and libraries...) and plots their distance to your home, scoring neighborhoods from 0-100. My wife and I life in a neighborhood scoring a not-so-great 37, but they probably don't count the 4-block walk to the lake.
   

3. A fat people, we Americans are finally getting pre-packaged foods in non-obese portions. Of course, this lovely pre-packaging also means a lot more garbage. The following may be good advice, but will many people try it?

It's simple and quick to measure out your own serving sized snack packs. Just take a look at the serving size information found on the nutrition label. If a serving is given as a number of pieces (ex. serving size: 20 pieces), count out that many pieces into a graduated measuring cup. Look to see if the number that you've counted comes to 1/4 cup, 1/3 cup, 1/2 cup, etc., and measure that amount for the rest of your servings instead of counting. If the serving size is given as a measurement, then simply measure that amount. If you're fixing a snack to be gobbled up immediately, eat out of a re-usable dish. If the snack is for later or lunch boxes, use a reusable container or a baggie that can be rinsed out for re-use.

Forget the diet, the genes will fight you every step?

Science is always on the prowl for genetic explanations for common social ills, whether it be obesity, misbehavior, or disease incidence. So it should come as no surprise that your expected body mass is largely determined by your genes. The conclusive study of adopted children (whose birth parents are idenitified in documents) was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1986:

“The two major findings of this study were that there was a clear relation between the body-mass index of biologic parents and the weight class of adoptees...and that there was no relation between the body-mass index of adoptive parents and the weight class of adoptees..."

In other words, being fat was an inherited condition...

Dr. Stunkard also pointed out the implications..."80 percent of the offspring of two obese parents become obese, as compared with no more than 14 percent of the offspring of two parents of normal weight."

The science behind the finding is fascinating. In the late 1950s, a scientist at Rockefeller University wanted to study the differences in fat cells between obese and normal-weight folks. He gathered overweight volunteers and enforced a strict weight loss (often up to 100 pounds). By the end, the volunteers' fat cells appeared normal and the hypothesis was that they would leave permanently thinner. Not so:

Instead, Dr. Hirsch says, “they all regained”...Maybe, he thought, they had some deep-seated psychological need to be fat. So Dr. Hirsch and his colleagues, including Dr. Rudolph L. Leibel, who is now at Columbia University, repeated the experiment and repeated it again. Every time the result was the same....and that led them to a surprising conclusion: fat people who lost large amounts of weight might look like someone who was never fat, but they were very different. In fact, by every metabolic measurement, they seemed like people who were starving.

...when they lost weight, they were burning as much as 24 percent fewer calories per square meter of their surface area than the calories consumed by those who were naturally thin.The Rockefeller subjects also had a psychiatric syndrome, called semi-starvation neurosis, which had been noticed before in people of normal weight who had been starved. They dreamed of food, they fantasized about food or about breaking their diet.

The study left the scientists with an interesting question. If obese individuals were unable to reduce their weight because of their body's natural regulation, would folks who became fat be subject to the same restriction?

His subjects were prisoners at a nearby state prison who volunteered to gain weight. With great difficulty, they succeeded, increasing their weight by 20 percent to 25 percent. But it took them four to six months, eating as much as they could every day. Some consumed 10,000 calories a day, an amount so incredible that it would be hard to believe, were it not for the fact that there were attendants present at each meal who dutifully recorded everything the men ate.

Once the men were fat, their metabolisms increased by 50 percent. They needed more than 2,700 calories per square meter of their body surface to stay fat but needed just 1,800 calories per square meter to maintain their normal weight.

When the study ended, the prisoners had no trouble losing weight. Within months, they were back to normal and effortlessly stayed there.

In other words, not only is weight primarily genetically predetermined, but the body's natural metabolism fights to keep it within a that narrow, predetermined range. Fat people are literally starving themselves to remain thin, and thin people must literally gorge to gain weight.

However, given this evidence, how do explain this trend in weight gain in America?


