Oldie but Goodie!

Recidivism: Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder in Bodybuilding/Fitness:Part 1

Thank you, Scott Abel for this article! 

Recidivism: Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder in Bodybuilding/Fitness

SYDNEY (Reuters) –

Sylvester Stallone was fined $2,500 by an Australian court on Monday for illegally bringing 48 vials of human growth hormone into Australia during a promotional trip in February.

The court heard that Stallone, 60, told customs he was prescribed the prohibited hormone to give his aging body a boost and to look good while filming his latest “Rambo” movie in Asia.

“This stuff gives your body a boost and you feel and look good,” Stallone said in a customs interview. “Doing Rambo is hard work, and I am going to be in Burma for a while.

“Where do you think I am going to get this stuff in Burma?”

Stallone was charged with importing a prohibited substance in February during a three-day visit to Sydney to promote his film “Rocky Balboa.” Stallone then flew to Thailand to shoot his latest “Rambo” movie.

The “Rambo” and “Rocky” screen hero last week apologized to Australian authorities after he pleaded guilty to two charges of importing a prohibited substance.

His lawyer said Stallone was taking the hormone under doctors’ supervision for an undisclosed medical condition.

“This is not some back-alley bodybuilder dealing covertly with some banned substance in some sort of secret way,” his lawyer Phillip Boulten told an earlier court hearing.

Stallone was not in court when the New South Wales state Deputy Chief Magistrate Paul Cloran imposed the fine on Monday and ordered him to pay court costs of about $8,300. The maximum fine for the offence is A$110,000 (US$91,600).

Cloran said Stallone had tried to deceive customs by claiming to have a prescription for Jintropin — the brand name of a human growth hormone manufactured by China-based GeneScience Pharmaceuticals — which was found in his luggage when he arrived at Sydney airport.

But Jintropin was not legally available for retail use in the United States and therefore could not be prescribed, Cloran said.

Reuters/Nielsen

Taco Town

Read All About It: Organic Food Is Not Healthier

Read All About It: Organic Food Is Not Healthier

By Joseph D. Rosen, Ph.D.
etween March 27 and April 3, four articles appeared in the mainstream British press that only served to further confuse readers about the alleged nutritional superiority of organic food.

“Organic IS healthier, say food scientists” was the headline of a March 27 article written by the Telegraph’s science correspondent, Nic Fleming. According to the story, scientists at the University of California reported that organically-grown kiwis exhibited small but statistically significant increases in vitamin C and in polyphenol content compared to conventionally-grown kiwis. (Many polyphenols found in food are chemical antioxidants that are thought to be protective against free radical processes that may, in part, be responsible for chronic illnesses such as cancer and coronary heart disease.) Mr. Fleming, however, made no mention of the fact that studies such as this one have been reported many times in recent years and results have been inconsistent. Sometimes the organic produce is higher in antioxidants, and sometimes the conventional produce is higher.

My own (as yet unpublished) review of the scientific literature demonstrates that the agricultural production method is not as important as the variety (cultivar) of the fruit or vegetable, the year that the produce was grown, geographic location, soil conditions, and amount of sunlight the crops received. To Mr. Fleming’s credit, he does mention that another University of California professor questioned whether the small increases in antioxidant activity would have any real impact on human health. But then he concludes his article by writing that others had shown that organic milk “has 68% more omega-3 fatty acids — important for normal brain functioning than other milk.” Milk is very low in omega-3 fatty acids to begin with and 68% more of a very tiny quantity is still a very tiny quantity. Furthermore, nutritionists recommend that adults drink low-fat or nonfat milk because of the high saturated fat content of whole milk. There is nothing magical about omega-3 fats — when the saturated fats are removed, so are the omega-3 fats.

Antioxidant Anticlimax

There was more news to follow. On April 2, the Daily Mail ran a story titled, “Proof at last that organic apples can be better for you.” The next day The Independent carried an article written by Ian Herbert titled, “It’s not just a fad — organic food is better for you, say scientists.”

