Elder Hunger: New Efforts To Combat Surprisingly Common Malnutrition Among Seniors

Jeff Kubina/Flickr

Jeff Kubina/Flickr

By Nell Lake

After her stroke, a 95-year-old woman in New York State found that she could no longer taste her food. She was also unable to feel hunger, so she didn’t know when she was supposed to eat. As a result, the woman began losing weight, grew weak and wasn’t getting the nutrients she needed.

Enter Meals on Wheels, a national home-delivered meals program established by the 1965 Older Americans Act. The woman (who asked that her name not be used) began receiving meals at her home five days a week. This, she says, helped her remember to eat regularly. Her weight improved, and so did her general health.

Malnutrition like hers is surprisingly common. Six percent of the elderly who live at home in the United States and in other developed countries are malnourished, according to a 2010 study in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society. The rate of elder malnutrition doubles among those in nursing homes — 14% according to the same study.

And rates skyrocket among elderly populations in rehabilitation facilities and hospitals: Various measures show an astonishing one third to one half of seniors are malnourished upon being admitted to the hospital.

“Malnutrition is a serious and under-recognized problem among older adults,” says Nancy Wellman, a nutritionist and instructor at Tuft University’s Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy.

It’s not a new problem. But growth in the elderly population, and concerns about healthcare costs, have helped renew efforts by nutritionists and other advocates to establish screenings for malnutrition in medical settings, and to improve interventions that can prevent or reverse the issue.

Nutrition Complexities

Most basically, malnutrition means not getting enough nutrients for optimal health. In older adults, the causes are complex, experts say. Illness, disability, social isolation, poverty — often a combination of these — can all contribute to malnutrition. An older person may become malnourished because she has trouble chewing or swallowing. The medications she takes may suppress appetite. She may be unable to get to a grocery store. She may live alone, be depressed, or simply be uninterested in eating.

It’s important to know, says Connie Bales, a dietician and faculty member at Duke University Medical Center, that obese and overweight seniors can be malnourished, too. Eating too many calories doesn’t necessarily mean you’re getting the right nutrients for maintaining muscle and bone. “One can be quite malnourished, yet not be skinny,” Bales says.

High Costs 

Whatever the cause, malnutrition leads to further trouble. It increases older adults’ risk of illness, frailty and infection. Malnourished people visit the doctor and are admitted to the hospital more often, have longer hospital stays and recover from surgery more slowly.

The association between malnutrition and hospitalization goes both ways, say Wellman and other experts: The sick are more likely to become malnourished, and the malnourished are more likely to get sick. Continue reading

Paleo And Vegan Can Be Friends: 11 Points Of Consensus On What We Should Eat

(J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

(J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

By Rebecca Sananes

For healthy eating fans, it was the All-Star Game. Pick your preferred diet — vegan, paleo, Mediterranean, you name it — and the scientist, clinician or academic behind it was at the table in Boston this week. Think Dean Ornish, S. Boyd Eaton and T. Colin Campbell.

They all gathered at the Finding Common Ground Conference, convened by the nonprofit Oldways, to hammer out a consensus on healthy eating — an antidote to what can seem like endless flip-flops on dietary research. And amazingly enough, they did.

What they found was that despite all the food fights, the prevailing theories of nutrition and healthy eating actually have more in common than you’d think. (Though it’s a bit more complex than Michael Pollan’s classic, “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”)

After two days of presentations on the latest research, debates over ethics and attempts to differentiate between nit-picky nuance and important distinctions, Harvard’s Walter Willett sums up the consensus like this in a press release: “The foods that define a healthy diet include abundant fruits, vegetables, nuts, whole grains, legumes and minimal amounts of refined starch, sugar and red meat, especially keeping processed red meat intake low.”

So there you have it. But for a more granular look, here’s my take on the 11 principles these top scientists and nutritionists agreed should be the guiding principles when thinking about what and how we eat:

1. Yes to the federal guidelines

From the consensus statement:

The Scientists of Oldways Common Ground lend strong, collective support to the food-based recommendations of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, and to the DGAC’s endorsement of healthy food patterns such as the Mediterranean Diet, Vegetarian Diet and Healthy American Diet.

The overall body of evidence examined by the 2015 DGAC identifies that a healthy dietary pattern is higher in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, low- or non-fat dairy, seafood, legumes, and nuts; moderate in alcohol (among adults); lower in red and processed meats; and low in sugar-sweetened foods and drinks and refined grains.

