The body of evidence on chocolate and heart disease

If you regularly read any health or wellness publications, you’ve likely heard the assertion that chocolate is good for you – usually phrased something like this: “Thinking about skipping dessert?  Think again. A new study shows that chocolate is actually heart-healthy.”

But what does all of the evidence say about chocolate?  Is it really good for your health?  A systematic review published in the Journal of Nutrition has found that, yes, chocolate is really good for your health.

The review looked at the effect of flavonoid-rich cocoa on all cardiovascular risk factors such as blood pressure, cholesterol and insulin sensitivity.  It also evaluated the dose-response relationships between cocoa and cardiovascular risk factors.

The review included a total of twenty-four studies with 1,106 participants.  It found that chocolate had positive effects on a number of cardiovascular risk factors – blood pressure, insulin resistance, lipid profiles and cholesterol.

While that’s good news for dessert-lovers far and wide, there was a limitation of the available evidence – the studies only looked at benefits over the short-term – days or weeks. The review concluded with a call for long-term investigations into effects of cocoa on the heart.

In the meantime, you can still pass the chocolate to me.

How your working environment impacts your health

Adopting a healthy lifestyle can be tough these days, especially for parents working hard to make ends meet. Yes, there are gyms and organic grocery stores, on-demand yoga and healthy cooking magazines.  But for working parents, long hours and irregular schedules make can make it difficult to eat healthily and exercise.

A cadre of researchers are Cornell’s College of Human Ecology are working on this problem, conducting the research and pulling together the best evidence to help families exercise more and eat healthier.

Among them is nutritional sciences professor Carole Devine, who has created and evaluated a program that helps change workplace environments to support physical activity and healthy eating.

The program, called Small Steps are Easier Together, is an active collaboration between Cornell faculty, Cooperative Extension educators and worksite leadership teams across New York. Pilot studies have been conducted in 23 sites since 2006. It involves worksites creating wellness leadership teams, who work with Cornell researchers to implement evidence-based strategies – like creating walking groups, posting maps, and offering more fruit and vegetable options in the cafeteria – to increase walking and promote healthier eating.

The most recent analysis of the program included 188  participants in 10 rural worksites. It found the percentage of sedentary women had declined to from 42 percent to 26 percent. A total of 35 percent of the women moved to a higher activity level.

Devine is also pulling together the evidence on how working conditions impact food decisions for families at home and on the job.

Her research has found that the stress of a busy job impacts parents’ ability to serve healthy meals, leading them to serve quicker and less healthy meals, such as fast food. She’s investigated a variety of coping strategies such as negotiating a more flexible work schedule and teaming up with a neighbor to take turns preparing meals.

Devine’s work highlights the connections between work environments and health, and provide some evidence-based strategies to improve public health.

A new tool to help you lose weight

MyPlateHappy New Year!

Are you making any diet and exercise resolutions this year?  I sure am.

Just in time to help us along, the federal government has launched a new online tracking system.  The system is based on the part of a new, evidence-based initiative to improve the diets of Americans that we’ve written about before here on EBL.

It includes tools to calculate the nutritional information of more than 8,000 foods, tally daily calorie consumption and track physical activity.  You can set weight loss goals, create reports and receive individualized tips about how to improve.

Admittedly, this kind of tool isn’t for everyone.  I know people who crave data – my husband is like this -who love generate graphs and reports showing exactly how many calories they’re consuming and expending. Others find this kind of tracking monotonous and discouraging.

No matter which camp you fall into, the evidence does show that it’s beneficial to track your food consumption – something the new tool will certainly help with. In fact, a systematic review published last year in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association concluded that there is a “consistent and significant positive relationship between self-monitoring diet, physical activity or weight and successful outcomes related to weight management.”  (You remember how much we love systematic reviews, right?)

The article reviewed 22 studies that looked at self-monitoring during weight loss programs.  Fifteen of the studies focused on keeping a food journal, one looked at keeping an exercise journal, and six tracked subjects who recorded their weight at least once a week.

Researchers found that both written and electronic journals helped with weight loss.  They also found that that people kept a weekly record of their weight lost more than those who weighed themselves less frequently.

So if you’re aiming to drop a few pounds in 2012, check out the government’s new tool.  It might be just what you need to jump start your New Year’s resolution.

Video feature: How to avoid holiday weight gain

It’s that time of year full of merriment, parties, and lots of special food treats.  It’s also the time of year that the majority of Americans gain weight. And some studies have shown the holiday weight gain actually accumulates year after year.

Sure, there are all sorts of theories about how to avoid those few extra pounds over the holidays. But which strategies actually work?

