Saturday, October 18, 2008

Which is the Healthiest Fruit Juice ?

According to latest studies the best and healthiest top  ranking juices are :




Pomegranate Juice  healthiest juice
Pomegranate is the healthiest of them all because it contains the most of every type of antioxidant. It wins in all categories. And it's thought that it might do some very good things; it may protect against some cancers, such as prostate cancer. It might also modify heart disease risk factors, and it could be healthy for your heart. So pomegranate was the clear winner.




Concord Grape Juice




Concord grape juice is a source of very potent antioxidants. And there's some research indicating it may be good for our hearts and also help reduce blood pressure. Grapes are also high in fiber, but much of their goodness is in the seed, so you need to consider whether grape juice is the way to go.




Blueberry Juice



The color alone indicates a lot of antioxidants. But blueberry juice also contains tons of fiber, and is also very high in Vitamin C. One of the qualities of antioxidants is that they can lower inflammation, and so there's some indication that blueberries may have some effect on age-related cognitive abilities. And don't forget that blueberries are very low in calories.




Black Cherry Juice



This one actually has scientists a bit excited. Not only is it high in antioxidants, but there is evidence that black cherry juice can actually diminish exercise-induced muscle injuries.



Cranberry Juice



Like all of these juices, it's high in antioxidants. But cranberry juice is also high in Vitamin C. And there's always been a sort of wives' tale that cranberry juice helps prevent urinary tract infections. Well, it turns out researchers are finding evidence that it actually can decrease the number of urinary tract infections. The thinking is, it helps stop bacteria from sticking to the bladder wall, protecting against infections.



Subscribe to Life in the HEALTH lane

Read more...

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Aspirin cuts breast cancer risk

Subscribe to Life in the HEALTH lane

A new piece of US research backs the idea that aspirin protects against certain types of breast cancer.

It found women who used aspirin or similar painkillers at least once per week for six months reduced their risk of breast cancer by 20%.



However, the University of Columbia researchers say it is too soon to advise women to start taking aspirin against breast cancer, however. aspirin-1

Their findings appear in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Previous studies have suggested aspirin may protect against a range of cancers, including breast, colon and bowel.



Dr Mary Beth Terry and colleagues looked at almost 1,500 women with breast cancer and a similar number of healthy women acting as controls.



They then examined what effect the frequency and duration of use of aspirin or other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) had on the women's risk of breast cancer.


Reduced risk



The researchers found a dose effect. Women who had taken aspirin at least once per week for six months or longer were 20% less likely to develop certain breast tumours.

But those who used seven or more tablets a week reduced their risk by 28%.

Women who had gone through the menopause showed the greatest benefits.

The reduced risk was only seen among those with a type of breast cancer that is thought to be linked to oestrogen, however.



This is the most common type of breast tumour.



Almost two-thirds of tumours from pre-menopausal women and three-quarters of tumours from post-menopausal women contain detectable oestrogen receptors, which means their growth is stimulated by the presence of oestrogen, according to Cancer Research UK.



The results for NSAIDs such as ibuprofen was slightly weaker.



Use of a painkiller which works in a different way to aspirin and NSAIDs did not appear to reduce the risk of breast cancer.



These data add to the growing evidence that supports the regular use of aspirin and other NSAIDs as effective chemopreventive agents for breast cancer.



Balancing risks and benefits



Aspirin and NSAIDs are associated with gastric side effects, in particular bleeding, among regular users.



Dr Terry's team said it was important to have more research to look at what dose of aspirin might be protective. aspirin-2



The potential benefits need to be balanced against potential harmful effects of long-term aspirin use such as peptic ulcer disease and gastrointestinal bleeding they said.

It is also important to study whether these findings are supported in more racially and ethnically diverse populations.



It is is a very interesting study and opens up a whole range of further research, not only in the possible use of aspirin to reduce risk but also in conjunction with existing drugs to improve treatments.

Aspirin is not without side effects and we don't know what the negative consequences of long-term use might be nor the dose.



Many people are already taking low dose aspirin to reduce the risk of heart disease and it would be really interesting if this drug which we take so much for .ranted could also reduce the risk of breast cancer.



We would like to stress caution to all women who are considering taking aspirin as a result of this study because aspirin can be associated with other health issues such as gastrointestinal problems.

All women should consult their local GP to discuss the benefits and risks.

We feel it is vital that more clinical research is undertaken to examine the effect of aspirin on breast cancer.

Breakthrough Breast Cancer and Cancer Research UK also recommended further research.


The new study suggests that aspirin can prevent hormone positive tumours and not hormone negative tumours.



This is the first report of this observation and, as ever in science, the findings need to be replicated before we can draw definitive conclusions.



Ref: WebMD & BBC.uk


Subscribe to Life in the HEALTH lane

Read more...

Friday, October 3, 2008

Why Soft Drinks Contribute to Obesity ?

Subscribe to Life in the HEALTH lane

The introduction of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in the seventies coincided with a marked rise in obesity in the U.S., leading to speculations that there might be a causal connection between HFCS consumption and weight gain. This seemed all the more plausible since HFCS consumption grew much faster than any other food intake.soft drink


On the other hand, obesity rates also increased in Europe and other parts of the world where sucrose (table sugar) remained the major caloric sweetener. This seemed to argue against a connection between HFCS and weight gain, particularly since the fructose/glucose ratios of high fructose corn syrup and sucrose are quite similar.


What sucrose and high fructose corn syrup have in common, and what distinguishes them from dietary carbohydrates such as starch, is their fructose content. Fructose contributes the same amount of energy as glucose, but it doesn′t trigger the same satiety signals. The sharp rise in the consumption of soft drinks and processed foods sweetened with HFCS and sucrose led to a dramatic increase in fructose intake, a source of energy that goes essentially unnoticed.



What is high fructose corn syrup?



High fructose corn syrup is made from corn starch, a glucose polymer. First, enzymatic starch breakdown yields corn syrup which is essentially free glucose. The glucose is then further enzymatically converted to fructose. After various purification steps, a mixture of 90% fructose and 10% glucose (HFCS-90) is obtained. HFCS-90 is mixed with appropriate amounts of corn syrup to make either HFCS-55 or HFCS-42, mixtures with 55% and 42% fructose, respectively. HFCS-55 is mainly used for soft drinks, whereas HFCS-42 is primarily used to sweeten baked goods.




Not only are sucrose and high fructose corn syrup similar in their fructose/glucose ratios, but soft drinks are acidic enough to hydrolyze sucrose. An analysis of sucrose-sweetened soft drinks showed that ten days after manufacture only 50% of the sucrose was still intact. After three months 90% of the sucrose was hydrolyzed, i.e. even sucrose-sweetened soft drinks contain mostly free fructose and glucose.




HFCS has largely replaced sucrose in commercial foods in North America. It is cheaper than sucrose, partly because of import tariffs on sucrose and agricultural subsidies to corn producers.



HFCS versus sucrose in drinks - is there a difference?



37 men and women in their twenties and in the healthy weight range were recruited to compare the effects of soft drinks sweetened with sucrose and HFCS on subsequent food intake. At mid-morning the participants were given one of six preloads: 215 kcal from sodas sweetened with sucrose, HFCS-42, or HFCS-55, 215 kcal from 1% milk, 4 kcal from aspartame-sweetened diet soda, or no drink at all. Later all subjects were given the same lunch and they were free to eat as much as they wanted. Leftover food was weighed, giving the investigators an accurate measure of energy intake. Averaged over six lunches, the following total calorie intakes (in kcal) from preload plus lunch were found: HFCS-42 1193, HFCS-55 1182, sucrose 1170, 1% milk 1129, aspartame 1011, and no drink 1008.



Clearly, there was no signficant difference between the sodas sweetened with sucrose and those with HFCS. In addition, the subjects drinking caloric preloads clearly took in more total calories than those drinking the low-cal soda or nothing at all. In other words, those who had caloric drinks before lunch did not reduce their food intake sufficiently to compensate for the preload.



Sugars in solid versus liquid form - does it matter?



To answer this question, 15 men and women were recruited for a short cross-over trial designed to compare the effects of equicaloric liquid and solid carbohydrate sweeteners on food intake. All participants were in their twenties and in the healthy weight range.
The trial consisted of two four-week interventions, separated by a four-week washout period and cross-over. Once a week during the two trial phases the participants presented themselves to the investigators to be weighed and supplied with weekly rations of their daily 450 kcal sweeteners. The solid load consisted of sucrose-sweetened jelly beans, and the liquid load of
HFCS-sweetened soda.



The participants were free to decide when to take their daily loads, and when and what to eat. Calorie intake was estimated from self-assessments of food consumption.



Analysis of the food questionnaires indicated that during their solid phase the subjects fully compensated for the energy content of their preload; the total calorie intake from food plus test sweetener was equal to the pre-trial food energy intake. This was not the case, however, during their liquid trial phase, where food intake remained unchanged, i.e. the sweetened drink added to the total calories.
While conclusions based on self-reporting of food eaten are always questionable, these were within-subject comparisons, i.e. the same bias was likely present in their estimate of food intake after liquid and after solid preloading. Furthermore, the estimated energy intakes were consistent with measured changes in body weight. The participants experienced significant weight gains during the liquid trial phase, but not during the solid trial phase, consistent with an excess energy intake in the liquid phase.
It appears therefore that caloric sweeteners contribute to weight gain if consumed in drinks, but not in solid food.



Fructose and glucose affect appetite and food intake differently.



Two hormones, insulin and leptin, act as satiety signals in the brain and thus are critical to energy homeostasis. Both insulin and leptin circulate in the blood at levels proportional to body fat content, and enter the central nervous system in proportion to their plasma levels. Low hormone levels increase appetite, and high levels act to reduce energy intake.




Insulin levels rise in response to blood glucose. Insulin-mediated entry of glucose into adipocytes (fat cells) in turn causes the release of leptin. In other words, both insulin and leptin levels react to glucose concentrations. Fructose, on the other hand, does not trigger insulin release. This in turn means that fructose doesn′t affect leptin levels either. Since it increases neither insulin nor leptin levels, fructose consumption does not generate the same satiety signals as glucose. The result is overeating and weight gain.



To summarize, the rise in obesity rates with increasing HFCS consumption was no coincidence. The increased popularity of soft drinks and HFCS-sweetened convenience foods led to a rapid increase in fructose consumption. It was this excessive fructose intake that fuelled the rapid weight gain, since fructose does not generate the same satiety signals as glucose. It is likely that sweetened drinks are worse than sweet solid foods, and that sucrose has the same effect as high fructose corn syrup.




Most studies of the effects of calorically sweetened liquids on appetite and weight gain looked at soft drinks. However, fruit juices and drinks also contain added sweeteners, typically HFCS, i.e. they pose the same obesity risk. Switching to noncalorically sweetened soft drinks isn′t the answer either, since artificial sweeteners like aspartame come with problems of their own.



Of course fruit also contains fructose ("fruit sugar"), but this obviously doesn′t mean that one should stop eating fruit. It doesn′t contain nearly as much fructose as sweetened drinks and it is a valuable source of phytonutrients and fiber, whereas soft drinks provide little more than empty calories.



Clearly, one of the best things we can do for our health is to stop drinking soft drinks.



Ref: naturalnews.com



Also Read: Soft Drinks - Hard Facts!



Subscribe to Life in the HEALTH lane

Read more...

  © Blogger template ProBlogger Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP