Olive Oil

Water

Are You Drinking Enough Water??

How Sweet It Is: If You’re Eating Crabs, Check an Index

Glycemic Index by Percentage Groups

Insulin Index

Dietary choices are critical to delay the onset of aging and age-related diseases, and the sooner you start, the greater the benefit. There is overwhelming evidence about the The Modified Mediterranean Diet  which not only prevents the disease but also slows down the progress of the disease. New research has shown modified Mediterranean diet is better than low fat diet.

The Mediterranean diet is not designed to promote rapid weight loss, although gentle weight reduction will be a beneficial effect of following the anti-aging diet guidelines. Because you are what you eat, an anti-aging diet will help you stay young, healthy, and active.

Some Simple Modified Mediterranean Diet Guidelines

1. Decrease sugar intake because this is low in most of the micronutrients essential for good health.
2. Reduce consumption of dairy products. They are highly allergenic.
3. Fish is more favored over poultry.
4. One to two eggs a day is acceptable if you are in good health.
5. Limit red meat to only a few times per month (consumption should be limited to a maximum of 12-16 ounces of lean meat per month).
6. Fresh fruit is the typical daily dessert. Sweets and desserts rich in saturated fatty acids should not be consumed more than a few times a week. Total fat should be around 30% of energy with saturated fat not more than 7-8% of energy (calories).

Olive Oil

Olive oil, which is high in monounsaturated fat and is a good source of anti-oxidants. In the Mediterranean, olive oil is the principle source of fat. Olive oil should always replace, not add to, other sources of fat, such as butter and margarine. The value of using olive oil in preference to other plant oils, particularly those high in polyunsaturated fats, is based on several considerations.

1. High intakes of linoleic acid, the main polyunsaturated fat in many other vegetable oils, may compete with omega-3 fatty acids in biochemical processes. The result is that there may be an increased tendency of blood clotting, leading to cardiovascular disease.
2. Two, some research has indicated that diets high in mono-unsaturated fat is less likely to lead to LDL cholesterol oxidation. This may reduce the incidence of atherosclerosis.
3. In animal studies, diets high in polyunsaturated fats have been found to promote the development of tumors. 

Fruits and vegetables high in vitamin C are associated with a reduced death risk from all causes including heart disease and stroke. Even small increases in levels of vitamin C in the blood reduced the risk of heart disease and death in healthy adults.

Fruit juice contains little to no fiber. Fructose from the juice increases sugar triglyceride , and contribute to atherosclerosis,  Diabetes, and  sugar intolarance( Syndrome X).

Water:

In the developed world, Americans, we have a different kind of water problem. Americans by their excessive consumption of caffeinated beverages, may be drinking themselves straight into a state of dehydration. And by doing so, say researchers, they are likely sabotaging the effectiveness of their exercise and nutrition program.

According to a new survey conducted by the Nutrition Information Center, Americans drink an average of only 4.6 cups of water a day- a far cry from the 10 recommended for optimal hydration and muscle function. Worse yet, results of another survey conducted earlier this year in 14 major U.S. cities showed that most Americans are countering the positive effects of the little water they are getting by drinking an average of 5.9 servings daily of diuretic and dehydration-promoting beverages, such as coffee and soft drinks.

And when you couple that with the fact that it’s common for individuals to dehydrate by 2% to 6% of their body weight during exercise, the result, as you can imagine, isn’t good. Often, this can mean sluggishness, dulled senses, stalled muscle growth, a general sense of fatigue and an all-around lack of peak performance.

What’s more, research has shown that dehydration can cause a significant drop in an individual’s resting metabolic rate and result in the body using a higher percentage of energy from carbohydrates as opposed to fat. Thus, people who inadvertently dehydrate may be reducing the effectiveness of their nutrition and exercise programs by lowering their metabolic rates and altering the types of fuel their bodies use for energy.

It’s no wonder then that the survey’s researchers say you’ll be doing your body a big favor by drinking an additional glass of water for each cup of coffee or tea you consume. For instance, if, during the course of a day, you have two cups of coffee, simply be sure to drink 12 cups of water that day, instead of 10.

