Is the obesity crisis hiding a bigger problem? - Peter Attia - YouTube

Lessons From the Vegans — Denise Minger (AHS14) - YouTube

New Study Suggests Some People Still Think White Bread Is Awesome

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/gr....w529.h352.jpg
Booyah, whole wheat! In your face! Photo: Shutterstock


Entry-level plain white bread, with all its bleached flour, trouble-making gluten, and uncouth carbohydrates, really lost a lot of love from the good sandwich-making people of the United States during the last few years. It's been a victim of local food movements and fad diets, on a clear decline since 2010 when whole wheat surpassed white for the first time ever and everybody basically cheered. Sales are down again this year; 56 percent of shoppers say they want nothing at all to do with white bread; and hell, we even almost lost Wonder Bread when parent company Hostess foundered. But a new study conducted at the University of Oviedo in Spain says, essentially, maybe it's time to stop the hate.

A team of seven researchers looked at fibers and polyphenols found in white bread and oranges, respectively, with relation to production of intestinal microbiota, the vast bacterial colonies that do the heaviest lifting of your digestive process. "In terms of food consumption," researchers write, "probably the most novel finding of our study was the positive association between the intake of white bread and Lactobacillus levels." Specifically, people who ate more white bread had higher numbers of Lactobacilli, which is generally believed to be a good thing and runs contrary to the notion that a favored "prebiotic effect of cereals" comes from whole grain foods. In other words: Up yours, whole wheat.

While the authors of the paper, which appeared in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry last month, write that a number of other factors — everything from mastication to more variables of the other stuff that gets eaten with white bread, like good pickles and fatty brisket — need consideration in subsequent experiments, let's just call it peanut butter jelly time. "[O]ur results reveal that the consumption of refined grains, often undervalued in this regard, could beneficially modulate intestinal microbiota," the researchers write.

How to Become Gluten Intolerant (Funny) - Ultra Spiritual Life episode 12 - with JP Sears - YouTube

Weizmann Global Gathering 2014: Dr. Eran Elinav - YouTube

How Gut Bacteria Help Make Us Fat and Thin
Intestinal bacteria may help determine whether we are lean or obese
By Claudia Wallis | Jun 1, 2014

For the 35 percent of American adults who do daily battle with obesity, the main causes of their condition are all too familiar: an unhealthy diet, a sedentary lifestyle and perhaps some unlucky genes. In recent years, however, researchers have become increasingly convinced that important hidden players literally lurk in human bowels: billions on billions of gut microbes.

Throughout our evolutionary history, the microscopic denizens of our intestines have helped us break down tough plant fibers in exchange for the privilege of living in such a nutritious broth. Yet their roles appear to extend beyond digestion. New evidence indicates that gut bacteria alter the way we store fat, how we balance levels of glucose in the blood, and how we respond to hormones that make us feel hungry or full. The wrong mix of microbes, it seems, can help set the stage for obesity and diabetes from the moment of birth.

Fortunately, researchers are beginning to understand the differences between the wrong mix and a healthy one, as well as the specific factors that shape those differences. They hope to learn how to cultivate this inner ecosystem in ways that could prevent—and possibly treat—obesity, which doctors define as having a particular ratio of height and weight, known as the body mass index, that is greater than 30. Imagine, for example, foods, baby formulas or supplements devised to promote virtuous microbes while suppressing the harmful types. “We need to think about designing foods from the inside out,” suggests Jeffrey Gordon of Washington University in St. Louis. Keeping our gut microbes happy could be the elusive secret to weight control.


An Inner Rain Forest

Researchers have long known that the human body is home to all manner of microorganisms, but only in the past decade or so have they come to realize that these microbes outnumber our own cells 10 to one. Rapid gene-sequencing techniques have revealed that the biggest and most diverse metropolises of “microbiota” reside in the large intestine and mouth, although impressive communities also flourish in the genital tract and on our skin.

Each of us begins to assemble a unique congregation of microbes the moment we pass through the birth canal, acquiring our mother's bacteria first and continuing to gather new members from the environment throughout life. By studying the genes of these various microbes—collectively referred to as the microbiome—investigators have identified many of the most common residents, although these can vary greatly from person to person and among different human populations. In recent years researchers have begun the transition from mere census taking to determining the kind of jobs these minute inhabitants fill in the human body and the effect they have on our overall health.

An early hint that gut microbes might play a role in obesity came from studies comparing intestinal bacteria in obese and lean individuals. In studies of twins who were both lean or both obese, researchers found that the gut community in lean people was like a rain forest brimming with many species but that the community in obese people was less diverse—more like a nutrient-overloaded pond where relatively few species dominate. Lean individuals, for example, tended to have a wider variety of Bacteroidetes, a large tribe of microbes that specialize in breaking down bulky plant starches and fibers into shorter molecules that the body can use as a source of energy.

Documenting such differences does not mean the discrepancies are responsible for obesity, however. To demonstrate cause and effect, Gordon and his colleagues conducted an elegant series of experiments with so-called humanized mice, published last September in Science. First, they raised genetically identical baby rodents in a germ-free environment so that their bodies would be free of any bacteria. Then they populated their guts with intestinal microbes collected from obese women and their lean twin sisters (three pairs of fraternal female twins and one set of identical twins were used in the studies). The mice ate the same diet in equal amounts, yet the animals that received bacteria from an obese twin grew heavier and had more body fat than mice with microbes from a thin twin. As expected, the fat mice also had a less diverse community of microbes in the gut.

Gordon's team then repeated the experiment with one small twist: after giving the baby mice microbes from their respective twins, they moved the animals into a shared cage. This time both groups remained lean. Studies showed that the mice carrying microbes from the obese human had picked up some of their lean roommates' gut bacteria—especially varieties of Bacteroidetes—probably by consuming their feces, a typical, if unappealing, mouse behavior. To further prove the point, the researchers transferred 54 varieties of bacteria from some lean mice to those with the obese-type community of germs and found that the animals that had been destined to become obese developed a healthy weight instead. Transferring just 39 strains did not do the trick. “Taken together, these experiments provide pretty compelling proof that there is a cause-and-effect relationship and that it was possible to prevent the development of obesity,” Gordon says.


Gordon theorizes that the gut community in obese mice has certain “job vacancies” for microbes that perform key roles in maintaining a healthy body weight and normal metabolism. His studies, as well as those by other researchers, offer enticing clues about what those roles might be. Compared with the thin mice, for example, Gordon's fat mice had higher levels in their blood and muscles of substances known as branched-chain amino acids and acylcarnitines. Both these chemicals are typically elevated in people with obesity and type 2 diabetes.

Another job vacancy associated with obesity might be one normally filled by a stomach bacterium called Helicobacter pylori. Research by Martin Blaser of New York University suggests that it helps to regulate appetite by modulating levels of ghrelin—a hunger-stimulating hormone. H. pylori was once abundant in the American digestive tract but is now rare, thanks to more hygienic living conditions and the use of antibiotics, says Blaser, author of a new book entitled Missing Microbes.

Diet is an important factor in shaping the gut ecosystem. A diet of highly processed foods, for example, has been linked to a less diverse gut community in people. Gordon's team demonstrated the complex interaction among food, microbes and body weight by feeding their humanized mice a specially prepared unhealthy chow that was high in fat and low in fruits, vegetables and fiber (as opposed to the usual high-fiber, low-fat mouse kibble). Given this “Western diet,” the mice with obese-type microbes proceeded to grow fat even when housed with lean cagemates. The unhealthy diet somehow prevented the virtuous bacteria from moving in and flourishing.