Additional strong evidence shows that it is not necessary to eliminate food groups or conform to a single dietary pattern to achieve healthy dietary patterns. Rather, individuals can combine foods in a variety of flexible ways to achieve healthy dietary patterns, and these strategies should be tailored to meet the individual’s health needs, dietary preferences and cultural traditions. Current research also strongly demonstrates that regular physical activity promotes health and reduces chronic disease risk.

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is a group of scientists handpicked by the government to create a report detailing nutritional and dietary guidelines. Every five years, their report is reviewed by the USDA and the Department of Human Health Services before being voted on by Congress and implemented as the American Dietary guideline — the public policy informing public school lunches, military food and food industry regulations. The official vetted guidelines are due out by the end of the year.

Along with endorsing that committee’s report, the Oldways Common Ground Committee also backed Mediterranean and vegetarian diets.

2. We have to think about the planet when we eat

Form the consensus:

We emphatically support the inclusion of sustainability in the 2015 DGAC report, and affirm the appropriateness and importance of this imperative in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans because food insecurity cannot be solved without sustainable food systems. Inattention to sustainability is willful disregard for the quality and quantity of food available to the next generation, i.e., our own children.

Background: The DGAC recommended to Congress, for the first time, that nutritional policy should take into account environmental impact. Continue reading

Weighing In On The New Oprah-Weight Watchers Venture

Weight Watchers announced Oct. 19 that Oprah Winfrey is taking an approximately 10 percent stake in the weight management company for about $43.2 million and joining its board. Here, Winfrey is seen in an Oct. 14 file photo. (Greg Allen/Invision/AP)

Weight Watchers announced Oct. 19 that Oprah Winfrey is taking an approximately 10 percent stake in the weight management company for about $43.2 million and joining its board. Here, Winfrey is seen in an Oct. 14 file photo. (Greg Allen/Invision/AP)

By Jean Fain

When I learned that Oprah Winfrey would be the new face of Weight Watchers as well as a major investor in the international diet company, I panicked. Would this endorsement by a beloved celebrity lure even more desperate dieters into counting calories, weighing foods and getting sucked into the group’s particular brand of tough love?

Let me back up for a moment: If the partnership between the faltering diet company and former talk show host is news to you, Oprah recently invested $43.2 million in Weight Watchers International, Inc., to help dieters everywhere lose weight and gain health and happiness.

She initially bought 6.4 million shares, or 10 percent, of Weight Watchers, and has the option to buy another 3.5 million. Her investment immediately started paying off: The stock doubled on day one, earning the most recognizable black billionaire $70 million, at least on paper. What’s more, since Aug. 12, Oprah has lost 15 pounds.

So, is a Weight Watchers’ membership a wise investment? I’ve already written about what I feel are the organizations’ downsides in an earlier post. At best, Weight Watchers provides a short-term fix and conditional support for long-standing eating issues. At worst, the food plan can exacerbate the very problems members are hoping to resolve.

Unless you’ve been on a media diet, you already know that Oprah has a long history of gaining and losing weight. Over the last 25 years, the yo-yo dieter, who has written of her ongoing “food addiction,” has tried everything from liquid diets and rigorous exercise to a personal chef and a more spiritual path, but she’s yet to settle on any one successful, sustainable approach.

To help you make a wise investment, I solicited a half dozen expert opinions via email and asked what they think of Oprah’s slimming plan and her open invitation to “come join me” at Weight Watchers. More specifically, I posed two questions:

1) What’s your reaction to the announcement that Oprah is not only the new face of Weight Watchers, she’s a major investor in the diet company?

2) Oprah is asking everyone to join her in counting Weight Watchers’ points. Will you join her? Why or why not?

To be fair, I also asked Oprah and friends for their thoughts. Neither Gayle King, Oprah’s close pal, nor Oprah’s publicist got back to me. All I got from Stedman Graham, Oprah’s boyfriend, was an automated response. If there were a surprise, it’s how hard it was to find a single expert who’s excited about this fledgling partnership.

What follows are highlights from those recent email interviews:

— Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, author of “Soda Politics”:

“It’s a classic conflict of interest — she’s flacking a company in which she invests. The more she flacks, the more people join, and the more money she will make. There are worse things to flack. Weight Watchers is actually demonstrated to be a reasonable diet plan. It works for some people.

“I’m of the persuasion that weight can be managed by eating less. I’m trained in nutrition and don’t need to count points.”