The bottom line is, maintain fluid intake-drink at lease 10 glasses of water a day! In fact, during aerobic exercise, it may be a good idea to hang onto a water bottle and drink often. This will maintain proper hydration and ensure that your body’s burning what you want it to burn-fat!

If water is not replaced in the body during exercise, total blood volume will drop and oxygen delivery will be hindered because blood is more than 50% water. Both the heart and the brain need water to maintain balanced electrolytes for proper function. "Even a 1% to 2% drop in water in the body will cause problems in performance," says Kristen Clark, Ph.D., R.D., director of sports nutrition at the Center for Sports Medicine at Penn State University. "The earliest symptoms are loss of concentration and fatigue."

The more dehydrated you are, the more your performance suffers. A 3% to 5% drop in water level can create headaches, cramping, dizziness, and nausea. That 3% dehydration in the body also causes a 10% drop in contractile strength, and an 8% drop in speed. Severe dehydration can lead to heat stroke, and even, in extreme cases, death.

Proper hydration also protects internal organs and tissues and improves the efficiency of the cardiovascular system. A lack of water sends the cardiovascular system into a panic, especially during exercise. For every 2 lbs of water lost through exercise, your heart rate elevates about eight beats per minute; cardiac output declines about one liter of blood per minute; and your body temperature rises about 0.3^o Celsius. Water reduces this heat buildup and helps remove the waste material generated by cells as they process water, oxygen, and nutrients.

Staying well hydrated offers a psychological boost as well. Water makes you feel better, which increases the chances that you’ll finish your planned workout. "With the average person, performance, per se, isn’t the issue: enjoyment is," points out Clark. "And if you don’t feel well because you’re tired or losing concentration, it increases the chances that you’ll stop the activity sooner, whether you’re riding your bike, jogging, or lifting weights."

Are You Drinking Enough Water??

• We all know that water is important but I've never seen it written down like this before.
• 75% of Americans are chronically dehydrated.
• In 37% of Americans, the thirst mechanism is so weak that it is often mistaken for hunger.
• Even MILD dehydration will slow down one's metabolism as much as 3%.
• One glass of water shuts down midnight hunger pangs for almost 100% of the dieters studied in a University of Washington study.
• Lack of water is the #1 trigger of daytime fatigue.
• A University of Washington study indicates that 8 to 10 glasses of water a day could significantly ease back and joint pain for up to 80% of sufferers.
• A mere 2% drop in body water can trigger fuzzy short-term memory, trouble with basic math, and difficulty focusing on the computer screen.
• Drinking 8 to 10 glasses of water daily decreases the risk of colon cancer by 45%, plus it can slash the risk of breast cancer by 79%, and one is 50% less likely to develop bladder cancer.

How Sweet It Is: If  You’re Eating Carbs, Check an Index

Everyone's training table needs carbohydrates; there's no argument about that. Our bodies convert carbohydrates to glycogen, which serves as our main fuel in muscles.

The hottest debate about carbs focuses on how many you need in your diet compared with amounts of protein and fat.  For most active people, consuming 40-50% of the diet with high fiber complex carbohydrates like oatmeal, fruits, vegetables and whole grains, plus 30-40% of the diet with high quality proteins like casein, whey, chicken, beef, fish, dairy and eggs, and 20% fat from olive, nut, fish and flax oils, are ideal ranges.

Nonetheless, more than a few nutritionists say Americans are missing a more fundamental question about carbohydrates: Just which ones are best for feeling good and increasing energy? In the 1970s, carbohydrates were divided into simple or complex groups. Nutritionists suggested eating mostly complex carbs, such as produce and beans, while avoiding the simple sugars in table sugar and sweets. Then in the early 1980s, University of Toronto researcher David Jenkins discovered some complex carbohydrate foods actually rushed their way into the bloodstream. Foods such as potatoes and rice led to a fast rise in blood sugar or blood glucose, followed by the matching rapid drop in glucose levels. Jenkins' intention was to discover the best foods for people with diabetes.