Both news stories were about three organic food lectures presented at a conference held at the University of Hohenheim in Germany between March 20 and 23. According to the The Independent, scientists from Britain, France, and Poland presented evidence that “organic carrots, apples, peaches, and potatoes…have greater concentrations of vitamin C, beta-carotene, and chemicals that protect against cancer and heart disease than conventional produce.” (Nowhere in the published proceedings of the conference are there any presentations comparing the nutritional content of organic carrots and potatoes to their conventional counterparts; maybe Mr. Herbert got potatoes and tomatoes mixed up.)

The Daily Mail story was a bit more accurate, correctly matching up the Polish researchers with the apple and tomato studies and the French investigators with the peach study. According to the Daily Mail, researchers at Warsaw Agriculture University found “organic tomatoes had more vitamin C, beta-carotene, and flavonoids than conventional ones.” (Flavonoids are antioxidants and are a subclass of polyphenols.) The article also noted that the organic tomatoes contained less lycopene than the conventional tomatoes but failed to mention that lycopene is a much more effective antioxidant than beta-carotene and is one of the few antioxidants for which there is at least some epidemiological evidence of efficacy in preventing prostate cancer. Apparently the reporter for the Daily Mail never read the article the researchers submitted for publication.

If the reporter had done so, it would have been evident that there was a distance of 60 km between the organic and the conventional farms from which samples were taken, a distance much too far to make meaningful scientific comparisons in studies of this type. As for the increased levels of flavonoids in the tomatoes, a reading of the article revealed that the only flavonoid measured was quercitin. Quercitin is just one of the many flavonoids found in tomatoes, and finding an increased concentration of only one flavonoid is meaningless. Even more meaningless is attaching significance to results obtained from only one growing season. Research published in 2006 by Alyson Mitchell’s group at the University of California demonstrated that there were increased quercitin levels in organic tomatoes grown in 2003, but no differences were found in the 2004 and 2005 growing seasons.

A second presentation by the Polish scientists compared organic and conventional apple purees. According to both newspaper articles, the organic apple puree was higher in phenols, flavonoids, and vitamin C. A reading of the published proceedings told a different story, however. Although the organic purees had significantly higher levels of vitamin C and flavonoids than the conventional purees, the differences (and health advantage, if any) disappeared after the purees were pasteurized. In fact, the conventional apples had levels of flavonoids about three times higher than the organic apples after pasteurization. Total polyphenol content, a much better indication of antioxidant content than flavonoid content, was not significantly different between the two farming methods, either before or after pasteurization. The data showed, once again, how polyphenol content is influenced by fruit variety. For example, the conventionally-grown Boskoop cultivar had 80% more total polyphenol content than the organically-grown Lobo cultivar.

According to the Independent, the French researchers found that organic peaches “had a higher polyphenol content at harvest.” True, if you only look at their 2004 results. In the 2005 harvest, there were no differences whatsoever in polyphenol content between organic and conventional peaches, illustrating once again the importance of carrying out these types of experiments over several years before any valid conclusions can be made.

Opinion, Built on Partial Information, Built on Weak Data

The newspaper accounts of these events did not tell the complete story because the reporters did not read what the Polish and French investigators wrote; nor is there any evidence that they spoke to them about their actual data. Instead, they apparently obtained their information from the recollections of one or more persons who had recently returned from the conference.

Partially based on the misinformation published in the Independent and the Daily Mail, Peter Melchett wrote an opinion piece (“Organic Farming Bearing Fruit”) in The Guardian on April 3. Lord Melchett is the proprietor of an organic farm and is the Policy Director of the Soil Association, an organization whose income is derived, in part, from certifying organic farms. Melchett uses the studies reported on in the newspaper stories I have discussed above as a springboard to urge the UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) declaration that organic food is more nutritious than conventional food.

I doubt, however, that the FSA will be convinced by the papers presented in Germany that organic food is any healthier. After all, the papers were not peer-reviewed by other scientists and did not appear in respected scientific journals. Moreover, they essentially confirmed the findings of other researchers, i.e., antioxidant content of a food is determined by factors more important than whether or not food is grown organically or conventionally (cultivar and year to year variation, for two). Melchett appears to be living in a world of his own, claiming that the scientific evidence that organic food is better for you is growing, when in fact it is not. Actually, the scientific case for the nutritional superiority of organic food is so poor that Melchett was recently reduced to arguing on a BBC broadcast that “science doesn’t tell us the answers, so some of it we have to go on feelings.”