The interaction between diet and gut bacteria can predispose us to obesity from the day we are born, as can the mode by which we enter the world. Studies have shown that both formula-fed babies and infants delivered by cesarean section have a higher risk for obesity and diabetes than those who are breast-fed or delivered vaginally. Working together, Rob Knight of the University of Colorado Boulder and Maria Gloria Dominguez-Bello of N.Y.U. have found that as newborns traverse the birth canal, they swallow bacteria that will later help them digest milk. C-section babies skip this bacterial baptism. Babies raised on formula face a different disadvantage: they do not get substances in breast milk that nurture beneficial bacteria and limit colonization by harmful ones. According to a recent Canadian study, babies drinking formula have bacteria in their gut that are not seen in breast-fed babies until solid foods are introduced. Their presence before the gut and immune system are mature, says Dominguez-Bello, may be one reason these babies are more susceptible to allergies, asthma, eczema and celiac disease, as well as obesity.

A new appreciation for the impact of gut microbes on body weight has intensified concerns about the profligate use of antibiotics in children. Blaser has shown that when young mice are given low doses of antibiotics, similar to what farmers give livestock, they develop about 15 percent more body fat than mice that are not given such drugs. Antibiotics may annihilate some of the bacteria that help us maintain a healthy body weight. “Antibiotics are like a fire in the forest,” Dominguez-Bello says. “The baby is forming a forest. If you have a fire in a forest that is new, you get extinction.” When Laurie Cox, a graduate student in Blaser's laboratory, combined a high-fat diet with the antibiotics, the mice became obese. “There's a synergy,” Blaser explains. He notes that antibiotic use varies greatly from state to state in the U.S., as does the prevalence of obesity, and intriguingly, the two maps line up—with both rates highest in parts of the South.


Beyond Probiotics

Many scientists who work on the microbiome think their research will inspire a new generation of tools to treat and prevent obesity. Still, researchers are quick to point out that this is a young field with far more questions than answers. “Data from human studies are a lot messier than the mouse data,” observes Claire Fraser of the University of Maryland, who is studying obesity and gut microbes in the Old Order Amish population. Even in a homogeneous population such as the Amish, she says, there is vast individual variation that makes it difficult to isolate the role of microbiota in a complex disease like obesity.

Even so, a number of scientists are actively developing potential treatments. Dominguez-Bello, for example, is conducting a clinical trial in Puerto Rico in which babies born by cesarean section are immediately swabbed with a gauze cloth laced with the mother's vaginal fluids and resident microbes. She will track the weight and overall health of the infants in her study, comparing them with C-section babies who did not receive the gauze treatment.

A group in Amsterdam, meanwhile, is investigating whether transferring feces from lean to overweight people will lead to weight loss. U.S. researchers tend to view such “fecal transplants” as imprecise and risky. A more promising approach, says Robert Karp, who oversees National Institutes of Health grants related to obesity and the microbiome, is to identify the precise strains of bacteria associated with leanness, determine their roles and develop treatments accordingly. Gordon has proposed enriching foods with beneficial bacteria and any nutrients needed to establish them in the gut—a science-based version of today's probiotic yogurts. No one in the field believes that probiotics alone will win the war on obesity, but it seems that, along with exercising and eating right, we need to enlist our inner microbial army.

Hitler's Hidden Drug Habit: Secret History - YouTube

Poop Back and Forth, Forever. - YouTube

NuSI Hall Study: No Ketogenic Advantage (ICO 2016) - YouTube

HABIT WILL OFFER PERSONALIZED DNA-BASED DIETS DELIVERED TO YOUR DOOR

Habit will be launching its healthy meal service in January of 2017 and all their recipes will contain one special ingredient: your genetics.

Charles Costa Oct 27, 2016

Dieting is one of the hottest industries in the world, filled with tens of thousands of products promising to help users live longer, longer lives and lose significant amounts of weight. The common goal, when it comes to most people’s diets, is pretty simple: they’re looking to become “healthier.” How they go about reaching their goals, however, varies wildly in both style and complexity. For most, dieting is significant challenge, made even more challenging by the one thing we’re stuck with: our genetics.

