Thursday, 4 March 2010

10 best phones for low radiation output

From the Environmental Working Group (www.ewg.org)

...we think it's smart for consumers to buy phones with the lowest
emissions. Before you buy, check out devices you're considering for
radiation output <http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/8-Safety-Tips>.
Levels vary widely, from 0 .3 to 1.6, the legal limit, measured in watts
per kilogram of body weight, also known as SAR (specific absorption
rate), the amount of radiofrequency energy absorbed by the body when
using a wireless device phone.


10 Best Phones

Listing is based on phones currently available from major carriers.
You can also see all available phones
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone?allavailable=1>
ranked by radiation.

1. Sanyo Katana II
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/Sanyo/Katana+II/>
[Kajeet
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/provider/Kajeet/>]
2. Samsung Rugby (SGH-a837)
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/Samsung/Rugby+%28SGH-a837%29/>
[AT&T
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/provider/AT%26T/>]
3. Blackberry Storm 9530
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/Blackberry/Storm+9530/>
[Verizon Wireless
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/provider/Verizon+Wireless/>]

4. Samsung I8000 Omnia II
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/Samsung/I8000+Omnia+II/>
[Verizon Wireless
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/provider/Verizon+Wireless/>]

5. Samsung Propel Pro (SGH-i627)
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/Samsung/Propel+Pro+%28SGH-i627%29/>
[AT&T
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/provider/AT%26T/>]
6. Samsung SGH-t229
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/Samsung/SGH-t229/>
[T-Mobile
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/provider/T-Mobile/>]

7. Helio Pantech Ocean
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/Helio+Pantech/Ocean/>
[Virgin Mobile
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/provider/Virgin+Mobile/>]

8. Sony Ericsson W518a Walkman
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/Sony+Ericsson/W518a+Walkman/>
[AT&T
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/provider/AT%26T/>]
9. Samsung SGH-a137
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/Samsung/SGH-a137/>
[AT&T
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/provider/AT%26T/>,
AT&T GoPhone
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/provider/AT%26T+GoPhone/>]

10. LG Shine II
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/LG/Shine+II/>
[AT&T
<http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/provider/AT%26T/>]

Friday, 19 February 2010

Higher protein diet plus resistance exercise aids weight and fat loss in type 2 diabetics

Higher protein diet plus resistance exercise aids weight and fat loss in
type 2 diabetics

Posted By _Dr John Briffa_ On February 16, 2010 @ 12:12 pm In
_Diabetes/Metabolic Syndrome_, _Exercise and Activity_, _Food and
Medical Politics_, _Healthy Eating_, _Low-Carbohydrate/Carbohydrate
Restriction_, _Unhealthy Eating!_, _Weight Loss_ _
<http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2010/02/16/higher-protein-diet-plus-resistance-exercise-aids-weight-and-fat-loss-in-type-2-diabetics/print/#comments_controls>_

Where weight and fat loss is concerned, I favour a relatively
low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet on the basis that such diets
generally outperform low-fat, carb-rich diets traditionally advocated
for weight loss. A lower-carb diet I think may have particular
advantages for diabetics because, well, they have difficulty handling
carbohydrate as a result of impaired insulin function (insulin
resistance) and/or insufficient insulin.

There is a certain logic to the notion that diabetics should be careful
consuming the very food type (carbohydrate) they have difficulty dealing
with. However, not everyone agrees. You can see here how Diabetes UK
(the leading diabetes charity in the UK) specifically [1] recommends
against carbohydrate restriction
<http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Food_and_recipes/Eating-well-with-Type-2-diabetes/About-carbohydrate/>
on the basis that:

• glucose from carbohydrate is essential to the body, especially the
brain

• high fibre carbohydrates, such as wholegrains and fruit, also play
an important role in the health of the gut

• some carbohydrates may help you to feel fuller for longer after eating

However, glucose can be made from other elements of the diet (e.g.
protein) which makes the absolute requirement for carbohydrate none at
all. Also, wholegrains are generally rich in insoluble fibre which has
been shown to be quite irritant to the gut compared to soluble fibre
found plentifully in fruits and vegetables. But if diabetics are looking
for a heathy source of fibre, why not point them to green veg, say,
rather than carb-loaded fruit. And it might be true that carbohydrates
can help people feel fuller for longer, but protein has been found to be
the most sating macronutrient and doesn't cause wild swings in blood
sugar levels (as many wholegrains do) either.

Getting back to weight loss, it appears that aerobic exercise is not
particularly effective here (see [2] here
<http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/08/12/does-exercise-promote-weight-loss-no/>
for more about this). That is not to say that aerobic exercise is a
waste of time - it most certainly is not in my opinion (it just does not
do much to shift surplus pounds).

In recent years there has been increasing interest in the idea that
resistance exercise (e.g. weight training) can help fat loss and improve
body composition. See [3] here
<http://www.drbriffa.com%20http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2007/09/17/weight-training-found-to-lead-to-fat-loss-in-women/>
for a previous post about a relevant study.

I was interested to read about a recent study in which resistance
exercise was tried in a group of obese type 2 diabetics [1]. Individuals
either performed resistance exercise (3 days a week) or no exercise for
16 weeks. Each of these groups were further subdivided into groups
eating either a conventional high-carbohydrate diet, or a lower-carb,
higher protein diet. The make-up of these diets was as follows:

/Conventional diet carb/protein/fat: 53/19/26/

/Higher protein diet carb/protein/fat: 43/33/22
/
The diets were 'energy-restricted' (about 1400 and 1700 calories a day
for women and men respectively).

So, in effect, this study had four groups:

/1. Conventional diet no exercise/

/2. Conventional diet plus resistance exercise/

/3. Higher protein diet no exercise/

/4. Higher protein diet plus resistance exercise/

The participants were assessed in a variety of ways including weight
loss, fat mass loss and waist circumference.

Overall, the group eating higher protein lost more weight and fat and
saw greater reductions in their waist circumference too. However, these
differences were much more marked when comparing the groups who were
exercising.

/Weight loss for exercisers in the conventional and high protein groups
was an average of 10.5 and 13.8 kg respectively/

/Fat loss for exercisers in the conventional and high protein groups was
an average of 7.9 and 11.1 kg respectively/

/Waist circumference reduction for exercisers in the conventional and
high protein groups was an average of 11.3 and 13.7 cm respectively/

Looking at the results as a whole, it's clear that the group that did
the best with regard to these measurements was the one eating less carb,
more protein, with resistance exercise on top.

*References:*

1. Wycherley TP, et al. A High Protein Diet With Resistance Exercise
Training Improves Weight Loss And Body Composition In Overweight And
Obese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Care 11th February 2010
[epub ahead of print publication]

Friday, 29 January 2010

Low-carb diet pitted against low-fat PLUS medication (low-carb still wins)

Posted By _Dr John Briffa_ On January 26, 2010 @ 2:23 pm In _Healthy
Eating_, _Unhealthy Eating!_, _Weight Loss_ | _1 Comment
<http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2010/01/26/low-carb-diet-pitted-against-low-fat-plus-medication-low-carb-still-wins/print/#comments_controls>_

I suspect there's always going to be a raging debate about the best way
to go about losing weight. From a dietary perspective, a myriad of
suggested approaches exist, though within these the two most popular and
well-known 'diets' are those low in carbohydrate and fat respectively.
Both of these approaches have their advocates. I'm generally in the
low-carbohydrate camp. Why? Well, one major reason has to do with the
fact that when these diets are pitted against each other, the low-carb
diets generally outperform low-fat ones in terms of weight loss. Also,
low-carb diets generally improve biochemical and physiological markers
for cardiovascular disease compared to low fat ones.

I was interested to read a study published yesterday in the Archives of
Internal Medicine which, once again, pitted low-carb and low-fat diets
against each other [1]. The low-carb diet initially restricted
carbohydrate intake to less than 20 grams a day. Calorie intake was not
restricted (meaning individuals could eat as much as they liked of
permitted foods including meat and fish).The low-fat diet, as is usual
in these studies, restricted calories (to produce a deficit of 500-1000
calories a day). In addition, though, individuals eating the low-fat
diet took the weight loss drug orlistat (Xenical, Alli) at a dose of 120
mg, three times a day.

Orlistat works by reducing absorption of fat from the gut. A [1] review
of the evidence
<http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2007/11/19/weight-loss-drugs-revealed-to-have-only-slim-benefits/>
shows that the average weight loss achieved by people taking this drug
in studies is about 3 kg (approximately 6.5 lbs).

At the end of the study (48 weeks) the low-carbers had been found to
have lost an average of about 11.5 kg in weight, compared to about 9.5
kg loss in the low-fat, medication taking group. This difference was not
statistically significant. Unfortunately, this study made no attempt to
assess body composition changes. This is a shame, as it's not really
weight loss that is important, but /fat loss/. However, the subjects did
have their waist circumferences assessed, which reflects the extent of
'abdominal obesity' (the form of obesity most strongly linked with
chronic disease). Here, the low-carbers lost almost an inch more than
the low-fat, medication-taking group, though the difference was not
statistically significant.

One significant difference between the groups was seen in blood
pressure: low-carbers saw an average drop of about 6 and 4.5 points in
their systolic (higher) and diastolic (lower) blood pressure. In
comparison, the low-fat eaters saw small though non-statistically
significant increases in their blood pressure.

Overall, the results of this study show similar weight loss but improved
effect on blood pressure for those eating the low-carb diet. On top of
this we have the fact that the low-carbers did not need to restrict
calories, and did not take medication either. This drug has expense
associated with it, as well as potential side effects (including
flatulence and 'oily leakage from rectum'). I'll stick with the low-carb
eating, thanks.
*
References:*

1. Yancy WS, et al. A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet vs
orlistat plus a low-fat diet for weight loss. Archives of Internal
Medicine. 2010;170(2):136-145

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Dr Briffa's Blog: *http://www.drbriffa.com*

Friday, 1 January 2010

Editorial reminds us of the value of 'primal' eating

*Editorial reminds us of the importance of looking to our nutritional
past to improve our future health*

Posted By _Dr John Briffa_ On January 1, 2010 @ 8:14 pm In
_Diabetes/Metabolic Syndrome_, _Food and Medical Politics_, _Healthy
Eating_, _Unhealthy Eating!_, _Weight Loss__
<http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2010/01/01/editorial-reminds-us-of-the-importance-of-looking-to-our-nutritional-past-to-improve-our-future-health/print/#comments_controls>_

My last post here detailed just a few relatively easy-to-apply lifestyle
changes that might make good New Year resolutions. One of them, was to
eat a 'primal' diet – essentially a diet based on the foods we've been
eating the longest in terms of our time on this planet. The record
suggests that for the vast majority of our time here we've subsisted on
a diet made up of animal foods (e.g. meat, fish and eggs), fruit,
vegetables, nuts and water. The exact make-up of the diet would have
varied according to precise location and environment (e.g. relatively
more animal and less plant food further from the equator), but what our
ancestral diet most certainly did not contain was piles of grain and
dairy products, along with things like refined vegetable oils, refined
sugar, artificial sweeteners and processed, chemicalised fats found in
many foods including margarine.

Just a couple of days ago in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
was published an editorial which reminds us of the potential importance
of getting back to our nutritional roots [1]. In this editorial, the
authors make the point that our genetic make-up was selected for
behaviours and an environment (including diet) for humans appearing in
Africa between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. Now, since that time,
certain adaptations have taken place (e.g. skin colour and the retaining
after infancy of the milk sugar digesting enzyme lactase by some of the
human population). However, as the authors point out, "core biochemical
and physiological processes have been preserved" [2].

As humans migrated around the globe and cultures changed, the authors
argue, our diet and activity changed in a way that made it impossible
for genetic evolution to keep pace. The result? Complex degenerative
diseases including atherosclerosis (the usual underlying process in
heart disease and stroke), several forms of cancer, obesity and type 2
diabetes.

According to the authors of the editorial, few would deny that
conventional nutritional advice is not working. And they suggest that
what would help would be a more rapid shift in thinking towards a diet
that gets us closer to "humanity's biological baseline". They quote a
recent scientific paper [3] which asserts that "It is difficult to
refute the assertion that if modern populations returned to a
hunter-gatherer state then obesity and diabetes would not be the major
public health threats they now are".

As we enter a new decade, perhaps more than any other time in history do
we need a radical rethink of what truly constitutes a healthy diet. For
too long now we have been 'fed' the idea that the low-fat, high-carb
diet is king. The results of this persistent public health message, and
our acting on it, appear to have been an unmitigated disaster judging by
the soaring rates of obesity and diabetes we've seen in westernised
cultures.

Enough is enough. There is more than enough evidence, I think, to
demonstrate that looking to our nutritional past will be how we can
improve our health and the health of future generations.

*References:*

1. Eaton SB, et al. Diet-dependent acid load, paleolithic nutrition, and
evolutionary health promotion. Am J Clin Nutr 30 Dec 2009 [epub ahead of
print]

2. Smith E, et al. Universality in intermediary metabolism. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA 2004;101:13168-73

3. O'Rahilly S. Human genetics illuminates the paths to metabolic
disease. Nature. 2009;462:307-14.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Dr Briffa's Blog: *http://www.drbriffa.com*

--

Norma Bridge, Dip ION FdSc

Essentia Nutrition
+44 (0)7791 890 541
www.essentianutrition.co.uk

Member of the British Association for Applied Nutrition & Nutritional Therapy (BANT)
Nutrition Therapy Council Registered Practitioner (NTC)
Dip NT Clinical Studies Tutor - Premier International

10 'bite-sized' New Year resolutions worth considering

*10 realistic and achievable New Year resolutions worth considering*

Posted By _Dr John Briffa_ On December 31, 2009 @ 6:30 pm In _Exercise
and Activity_, _Healthy Eating_, _Sleep_, _Sunlight_

I read a report in the last week regarding New Year resolutions, the
thrust of which was that setting the bar too high is more likely to lead
to us not keeping to whatever resolutions we have made. In other words,
opting for smaller, more manageable changes might be a better long-term
strategy. I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. And I also believe
that even seemingly relatively minor adjustments to lifestyle can reap
enormous dividends in terms of it's impact on things like energy and
vitality (too things that many of us can find our in short supply from
time to time).

So here, in no particular order, are 10 suggestions for 'bite-sized' New
Year resolutions that some of you may feel inclined to act on. My
suggestions is to pick just one or two (maybe three) of these in the
first instance, and allow a month or two for you to feel the benefit of
your new behaviour and settle in to your new habit(s). You can always
add further healthy behaviour later on.

1. Drink water

Maintaining hydration, in my experience, has a profound influence on
vitality and energy levels, including mental energy. I suggest drinking
enough water to keep your urine pale yellow throughout the course of the
day. The usually-critical step that needs to be taken to make this
possible is to keep water by you e.g. put a bottle and glass on your
desk or carry a water bottle with you as you go out and about during the
day.

2. Take exercise

This is certainly one where setting the bar too high can be
counter-productive. I'd advise against, therefore, promising yourself
you're going to spend an hour in the gym, four times a week. If you
really are quite sedentary right now, how about committing to a 10
minute walk each day. Earlier this year I developed with the help of
some colleagues a 12-minute exercise routine as part of a forthcoming
book. I've managed with relatively little effort to perform this every
day for the last six months (except for when I 'put my back out'
recently). Previous attempts at more ambitious exercise have generally
been less successful.

3. Eat mindfully

In our fast-paced world, there can be a tendency to eat while distracted
and 'shovel in' more food than we need. See [1] here
<http://www.drbriffa.com%20http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/08/05/mindful-eating-associated-with-lower-risk-of-weight-gain/>
for some information about why eating mindfully can be beneficial to
health, and how to do it.

4. Chew thoroughly

Part of mindful eating can be thorough chewing of food, which at the
very least will enhance the body's ability to digest food efficiently,
and will usually help with any symptoms of indigestion/reflux. I most
recently wrote about the value of chewing [2] here
<http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/11/24/gastroenterologist-disses-the-value-of-chewing/>,
where you will also find links to blogs which explore the relationship
between slower eating and reduced food consumption.

5. Make time

Some new habits (e.g. exercise) can take time, which some of us believe
we already don't have enough of. See [3] here
<http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2006/12/31/creating-time-for-the-whatever-new-behaviours-you-may-have-planned/>
for a blog post which is about creating time for whatever new habits
demand this.

6. Sleep

Sleep has the ability to optimise mental and physical energy, and
optimal levels of sleep (about 8 hours a night on average) is linked
with reduced risk of chronic disease and improved longevity. One simple
strategy that can help ensure you get optimal amounts of sleep is to go
to bed earlier. Getting into bed a 10.00 or 10.30 pm (rather than 11.30,
say) is not a waste of time, but a potentially useful investment in
terms of your short and long-term health.

7. Eat a primal diet

Common sense and a stack of science dictate that the best diet for us is
one based on foods we've been eating the longest. If you know nothing
else about diet, this nutritional 'nugget' will help you cut through the
marketing hype and dietary misinformation, and allow you to make healthy
food choices (if you so wish) quickly and confidently.

8. Snack healthily

Snacking tends to have a 'bad' reputation, and at least some of this is
based on the fact that many snack foods (e.g. biscuits, confectionery,
crisps/chips) are far from healthy. However, going for too long between
meals (especially between lunch and dinner) can cause the appetite to
run out of control, which can lead to the overconsumption of unhealthy
food and drink later on. Quelling appetite with something healthy (e.g.
a handful or two of nuts) can do wonders to help us maintain our healthy
eating habits will minimal effort.

9. Get more sunlight

Sunlight and the vitamin D this can make in the skin has a myriad of
benefits for body and brain (see category 'sunlight' in left hand
sidebar for more information regarding this). While burning is to be
avoided, I advise getting as much sunlight exposure as possible if
optimal health is your goal.

10. Appreciate more

In a [4] recent post
<http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/12/25/a-random-act-of-kindness/> I
wrote about how my New Year's resolution this year was inspired by
witnessing a random act of kindness recently. In the comments section of
this post, the subject of appreciation came up. It occurs to me that
many of us live in societies that are hugely aspirational, and as a
result we can easily find ourselves chasing an ever-growing list of
goals, many of which can be material in nature. To be frank, many of us
could do with spending more time focusing not on what we don't have, but
on what we do – in its broadest sense. So, in addition to whatever
material things we may want to give thanks for, we might also feel
appreciation for our things including people, pets, our health, a
beautiful landscape or sunset or whatever.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Dr Briffa's Blog: *http://www.drbriffa.com*

--

Norma Bridge, Dip ION FdSc

Essentia Nutrition
+44 (0)7791 890 541
www.essentianutrition.co.uk

Member of the British Association for Applied Nutrition & Nutritional Therapy (BANT)
Nutrition Therapy Council Registered Practitioner (NTC)
Dip NT Clinical Studies Tutor - Premier International

Monday, 23 November 2009

Birth Control Pill – Know the Risks

Birth Control Pill – Know the Risks

Nearly 100 million women worldwide now use birth control pills as a
convenient and effective method of contraception. Now, a review article
in MedLink Neurology by three prominent neurologists, has found that
oral contraceptives almost double the risk of suffering from a stroke.

This is not the first time the birth control pill has been associated
with risk of stroke, in fact the relationship between ischemic stroke
and oral contraceptive use has now been studied for over 40 years, but
disagreement about an association persists.

In real terms, there are an average of about 4.4 strokes per 100,000
women of childbearing age. A meta-analysis found that the birth control
pill nearly doubles this risk to 8.5 strokes per 100,000 women, which,
to keep it in perspective, is still a relatively small risk. The risk
significantly increases though, for those women who take the birth
control pill and also smoke, have high blood pressure or a history of
migraine headaches.

Senior author Dr. Jose Biller concluded, /"When prescribing oral
contraceptives, doctors should balance the risks and benefits for each
individual patient. For a healthy young woman without any other stoke
risk factors, the benefits of birth control pills probably outweigh the
risks. But if a woman has other stroke risk factors, she should be
discouraged from using oral contraceptives"./

It is not fully understood how the birth control pill may cause strokes,
but it has been suggested that the increased risk may be linked to the
increased risk of blood clots and high blood pressure associated with
oral contraceptives.

*Sources:*
Loyola University Health System (2009, October 27). Increased Stroke
Risk From Birth Control Pills, Review Finds. Science Daily
Gillum, Mamidipudi et al. Ischemic Stroke Risk With Oral Contraceptives
A Meta-Analysis The Journal of the American Medical Association Vol. 284
No. 1, July 5, 2000

/Source: Nutri Supplement Newsletter, Issue 179 on 23 November 2009/

Saturday, 21 November 2009

Could eating late in the day promote weight gain in a way that has nothing to do with calories?

