Posts Tagged health

Granola Bars

“A health snack that you can make at home”

  • 1 tablespoon coconut oil (or regular butter), for greasing the baking tray
  • 100 g pecans, chopped
  • 100 g almond flakes
  • 125 g (1 1/4 cups) rolled oats
  • 90 g shredded coconut, loosely packed (I used unsweetened)
  • 330 g (1 cup) brown rice syrup (or use honey)
  • 50 g (1/4 cup) natural cane sugar
  • 1/2 teaspoon fine-grain sea salt
  • 2 tablespoons ground espresso beans (or ground coffee)
  • 1 1/2 teaspoons pure vanilla extract

Preheat your oven to 180°C. Butter an 20×30cm baking dish and line it with parchment paper.

Toss the oatmeal, pecans, almonds, and coconut together on a sheet pan and bake for 10 to 12 minutes, stirring occasionally, until lightly browned (around 7 minutes). Transfer the mixture to a large mixing bowl.

Combine the rice syrup (we used clearsprings organic), sugar, salt, espresso, and vanilla in a small saucepanover medium heat and stir constantly as it comes to a boil and thickens just a bit, about 4 minutes. Pour the syrup over the oat mixture and stir until it is evenly incorporated.

Pour the mixture into your prepared baking dish and press it in (wet fingers and/or a silicon spatula work great for this) until the mixture is packed as tightly as possible.

Cool for 2 to 3 hours before cutting into squares — your best serrated knife is great for this.

You can store these in an airtight container at room temperature for a week or two, as you would cookies, however, I prefer to store mine in the freezer. I find that they stay the most crisp this way as all granola tends to soften at room temperature after a day or more.

Notes : We used a tray with separated compartments that worked a treat.  You can find all the ingredients including the Rice Syrup at the health food store such as Good Earth in Balutta for our Maltese readers.

Source : 101 cookbooks and smitten kitchen combination (101 cookbooks have a great video on her site)

Servings/Yield : Makes 12 to 16 granola bars

Difficulty : Easy

Course : Snack

Tags: , , , , ,

Dog\'s dinnerNot my sort of thingGood but not for meWould try againLoved it! (1 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
Email This Post Email This Post

Why Dark Coffee Is Easier on Your Stomach

By Rachel Ehrenberg, Science News

SAN FRANCISCO — Roasting coffee beans doesn’t just impart bold, rich flavor. It also creates a compound that helps dial down production of stomach acid, according to research presented on March 21 at the spring meeting of the American Chemical Society. The discovery may explain why dark-roasted brews are gentler on the stomach than their lighter peers, and could lead to a new generation of tummy-friendly coffees.

Even though several studies have found a cup-a-day habit imparts health benefits such as decreased risk of obesity, Alzheimer’s and colon cancer, many coffee lovers drink decaf or forgo the beverage altogether because it irritates the stomach or spurs heartburn. Previous work suggested that coffee made from steam-treated beans tamps down this gastric distress, a finding attributed to lower levels of caffeine and other compounds in these brews.

“But there is no experimental or human data that says these compounds increase gastric acid,” said Veronika Somoza of the University of Vienna, who presented the research.

To explore the science behind these gentler brews, Somoza and her colleagues used water and three other solvents to extract compounds from regular commercial coffee blends. Each solvent extracted a different profile of compounds, including caffeine and N-methylpyridinium, a ringed compound that doesn’t appear in green coffee beans but is created in the roasting process. Stomach cells exposed to each suite of compounds upped their acid secretion, except for the cells exposed to the extract containing NMP.

The team then compared the chemical profiles of a dark-roasted and light-roasted brew made with regular roasted and steam-treated beans. Both versions of the dark-roasted coffee had more than 30 milligrams per liter of NMP, as compared with the lighter roast, which had 22 mg/l. The light roast that was subjected to steam treatment, a technique thought to weaken coffee’s stomach-provoking powers, had a mere 5 mg/l of NMP.

Follow-up work confirmed the molecule’s mild-mannered nature. Human stomach cells treated with coffee that had medium or high concentrations of NMP secreted far less acid than cells treated with coffee containing the least amount of NMP, Somoza reported. And the activity of many of the genes and proteins involved in this gastric secretion were quashed in cells exposed to NMP-rich coffee.

The research team is now conducting a pilot study in which subjects swallow a sensor embedded in a capsule that measures the stomach’s pH and transmits the readings to a computer. Preliminary results suggest that stomach acid surges for a longer time when subjects drink light-roast coffee compared to dark-roast.