To address this often-overlooked layer of complexity, there is a developing field of science known as, nutrigenomics. Eating Well has a good in-depth discussion on the topic, but the science boils down to an appreciation and application of the fact that genetics have a significant impact on metabolism, appetite, and other characteristics critical to the necessary inputs and eventual outputs of dieting.

A new startup is placing this science at the heart of its service: Habit. Their plan is to provide personalized diets to people using their DNA to drive the menus. Their offering also tries to boil down the science to bits and bites, allowing users to discover their unique scientific characteristics in a language they speak—like ideal ratios of carbs, fats, and proteins, and general nutritional statuses via biomarkers such as Vitamin A, carotenoids, and omega-3 fatty acids.

To use the service, users first collect their own DNA sample (don’t worry, there are instructions and timers and stuff). The sample is sent over to a partner company that processes the specimen in a CLIA and CAP certified lab. Applying proprietary algorithms, Habit’s Nutrition Intelligence Engine identifies the user diet type and recommends foods and nutrients based on the profile. From there a team of chefs creates fresh meals and delivers them to each doorstep.

If they so choose, users can download and use Habit’s companion mobile app to share details of their meals, experience and progress. Fact: People on health kicks love to share (their thoughts, not their food).

Habit’s program is based on a few key elements:

• DNA: Genotype determines whether genes are turned on or off. When they’re expressed, the genetic information is used to make proteins, including enzymes and polypeptide hormones which impact metabolism.
• Phenotype: The observable expression of user genes, it describes how internal (physical) and external influences (food) affect the body’s biology. Weight, activity levels, age, and core measurement are just a few essential metrics.
• Phenotype Flexibility: This is an analysis used to understand how the body responds to food. Habit replaces a user meal with the shake, and then measures several nutrition biomarkers after consumption. This provides more granular insight into how the body reacts to fats, carbs, and protein.
• Habits and Goals: Habit not only works with your DNA but with your personal goals, employing registered dietitians and offering “coaching” services to achieve a generally healthy lifestyle.
• Nutrition Intelligence Engine: Proprietary algorithms and decision trees are applied based on nutrition biomarkers, body basics, genetic variations in the user DNA, activity level, health goals, and food preferences. This is the brain that creates the personalized diets for each end user.

There’s a lot going on there, but at the end of the day, the company promises a pretty straight forward final product: a delicious meal.

Habit was founded by Neil Grimmer (who also founded Plum Organics back in 2005) and has an advisory board that includes a few members of the Institute of Systems Biology and the Vice President of Global Nutrition and Health at Campbell Soup Company. Habit will be launching their Beta program in select locations in January 2017. You can sign up for the waitlist on their website.

https://www.snapmunk.com/personalized-dna-diets-habit/

What's in your chicken sandwich? DNA test shows Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

Marketplace had chicken from 5 major fast food restaurants tested

By Pete Evans and Eric Szeto, CBC News Posted: Feb 24, 2017 8:00 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 24, 2017 8:00 PM ET



https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...ef136f8985.jpg
Subway's oven-roasted chicken sandwich patty contained about 50 per cent chicken DNA, according to Marketplace's tests.

If you're one of many Canadians who opt for chicken sandwiches at your favourite fast food restaurant, you may find the results of a CBC Marketplace investigation into what's in the meat a little hard to swallow.

A DNA analysis of the poultry in several popular grilled chicken sandwiches and wraps found at least one fast food restaurant isn't serving up nearly as much of the key ingredient as people may think.

In the case of two popular Subway sandwiches, the chicken was found to contain only about half chicken DNA.

Will Mahood, a loyal customer who considered Subway chicken sandwiches a lunchtime staple, was alarmed by the findings. To Mahood, messages from fast food companies can make it sound like "you're taking it straight from a farm and it's just a fresh piece of meat."

DNA researcher Matt Harnden at Trent University's Wildlife Forensic DNA Laboratory tested the poultry in six popular chicken sandwiches.

