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/

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/*

Slower eating leads to higher levels of appetite-sating hormones

*Slower eating leads to higher levels of appetite-sating hormones*

Posted By _Dr John Briffa_ On November 9, 2009 @ 3:09 pm In _Healthy
Eating_, _Unhealthy Eating!_, _Weight Loss_ |_
<http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/11/09/slower-eating-leads-to-higher-levels-of-appetite-sating-hormones/print/#comments_controls>_

There's a fair chance that at least once in your life you've been
advised to eat slowly. I think this is good advice, at least in part
because slower eating generally means more thorough of chewing of food
(which aids digestion and reduces the risk of symptoms such as
indigestion, reflux and heartburn). However, another of the benefits of
slower eating appears to be its capacity to reduce the risk of
unnecessary eating. Back in June, [1] one of my blogs
<http://www.drbriffa.com%20http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/06/19/how-we-eat-appears-to-influence-how-much-we-eat/>
looked at a study which showed that slower eating reduced the amount
eaten of a test food (semi-solid custard) by study subjects.

But what is it about slower eating that might lead to less food being
consumed? This was essentially the question being posed in a study
published recently in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and
Metabolism [1]. In this study, the effect of eating speed on the
secretion of appetite-regulating was assessed. Three hormones were assessed:

Ghrelin (higher levels of which stimulate appetite)
Peptide YY (higher levels of which suppress appetite)
Glucagon-like-peptide-1 (higher levels of which suppress appetite)

The test subjects ate 300 mls of ice-cream on two separate occasions. On
one of these sitting they were advised to consume it in 5 minutes. On
another occasion, they were to take a much-more-leisurely half an hour
to consume the ice cream. Levels of appetite regulating hormones were
measured every 30 minutes for 3½ hours.

The results showed that ghrelin levels were not significantly different
between the two tests. However, both peptide YY and
glucagon-like-peptide-1 levels were higher after the 30-minute eating
test compared to the 5-minute one.

In other words, slower eating led to higher levels of hormones that
induce satiety.

This provides at least some biochemical basis for the observation that
individuals eating slowly tend to eat less than those eating more
quickly. For more information on the benefits of slower eating, see my
recent post on '[2] mindful eating
<http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/08/05/mindful-eating-associated-with-lower-risk-of-weight-gain/>'.

*References:*

1. Kokkinos A, et al. Eating slowly increases the posprandial response
of the anorxigenic gut hormones, peptide YY and glucagon-like-peptide-1.

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

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

URL to article:
*http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/11/09/slower-eating-leads-to-higher-levels-of-appetite-sating-hormones/*

URLs in this post:
[1] one of my blogs: *http://www.drbriffa.com
http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/06/19/how-we-eat-appears-to-influence-how-
much-we-eat/
*
[2] mindful eating:
*http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/08/05/mindful-eating-associated-with-lower-risk-of-weight-gain/*

Do regular exercisers really benefit by eating a load of bread and pasta?

*Do regular exercisers really benefit by eating a load of bread and pasta?*

Posted By _Dr John Briffa_ On November 20, 2009 @ 5:57 pm In _Exercise
and Activity_, _Low-Carbohydrate/Carbohydrate Restriction_ |

I have been doing some lecturing this week, and part of the information
I imparted concerned the potential advantages of eating a diet
relatively low in carbohydrate. It's not uncommon for individuals to ask
about the potential effect of low-carb eating on sporting performance.
This question is usually rooted in the notion that those engaging in
regular sporting activity or exercise need to maintain their stores of a
starch-like substance called glycogen (found mainly in the muscles and
liver), which provides relatively ready fuel during exercise. Glycogen
is a carbohydrate, and so exercisers are often encouraged to 'carb-load'
in an effort to fill up the glycogen stores so that plenty of ready
energy will be available during exercise. People downing plates of pasta
the day before a marathon is borne out of this theory.

However, is carb-loading really necessary for most mere mortals? Let's
work through some figures. A 30-minute jog will burn about 250 calories
in addition to those that would be burned sat still. A significant
proportion of the fuel for this exercise will come from fat. Let's
imagine, that during the jog, 150 of the calories come from carb. Each
gram of carb contains 4 calories, so in theory to replenish the glycogen
lost during exercise is going to need the consumption of about 40 grams
of carb. That's about the same amount of carb found in a couple of apples.

In other words, for most individuals engaged in recreational exercise
that doesn't go on for hours, glycogen depletion is unlikely to be an
issue unless carb consumption is cut to very low levels.

For endurance sports, low-carb eating is potentially more of an issue.
If you're training for a marathon, for instance, and racking up 50 miles
or more a week, then glycogen depletion is a real risk. However, one
thing that needs to be borne in mind is that when carbohydrate is
restricted, the body automatically turns to other fuels (principally
fat) to make up the difference. This adaptation can take time, so
adopting a low-carb diet is not the thing to do a week before a
marathon, particularly if your goal in not just to 'get round' but crack
your personal best.

At lower intensities of exercise, however, adopting a low-carbohydrate
diet does not appear to be an impediment to activity. A major review on
the subject concluded that "…endurance performance can be sustained
despite the virtual exclusion of carbohydrate from the human diet." [1].

There is no doubt in my mind that the very physically active can
tolerate more carb in their diet than those who are not. If this applies
to you, then aim to get your additional carbohydrate into the system
within an hour or so after a sporting event or training session (this
help replenishment of glycogen in the muscles for future use).

If you do feel the need to do this, I would counsel against using bread,
pasta and white rice as your carbohydrate sources. Not only are these
foods generally disruptive to blood sugar, they also offer precious
little from a nutritional perspective. Generally slower sugar-releasing
and more nutritious forms of carb include fruit, vegetables and legumes
(beans and lentils).

*References:*

1. Phinney SD. Ketogenic diets and physical performance. Nutr Metab
(Lond). 2004;1:2

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

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

URL to article:
*http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/11/20/do-regular-exercisers-really-benefit-by-eating-a-load-of-bread-and-pasta/*

Shopper's Guide to Pesticides from the Environmental Working Group

I just got the newest Shopper's Guide to Pesticides from the
Environmental Working Group. It's a really handy list to help me
remember what to buy organic. I thought you'd be interested in
downloading it, too. Check it out at: http://www.foodnews.org

--

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