Finally, Melchett complains about last year’s refusal by the FSA to declare organic milk more nutritious even though it contained more alpha-linoleic acid (ALA), an omega-3 fatty acid, than conventional milk. Melchett is either unaware of or is ignoring a 2004 peer-reviewed publication written jointly by scientists from the U.S. National Cancer Institute, Harvard University, Harvard Medical School, and the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm warning that “increased dietary intakes of ALA may increase the risk of advanced prostate cancer.” Certainly, a proponent of the precautionary principle, like Melchett, should not urge people to drink organic milk until there is definitive proof ALA does not increase the risk of so lethal a disease.

Joseph D. Rosen, Ph.D., is an Emeritus Professor of Food Toxicology at Rutgers University and an ACSH Advisor.

Article Courtesy of: http://www.acsh.org/

With summer season around the corner, the need for patio munchies has returned!

Here’s a reminder of what you’re really eating ….
Chex Mix, Chocolate, Turtle

2/3 cup, one serving

Calories 150 (Kilojoules 627)
		% Daily Value*
Total Fat	5 g	8%
Saturated Fat	2 g	10%
Trans Fatty Acids	0 g
Cholesterol	5 mg	2%
Sodium	280 mg	12%
Total Carbohydrates	23 g	8%
Dietary Fiber	0.5 g	2%
Sugars	10 g
Protein	2 g
Calcium	0 mg

Calorie Breakdown
Calories from Fat	45 (31%)
Calories from Carbohydrate	92 (63%)
Calories from Protein	8 (6%)
Calories from Alcohol	0 (0%)

5 not-so-healthy health foods

1. Yogurt
Most people know that calcium is important to build bone and prevent osteoporosis. And milk products, such as yogurt, are one of your best sources of calcium. Recent research also shows that some healthy bacteria in yogurts, called probiotics, can help keep you regular, curb symptoms of travelers’ diarrhea, diarrhea associated with taking antibiotics and inflammatory bowel disease, and might even boost immunity and lower colon cancer risk. The most powerful bacteria are ones like L. acidophilus.

Don’t pay extra for the brands on the market that say their specific form of bacteria — with silly names like “regularis” — are any more effective at keeping you regular. And just because a yogurt has the word “immunity” in the title doesn’t mean it’s better at boosting your immune system either. Choose a brand with a mix of bacteria. Also, skip most fruited varieties, which have up to eight teaspoons of added sugar, more sugar then you’ll find in most candy bars. With Americans consuming more sugar than has ever been consumed by any living creature in the history of the planet, or about 40 teaspoons a day, we need to cut way back on sugar, not keep piling it on! Oh, and those yogurt coatings on pretzels and raisins? It’s more candy than yogurt, which explains why an ounce of yogurt-coated raisins has more than 40% more calories than plain raisins.

What to eat instead: Choose plain, nonfat or low-fat yogurt, then sweeten it yourself with all-fruit jam or fresh fruit. You never will add as much sugar as was added for you in the commercial fruited yogurts. Or, look for low-sugar brands of fruited yogurt, preferably ones fortified also with vitamin D and omega-3 fats.

Pretzels (2 ounces)

• Regular: 216 calories, 2 grams fat (~ 0.5 tsp), 0 saturated fat, higher in fiber, all B vitamins, iron and other minerals. Also higher in sodium.
• Yogurt-covered: 263 calories (22% increase), 10 grams fat (~2.5 tsp), 8 grams saturated fat (2 tsp) and lower in fiber, all B vitamins, iron and other minerals.

Raisins (3 Tbsp)

• Regular: 93 calories, 0 fat, 0 saturated fat
• Yogurt-covered: 142 calories (52% increase), 5 grams (> 1 tsp), 3 grams saturated fat

2. Low-carb desserts
These sales gimmicks typically have just as many calories as their full-carb counterparts. For example, Oreo Reduced-Fat cookies have 150 calories for three, just 10 calories less than the full-fat originals. Weaver’s Baked 40% Reduced-Fat crackers are only 20 calories less than the full-fat Weaver’s crackers. And General Mills Reduced Sugar Cinnamon Toast Crunch Cereal has only 10 fewer calories per 3/4 cup serving than the regular.