Brian Wansink – a Cornell professor and director of the Cornell Food and Brand Lab – has conducted dozens of studies on environmental cues and diet. He explained there are three main pitfalls to avoid at holiday meals:

  •  First, studies have shown that those who cook food eat more of it because preparing the food makes them feel as if they deserve it. Take home message:  If you’re hosting a holiday gathering, serve yourself a normal portion and then move on to socializing with your guests.
  • Research from Wansink’s lab has also shown that 9 percent of all calories consumed on Thanksgiving are eaten before the big meal. You can make a major dent in your holiday calorie consumption just by avoiding high-calorie appetizers.  If you must munch, stick with plain vegetables.
  • Wansink’s lab has also documented the “happy host” syndrome – essentially when people take more food as a compliment to the host. Research has found that the host won’t actually remember who much food you took in your first plate, only how many times you went back for more. So start with a tiny portion and then go back for a tiny bit more to send the message you’re a fan of the meal.

You can see Wansink discussing his holiday-eating tips in the following video.

Here’s wishing you a happy, healthy holiday!
Note: EBL will be taking a break for the holiday season, but will return with new evidence-based info in the New Year.

A rise in food allergies: Fact or fiction?

I recently attended a children’s holiday party that ended with a group of parents discussing the treats they brought to share. One parent lamented that she could not bring her family’s favorite cookies (which contain peanut butter) for fear a child at the party was allergic to peanuts. The discussion eventually arrived at the question, are more children really suffering from allergies to food items like peanuts, dairy products and wheat?

Everyone at the party had an opinion, but no one quite knew the answer for sure.  Of course, I hurried home to do some research.

I wasn’t able to find a clear conclusion because the evidence on food allergies is limited. Two separate, large systematic reviews published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the Journal of the American Medical Association found inconclusive evidence about the prevalence of food allergies, mainly because there is not uniform criteria available for diagnosing and tracking food allergies.

The review in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology included 36 studies and a total of more than 250,000 children and adults. Only 6 studies included food challenge tests – the gold standard for allergy testing that involves serving a patient a suspected allergen unknowingly.  More importantly, the analysis found very little uniformity in study methods, making difficult to compile data.

The review in the Journal of the American Medical Association came to the same conclusion – without a uniform method for studying food allergies, it’s difficult to draw conclusions about what’s going on. This review concluded that food allergy affects more than 1 percent of the population but less than 10 percent and found it unclear if the prevalence of food allergies is increasing. The analysis also found that a common diagnostic process for food allergies called the elimination diet – where patients eliminate suspected allergens from their meals – have rarely been studied.

So, the jury is still out. But the good news is that the federal government has recognized the critical need for more research in this area and provided a steady stream of funding to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease to address these questions. Their first step was to commission a review of the scientific and clinical literature that would eventually lead to the development of guidelines for diagnosing and managing food allergies.  (You can read it here.)

In the meantime, my son’s school will remain peanut-free. And I agree, it’s probably better that way.  If there are students who is seriously allergic to peanuts, it’s important to keep them safe. We’ll just have to make our own peanut butter cookies to enjoy at home.

I’m eating what? The evidence about nutrition labels

We’ve all had the experience, right?  You’re at the grocery store on a Saturday morning. The aisles are crowded, and you’ve stopped to read the back of package of crackers to ascertain if they are really good for you.  Only you can’t find the information you’re looking for, and you notice some strange items in the ingredient list. But you’re creating a traffic jam in the grocery aisle, so you give up and toss the box into your shopping cart.

In fact, systematic reviews do find nutrition labels do provide useful information, and those who use them consume healthier diets.

But a new report by the federal Institute of Medicine has found that nutritional labels are far too confusing for the average consumer.

After a systematic review of the literature about how consumers make food choices, the IOM concludes “it is time for a fundamental shift in strategy, a move away from systems that mostly provide nutrition information without clear guidance about its healthfulness, and toward one that encourages healthier food choices through simplicity, visual clarity, and the ability to convey meaning without written information.”

The idea is to create a point system where foods were assigned a number depending on how healthy they are. The higher the number, the healthier the food. This number would be displayed on the front of food packages, making it easier for consumers to make healthy choices. 

And possibly reducing the frequency of grocery aisle traffic jams as well.

The facts on honey

It’s sticky, it’s sweet and it tastes wonderful on a warm biscuit. Honey is a natural sweeter that’s been that provides a natural form of instant energy. And it’s been used for centuries as an antibacterial agent.

Now new evidence from the Food Safety News shows that the majority of honey available in U.S. grocery stores is missing the pollen, which would lead it to fail quality standards set by many of the world’s food safety agencies.

The pollen in honey serves several purposes. It provides some nutritional benefits, it is thought to help minimize seasonal allergies, and it helps food safety officials track where the honey is from.