He created the glycemic index, which measures how fast carbohydrates in a certain food convert to glucose, which then enters the bloodstream and muscles (as glycogen). The glycemic index basically tracks how fast your blood sugar rises after eating carbohydrate-dense foods, such as fruits, vegetables, grains and processed foods (pasta, bread, cereals, crackers and cookies are measured most often).

In his first study, Jenkins listed values for a variety of foods. The value of glucose (a simple sugar) was 100. All other foods were matched against it and slotted as low-, medium- or high-glycemic foods. More than 300 foods have been cataloged.

Other glycemic indexes were produced, using white bread as the 100 value because it is a common food among Americans. If you are ever confused about why certain foods have different glycemic index values, that's why. Other times you may see a food higher in one listing than another. Whether the food is cooked or raw can change values; the same goes for ripeness. An unripe banana is about 30 points lower in glycemic effect than a ripe one.

Proponents of the glycemic index recommend eating carbohydrate foods lower on this scale for optimal health. Some champions of the index, including nationally known authors, contend that using the rating system is the best way to lose weight and feel healthy. Janet Rankin, a professor in the human nutrition, foods and exercise department at Virginia Tech, isn't that enthralled with the glycemic index.

"People tend to overuse the glycemic index," she said. "It is more valuable at snack time, since that is when we tend to eat single food items."

In general, Rankin said, Americans consume lots of high glycemic foods, such as white bread and bagels. Recognizing high-glycemic foods can help you make better choices. Or you can alter the food's sugar effect by combining it with low-glycemic foods. For example, Rankin said drinking a glass of nonfat milk with your bagel "significantly lowers the glycemic value."

Rankin said high-glycemic foods are most valuable during exercise: "Research shows these foods do their job by getting glucose into the bloodstream quickly when you need it."

The studies are less clear about consuming high-glycemic foods after a workout, though some nutritionists suggest this is about as good a time as any to munch on a sugary treat because your body needs the carbs for recovery.

Dan Benardot, associate dean of nutrition research at Georgia State University, said the glycemic index is a clearly designed instrument but can be confusing in "how to apply it" to everyday eating.

Benardot said the single best change you can make in your daily diet is reducing the size of meals. He proposes eating six small meals rather than three larger ones. This matches up best with the typical blood-glucose cycle of rise, level out and fall.

If you eat more frequently, your body has a more controlled response to foods. Going too long between meals or snacks causes your body to pump out more insulin when you do eat, Benardot said, a condition that causes too much flux in blood glucose.

Nutritionists generally recommend eating more foods low or moderate on the index (less than 50) and selecting more healthy foods among those high on the index. Here are some sample glycemic values, using glucose as the 100-point comparison value.

Breakfast: Cornflakes, 83; Rice Krispies, 82; doughnuts, 76; waffles, 76; Total, 76; Cheerios, 74; bagel, 72; oatmeal, 49; yogurt, sweetened, 33; soy milk, 30.

Lunch: White bread, 71; whole wheat bread, 69; taco shells, 68; cheese pizza, 60; white pita bread, 57; green peas, 48; baked beans, 43.

Dinner: Instant rice, 91; white rice, 88 (some versions as low as 55); baked potato, 83; spaghetti, 40; black beans, 30.

Snacks: Vanilla wafers, 77; orange soda, 68; angel food cake, 67; raisins, 64; ice cream, 61; grapes, 52; orange, 43; Snickers bar, 41; apple, 38.

Glycemic Index by Percentage Groups

Note:  Foods like ice cream have a low glycemic index, but they also have a high fat content. Therefore, their caloric value has to be considered in addition to their possible effect on insulin response.

Insulin Index

Science journalist William Harryman advises that newer research has indicated that an insulin index is more appropriate than the antiquated glycemic index. For example, rice was thought to produce a large insulin surge due to how quickly its carbohydrates enter the bloodstream, but research indicates that it actually produces a very small insulin response. Some foods thought to be low on the glycemic index, such as milk and yogurt, are actually quite high in their insulin production. The suggestion of drinking a glass of non-fat milk with a bagel might reduce the glycemic index, but the insulin surge would be enormous. Other examples include almost all combinations of carbohydrates and fats, unless there is a significant quantity of fiber present. After all, the enemy is the frequent or constant presence of high levels of insulin in the blood.