Why don’t you save more calories? Many of these items replace sugar with a sugar alcohol, such as maltitol or maltodextrin, which has fewer calories than sugar, but isn’t calorie-free. And watch out — these alcohols can have a laxative effect. Also, in some cases, the manufacturer has just down-sized the serving size, so you’re eating less in order to get those slightly fewer calories. Also, beware. People tend to eat more when they think it is low-fat or low-carb, so you could end up packing on even more weight if you don’t limit the serving size.

What to eat instead: If you’re talking about healthful foods, such as orange juice, yogurt and whole grain cereal, it’s worth looking for less sugar.

But cookies, chocolate candy and refined-grain desserts are junk foods with or without sugar. Instead, finish off a meal with fruit, such as sliced mangos or fruit parfaits topped with a dollop of fat-free whipped topping.

You need 8+ servings of fruits and vegetables everyday, so take advantage of dessert as an opportunity to meet one or more of those servings.

3. Enhanced waters
Why drink ordinary water when you can drink “nutrient-enhanced water”? Well, maybe because these “enhanced” waters are just sugar water with a touch of nutrients and a lot of hype. There is no evidence that the ingredients prevent colds, boost health and energy, or reduce disease risk. They also come at a high price, some cost up to $1.50, two to three times the price of plain bottled water.

Watch out for the serving sizes, too. A Glaceau VitaminWater says it supplies half of your daily need for some of the nutrients. But you have to drink the entire bottle, which according to the label would be 2.5 servings and 125 calories, almost the same amount of sugar calories as you’d get in a cola. In reality, you’re getting only 7 out of the 40+ nutrients you need. Even then, the amount is minuscule. For example, the vitamin C you’ll get from drinking an entire bottle of Glaceau VitaminWater could easily be gotten from eating two strawberries, for a fraction of the calories. You are much better off taking a moderate-dose multiple vitamin and mineral supplement and leaving these enhanced waters on the grocery store shelf.

Just because it’s bottled, doesn’t mean it’s safe. One study that compared 57 bottled waters with samples of tap water found that one in four of the bottled waters had unacceptable levels of bacteria, almost 2,000 times higher than the tap water samples. The amount of bacteria probably won’t make you sick, but it is a warning sign, especially since regulations for bottled water are pretty lax (it was only in 2005 that the Food and Drug Administration finally set a standard on bottled water for acceptable levels of the highly toxic metal arsenic!). Besides, about a quarter of those “gourmet” waters come straight from the tap. Skip the middle-man and get your eight glasses a day from your own faucet or filter it yourself at home.

What to eat instead: Water, ice water with a twist of lemon or lime, sparkling water or any of the zero-calorie waters, such as Fruit2O.

4. Whole grain bread
The brown wrappers of multi-grain, whole wheat, 7 grain, oat or rye breads all look so wholesome and healthy. Think again. Flip it over and read the ingredient list. If you see “wheat flour” or “enriched flour” as the first or second ingredient, you have mostly refined white bread with some whole grains added.

What to eat instead: Choose only breads that say “100% whole wheat” or “100% whole grain” on the front label.

5. Salads
Salads are often the answer to everything from waistlines to health. However, many fatty concoctions are guzzled under the guise of “salad fixings.” The fact that salad dressing is the number one source of fat in women’s diets attests to the confusion over what is really a healthful salad and what is a fat-laden disaster.

What to eat instead: Salads are great, just heap the plate with leafy greens and other plain vegetables, such as grated carrots, mushrooms, raw broccoli flowerets, alfalfa sprouts, tomatoes, radicchio lettuce, purple cabbage, cucumber and sweet red pepper.

Skip anything mixed with oil, mayonnaise, cheese or whipped cream. This includes potato or pasta salads, Mexican meat or cheese sauces, tuna mixed with mayonnaise, egg salad, macaroni and cheese, tartar sauce and Waldorf salad. A one-ladle serving of these foods could contribute up to three tablespoons of fat to the meal. Remember that one small ladle drizzles two tablespoons of dressing onto your plate, or up to four teaspoons of fat and 170 calories. In essence, too much of the wrong dressing can transform four cups of low-fat vegetables into a 70% fat calorie lunch! Place some low-fat dressing in a small dish and dunk your fork lightly into the dressing before each bite.

 

 

mypetfat

I’m speechless, once again. (and yes, for those who know me, that’s a rare occasion)

So I have a dog. I’ve had lizards. I’ve had fish. I’ve had rats. I’ve had cats. I’ve had rabbits. But I’ve never had a piece of fat as a pet.

mypetfatTM is an unforgettable, highly successful “visual” approach to weight loss that was created to inspire and motivate anyone who wants to…

- lose a little bit of weight
- lose a massive amount of weight
- maintain their weight
- eat more mindfully
- eat healthier
- achieve their fitness goals

Founded on 3 principles; consciousness, choice, and conditioning,

mypetfatTM supports all diet and exercise plans. We have customers from all over the world who are on…
weight watchers… curves… body for life… atkins… – and many more.

And for those who are curious, how much a lump of fat costs, mypetfatTM offers several tempting choices!

mini mypetfat = 220 calories

what is it… a 1oz. anatomically correct replica of body fat. what’s it do… small and very portable it visually motivates and reminds you to stay on any dieting, exercise or wellness program. how’s it used… people keep it close at hand, on a desk, in their car, by the sink, in a purse or near a scale. the skinny… made of soft, pliable, vinyl plastic each mini mypetfat comes in it’s own metal tin and user’s guide.

How handy! It comes in a metal tin, for easy carrying?! It’s all yours, for $19.99.

They also offer: 1lb. mypetfat = 3,500 calories and a 5lb. mypetfat = 17,500 calories.

I don’t know. I’m not really sold on it. My gym back is heavy enough.
My old sized 16 pants that are crammed in the back of my closet are all the motivation I need.

FTC fines weight loss pill firms $25M

Hmm …

WASHINGTON – The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday fined the marketers of four weight loss pills $25 million for making false advertising claims ranging from rapid weight loss to reducing the risk of cancer.

FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras said the products would remain on store shelves, but that the companies would have to stop making the false claims.

“What we challenge is the marketing of the claims,” she said. “The marketers are required to back up the claims with the science and if they can’t do that they can’t make the claim. But we don’t ban the products from the shelves.”

The FTC investigated a variety of claims made — including rapid weight loss and reduction in the risk of osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s and even cancer, Majoras noted.

Fines were levied against marketers of Xenadrine EFX, One A Day Weight Smart, CortiSlim and TrimSpa.

Telephone calls to the marketers seeking comment were not immediately returned Thursday.

Majoras said that some of the money paid as civil fines would be returned to consumers. “We always try to get money back when consumers have been deceived,” she said. “In this instance I’m pleased to say that I believe we’re going to get millions back from some of these products to be able to return it to consumers.”

The largest fine was levied against two marketers of Xenadrine EFX, made by New Jersey-based Nutraquest, Inc., formerly known as Cytodyne Technologies. The marketers will pay at least $8 million and as much as $12.8 million. A federal lawsuit has been filed in Newark, N.J. The marketer was identified as RTC Research & Development, LLC, based in Manasquan, N.J.

A $12 million fine was assessed against seven marketers of CortiSlim and CortiStress. The marketers were identified as Window Rock Health Laboratories, based in Brea, Calif.

The Bayer Corp., based in Morristown, N.J., will pay a $3.2 million civil penalty to settle the claims. TrimSpa, based in Whippany, N.J., will pay $1.5 million. Goen Technologies Corp., also based in Whippany, marketed TrimSpa.

Majoras cautioned the estimated 70 million Americans trying to lose weight not to turn to pills.

“You’re not going to find weight loss in a bottle of pills,” she said.

She said the FTC investigation found that the marketers of Xenadrine had a study that said those who took a placebo actually lost more weight than those taking the pill.

“They not only didn’t have studies to support the claim, they actually had a study that went the other way,” she said.

Some of the products marketed their claims through infomercials or celebrity endorsements. Anna Nicole Smith, for example, has endorsed TrimSpa.

“Testimonials from individuals are not a substitute for science,” Majoras said. “And that’s what Americans need to understand.”

(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070104/ap_on_he_me/weight_loss_pills)