“Most people think that non-processed food is beneficial, that possibly raw foods are best, but we do not believe that,” Somoza said. “There are healthy, beneficial compounds in processed food. Our idea is to identify these beneficial compounds and enhance them.”

How NMP acts on the gastric system isn’t well understood. Acid secretion didn’t change noticeably in stomach cells treated with NMP alone. And caffeine’s name hasn’t been cleared — the friendlier darker brews also had less caffeine than their lighter-brewed counterparts.

This lower caffeine may also contribute to the darker roasts’ antacid powers. While chemists are fond of breaking bigger things into their smaller parts, these parts often work in concert, said Bhimu Patil of Texas A&M University in College Station. “It’s important to break things down to understand them, but most of the time, there is a synergistic effect.”

Image: eclectic echoes/flickr

Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/why-dark-coffee-is-easier-on-your-stomach/#ixzz0iwH0Aa08

Tags: , , , , , ,

Dog\'s dinnerNot my sort of thingGood but not for meWould try againLoved it! (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...
Email This Post Email This Post

Tomatoes for Healthier Skin

Recent studies including a paper from the British Society for Investigative Dermatology, have shown that a component of tomatoes could protect your skin from UV damage such as sunburns, it’s the known antioxidant lycopene.  According to ststistics, approximatly 85% of lycopene in the western diet comes from tomatoes only, and the best place to find it is in tomato paste.
The BBC documentry ‘The Truth About Food’ conducted tests to establish whether eating tomato paste could help protect the skin from UV damage and UV-induced reddening. They took 23 women who were used to burning merely at the sight of the sun and asked half of them to eat 55g of tomato paste every day for 12 weeks (giving them 16mg of lycopene).

“an unbelievable 30% increase in skin protection”

After 12 weeks of rigorously following the tomato paste diet, the women were retested through a re-exposure test. The results showed that the volunteers on the lycopene diet had a 30% increase in skin protection.

This doesn’t mean that you should stop using sun block but it’s good to know that simply by increasing tomatoes in your diet you can help protect your skin from the daily sun damage which happens without us even realising.

Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7370759.stm / http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/humanbody/truthaboutfood/young/tomatoes.shtml

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Dog\'s dinnerNot my sort of thingGood but not for meWould try againLoved it! (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...
Email This Post Email This Post

Low lead levels harming children

Lead is linked to a number of health problems

Young childrens exposure to lead in the environment is harming their intellectual and emotional development, according to UK researchers.The researchers say the toxic effects of lead on the central nervous system are obvious even below the current so-called safe level of lead in the blood.They are recommending the threshold should be halved.A spokesman for the Health Protection Agency said levels of exposure should be kept to the minimum.Lead has been removed from paint and petrol by law in the UK, but it is still widespread in the environment.The study from the University of Bristol Centre for Child and Adolescent Health set out to see if there was any effect on the behaviour and intellectual development of children who had ingested just below the so-called safe level of 10 microgrammes per decilitre or tenth of a litre of blood.The study is published in the journal, Archives of Diseases in Childhood.

SOURCES OF LEAD

  • Lead-based paint
  • Household dust
  • Lead water pipes
  • Soil around the home
  • Paint on childrens toys
  • Childrens bead necklaces
  • Christmas lights
  • Lead smelters/industries