*Could eating late in the day promote weight gain in a way that has
nothing to do with calories?*

Posted By _Dr John Briffa_ On September 7, 2009 @ 5:48 pm In _Healthy
Eating_, _Unhealthy Eating!_, _Weight Loss_ | _
<http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/09/07/could-eating-late-in-the-day-promote-weight-gain-in-a-way-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-calories/print/#comments_controls>_

A mere 10 days ago one of [1] my posts
<http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/08/28/why-human-not-mice-studies-are-the-most-appropriate-for-judging-the-effects-of-diets-on-human-health/>
highlighted a study which had, apparently, found that a low carb diet
was found to induce increased amounts of atherosclerosis (a key
underlying process in the development of cardiovascular conditions such
as heart attacks and strokes) in mice. I was sceptical of this study,
partly on account of the fact that mice are not men (or women), and
using them as a model for human disease is not always advised. There is
also the matter of the huge volume of research which attests to the fact
that low-carb diets have a range of favourable effects in humans,
including weight loss and several markers of disease including blood
fat, blood sugar and insulin levels.

However, I do not dismiss animal studies out-of-hand. I will and do
refer to them sometimes when they genuinely appear to enhance our
understanding of the relationship between, say, nutrition and health.
For example, in my [2] very last post
<http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/09/04/the-myriad-of-reasons-why-artificial-sweetners-may-not-deliver-on-their-weight-loss-promise/>
I referred to a rat study which showed that artificial sweeteners appear
to have the capacity to /induce/ (not protect against) weight gain,
compared to sugar.

And it's another animal study that I want to talk about today. It
concerns the feeding of nocturnal mice in two distinct ways [1]. Some
mice were fed unlimited amounts of food (a high-fat diet) during the
night (the normal eating time for these mice). Other mice were fed
during the day (when they would normally be asleep). Food intakes and
activity levels were measured over a period of 6 weeks. These were found
not to differ significantly between the two groups.

With these facts as they are, one might expect the weight status of the
two groups of mice to be the same. After all, calories in and out of
these mice appeared to be pretty much the same. However, the results
appear to defy the calorie principle, in that the mice eating during the
night were found to have increased their weight by 20 per cent. The
other group (eating at a time when they should, by rights, have been
asleep) had, however, amassed an additional 48 per cent of their
original weight.

This study suggests that there is something about the timing of eating
that may influence whether it is metabolised or ends up being stored (as
fat or something else) in the body. It also does cast some doubt on the
'wisdom' that weight status is all about the 'calorie in and calories
out'. Interestingly, there is some evidence that night-eating (consuming
proportionately more of the diet during the evening and night) is
associated with increased body weight [2].

Those keen to moderate how much they eat during the evening and night
may be interested in research which shows that packing in food intake
earlier in the day seems to put a natural brake on eating later on. In
one study, the diet diaries of almost 800 men and women were examined [3].

Their food and calorific intake was assessed for each of five, four-hour
periods stretching from 6 am to 2 am the following day. The results of
this study showed that those who had consumed the bulk of their food
near the end of the day ate, on average, significantly more calories
than individuals who ate more substantial amounts of food early on. In
addition to assessing food intake over the course of each day, the
researchers also calculated how effective each meal was at sating the
appetite. The so-called 'satiety index' of each meal was calculated by
dividing the number of calories it contained into the time that elapsed
before another meal or snack was eaten. Interestingly, food eaten later
in the day was found to satisfy less, calorie for calorie, than food
eaten earlier in the day.

One other thing that can really help to stave off unnecessary eating in
the evening, in my experience, is to make sure hunger has not run out of
control by this time. For most people, all this takes is to have a snack
in the late afternoon, preferably of something that has true
appetite-sating ability. A handful or two of nuts will normally do it.

*References:*

1. Arble DM, et al. Circadian Timing of Food Intake Contributes to
Weight Gain 3rd September 2009 [epub ahead of print]

2. Colles SL, et al. Night eating syndrome and nocturnal snacking:
association with obesity, binge eating and psychological distress. Int J
Obes (Lond). 2007;31(11):1722-30

3. de Castro JM. The time of day of food intake influences overall
intake in humans. Journal of Nutrition 2004 134:104-111

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Dr Briffa's Blog: *http://www.drbriffa.com*

URL to article:
*http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/09/07/could-eating-late-in-the-day-promote-weight-gain-in-a-way-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-calories/*

URLs in this post:
[1] my posts:
*http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/08/28/why-human-not-mice-studies-are-the-most-appropriate-for-judg
ing-the-effects-of-diets-on-human-health/

*
[2] very last post:
*http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/09/04/the-myriad-of-reasons-why-artificial-sweetners-may-not-deliv
er-on-their-weight-loss-promise/*