The pollen is removed from honey using a technique called ultra filtering, where honey is heated, sometimes watered down and then forced at high pressure through extremely small filters to remove pollen.

There’s no way to tell whether ultra-filtered honey is coming from an unsafe source.  In the past, some imported honey was found to contain high levels of antibiotics and heavy metals.

The take-home message: Do your best to buy honey from a known local source, such as a farmer’s market or cooperative grocery store.

As a sidenote, Cornell happens to be one of the nation’s leading resources for information about honey bees. It houses the largest and most comprehensive apiculture library in the world as well as the Dyce Laboratory for Honey Bee Studies.

Everything you need to know about vitamin supplements

Now and again, a study is published that leads to a sea change in public opinion. If you’re a regular EBL reader, you already know how we feel about this. (While a single study provides some evidence about an issue, we should really consider all of the available evidence on a given topic before drawing any conclusions.)

Earlier this month, it wasn’t one study, but two.  Separate reports on the use of multivitamins and supplements among older women and the use of Vitamin E and selenium to prevent prostate cancer have led to a flurry of media reports about whether or not we, the general public, should take supplemental vitamins.

What does that mean for you?  We’ve done our best to dissect all of the evidence we can find.  Let’s start with the most recent studies.

First, researchers followed more than 38,000 older women for 25 years to track, among other things, their use of multivitamins and supplements. The study found that the risk of death among these women increased with long term use of multivitamins, vitamin B6, folic acid, iron, magnesium, zinc, and copper. They concluded there is “little justification for the general and widespread use of dietary supplements.”

In the second study, researchers followed more than 35,000 men over 10 years to determine whether taking vitamin E or selenium would decrease the risk of prostate cancer. In this study, the risk of cancer increased for men taking vitamin E, selenium, or both. This study also concluded there is little evidence for taking a supplement.

While these are both large, longitudinal studies, we thought it’d be prudent to check the other evidence available on supplements and talk to some Cornell nutrition professors about their interpretation of the data.

We started off at the Cochrane Collaboration, which has dozens of review on specific supplements for specific conditions. The most general report reviewed studies of supplements to prevent mortality. It reviewed 67 randomized trials with more than 200,000 participants, and found no evidence that supplements prolong life. It also concluded that Vitamin A, beta-carotene, and vitamin E may be harmful.

J. Thomas Brenna, Cornell professor of nutritional sciences, draws the same conclusions. “Human trials of so-called antioxidants have generally been neutral or shown harm, and these recent reports are consistent with their findings,” he said.

Brenna’s take on vitamins and supplements boils down to what he calls one of the oldest and most reliable mantras in biological science, “The dose make the poison.”  In other words, you can get too much of a good thing, and excess vitamin supplementation is no exception.

Patsy Brannon, also a professor of nutritional sciences, emphasized the need to consider your total intake of vitamins and minerals. 

“We know that those who take vitamin and mineral supplements tend to be consuming a healthier diet,” she said. “Further, many foods are fortified with minerals and vitamins such as ready-to-eat cereals and fruit justices.”

So who might benefit from a supplement and how to decide on what supplement to take and how much? 

“For those who routinely consume less than 1500 calories per day, it may be hard to consume all the vitamins and minerals in the amounts needed.  Then, a multivitamin-mineral supplement that provides only 100 percent of the recommended daily values for each of the nutrients in the supplement would be helpful,” she said.

Brannon pointed out a recent study published in the Journal of Nutrition that many adults are not meeting their nutritional needs.  Other evidence found only about 25 percent of American adults are following the recommended dietary guidelines.

The bottom line: Yes, supplements are important for specific deficiencies or when diets do not include a healthy variety of foods.  But the public as a whole may be overconsuming them to ensure health. When that happens, they may do some harm.

Is junk food cheaper?

It’s a major misconception in our modern society: processed foods like chips, frozen dinners and Happy Meals are not cheaper, but actually more expensive than whole foods like whole grains, fruits and vegetables. While this topic graces our TV screens in shows like Jamie Oliver’s Food Revoluion and our shelves in books like Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food, the misconception remains among many Americans.

A few weeks ago, Mark Bittman wrote a column in the New York Times making the case that cost is not what keeps American families from eating healthy meals.  Bittman argues that advertising and marketing of snacks and fast food, the addictive nature of unhealthy foods and a lack of cooking skills are to blame for America’s nutrition problems.

It’s a problem that is documented by plenty of evidence, says Christine Olson, a professor of community nutrition at Cornell.