 Traci Mann, diet researcher, author of “Secrets from the Eating Lab” and advocate of strategic eating:

“Oprah has made an outstanding investment. As long as people give diet companies the credit when they lose weight, but not the blame when they regain it, there will always be business for companies like Weight Watchers. As much as I love Oprah, I see no reason to join in with that near-futile mission. Weight Watchers leads to short-term weight loss, but in the long term, the majority of individuals regain what they lost.” Continue reading

WHO Says Processed Meat Causes Cancer, So Should We Stop Eating It Altogether?

Is this the end of bacon, hot dogs and corned beef on rye? (Didriks/Flickr)

Is this the end of bacon, hot dogs and corned beef on rye? (Didriks/Flickr)

Is this the end of bacon, hot dogs and corned beef on rye?

How should consumers react to news from the World Health Organization that these and other processed meats can cause cancer, and that red meat, including beef, pork, veal and lamb, are “probably carcinogenic to humans” too? Should we abstain completely now that the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) put processed meat in the same cancer-risk category as tobacco and asbestos?

Here’s the bottom line risk, from the IARC news release: “The experts concluded that each 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%.”

Processed meats have previously been inked to a range of illnesses, from heart disease to diabetes and cancer. But even with this big news from the WHO, many nutrition and public health experts said that reducing consumption of such meats is key, not eliminating them altogether.

Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, says there’s no need for everyone to suddenly become vegetarian or vegan. But, he said in an interview, he hopes the WHO announcement will spark real dietary change.

He made three points:

1. The WHO Announcement Is Big 

“I think the WHO announcement is very significant from a public health point of view because processed red meats have already been linked to type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and other chronic disease, and this provides convincing evidence that consuming processed meats, like bacon, sausage, hot dogs, is linked to an increased risk of colorectal cancer in particular. Cutting back on red meat and processed meat reduces risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease, but also reduces the risk of cancer. Improving your diet can actually be beneficial for reducing your cancer risk.”

2. You Don’t Need To Quit

“I’m not a vegetarian. This doesn’t mean everyone should become a vegetarian or vegan. Processed red meat should be consumed as little as possible — once or twice a week should not be a major problem. For unprocessed red meat, consumption should be moderate, but that’s hard to quantify; maybe every other day. We’re not talking about banning hot dogs, sausages or bacon, but we should change our dietary pattern from a meat-based diet to a more plant-based diet. That’s not really a new message. This message will hopefully raise more awareness. Hopefully it will motivate people to change their eating patterns.”

3. Change The Food Environment

“Certainly the risk accumulates as the amount increases, and if you can stay away from it completely that would be good. But occasional consumption of processed red meat isn’t going to create significant health problems … There are so many chemicals and ingredients in processed red meats — preservatives, nitrates, high sodium, saturated fats — it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly which chemicals cause cancer. From a public health point of view, it’s not necessary to know which chemicals are precisely responsible for the increased risk. Here the message is similar to tobacco, even though we may not know precisely which chemical cause the cancer, we can take actions to reduce the cancer risk by cutting back … It’s also important for the government to improve the food environment. There’s so much junk food in the food system.” Continue reading

Study: Kids Are Dumping Fruits And Veggies Offered At School — But Don’t Give Up Yet

A study found that students put more fruits and vegetables on their trays, as required, but consumed fewer of them and increased waste by approximately 56 percent. (Courtesy of Sally McCay/UVM Photography)

A study found that students put more fruits and vegetables on their trays, as required, but consumed fewer of them and increased waste by approximately 56 percent. (Courtesy of Sally McCay/UVM Photography)

File this one under: You can lead a horse to water…

Researchers at the University of Vermont report what they characterize as a “heartbreaking” finding: Many schoolkids are trashing the fruits and vegetables they are now served as part of a federal law that was supposed to nudge the kids toward healthier food choices.

The study, published online in the journal Public Health, concludes that kids are putting more fruits and vegetables on their trays, as required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (which took effect in 2012 and was championed by First Lady Michelle Obama). However, the children ate fewer of these items after the law took effect and often dumped the produce straight into the trash.

“It was heartbreaking to see so many students toss fruits and vegetables into the trash right after exiting the lunch line,” Sarah Amin, Ph.D, a UVM researcher in nutrition and food sciences and the study’s lead author, said in an interview.

For the study, researchers captured before-and-after images of school lunches. (Courtesy)

For the study, researchers captured before-and-after images of school lunches. (Courtesy)

As part of the study, researchers captured images of kids’ school lunches before they ate and then again right before they dumped uneaten foods into the trash. So, for instance, the child might choose a school lunch (pictured on the left) of chicken nuggets, mac and cheese, green beans and milk. But, when the child is done eating, it’s clear the greens beens remain untouched.