Comparisons leave out many specific complex carbohydrate foods, like different kinds of vegetables, that are important -- but these are low on the insulin index scale.

Consumption of large volumes of food with a high insulin index may play a role in the development of insulin resistance, although the link has yet to be conclusively established.

Some of the over-simplistic concepts being circulated run along these lines: 

Foods high in carbohydrate have higher glycemic indexes than protein rich foods... and therefore high protein foods (meat/fish) are safer 

Fruits are high in sugar... and therefore have higher glycemic indexes 

A higher glycemic index means the body must produce more insulin... and therefore low glycemic index foods are safer 

A better attempt at understanding how diet affects insulin levels has been proposed by Susanne HA Holt, Janette C Brand Miller and Peter Petocz in their paper entitled "An insulin index of foods: the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods" (Am. J. Clin. Nutr., Nov 1997, Vol.66, Iss.5, p.1264-76). The authors point out that their results are "preliminary", and it must also be noted that only a few foods (38) have been studied. Even so, their food choice method is more realistic, and their method more thorough than the Glucose Index (GI) method. Their conclusions challenge some previous beliefs based on GI findings. 

In this paper, the researchers identify a number of problems with the GI method. The most obvious problems are that GI uses a 50g carbohydrate serving of foods, which is not representative of how people really eat, and also that although protein rich foods produce a low blood glucose response, it does not follow that there is a correspondingly low insulin response. In short, the GI method is inaccurate, incomplete and unrealistic, although perhaps better than nothing. The researchers state that the GI concept does not consider concurrent insulin responses, and that little research reports both a GI value and accompanying insulin responses. Real diets do not consist of meals where single food items are eaten to 50g carbohydrate levels, in addition when foods with different qualities are mixed; the insulin response can be unpredictable. The GI method is not an accurate predictor of insulin response, and the new paper proposes a method for obtaining a more realistic assessment of dietary factors to insulin response, based on a more realistic isoenergetic basis. 

The GI is a ratio of the measure of blood glucose levels found after eating a 50g portion of white bread (or sugar), to a 50g carbohydrate portion of the test food. White bread is often taken as the reference food, and given a score of 100%, so a food that produces half of the blood glucose response over the same test period would be given a score of 50%. In contrast, the Insulin Score (IS) is a ratio based on insulin levels found over 2 hours after consuming a 1000kJ meal of the test food, to a 1000kJ meal of white bread. The equation is similar to that developed for the GI value. The glycemic score measures blood glucose levels in a similar fashion. 

Although personal variations in response to identical meals occurred in the study, the researches found a stable correspondence between foods and insulin and glucose scores across the group. On average the snack foods produced the highest food group IS, followed by bakery products, carbohydrate-rich foods, fruit, protein rich foods and then breakfast cereals respectively (see figure). The researchers found significant variations in foods of the same food group, so food group alone is not a good predictor of insulin or glucose scores. Furthermore, at the food group level, variations are not as dramatic as between specific foods, so that generalization about food groups and insulin or glucose scores are inaccurate. The above graph adapted from the study results, shows the mean glucose and insulin scores of the food groups. 

The researchers did find that jellybeans (made of sugar and animal protein) produced the highest mean IS, whereas peanuts (an oily legume) had the lowest IS. The reference food, white bread, consistently had the highest glucose and insulin responses, and had a higher insulin score than most of the other foods. On average fish produced twice as much insulin secretion as did the equivalent portion of eggs. Amongst the few fruits examined, oranges and apples produced significantly lower scores than grapes and bananas, despite similar carbohydrate content. Potatoes had significantly higher scores than all of the other carbohydrate-rich foods. White and brown rice have similar scores, as do white and brown pasta. Despite containing similar amounts of carbohydrate, jellybeans induced double the insulin secretion as any of the four fruits. These findings are presented in the figure below, showing both scores for all 38 foods, in their food groups. 