What behavioral or environmental factors have overcome the natural mechanism for weight control? The best theory I've seen so far pegs sweetened beverages as the major factor, due to their low satiety (they don't make you feel full - link forthcoming). A cross-sectional review of clinical studies found that while additional study is merited, there's sufficient evidence that sugar-sweetened beverages contribute to obesity.

Consumption of [sugar-sweetened carbonated] beverages was shown to increase by 135% between 1977 and 2001. ¹⁵ It is estimated that, during this time, daily caloric sweetener consumption in the United States increased by 83 kcal per person, of which 54 kcal/d is from soda. ¹⁰

So find your body's optimal weight - kick the can!

Save your teeth, your health, and your wallet with tap water?

Bottled water has become a multi-billion dollar industry in the past decade, even thought as much as 25% of bottled water is the same stuff that comes from the tap. In recent news, the shift to drinking bottled water has shown some unfortunate side effects. The prevalence of cavities has increased sharply in kids ages 2-5, and the causes range from snack foods to sugared drinks to too few dental visits. But one doctor found another reason for the tooth decay problem:

A reason is that parents are giving their children more processed snack foods than in the past, and more bottled water or other drinks instead of fluoridated tap water, Dr. Dye [of the National Center for Health Statistics] said.

The presence of tooth-shielding fluoride in tap water gives it a health benefit that bottled water makers don't match. In one step further, municipal water supplies also meet more stringent health standards than bottled water, requiring more frequent tests for pathogens.

But what about flavor? ABC News tested another of the myths, that bottled water beats municipal water in flavor. The result?

In our test of bottled waters, Kmart's American Fare -- the cheapest brand -- won. Big-seller Aquafina came in second.
Iceland Spring tied the ordinary tap water for third place. Fifth place went to Poland Spring, and in last place, by far, with almost half the testers saying it tasted bad, was the most expensive water -- the fancy French stuff, Evian.

If health and safety aren't sufficient reasons to stick to tap water, maybe your wallet will be. Bottled water (at 75 cents per 16 oz) costs $6 a gallon - mostly to pay for the brand label and the plastic bottle - but tap water costs $0.01 per 10 gallons. You read that right, bottled water costs 6,000 times what tap water does.

Yeah, I'm biased against bottled water and that doesn't help those of you who have "flavored" tap water. A nice compromise (which I employ) is a standalone filter pitcher or a tap attachment. These carbon-based filters can remove funky flavors without removing the fluoridation (so says chemistry teacher SPH). The filters can last for several months (at about $5 a pop), saving money and reducing waste plastic.

Get your Daily Apple

Someone out in the web-verse thought my account of the new recommendations for school nutrition was less lousy than others, and the good man at Mark's Daily Apple was nice enough to direct a few people to the Moldy.

I make it a practice to review sites that link here, and I'm pleased once again to say that it'd be worth your time to trackback. The Daily Apple is a site devoted to "taking the boredom out of health" and has insightful and candid commentary on the latest fad diets, health-related public policy, and alternative treatments for common ills such as migranes. Mark has 10 Daily Apple commandments and I think the first one is the best sense you'll get of the site:

1- Eat your daily apple. We prefer Red Delicious. But we’re not opposed to the others. Granny Smith has a satisfying pucker. And we love the Fuji!

So check out his site, or at the very least, post your favorite daily apple in the comments (I'll go with Gala).

Junk food could be out at public schools

Asked by Congress to develop nutritional standards for all food in schools, the Institute of Medicine rolled out its two-tier nutrition recommendations today. Tier 1 applies elementary and middle-school children for the entire day, and to high school kids during school hours. Tier 2 standards are somewhat looser and apply only to high school kids after school hours.

The major items?

1. School lunch - with all its dietary guidelines - should be the primary source of nutrition for school children. (This GAO report on school lunch reveals its shortcomings).
2. Competing foods to school lunch should be limited
3. When available, competing foods should *gasp* meet the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Here's what the guidelines are for Tier 1 (you won't find Twinkies in here):

Fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and related combination products* and nonfat and low-fat dairy that are limited to 200 calories or less per portion as packaged.