“His article lends some visibility to a fact that is well-known by nutritionists and family economists and amply-substantiated by research,” she said. “A home-prepared family meal is generally more nutritious and cheaper than a family meal purchased at a restaurant, even a fast food restaurant.  But the frenetic pace of family life and the relentless advertising by the fast food industry contribute to the widely-held opposite perception. “

Cornell Cooperative Extension has been educating families about this very issue for decades. Its Food and Nutrition Education in Communities program has been helping families gain the knowledge, skills, attitudes they need to eat healthily since the 1970s. Another program called Cooking Up Fun teaches young people about cooking with healthy ingredients.

It’s one of the many ways that Cornell Cooperative Extension is using evidence to help improve the lives of families in New York.

Eating fish lowers your stroke risk

We’ve all heard that seafood should be part of a healthy diet. It provides lean protein and healthy fats that reduce your risk of heart disease, depression, joint pain and other problems. A new international meta-analysis has found that people who eat fish a few times each week are less likely to suffer a stroke than those who only eat a little or none at all.

The study, published in the journal Stroke, found the omega-3 fatty acids in fish may lower stroke risk through their positive effects on blood pressure and cholesterol. The analysis is based on 15 studies, which followed a total of 400,000 people ages 30 to 103. Each study asked participants how frequently they ate fish, then followed them for between 4 and 30 years to see who suffered a stroke.

The analysis found that eating three extra servings of fish each week led to a 6 percent drop in stroke risk. That translates to one fewer stroke among a hundred people eating extra fish over a lifetime.

While the research provides an interesting link, it does not prove that adding fish to your diet will keep you from having a stroke. People “could have healthier diets in other ways, people could exercise more, people could have better education that could lead them to see their doctors more,” Dariush Mozaffarian, a Harvard School of Public Health epidemiologist whose research was included in the analysis, told Reuters this week. But it’s likely that people who start out eating no fish or very little probably have the most to gain by putting it on their plate more often, he said.

Wash your hands! And other ways to ward off food poisoning

Following last week’s recall of 36 million pounds of ground turkey, we thought it’d be a good time to review the evidence on Salmonella poisoning.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the bacteria Salmonella live in the intestinal tracts of humans and other animals, including birds. People usually contract the bacteria by eating foods contaminated with animal feces, which typically look and smell normal even though they are carrying the bacteria. Salmonella is also be found in the feces of pets, especially, reptiles and young birds.

An estimated 1.4 million people contract Samonella poisoning every year in the U.S.  A total of 107 cases in 31 states have been identified in the most recent outbreak spread by the ground turkey meat. Infection typically results in diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps 12 to 72 hours contact with the bacteria. The illness usually runs its course in 4 to 7 days, and most people don’t require treatment.  But severe cases require hospitalization for dehydration.

So what’s the best way to prevent the spread of Samonella?  The evidence shows there are some simple steps you can take to reduce your risk of Samonella poisoning.

  • Cook poultry, ground beef, and eggs thoroughly.
  • Wash hands, kitchen work surfaces, and utensils with soap and water immediately after they have been in contact with raw meat or poultry.
  • Wash hands with soap after handling reptiles, birds, or baby chicks, and after contact with pet feces.
  • Avoid direct or even indirect contact between reptiles and infants or immunocompromised persons.

Beyond these common-sense measures, researchers at Cornell are trying to do more. Two Cornell faculty members recently received a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to study how tomato plants interact with the Samonella bacteria, with the hopes of eventually breeding new varieties of produce that suppress Samonella. 

Until then, keep up the hand-washing!

The royal wedding and the dieting bride

Okay, we admit it. EBL wanted somehow to join in the frenzy over the royal wedding. But where would scientific evidence come in? Maybe: Does research show that two kisses are better than one? Or: What’s the effect of differences in status between two partners on long-term survival of  a marriage? But no evidence-based approach to William and Kate surfaced.

Until I saw reference to the work of Cornell Professor of Nutrition Jeff Sobal in the context of William and Kate’s nuptials! Apparently (as you royal watchers will know), Kate lost a lot of weight prior to her trip down the aisle in Westminster Abbey, raising the eyebrows of the media. Is this common, many asked, or is something up with Kate?

As reported in the Boston Globe and other media outlets, Prof. Sobal has done ground-breaking work on the topic of obesity, and has written extensively on the topic of “weight and weddings” (including this book chapter).

In one widely-read article, Sobal and a colleague conducted a descriptive survey that looked at weight management behaviors among women getting ready for their weddings, as well as their ideals for body weight. Most of the soon-to-be brides were overweight and planned to lose pounds before the big day. Some purchased a smaller-sized wedding dress as a motivator. So Kate is well within the norm by slimming down before tying the knot.

EBL has only one question: Did the new Duchess of Cambridge follow an evidence-based diet? Now that she’s an example to the British and the world, we hope so!

Skip to toolbar