An unadulterated piece of chicken from the store should come in at 100 per cent chicken DNA. Seasoning, marinating or processing meat would bring that number down, so fast food samples seasoned for taste wouldn't be expected to hit that 100 per cent target.

The Peterborough, Ont.-based team tested the meat in:

• McDonald's Country Chicken - Grilled
  
• Wendy's Grilled Chicken Sandwich
  
• A&W Chicken Grill Deluxe
  
• Tim Hortons Chipotle Chicken Grilled Wrap
  
• Subway Oven Roasted Chicken Sandwich
  
• Subway Sweet Onion Chicken Teriyaki (chicken strips)

In the first round of tests, the lab tested two samples of five of the meat products, and one sample of the Subway strips. From each of those samples, the researchers isolated three smaller samples and tested each of those.

They were all DNA tested and the score was then averaged for each sandwich. Most of the scores were "very close" to 100 per cent chicken DNA, Harnden says.

• A&W Chicken Grill Deluxe averaged 89.4 per cent chicken DNA
  
• McDonald's Country Chicken - Grilled averaged 84.9 per cent chicken DNA
  
• Tim Hortons Chipotle Chicken Grilled Wrap averaged 86.5 per cent chicken DNA
  
• Wendy's Grilled Chicken Sandwich averaged 88.5 per cent chicken DNA

Subway's results were such an outlier that the team decided to test them again, biopsying five new oven roasted chicken pieces, and five new orders of chicken strips.

Those results were averaged: the oven roasted chicken scored 53.6 per cent chicken DNA, and the chicken strips were found to have just 42.8 per cent chicken DNA. The majority of the remaining DNA? Soy.

"That's misrepresentation," Irena Valenta, a Toronto resident who participated in a Marketplace taste test, said after seeing the test results.

Subway said in a statement that it disagrees with the test results.

"Our recipe calls for one per cent or less of soy protein in our chicken products."

"We will look into this again with our supplier to ensure that the chicken is meeting the high standard we set for all of our menu items and ingredients."

What else is in there?

On the whole, Marketplace's testing revealed that once the ingredients are factored in, the fast food chicken had about a quarter less protein than you would get in its home-cooked equivalent. And overall, the sodium levels were between seven and 10 times what they would be in a piece of unadulterated chicken.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...7c7eb96028.jpg
Grilled chicken products are often marketed as the healthy alternative, but consumers may not always know what they are biting into.

Ben Bohrer, a food scientist at the University of Guelph, doesn't know exactly how the chicken products Marketplace tested are made, but he's very familiar with what the fast food industry calls "restructured products".

Restructured products are essentially smaller pieces of meat or ground meat, bound together with other ingredients to make them last longer, taste better and, as Bohrer puts it, "add value" — restaurant speak for cheaper.

The sandwiches tested contain a combined total of about 50 ingredients in the chicken alone, each with an average of 16 ingredients. The ingredients run the gamut from things you would find in your home such as honey and onion powder to industrial ingredients — all of which, Bohrer insists, are safe and government approved for human consumption.

McDonald's, A&W and Wendy's wouldn't break down exactly what ingredients are used in what proportions, citing proprietary information. Tim Hortons had no comment and directed Marketplace to their website.

Healthy alternative?

Nutritionist and registered dietitian Christy Brissette notes that most products in that alphabet soup ingredient list are simply variants on salt or sugar, the latter of which can elevate the carbohydrate level of a chicken breast to well above where it should be: zero per cent.

Before they saw the test results, both Valenta and Mahood said they chose chicken because they thought they were making a healthier choice — "the chicken is supposed to be the healthier type of meat," as Valenta put it.

But Brissette says it's important for consumers to not allow themselves to buy into the "halo" of health around such products.

"People think they're doing themselves a favour and making themselves a healthy choice," she says. "But from a sodium perspective you might as well eat a big portion of poutine."

What's in your chicken sandwich? DNA test shows Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken - Business - CBC News