The study concludes:

Children consumed fewer (fruits and vegetables) FVs and wasted more FVs during the school year immediately following implementation of the USDA rule that required them to take one fruit or vegetable at lunch. Average waste increased from one-quarter cup to more than one-third of a cup/tray, with about one-eighth cup/tray more FVs discarded, or a total of about 56 cups/day/school (based on an average of 400 lunches served/day).

Researcher Amin, who will soon begin a post doctorate fellowship at Tufts, said that while the initial findings might seem disheartening and show some unintended consequences of the federal law, it’s worth remaining hopeful.

She pointed out that “this was the first update to these regulations in 15 years and kids were really acclimated to how the environment was before,” and not used to choosing either one fruit or one vegetable with lunch.

“Maybe you can’t just put these foods in front of them and expect them to eat,” she said. “But it may just be too soon.”

For younger kids entering kindergarten, for example, “this may work,” Amin said, because it’s all the children know. “But for older kids used to the old system, this may rock their world because they’re just not used to it.

“I still think the guidelines [which are up for reauthorization next month] are necessary,” she said. “We have a childhood obesity epidemic and the guidelines were put in place to address it. … A little bit of waste at the get go may be a sacrifice we have to make for the health and well being of children in the long term.” Continue reading


Summer Listening At Candy Store Or Salad Bar: Scary Food Stories, Revisited

As summer enters its dog days, you can feel the great gears of the news machine slowing, slowing, slowing, like a locomotive as it pulls into a station. So now seems like a good moment to re-offer you some of the best of our WBUR/Slate podcast, The Checkup, for your listening pleasure on those long car trips and plane rides to vacationland.

In particular, in case you missed this delectable morsel, may we recommend our episode titled “Scary Food Stories”? It features three particular cautionary tales: on kale, chia seeds and sugar. Download it here before your next meal. Or if you don’t, don’t say we didn’t warn you…

In case you missed other recent episodes: “Teenage Zombies,” explored the curious minds of adolescents, with segments on sleep, porn and impulsive choices; “Power to the Patient” looked at ways we can all feel in more control of our health care; “High Anxiety” included reports on hormones, parenting and fear of flying; and “Sexual Reality Checks” examined penis size, female desire and aging.

Better yet, don’t miss a single episode and just subscribe now.

A Weight Watching Life, And (Maybe) A Post-Diet Era

The diets in my life have come and gone: the grapefruit diet, no-fat diet, juice cleanses and Atkins. But through it all, there’s always been Weight Watchers. With its point system and lo-cal dinners, weigh-ins and group therapy vibe, Weight Watchers offered an all-encompassing road map to controlled eating. I tried it, Betty Draper of “Mad Men” tried it, you probably know someone who’s been there. It was a diet, yes, but also more: a structure to control the chaos of disordered eating.

Sadly, as many of us know, no single “diet” really works. Without a wholesale lifestyle shift, and replacing old, destructive patterns with healthier habits — a much slower and sometimes painstaking process — one failed diet begets another and another.

Reading the obituary of Jean Nidetch, a founder of Weight Watchers who died this week at 91, made me realize, yet again, the obsessive and punishing ways we compel ourselves to diet, and how, deep down, food and weight are as much about emotion as physiology. The New York Times described Nidetch as “pumpkin-shaped all her young life” and “raised in a family that ate as a consolation for disappointment.” Here’s more:

She was born Jean Evelyn Slutsky in Brooklyn on Oct. 12, 1923, the daughter of David and Mae Rodin Slutsky. Her father was a cabdriver and her mother a manicurist. Her compulsive eating habits began as a child, she recalled in a memoir…

“I don’t really remember, but I’m positive that whenever I cried, my mother gave me something to eat,” she wrote. “I’m sure that whenever I had a fight with the little girl next door, or it was raining and I couldn’t go out, or I wasn’t invited to a birthday party, my mother gave me a piece of candy to make me feel better.”

And that launched a life of binge eating and yo-yo dieting. Eventually, though, it pushed Nidetch to seek an escape: through tough-love control and, well, vigilant weight watching.

But we’re not in Brooklyn with the Slutskys anymore. Diets have evolved. Lifestyle Medicine is all the rage, and a far more holistic, Pollan-esque approach to food is taking hold. (“Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”) Also, it turns out, not all calories are alike.

Are we then, at long last, in a post-diet era? Can we all just agree that diets do not work in the long term? I asked Jean Fain, a Harvard Medical School-affiliated psychotherapist and the author of “The Self-Compassion Diet” for her thoughts on the passing of a diet icon and where Weight Watchers stands today. Here’s what she wrote:

As the embodiment of Weight Watchers, Jean Nidetch did a lot of good. Her success (she lost 72 pounds and kept it off) inspired waist watchers to stop looking to medical professionals to solve their eating issues and to start finding inspiration, strength and direction from those who understand the problem far better – other successful dieters.

With a little support from fellow Weight Watchers, members not only learn that yes, they can lose weight, they find out they can have a lot more fun as group, rather than try to go it alone.

Inadvertently, Nidetch also did real harm with her eating system and the conditional support that goes with it. (Members get applause and other positive reinforcements for losing weight, for instance, but little or nothing for gaining weight.)

While Weight Watchers insiders claim their program is more successful than other diets, studies that compare various diets to each other do not support that. Whether or not the international slimming organization actually has a 16% success rate, (a number quoted in the book “Secrets from the Eating Lab” by Traci Mann) truth be told, the overwhelming majority regain what they lose and sometimes more. Diets like the one the organization promotes can exacerbate the very eating problems they were hoping to resolve. When that happens, those who most need support are least likely to get it because they’re too ashamed to go to meetings, let alone get weighed in.

More than a Weight Watchers ice cream bar, a lo-cal recipe or the conditional support of a group that fails to acknowledge the shame that members carry, what waist watchers need more than anything is a heaping helping of self-compassion.

Compassion for yourself is the missing ingredient, the antidote to this and most other weight-loss programs because most plans revolve around self-discipline, deprivation and neglect. You’re supposed to stick to the plan no matter what. If you’re starving, keep eating tiny portions. If you’re exhausted, keep moving – no pain, no gain. Going on vacation? Keep counting points, calories or carbs. It’s not a very compassionate (or realistic) approach; it’s not very effective. And it’s no fun. Continue reading

One Doc’s Oreos-And-Batman Perspective: TV Doesn’t (Necessarily) Make Kids Fat

(Donnie Ray Jones/Flickr)

(Donnie Ray Jones/Flickr)

By Steve Schlozman, MD

Here are three recent headlines that got me thinking about kids and fat:

“Watching one hour of TV per day increases risk for obesity by 50%”

“Watching TV for Just an Hour a Day Can Make Children Obese”

“Study makes surprising link between TV time and childhood obesity”

Oversimplifications? Um, yes. Each of these headlines greatly simplifies (dare I say, incorrectly simplifies) a critical social and health issue. Personally, I don’t think TV is the sole evil culprit here. It’s far more complicated.

The medical community has long known that the amount of TV that a child watches correlates with obesity. We can even make some leaps from these data towards implicating causality. Unless your little ones happen to be doing aerobic exercises while they tune in to their cartoons, it’s easy to see how passive watching can equal active weight gain.

However, be wary of oversimplification and especially of the “one-size-fits-all” policy statements that these headlines often generate. The study authors here do, in fact, suggest further limiting TV exposure based on the existing American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for young children as a means of controlling the rate of obesity in this country. (Currently, the AAP recommends limiting screen time to one to two hours or less for children over the age of 2, and discouraging screen time altogether for those who are younger.)

So, here’s the big question: Is the recommendation that TV time be further limited an entirely appropriate conclusion?

Beyond The Headlines

The answer, like many answers to social policy questions, is both yes and no.

What we know for certain is that we can’t really discern from the headlines what we ought to do, though there is ample reason to believe that most American rarely go beyond the headlines. Thus, we run the risk of jumping to more draconian conclusions than might be appropriate simply because we don’t have or take sufficient time to examine the flood of information.

How do we guard against this leap to oversimplification?

Here are a few key questions:

•Was there a large and diverse population studied?

There have been solid links between lower socioeconomic groups and some ethnic minorities and increased television time, as well as between lower socioeconomic groups and obesity.

The causes for both of these issues are of course multi-factorial. Fatty foods and higher calorie foods are cheaper. TV can function as a babysitter in households where parents are busy working and living paycheck to paycheck. However, the study in the headlines above, conducted by the Department of Education in conjunction with physicians at the University of Virginia, was indeed both large and diverse.