Beverages include:

• Water without flavoring, additives, or carbonation.
• Low-fat (1%) and nonfat milk:
• Lactose-free and soy beverages are included
• flavored milk with no more than 22g of total sugars per 8-oz. serving
• 100-percent fruit juice in 4-oz. portion as packaged for elementary/middle school and 8 oz. (two portions) for high school.
• Caffeine-free, with the exception of trace amounts of naturally occurring caffeine substances.

These restrictions would apply anywhere on the school campus including vending machines and the "a la carte" lines. Remember when you could still get a burger and fries at school? That's over, because all items sold will have to meet the National School Lunch standards for fat, sodium, and sugar.

Tier 2 foods don't have to be quite so healthy - no mention of fruits or veggies - but you won't likely find a Twinkie here either. Diet soda pop clears the 5-calorie hurdle, but only if it lacks caffeine:

Tier 2 snack foods are those that do not exceed 200 calories per portion as packaged and:

• No more than 35 percent of total calories from fat
• Less than 10 percent of total calories from saturated fats
• Zero Trans fat (≤ 0.5 g per portion)
• 35 percent or less of calories from total sugars
• Sodium content of 200 mg or less per portion as packaged.

Tier 2 beverages are:

• Non-caffeinated, non-fortified beverages with less than 5 calories per portion as packaged (with or without nonnutritive sweeteners, carbonation, or flavoring).

Despite the fact that these items are recommendations to Congress (not even close to actual standards for schools), the food and beverage lobby is already coming out swinging:

The Center for Consumer Freedom worried that the report could lead to a government "no child with a fat behind" program.

The growing rate of obesity is caused by lack of physical activity rather than overeating, according to the group, which describes itself as representing restaurants, food companies and individuals.

Folks, we could only hope for an America that has "no child with a fat behind."

For all the gritty details of the Institute's recommendations, check out their fact sheet. For more on efforts to improve nutrition in schools, check out former President Clinton's success with a voluntary restriction on soda pop in school vending machines.

Is it "low cal" or does low saturated fat really get you going?

Ever wonder what nutritional information most appeals to American consumers? From a report to the United Soybean Board on vegetable oil markets, this chart illuminates the pervasiveness of Nutritionism, the American fascination with breaking down food into "goods" and "bads" at the nutrient level.

Why "think of the children" means thinking about food

TriplePundit has a guest blogger who offers up a (very) long treatise on the implications of diet on academic performance and health.

Conclusions? Watch out for processed foods and food additives. Corn gets put into almost everything - thanks to government subsidized production - and the prevalence of corn syrup and corn oil in just about everything means that we're nutritionally out of whack. It means a greater chance of various diseases and ailments as well as poorer school performance.

Nutritionism: going micro until it's no longer food

An excellent essay describing how Western science spends so much time deconstructing food that we no longer have as much to eat - and yet we're eating ourselves into poor heatlh.

Stealth sugar

Following up on my earlier post about China's rapidly rising caloric intake, I wanted to share a little surprise about sugar.

I love sugar. Skittles, for example, are among the tastiest things known to humankind. And I like sweet things. But like a good little FDA automaton, I also like a balanced diet and exercise. So when I get my sugar, I prefer it to be in pure form (Skittles) as opposed to hiding in foods I think are good for me. Like yogurt, "a great low fat snack."

It just so happens that when it comes to sugar,



Hmm, back to the drawing board.

Stick with mom, not pop

Can Americans really find yet another way to be less healthy?

A new report shows that more and more Americans are flaunting Mom's advice and having pop with breakfast. Here's the numbers on pop drinkers:

• 1 in 7 people who eat breakfast outside the home
• 1 in 42 people who eat breakfast at home
  

This rising interest in breakfast pop comes at the expense of coffee, which probably means folks are turning to sugared pop as their preferred caffeine delivery vehicle. The article notes that most of these pop drinkers are not going with diet pop, so it's not even a compromise on caffeine v. sugar.

The sad part is that breakfast pop drinkers are probably part of the population drinking multiple cans Big Gulps each day, increasing their risk of broken bones, osteoporosis and other bone diseases. Speaking of Big Gulps, here's a nice illustration of why pop consumption has doubled since 1973: