Category — Food and Nutrition

EATING OR DRINKING    IS LINKED TO           P-VALUE
Raw tomatoes                       Judaism                        <0.0001
Egg rolls                                  Dog ownership           <0.0001
Energy drinks                       Smoking                        <0.0001
Potato chips                          Higher score
                                                   SAT math v verbal      <0.0001
Soda                                         Weird rash                    <0.0002
Shellfish                                 Right-handedness      <0.0002
Fried/breaded fish             Democrat                       <0.0007
Beer                                         Frequent smoking      <0.0013
Coffee                                      Cat ownership              <0.0016
Salt                                           Likes ISP                        <0.0014
Steak w fat trimmed          Atheism                          <0.0030
Bananas                                 Higher score
                                                   SAT verbal v math      <0.0073
Cabbage                                  Innie bellybutton         <0.0097

This spurious [and pretty damn funny] correlations table is from a smart, thoughtful article recently posted on FiveThirtyEightScience. It’s about why it is so very difficult to get trustworthy, consistent information about diet and nutrition.

Here’s the problem. Or rather, the problems:

There’s lack of consensus about what makes for a healthy diet. Yep, it’s that basic. There are raw foodists and calorie-restrictors, vegans and paleos, gluten-frees and dairy-frees, Mediterranean fans and Asian followers. There’s scientific evidence to support the health benefits of all these regimens. No one is making a case for a high-sugar, low-fiber, processed food diet, but the inclusion (or exclusion) of meat (yes beef, no beef? grass fed?), dairy (milk no, but yogurt yes?), various grains (demon wheat, angelic quinoa?), fruit (blueberries as panacea?), vegetables (kale kale kale…really?), coffee (no! yes!) all get big media attention, millions of adherents – and (confusingly) credible research backing.

That’s because scientific research on diet and nutrition is flawed. I’m not talking about the Beef people tweaking numbers or the Dairy lobby funding its own studies. I am talking about the underlying method used by top-notch researchers. Studies on the possible connection between certain foods or dietary regimens and health are retrospective. That is, researchers ask eaters to keep food diaries or fill out questionnaires about what and how much they eat after the fact. As anyone who has ever tried to keep a food diary can attest, this is not easy — unless you always eat at home and prepare your own food. Also, the farther back you have to remember, the less accurate you are (but a number of studies ask you to respond to “in the last month, how often have you eaten…”) It is also a well known phenomenon in the research that people like to report they eat healthier than they do.

The potential for flawed data continues when researchers ask a zillion other questions about the eater’s habits and lifestyle. The more data collected, the more possible it is to find correlations between responses that may in fact have no connection at all outside the realm of statistics. In fact, it’s ridiculously easy to link individual foods with reported behaviors or conditions. As  as a computational physiologist says in the article I urge you to read: These connections are nothing more than circular reasoning.  “You’re taking one type of subjective report and validating it with another form of subjective report.” And so we get corrections between use of table salt and one’s level of satisfaction with an internet provide. Or consumption of potato chills and SAT math scores. (So that’s why my math score was so low!)

Read the article. It’s funny and fascinating. And sobering.

Thanksgiving is – and has always been – my all-time favorite holiday.  And now I have another reason (actually 10 of them) to love this day.  And so do you.  Here are the Top Ten Reasons Thanksgiving is the Ultimate Anti-Aging Holiday:

10. Family gatherings where you spend time with people younger than you are helps you “think young,” which translates into real biological benefits like lower blood pressure.

9. Cleaning the house before the guests arrive is good exercise.  Integrating functional physical activity into your life is probably the single most successful long-term anti-aging strategy there is.

8. Cooking turkey is one of the least anxiety-producing culinary activities you can engage in and still call yourself a cook.  Lower anxiety is linked to longer telomeres.  Longer telomeres are linked to a healthier, longer life.

7. Eating your largest meal mid-day is a proven weight-control strategy.  Maintaining a healthy weight is an important part of avoiding chronic illnesses (diabetes, heart disease) that decrease quality of life and shorten lifespan.

6. Turkey (breast) is a high-quality, super-lean source of protein.  Protein helps build muscle.  A favorable fat-to-lean ratio is a biomarker of youthfulness.

5.  Pine nuts or hazelnuts in the dressing (made with celery, mushrooms, tons of garlic and onions sautéed in olive oil, mixed with toasted multi-grain bread crumbs).  Oh yes! A study from researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School reported that people who regular consumed nuts were less likely to die from a variety of diseases, most significantly cancer, heart disease and respiratory diseases. Nut eaters also tended to be leaner.  (I am guessing their nut-eating did not include slabs of pecan pie… so cross that off your list for tomorrow’s dessert.)

4.  Cranberries have powerful anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory – and perhaps even anti-cancer – properties.

3. The Center for Science in the Public Interest rates sweet potatoes as the number one most nutritious vegetable.  One cup of sweet potatoes (no, not carpeted in brown sugar and dotted with marshmallows) contains 65% of RDA of Vitamin C – a powerful anti-oxidant — and a walloping dose of beta-carotene (which converts to vitamin A in the body) that equals 700% of RDA. Vitamin A is key for good vision and a healthy immune system.

2. Giving thanks and being thankful are signs of self-efficacy and optimism, traits that are associated with greater health and well-being, and a longer lifespan.

…And the #1 reason Thanksgiving is the ultimate anti-aging holiday:

1. It’s a holiday that demands no gift-giving!  No gift-giving means less stress.  Less stress means less cortisol. Less cortisol means less inflammation. Chronic inflammation is linked to just about everything you don’t want to happen to you.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.

My daughter Lizzie and I picked blueberries for two delightful hours yesterday morning, surely one of my favorite agricultural activities. ‘Tis the season to revel in fresh produce of all kinds, but blueberries have long been on the top of my list. I wanted to spread The Gospel of the Blueberry in this week’s post — and discovered that I wrote about going picking (and the health and anti-aging benefits of blueberries) almost exactly one year ago.  Here is that post. Read it — and then head to the nearest blueberry patch (if you are lucky enough to live near one, or have a garden of your own) or the grocery store. Unsprayed berries, of course.

(July 16, 2014)

My husband, daughter and I spent a few hours last Saturday picking blueberries in the cool of the morning, alternately intent on the task and zoning out to bird songs and soft breezes. Blueberry picking is a delightful activity. Quiet, contemplative, rewarding. Unlike strawberry picking, you get to stand up. Unlike blackberry picking you get to not bleed. And, of course, you get blueberries which, in my opinion, are the apex of deliciousness.

How wonderful, then, that they are also the apex of healthiness. Here are five reasons to enjoy blueberries – lots and lots of them – right now:

1. Blueberries protect against memory loss.
A 2012 study suggested that eating at least one serving of blueberries a week slowed cognitive decline by several years. These promising results came from work by Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School researchers which was published in the Annals of Neurology. (Read: high cred) It may be that blueberries protect the brain by clearing toxic proteins that accumulate there, which was the finding of a 2013 mouse study.

2. Blueberries are heart-friendly. Very friendly.
In repeated studies, blueberries (1-2 cups a day) have been found to lower total cholesterol, raise HDL (that’s the good one) and lower triglycerides. At the same time, blueberries have been shown to help protect LDL (the bad one) from damage that could lead to clogging of the arteries. Blueberries powerful antioxidant phytochemicals also help protect the cells lining the blood vessel walls. And the most recent research points to blueberries’ role in increasing the activity of an enzyme associated with better cardiovascular function. And then there’s blood pressure. In those with high blood pressure, blueberries have significantly reduced both systolic and diastolic blood pressures. In those with health blood pressure, blueberries have been shown to help maintain these healthy pressures.

3. Blueberries provide antioxidant support throughout the body.
Blueberries’ phytochemicals don’t just work wonders within the cardiovascular system. They provide support for virtually every body system studied to date. That includes muscles, nerves and the digestive tract. In preliminary animal studies, one of the powerful antioxidants in blueberries (anthocyanins) helped protect the retina from oxidative damage.

4. Blueberries help with blood sugar regulation.
A recent study that included blueberries along with other low Glycemic Index fruits, found the combination to have a favorable impact on blood sugar regulation in those already diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Participants in the study who consumed at last 3 servings of low-GI fruits per day (including blueberries) saw significant improvement in their regulation of blood sugar over a three-month period of time.

5. Blueberries might have important anti-cancer benefits.
It’s too early to tell, but the studies done on human cells in the lab and on lab animals appear promising. So far breast cancer, colon cancer, esophageal cancer, and cancers of the small intestine have been studied. The hope is that blueberry consumption may lower the risk of these cancer types.

Unlike other foods that are packed with healthy benefits – like nuts, for example, or que lastima, chocolate — blueberries are not packed with calories. One cup has only 80-85 calories. That serving provides 30 percent of your vitamin K needs, 25 percent of manganese, 20 percent of vitamin C and a surprising 15 percent of daily fiber requirements. Such a deal.

And, new studies make it clear that we can freeze blueberries without doing damage to their delicate antioxidants. Which is a relief, as we picked about 35 quarts Saturday morning.

I’ve extolled the health benefits of dark chocolate as part of the counterclockwise lifestyle. In fact, I’ve written on the subject not once but twice passing along credible research that suggests dark chocolate (very dark, and just a little) significantly lowers LDL, reduces inflammation, is a powerful scavenger of free radicals, has beneficial effects on the lining of blood vessels and the lymphatic system, has beneficial effects on cognitive function, and may directly influence insulin resistance and, in turn, reduce the risk of diabetes.

Now I’m alerting you to another good news chocolate study. This one links eating dark chocolate with weight loss. The study found that people on a low-carb diet lost weight 10 percent faster if they ate a chocolate bar every day. The research was conducted by a team of German scientists led by Johannes Bohannon, research director of the Institute of Diet and Health. It was published in The International Archives of Medicine.

And it was a fraud.

A scam created by Bohannon to show how bad science can fool journalists (and us).

Yes, he actually did conduct a study. One group followed a low-carb diet. One group followed the low-carb diet and ate a chocolate bar every day. The third continued to eat whatever they usually ate. At the end of  21 days, people in both of the two diet groups had lost an average of 5 pounds, but the people on the low-carb diet plus chocolate lost the weight 10 percent faster.

So where’s the bad science?

*The number of subjects studied was…15.
*The composition of each 5-person group was not controlled.
*The food intake and weight data were completely self-reported.
*Then, during one “beer-fueled weekend,” the research team (friends gathered by Bohannon) madly crunched every number they could think of until they came up with something statistically significant . The trick, as Bohannon explained it, is to measure a large number of things about a small number of people. With 18 separate measurements and 15 people, they had a 60 percent chance of hitting on something. Which they did. “The results,” said Bohannon, “are meaningless, and the health claims …are utterly unfounded.”

Now might be the time to tell you that Bohannan’s “Institute of Diet and Health” is actually just a website he created and that The International Archives of Medicine – which accepted the study within 24 hours of submission — is a non-peer reviewed journal that charges (in this case 600 euros) to publish manuscripts.

News about the study made international headlines, including a front-page story in Bild, Europe’s largest daily newspaper, coverage in the Irish Examiner, Cosmopolitan’s German website, the Times of India, both the German and Indian sites of the Huffington Post, Shape magazine, and TV shows in the U.S. and Australia.

The take home message here is not that chocolate isn’t a weight-loss strategy. Duh. It’s that bad science happens to good people. Like us. And that in the world of health, nutrition and antiaging – where billions can be made by selling “scientifically proven” products — we cannot allow ourselves to be fooled. Also, dammit, journalists who cover science ought to know something about…scientific inquiry.

Planting my garden this past week (so very late due to cold damp May and lots of April travel), I’ve been focused on the future glory of fresh vegetables. Which is much better than focusing on the current reality of thistles and morning glory and slugs. Some produce is startlingly better if you grow it yourself – tomatoes, cucumbers and strawberries, for example.  But for other crops –potatoes and garlic come to mind – the distinction between “home-grown” and “store-bought” is lost on me.

What about the distinction between “organic” and whatever you want to call the other stuff – “pesticide-enhanced”? There is ongoing unresolved controversy about the distinction (if there is one) between the nutritional value of organically grown produce versus non-organics. There can be a distinction (but not always) in taste. There is always a glaring distinction in cost. So…following the “you are what you eat” motto that is central to living a counterclockwise life, what should we be buying/growing/eating as we move into these months of fruit and vegetable splendor and magnificence?