Over 12,000 children starting kindergarten were enrolled in the investigation, and a year later follow-up data was available for more than 10,000 of these children. These data included height and weight, as well as statistical analyses to account for differences in race, gender and socioeconomic effects. In other words, the numbers here are sufficiently large and diverse for us to feel comfortable drawing at least preliminary conclusions.

Causality, Really?

But beware, always beware, of flashy headlines. A Google search yielded all of the headlines above with equal weight, and yet one of the headlines clearly implicates causality. “Watching TV for just an hour a day can make a child obese.” (My italics.)

However, this study does not in any way suggest causality. There are a number of potentially unrelated factors that also happen everyday that might be associated with obesity, but not function as a cause of obesity. These could include behaviors like longer baths to cool down. We don’t know until we do the study whether longer baths would be associated with obesity. In other words, always be wary of blanket statements of causality with regard to the complexity of human behavior.

•What about the ample availability of screen-based material on demand? Perhaps the fact that children can often watch both what they want and when they want it affects their activity patterns in negative ways. We could ponder the fact that TV content, even for kids, has arguably (though not in all spheres) gotten better and of higher quality. There is even evidence that TV watching can improve behavior among kids, and this evidence also comes from the American Academy of Pediatrics. Does that mean we ought to make a policy statement advocating that TV should be less compelling?

Confessing My Bias

Things get even messier when we take the necessary step of examining our own personal biases. In my case, that examination includes a shameless confession regarding the ways my own penchants might complicate my interpretation of these data. Continue reading

You Are When You Eat: Study Explores Body Clock Effects On Blood Sugar

(Macro Mondays/Flickr Creative Commons)

(Macro Mondays/Flickr Creative Commons)

You know the old saying (or maybe you should): “Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a pauper.”

A new study in the journal PNAS looks into some of the underlying biology: that our bodies tend to regulate blood sugar better after breakfast than after dinner.

Led by researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, it also helps explain why night shift workers tend to be at heightened risk for Type 2 diabetes.

Says the study’s senior author, Frank A. J. L. Scheer of the Brigham, on Radio Boston today: “What we wanted to explore was whether the biological clock — the internal clock — is playing an important part in this day/night variation, or that it might just be due to the sleep/wake and feeding/fasting cycle.”

The study pinpoints two separate mechanisms at work:

• Our basic body clocks, also known as circadian rhythm, have major influence on our blood sugar regulation: our glucose tolerance is naturally higher in the morning than the evening.

• And, independently, when our clocks are misaligned — when we’re forced to flip our days and nights — that, too, lowers our glucose tolerance.

Bottom line, for those of us who are not shift workers: The same exact meal can lead to more of an increase in blood sugar when eaten at night than when eaten in the morning (and higher blood sugar is considered a risk factor for developing diabetes.) Chalk one up for the writers of old sayings.

On the study: Continue reading

Forbidden Fruit: Pesticide-Laden Produce Linked To Lower Semen Quality, Study Finds

(Robert S. Donovon/Flickr)

(Robert S. Donovon/Flickr)

That apple a day? Consider choosing it wisely: If it’s laden with pesticide residues, it could mess with your sperm.

That’s the analysis from researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health in a study published online this week in the journal Human Reproduction.

The study found that men who ate a range of fruits and vegetables, including strawberries, peppers, spinach and apples, with higher levels of pesticide residues had a lower sperm count and a lower percentage of normally-shaped sperm compared to men who ate produce with less pesticide residue. (This finding was true even after fruit was washed before eating.) Researchers said it’s the first study to examine exposure to pesticides and semen quality.

Senior study author Jorge Chavarro, assistant professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, said the research doesn’t mean people should eliminate fruits and vegetables from their diet — on the contrary; rather consumers should simply choose more carefully. In an email, he wrote:

I think there are two main takeaways from this work. The first one is that, as interesting and potentially alarming these findings may be, this is the first time that pesticide residues in foods have been linked to an adverse reproductive health outcome in humans. It is therefore very important that these results are replicated in other studies, and ideally in randomized trials, before firm conclusions can be made one way or the other.

On the more practical end, the other important point is that our results point to a very specific role of high pesticide residue produce, rather than to intake of fruits and vegetables in general which means that strategies specifically aimed at avoiding high residue produces, such as consuming organic produce if budget allows or selecting fruits and vegetables known to have low levels of pesticide residues may be the preferred way to address this issue…

Chavarro said the easiest way to determine produce safety is to check the dirty dozen/clean fifteen list that the Environmental Working Group releases each year. Continue reading