From the above data, we can conclude at least, that some fruits do not produce insulin responses much greater than protein rich foods such as beef or fish. Perhaps surprisingly, the insulin scores for cheese, beef and fish are greater than those for starchy foods such as porridge. This will lay rest to the claim that protein rich foods are somehow insulin safe when compared to carbohydrate rich foods. Each food must be evaluated individually, and more realistically, each meal. 

Overall, although GS is a good predictor of IS, the researchers found that the nutrient levels analyzed, only explain 33% of the variation of the insulin response for the foods studied. It seems then, that the individual properties of a food, other than those studied here, account for two-thirds of the remaining insulin response. 

In the authors discussion they conclude that important Western staples, bread and potato were among the most insulinogenic foods. Highly refined bakery and confection also induce substantially more insulin secretion per kilojoule or per gram of food than did other test foods. If any of these high carbohydrate foods were eaten with either fat or protein rich foods, say bread and cheese or meat, or pizza, then the scores would be far higher. The authors also note, as above, that some protein-rich foods induce as much insulin secretion as some carbohydrate-rich foods. Fiber was not found to predict the magnitude of insulin response. Their conclusion is that the findings imply that typical Western diets are likely to be significantly more insulinogenic than traditional whole food diets. The research method is not ideal, because some of the serving sizes, for apples, oranges, fish and potatoes were felt to be unrealistic, presumably due to excess. However, the method is still superior to the crude 50g carbohydrate portions found in GI study meals. The researchers have found that increased insulin secretion did not account for the low glycemic responses produced by low-GI foods such as pasta and porridge. These findings challenge the scientific basis of carbohydrate exchange tables, which are now clearly making invalid assumptions. 

Other important factors such as the rate of gastric emptying, rate of starch digestion, the amount of rapidly available glucose and resistant starch, the degree of osmolarity and the viscosity of the gut's content, must be significant factors in influencing the degree of postprandial insulin secretion. As a cautionary note, the researchers suggest that additional studies are needed to determine whether the IS concept is useful, and reproducible, and more importantly whether it is predictable in a mixed-meal context. When these questions are answered the role of IS in the treatment of diabetes, hyperlipidemia and overweight will be better known. Until then, we can at least dispatch with the some of the urban diet myths that were presented at the top of this article. We can conclude that protein-rich foods are not necessarily some insulinogenic panacea, and that fruits are not some kind of sweet bogeyman. We also find that food refining and mixing is potentially problematic. 

Another related set of pop myths, being circulated again by similar nutri-babble factions, concern the claim that fruits contain so much sugar that they are "addictive", and also that sugar is itself addictive. While it is true that the taste of sugars on the tongue does promote release of satiety chemicals in the brain within seconds (an adaptive feeding reflex common in mammals - perhaps more so in frugivorous primates?), a thorough examination of all Medline papers revealed no relevant papers concerning fruit or sugar consumption and addiction. Intriguingly, although the reporters of these anecdotes identify "cravings" for fruit as suggestive of "addictive" properties, reported cravings for animal foods are somehow seen as adaptive survival reflexes. Should we be concerned about fruit addiction stories? In another light scan of the entire Medline record at Healthgate, I found over 3,500 articles concerning the healthful effects of fruit consumption, but only a handful concerning a few special problems induced by fruit eating in some cases, such as workers at citrus farms suffering tooth erosion. Obviously if fruit really is addictive, then we would expect to find fruit sales soaring above those of cheese and beef, with cattle farmers queuing to buy fruit trees and profit from the new market in addiction - but the cold facts of the matter say otherwise. 

While not wishing to add to the surfeit of dietary anecdotes by peddling more patent absurdities, observations of cycles of bingeing and withdrawal while adding more sweet fruits to the diet have been found. Eventually though, over a period of 1 to 2 years, in all cases I have seen, these "cravings" remedy themselves, and one adopts a more varied diet. Perhaps these "cravings" are in fact some part of a healing and then balancing process, as the body realigns feeding behavior to maintain homeostasis.  As they often say, "more research is needed".