I wanted to remind myself (and I am now reminding you) about the so-call Dirty Dozen, the fruits and vegetables that you absolutely want to buy organic (or grow yourself) because of pesticide load.

Researchers at the Environmental Working Group, a U.S. non-profit that specializes in research and advocacy, conducted extensive (and ongoing) analysis to determine the most contaminated fruits and vegetables. Here they are (in order): Apples, peaches, nectarines, strawberries, grapes, celery, spinach, sweet bell peppers, cucumbers, cherry tomatoes, snap peas, potatoes, hot peppers. So buy organic or grow yourself. Or, if neither is a possibility, avoid.

You can add to your avoid or buy organic list: beef (strong suggestion of connection between hormones given to cattle and cancer in humans) and milk from rBST or rBGH-treated cows (17% of dairy cows are treated with the hormone). Oh, and by the way: Don’t buy microwave popcorn even if the popcorn is “organic.” The linings of microwave-popcorn bags may contain a toxic chemical called perfluorooctanoic acid (used to prevent the food from sticking to the paper), which, according to the EPA, is a likely carcinogen.

And now, for the Don’t Worry list, the Clean 15 with the lowest pesticide load. This is courtesy of Dr, Andrew Weil: avocados, sweet corn, pineapples, cabbage , sweet peas (frozen), onions, asparagus, mangoes, papayas, kiwi, eggplant, grapefruit, cantaloupe (domestic), cauliflower, sweet potatoes.

Now go plant something.

A “diet” – as in lifelong way of eating – that significantly reduces the risk of Alzheimer’s? A non-trendy eating plan that does not depend on drinking the milk of raw cashews dripping from a muslin bag or consuming fruit grown only on the western slopes of inaccessible mountains in a faraway land? A, you know, research-based plan?

Could be. Listen up.

It’s called the MIND diet, a clever (and necessary) acronym given its lengthy, tongue-tying moniker: Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay. It is a combination of the NIH-endorsed DASH diet (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) and the much-heralded Mediterranean diet with a few nice tweaks. Developed by a university-based nutritional epidemiologist, it focuses on fruits and vegetables, whole grains, legumes and nuts. Fish: good; red meat: not so much. Butter: nope. Olive oil: yes and more of it than you use unless you happen to be Greek or Italian. It goes without saying that the MIND diet, like DASH and Mediterranean is anti- that crap you know you shouldn’t be eating even if you weren’t terrified of getting Alzheimer’s (fried and fast food, pastries, etc.)

What separates the MIND diet from its well known antecedents is its particular focus on leafy green vegetables (more than other vegetables) and berries – particularly blueberries and strawberries – above other fruits. These particular foods have been hailed for their brain benefits in past research.

Okay…so what happens if you eat the MIND diet?

That’s the question researchers at Chicago’s Rush University Medical Center asked as they followed almost 1000 participants, aged 58 to 98 for an average of 4.5 years, tracking their eating habits and incidence of Alzheimer’s. The study
found that strict adherence to any of the three diets – DASH, Mediterranean or MIND — lessened the chances of getting Alzheimer’s. But only the MIND diet seemed to help counter the disease even when people followed only some of the diet’s recommendations. The research was observational, not randomized or controlled, and therefore isn’t evidence the MIND diet caused a reduced risk for Alzheimer’s. Instead, the research shows there is an association between the two.

Subjects whose diet choices adhered closely to the MIND diet had a 53% reduced risk for developing Alzheimer’s. Risk was reduced by 54% with the Mediterranean diet and 39% with the DASH diet. But here’s the deal: Even moderate adherence to the MIND diet helped lessen the risk for Alzheimer’s by 35% while moderate adherence to the other diets didn’t seem to affect the chances of getting the disease.

The study controlled for genetic predisposition, physical activity, cognitive activity, education and various chronic medical conditions. The researchers also analyzed consumption of green leafy vegetables in particular in relation to cognitive decline and found that participants who ate one to two servings of greens a day had a “dramatic decrease in the rate of cognitive decline” compared with people who ate fewer greens. The “dramatic decrease” was the equivalent, noted one of the researchers, of “being 11 years younger in age.” Wow.

This study is one of many – and many to come – that look at Alzheimer’s and controllable lifestyle choices. Positive and empowering news…stay tuned.

March is National Nutrition Month.! Let’s all celebrate by 1) eating a wonderfully nutritious, real foods/ whole foods meal 2) enjoying this brief romp through the history of diet fads.

1820: Vinegar and Water diet made popular by Lord Byron, who, I must add, died at the age of 36. So maybe not.

1825: Low Carb Diet (that’s right, in 1825). It first appeared in The Physiology of Taste by Jean Brillat-Savarin, a more-than-pleasantly plump French lawyer and politician who pretty much invented the gastronomic essay, aka food writing.

1830: Graham’s Diet, invented by the man who would found the American Vegetarian Society and, more importantly, invent Graham Crackers, without which there would be no s’mores. PS: He believed vegetarianism was a cure for masturbation.

1863: Banting’s Low Carb Diet, which was so popular that “banting” became a common term for dieting during this time period.

1903: Fletcherizing. Horace Fletcher’s dietary advice to insure high-level wellness: Chew your food 32 times. No not 33.

1917: The birth of “calorie counting” (damn) with the publication of Lulu Hunt Peters’ book, Diet and Health.

1925: The cigarette diet, as in “Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet.” Really.

1928: The Inuit Meat-and-Fat Diet calling for consumption of raw fish, caribou and whale blubber. Not wildly popular.

1930: The first of the liquid diet drinks, courtesy of a Dr. Stoll and – 1930 being a big year for fad diets – the Hay Diet which proclaimed that carbohydrates and proteins could not be consumed at the same meal. Whaaat? No steak and potatoes?

1934: Bananas and Skim Milk Diet (backed by – here’s a surprise – United Fruit Company)

1950: Another hallmark year: The Grapefruit Diet and the Cabbage Soup Diet. And people say the 1950s were boring.

1964:The Drinking Man’s Diet (like on Mad Men)

1967: Birth (that’s a pun) of the hCG diet, a combination of injections of Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (produced in a pregnant woman’s placenta) and a 500-calorie diet.

1970: The Liquid Protein Diet. One version was marketed as The Last Chance Diet, a name it earned when several people died using the product.

1976: My favorite: The Sleeping Beauty Diet in which the dieter is heavily sedated for several days (and thus doesn’t eat).

1981: Beverly Hills Diet. Unlimited quantities of fruit – and only fruit – for the first ten days.

1985: The Caveman Diet in which one enjoys foods from the Paleolithic Era. Yes, the Paleo craze has been around for this long, longer if you count the whale blubber version.

1987: The Scarsdale Diet – low carb, low-cal. Its originator, Dr. Herman Tarnower, was famously murdered by his mistress, the head of a posh private school.

1988: Calorie Restriction (CR) Diet in which you satisfy all nutritional needs while consuming 30 percent fewer calories than your body requires. Forever. This is very to do. The good (and bad) news? This diet works.

1990: Return of the Cabbage Soup Diet. Because it worked so well the first time.

1994: The high-protein, low carb Atkins’ diet.

1996: Eat Right for Your Type, a diet based on your blood type.

1999: The holy triumvirate: Juicing, Fasting, Detoxing.

2000: Raw Foods.

2004: Coconut Oil. It’s all about Coconut Oil.

2006: No, it’s really all about Maple syrup, lemon juice and cayenne

2010: Baby Food Diet: 14 jars of baby food a day. Diapers optional.

2012: The ascent of Gluten Free.

Not to mention: tape worms, Bile Beans, cotton balls, feeding tubes…What’s next? Don’t answer that.

With the recent brouhaha over store-brand supplements that were found to contain NONE of the ingredients listed on the label, I thought it might be a good time to review some of the red flags concerning supplement (and other anti-aging treatment/ therapy) claims.

The Internet, in case you haven’t noticed, is home to over-hyped, underregulated marketers who have positioned themselves to cash in on our aging angst. Products (like the ones found wanting at Target, Wal-Mart and Walgreens) promise vitality and robust health – along with a long list of other salubrious anti-aging effects. Some of the ingredients in the products (assuming the ingredients are actually in the products, that is) have good science behind them. Some have made cages of rats very happy. Some have proven their worth in Petri dishes. Some are wishful thinking.

Out there in the alternate universe that exists along side the internet (I call it reality), credible, careful, conscientious researchers are hard at work delving into the mysteries and complexities of how we age and how we might exert some control over that process. The research is exciting, ongoing, promising – and, to tell the truth, is not all that encouraging about supplements, special treatments and therapies. Physical activity, mindful eating of whole foods, restorative sleep and optimistic attitude remain our best bets.

That said, I know, personally, how hard it is to resist those dazzling claims accompanied by the powerful testimonies of gorgeous celebs who appear not to age. Here, according to Thomas Perls, MD, MPH, of the New England Centenarian Study, Boston Medical Center and Boston University’s School of Medicine, are 10 red flags that should tip us off to potentially bogus anti-aging claims:

1. Pitching claims directly to the media without supportive evidence of a medical or scientific and unbiased third party review.
2. The claim that the seller’s work or message is being suppressed by the scientific establishment. That they are being persecuted by the establishment, but in the end they will be vindicated.
3. Use of phrases like “scientific breakthrough,” “exclusive product,” “secret ingredient,” or “active remedy.”
4. Pervasive use of testimonials and anecdotes, including statement like “sold to thousands of satisfied customers.”
5. Attempts to convey credibility, such as wearing white lab coats and stethoscopes, posing with microscopes, claiming to be a medical doctor or referring to “academies” and “institutes.”
6. Not mentioning potential side effects and making claims that sound too good to be true.
7. Using simplistic rationales; anti-aging quacks claim that that the answer is as simple as manipulating a single hormone.
8. Using celebrities and attempting to connect the product to well-known legitimate scientists.
9. Conflict of interest. Those individuals selling their own products are the same people claiming to provide unbiased, trustworthy information.
10. Telling misleading interpretations of studies or outright lies about effectiveness.

Ask: Where is the proof? Is there credible research? Has an unbiased lab or third party conducted supporting studies? Do a quick check of the Better Business Bureau and FTC to make sure no claims have been filed against the manufacturer. Don’t rely on Internet reviews (often created by and/ or paid for by the manufacturer). Keep in mind that most celebs are compensated to endorse a product.

Bottom line: Slowing or reversing the aging process takes work and commitment on our part. The answer is NOT a magic detox regimen, human growth hormone therapy or an ancient-food-of-the gods supplement capsule.

We Americans spend about $30 billion a year on dietary supplements. Yes, you read that right: $30 billion. This includes everything from the prosaic one-a-day vitamin pill to exotic herbal concoctions, from mineral blends to multisyllabic probiotics that you need a Latin scholar to translate, from fish oils to pulverized mushrooms, plus all manner of ancient elixirs, botanicals and an extraordinary variety of “essential” thises and “crucial” thats that we had no idea were either essential or crucial. Dietary supplements promise to cure what ails you: arthritis, cardiovascular disease, fibromyalgia, migraine, adrenal fatigue, failing eyesight, high cholesterol, low libido. They promise health and high-level wellness, boosted energy, enhanced concentration, and, of course, a litany of anti-aging benefits.

Protestations to the contrary, supplements and nutriceuticals are a largely unregulated industry – which is why I was neither shocked nor surprised at the report released Monday by the New York State Attorney General. In case you missed the news, the AGs office accused four major retailers of selling fraudulent and potentially dangerous herbal supplements and demanded that they remove the products from their shelves.

Here are some highlights from that report: A popular store brand of ginseng pills at Walgreens, promoted for “physical endurance and vitality,” contained only powdered garlic and rice. A gingko biloba supplement (the herb is touted as a memory enhancer) sold at Walmart contained only powdered radish, houseplants and wheat. Three out of six herbal products at Target — ginkgo biloba, St. John’s wort and valerian root, a sleep aid — contained none of the herbs listen on their respective labels.

In the world of supplements, it is absolutely caveat emptor. The buyers (us) should beware for two very BIG reasons: First, good, solid science about supplements is hard to find. Does ginko biloba enhance memory? Does ginseng increase vitality? We really don’t know. The careful, long-term studies that would investigate such health effects are extraordinarily expensive and not particularly attractive to Big Pharma (which undertakes and funds much of the pills-for-ills research) because there’s not much money to be made manufacturing pills that contain unpatentable herbal substances.

The second reason we should be on high alert speaks directly to the New York AG’s report about fraud. The supplement industry is, as I’ve said, pretty much unregulated. The FDA “regulates” dietary supplements as a category of food, not drugs. Pharmaceutical companies that manufacture and sell drugs are required to obtain FDA approval before bringing the drug to market, which involves assessing risks and benefits – generally through extensive, wide-scale testing, first in the lab, then in lab animals and then in humans. Manufacturers of dietary supplements, on the other hand, do not need to be pre-approved by the FDA before marketing their wares. If there’s a new ingredient in the supplement, the manufacturer notifies the FDA beforehand, giving the agency 75 days to do a little homework. Basically, it’s the FDA’s responsibility to prove that the supplement is unsafe, not the manufacturer’s responsibility to prove it is safe.

But really it is our responsibility to be as knowledgeable as we can be about supplements – both their potential health benefits (look here) and their purity (look here).

I am not an “everything in moderation” kind of girl, despite the long-standing popularity of that advice – particularly when it comes to health and wellness.

I personally throw myself – body and soul, heart and mind – into a number of select endeavors. Passion almost always trumps moderation. Moderation, to me, is boring.

I don’t even know what “moderation” means. What is a moderate amount of stress? What’s a moderately satisfying relationship?

More importantly, there are some things that are just no damned good – and should not be engaged in at all, moderately or otherwise. And so, from a health and vitality/ counterclockwise perspective, I would counsel LACK of moderation. That is, as close to avoidance as possible. I’d like to bring your attention to 4 of these, what I’m (oh-so-cleverly) calling “The Four Ss of the Apocalypse.” Here they are:

SMOKING Please tell me you don’t smoke tobacco, you don’t hang around people who smoke tobacco and you have not been enticed into the whole vaping thing. Smoking cigarettes is the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. Of the close to half million such deaths, 40 percent are from cancer (lung, esophagus, mouth, throat, kidney, bladder, pancreas, stomach, cervix and counting), 35 percent are from heart disease or stroke, and 25 percent are from lung diseases. And please, let’s wait for some actual research on health consequences of vaping.

SITTING If you follow this blog, you know how I feel about sitting. In fact, if you are SITTING at your computer right now, or sitting on your couch with your mobile device reading this: STAND UP. Sitting has been implicated in so many health problems and aging miseries that it was recently proclaimed as bad as smoking. Shocking, right? But the research is persuasive. Also, for those of you who take solace in the hour of gym time you carve out for yourself and think you are immune to the effects of sitting… sorry. No. It turns out that 6 hours of sitting negates the health benefits of 1 hour of concerted exercise.

SODA
Just how bad is excessive soda consumption for your body? Very. High rates of soda consumption have been linked with numerous health problems, including weight gain, poor dental health, kidney problems, diabetes and cardiovascular disease—which can ultimately lead to heart attacks, stroke and premature death. And regular soda isn’t the only culprit. Even diet drinks, which utilize artificial sweeteners in place of sugar, are proving to be unhealthy. Researchers at Purdue University believe that artificial sweeteners in soft drinks trick the body into reacting differently when it tastes something sweet, ultimately throwing off metabolism. A related University of Minnesota study of 10,000 adults found that just one diet soda a day was linked to a 34 percent higher risk of metabolic syndrome. A Harvard Med School study of 3000 women found a two-fold increase in risk for kidney decline for those who drank 2 or more diet sodas. Soda is (liquid) junk food, plain and simple.

SUGAR
Here’s the rap sheet on sugar: It is bad for teeth, taxes the liver and can cause significant organ damage, leads to insulin resistance (a stepping stone to metabolic disorder which is a precursor to diabetes), raises cholesterol levels and may contribute to the development of certain cancers. Sugar also has unique fat-promoting effects (which, interesting, actual fats do not have). And, to top it off, it’s highly addictive. No, not the sugar in fruit, which exists within the context of fiber and vitamins and scores of phytochemicals. The sugar in Coke. The sugar in caramel frappacinos and eggnog lattes.

Avoid the 4 Ss. Strike a blow against moderation!