Lead levels

The Bristol researchers took blood samples from 582 children at the age of 30 months.They found 27% of the children had lead levels above five microgrammes per decilitre.They followed the childrens progress at regular intervals and then assessed their academic performance and behavioural patterns when they were seven to eight years old.After taking account of factors likely to influence the results, they found that blood lead levels at 30 months showed significant associations with educational achievement, antisocial behaviour and hyperactivity scores five years later.With lead levels up to five microgrammes per decilitre, there was no obvious effect.But lead levels between five and 10 microgrammes per decilitre were associated with significantly poorer scores for reading 49% lower and writing 51% lower.A doubling in lead blood levels to 10 microgrammes per decilitre was associated with a drop of a third of a grade in their Scholastic Assessment Tests SATs.And above 10 microgrammes per decilitre children were almost three times as likely to display antisocial behaviour patterns and be hyperactive than the children with the lower levels of lead in their blood.Adverse effectsThe effects of lead toxicity in children were first described in 1892 in Brisbane, Australia. The Agencys advice is that exposures to lead should be kept to the minimum that is reasonably practical Health Protection Agency spokesmanSince then acceptable levels of lead in the blood have fallen sharply.In 1991, the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, revised their level of concern for blood levels down to ten microgrammes per declitre.The World Health Organisation estimates that globally half of the urban children under the age of five have blood levels exceeding this limit.Professor Alan Emond, who led this study, said a third of the children in his study had levels only half of this but were still exhibiting adverse effects.He said: “Lead in the body is one of many factors that impacts on education, but this is a reminder that environmental factors are important and paediatricians must test more children with behavioural problems for lead.”"We did our blood survey when the children were about two and a half years old.”We think this is quite close to the peak age for lead ingestion when the children are putting everything in their mouths as they explore their environment.”This is a normal phase that we grow out of, but for children who have developmental problems, like autism, it may go on for a longer time so they may be particularly vulnerable. “A Health Protection Agency spokesman said: “The Agencys advice is that exposures to lead should be kept to the minimum that is reasonably practical.”This has been the policy in the UK and of health agencies throughout the world for many years.”Measurements have shown that levels of lead in children and adults have decreased markedly over the last two decades or more, primarily because of these policies.”

via BBC NEWS | Health | Low lead levels harming children.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dog\'s dinnerNot my sort of thingGood but not for meWould try againLoved it! (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...
Email This Post Email This Post

Hand-Washing Is No Defense Against Swine Flu | Newsweek Health | Newsweek.com

In a speech to schoolchildren last week that had some conservative opponents up in arms, President Obama delivered at least one line that seemed incontestable: “I hope you’ll all wash your hands a lot, and stay home from school when you don’t feel well, so we can keep people from getting the flu this fall and winter.” The Disney corporation is now marketing Musical Hand Wash Timers featuring characters like the Little Mermaid, and encouraging parents to “take precaution against swine flu” by teaching children to wash their hands correctly. “Studies prove that regular hand-washing dramatically reduces the spread of infection,” says the Disney Web page, which links to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Web site.

Thanks in part to this and other campaigns run by the CDC, it has become conventional wisdom that hand-washing is the best way to protect yourself from the H1N1 strain of influenza. But while hand-washing has been shown to be a great defense against the common cold and other respiratory diseases, it might not actually be that helpful against the influenza virus, including the H1N1 strain.

That’s because there is virtually no evidence that people can catch the influenza virus from germs that they pick up on their hands, according to Arthur Reingold, head of epidemiology at the University of California, Berkeley, and codirector of the CDC-funded California Emerging Infections Program. Instead, humans are most likely to catch influenza by breathing in microscopic particles exhaled by infected people.

Reingold and other epidemiologists don’t discount hand-washing as an important tool in public health: there is plenty of evidence that it prevents other nasty bugs, including the common cold, many respiratory infections, and viruses that cause diarrhea. But Reingold is bothered by the lack of science supporting the CDC’s message, and he worries that the emphasis on a simple measure like hand-washing creates a false sense of security from H1N1 and tamps down the discussion of more difficult preventive measures. He said as much in an e-mail to the CDC this May. “I wouldn’t care so much that we might be getting folks to improve handwashing . . . with what is likely to be incorrect information about its ability to prevent influenza” if the media and the court of public opinion weren’t so quick to embrace it as the only solution at the expense of things like surgical masks, wrote Reingold in his letter to the CDC. While Reingold admits he doesn’t know if masks would reduce transmission of the virus, he hypothesizes that they’re more likely to be helpful containing exposure to the airborne virus than hand-washing, and should not be so easily discounted. (Other experts are skeptical of face masks because it’s difficult to ensure proper use, or that people will wear them in the first place.)

Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, says the CDC’s emphasis on hand-washing is guided by the “science that supports hand-washing against respiratory infections in general.” In particular, she cites a study conducted in Pakistan that showed that hand hygiene measures cut the rate of pneumonia in half. One of the unique features of swine flu—the fact that it causes diarrhea—also suggests to some that it could be transmitted on the hands like other diarrhea-causing diseases that do not belong to the influenza family. Schuchat stresses that the best way to protect yourself will be to get the vaccine once it becomes available in October, but adds that the CDC continues to believe that “contact precautions are useful with this flu.”

But the ferrets and guinea pigs tell a different story, says Dr. Michael Osterholm, of the National Institutes of Health-supported Minnesota Center of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance, and head of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. Researchers in the Netherlands used ferrets to study the transmission of H1N1 and found that the disease was efficiently transmitted by small airborne particles. An earlier study examining a different flu strain in guinea pigs found that the animals did not pick up the virus from contaminated cages. That suggests that you’re not really safer from the flu virus if you scrub your hands, paws, or cages because the virus travels through the air. While there’s not enough evidence to conclusively say the flu works the same way for humans, the current research suggests that the H1N1 flu travels mostly by air, not via hand-to-hand contact—and therefore won’t be prevented through hand-washing.

“We don’t want to create a crisis in confidence,” Osterholm says, “but we have to be honest: the evidence doesn’t show that hand-washing prevents the spread of the influenza virus.”

Nevertheless, hand-washing is still your best defense against getting sick generally this fall—colds and other respiratory diseases are no fun, even if they don’t sound as scary as swine flu. For that and other flu viruses, don’t seek solutions at the sink: your best chance of avoiding H1N1 this fall is to get the vaccine once it becomes available.

via Hand-Washing Is No Defense Against Swine Flu | Newsweek Health | Newsweek.com.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dog\'s dinnerNot my sort of thingGood but not for meWould try againLoved it! (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...
Email This Post Email This Post

Why Milk is a Four Letter Word

PaperMilk

It may come as a surprise that drinking milk isn’t necessary when you’re pregnant, breastfeeding or at any time of life. The only requirement for us humans is breast milk, ideally for the first year of life, and certainly the first six months. To be consuming dairy products – milk, cheese, yoghurt, butter – is akin to breast feeding as an adult from another species of animal. It’s certainly not part of our evolutionary design.

Let’s look at a few facts:

  • Half the world don’t drink milk (and still have healthy babies and bones).
  • Seven out of ten people don’t have the enzyme to digest milk and get digestive problems as a result.
  • It’s Britain’s number one allergy-provoking food, linked to asthma, ear, sinus and throat infections.
  • Our 100% Health Survey, due to be published in 2010 and involving over 55,000 people, found the more milk a person drinks the worse their overall health, their digestion, immune and hormonal health.

That’s the ‘big picture’ which certainly suggests that many of us are not well suited to drinking milk – and perhaps that means you too.

Many people believe that you have to have milk for calcium, vitamin D and protein. You do need these nutrients but you don’t need milk to get them. You can easily achieve all the protein, calcium and vitamin D you need from nuts, seeds, beans and fish – and getting enough sun exposure in the case of vitamin D. If you don’t, vitamin D can be supplemented.

Milk isn’t even that good a source for minerals or vitamin D. Seeds and oily fish, respectively, are much better. Sure, it’s high in calcium, but it’s low in magnesium, the other key bone-building mineral. Also, the common belief that drinking milk reduces bone mass loss is highly contentious. While some studies support this, others show the exact opposite – that high milk consumers have low bone mass density.

A moderate amount of calcium from a variety of plant sources seems to be best. There’s plenty of easily absorbed calcium in all kinds of greens, kale being one of the best, as well as broccoli, beans, seeds (especially sesame), nuts (especially almonds), calcium-fortified juices, and soyamilk and other non-dairy milks.

Links with cancer
But there’s a much more serious reason for me to discourage you from making dairy products a staple part of your diet – and that’s cancer.

There is now consistent and substantial evidence that the higher the milk consumption of a country, the greater is their breast and prostate cancer risk. To illustrate this, take a look at the graph below which shows the mortality rate from prostate cancer around the world compared to the average milk consumption. The highest risk of cancer death is found in Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Iceland.

In stark contrast in most Asian countries the risk is minimal. In such countries, where the diet consists mainly of whole grains, vegetables, fruits, tofu, soya milk, and other soya products – and milk is not a normal part of the diet – people are generally healthier and breast and prostate cancers are much rarer than in the United States and Europe.

The connection between milk increasing risk of cancer has been known for sometime. Back in 1937, a group of five thousand children in the UK took part in a long-term study recording their dietary habits year on year. Some 65 years later a study has found that those with a high dairy intake during childhood had tripled their odds of having colorectal cancer. There was a weaker association with prostate cancer risk and no association, in this study, with increased breast cancer risk. Another study did find a trend to higher risk for premenopausal women partial to butter, and also in those with high intakes of processed meats.

Milk’s growth factors stimulate hormonal cancers
According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), 19 out of 23 studies have shown a positive association between dairy intake and prostate cancer. “This is one of the most consistent dietary predictors for prostate cancer in the published literature,” reports NCI. “In these studies, men with the highest dairy intakes had approximately double the risk of total prostate cancer, and up to fourfold increase in risk of metastatic or fatal prostate cancer relative to low consumers.”

But why would milk increase risk? Milk contains 38 different hormones and growth promoters. After all, that’s its job – to make cells grow. But one in particular is attracting a lot of attention. It’s called Insulin-like Growth Factor, or IGF-1. It’s a naturally occurring hormone, found both in cow’s milk, breast milk and your blood. The more milk you drink the higher is your level. What this hormone does is stimulate growth.

Blood levels of IGF-1 peak during adolescence, stimulating development of breasts in girls or the prostate in boys, then levels rapidly drop off as you get older. Not so if you keep guzzling milk and cheese. Milk not only contains IGF-1, a small part of which is absorbed into your blood, it also stimulates the body to produce more of its own. It simply does what it’s meant to do – stimulate growth.

It also stops overgrowing cells from committing suicide, a process called apoptosis. When you are a rapid growing baby this is good news. But when the only overgrowing cells are cancer cells this is especially bad news, because IGF-1 has also been found to directly stimulate the growth of cancer cells, with high levels being linked to increased risk of breast, prostate, colon and lung cancer, as research has shown. Having a high IGF-1 level as a pre-menopausal woman just about doubles your risk of cancer overall.

A Harvard University study showed that men who had the highest levels of IGF-1 had more than four times the risk of prostate cancer compared with those who had the lowest levels.

Two other major Harvard studies have shown that milk-drinking men have 30 to 60% greater prostate cancer risk than men who generally avoid dairy products. In one of these, involving more than 20,000 male doctors (known as the Physicians’ Health Study), those who consumed more than two dairy servings daily had a 34% higher risk of developing prostate cancer than men who consumed little or no dairy products.

Dairy intake increases risk
According to Professor Jeff Holly from Bristol University’s Faculty of Medicine – one of the world’s leading experts in IGF – “Those in the top quarter for blood IGF-I levels have approximately a three to fourfold increase in risk of breast, prostate or colorectal cancer. This level of increased risk is in the same order as the risk of having cardiovascular disease from a high level of cholesterol.” His research, and that of others at Harvard and Montreal schools of medicine show that a non-milk drinking 30 year old might have an IGF level of 130ng/ml, while a high dairy consumer might have a level of 200ng/ml, and that’s more than enough to dramatically increase your risk.

The evidence is compelling and any scientist who denies this is simply not up to speed. Holly doesn’t drink milk and actively discourages anyone with a diagnosis of these cancers to have any dairy produce. While we do not know whether a high milk intake could initiate cancer we can be pretty confident that a high milk intake, by increasing IGF-1 and possibly other growth promoters, speeds up the growth of pre-existing cancer cells.

Dairy and ovarian cancer
A high dairy intake is also linked to increased ovarian cancer risk. This link, however, is thought to be more due to how the milk sugar – called lactose – breaks down in the body. Lactose breaks down into another sugar called galactose, which appears to be able to damage the ovary. A review in 2006 found that for every 10 grams of lactose consumed (the amount in one glass of milk), ovarian cancer risk increased by 13%.

Now, I don’t mean to scare you unnecessarily, unless it might save your life, and I don’t mean to put you off ever touching the white stuff. But I do recommend two things. Firstly, give yourself a dairy-free week. If you find your indigestion or bloating stops, you don’t have your usual headache, your energy increases or your sniffs and snuffles clear up, get yourself tested for dairy intolerance. There’s a simple home-test food intolerance test for this (see www.totallynourish.com). Secondly, add up all the milk you have in teas, coffees, cereals, yoghurt, plus cheese, and if it’s over half a pint a day, cut back. Try rice milk, oat milk or soya milk instead. Milk is a food designed for baby cows, but not for you.

In summary:
• If you have cancer, especially any hormone-related cancer such as breast or prostate cancer, as well as colorectal cancer, I recommend the complete avoidance of dairy products.
• If you don’t have cancer, my advice is to keep your intake of dairy products low, meaning below half a pint of milk a day and ideally less than 2 pints (1 litre) a week. If your aim is to minimise your chances of prostate or colorectal cancer it would make sense to be largely dairy free.

Source: http://www.patrickholford.com

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Dog\'s dinnerNot my sort of thingGood but not for meWould try againLoved it! (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...
Email This Post Email This Post