ALCOHOL CALORIES 'TOO OFTEN IGNORED'

According to the World Cancer Research Fund, alcohol makes up nearly 10% of total calorie intake among drinkers. Having a large glass of wine will cost you the same 178 calories as eating two chocolate digestive biscuits. And it will take you more than a half hour's brisk walk to burn off.

Empty calories

Eating or drinking too many calories on a regular basis can lead to weight gain.  Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

Recent reports have shown that people are unaware of calories in drinks and don't include them when calculating their daily consumption”

Kate MendozaWorld Cancer Research Fund

But unlike food, alcoholic drinks have very little or no nutritional value. The 'empty calories' in drinks are often forgotten or ignored by dieters, says the WCRF.

Kate Mendoza, head of health information at WCRF, said: "Recent reports have shown that people are unaware of calories in drinks and don't include them when calculating their daily consumption." Containing 7kcal/g, alcohol is only slightly less calorific than fat, which contains 9kcal/g. Protein and carbohydrates contain 4kcal/g and fibre 2kcal/g.

Men need around 2,500 calories a day, and women around 2,000.

"Cutting down on drinking can have a big effect on weight loss or maintaining a healthy weight," said Ms Mendoza. It can also reduce your risk of cancer, she said. Alcohol has been linked with breast, bowel, mouth and liver cancer.

If you don't want to abstain entirely, there are ways that can help you cut down, including opting for smaller glass sizes, diluting alcohol with soda water or a low-calorie soft drink, alternating between alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks and keeping a few nights each week booze-free.

WCRF has produced an Alcohol Calorie Calculator for different drinks that shows approximately how much exercise you would need to do to burn off the alcohol calories you consume.

Government guidelines recommend men should not regularly drink more than 3-4 units of alcohol a day, and women should limit themselves to 2-3 units a day.

A standard 175ml glass of wine contains about two units and a large 250ml glass contains about three units.

If you have had a heavy drinking session, you should avoid alcohol for at least 48 hours, experts advise.

Our facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Perzonal-Trainer/492595214099791?ref=hl

EATING FISH TIED TO LOWER RISK OF COLON POLYPS

NEW YORK - Women who eat about three servings of fish per week have a somewhat lower chance of having polyps found during a routine colonoscopy than women who eat just one serving every two weeks, according to a new study.

The research doesn't prove that seafood protects against polyps, but it "does increase our confidence that something real is going on," said Dr. Edward Giovannucci, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, who was not involved in this study.

A polyp, also called an adenoma, is a mushroom-shaped tag of tissue that grows in the colon and can develop into colorectal cancer.

The idea researchers have been pursuing is that the omega-3 fats in fish might have an anti-inflammatory effect, similar to aspirin, that could prevent the development of polyps.

Giovannucci said that earlier experiments in animals have showed that omega-3 fats can reduce the risk of this cancer, but that studies of humans have had mixed results.

In the latest study, the researchers surveyed more than 5,300 people about their eating habits. All of the participants had come in to the researchers' practices for a colonoscopy. The team then compared more than 1,400 women without polyps to 456 who had adenomas detected during the procedure. Among women with adenomas, 23 percent were in the bottom fifth among fish eaters, while 15 percent were in the top fifth. That means people who eat lots of seafood are somehow protected against polyps, because otherwise the percentages should have been the same. After accounting for differences like age, smoking and aspirin use, women who ate the most fish -- three servings a week -- were 33 percent less likely to have a polyp detected than those who ate the least -- less than a serving a week. Of course, it's never possible to rule out that other factors could explain the findings. For instance, it's possible that fish lovers have other healthy behaviors that decrease their risk of polyps. What's more, the study didn't follow the women to see whether either group was more likely to go on to develop cancer. But Dr. Harvey Murff, the lead author of the study and a professor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, said polyps are a reliable predictor for cancer risk. "Adenomas are generally believed to be the precursor" to cancer, Murff said. "You would think most things that would reduce adenoma risk would subsequently reduce cancer risk." A 33 percent lower risk is not enormous, but Giovannucci said "it is important because colorectal cancer is a common cancer."

About 140,000 new cases of colon and rectal cancer are diagnosed each year in the United States, and more than 50,000 people will die from the cancer. The lifetime risk of developing the disease is about 20 percent, according to the American Cancer Society.

The men in Murff's study who ate a lot of fish did not see the same reductions in polyp risk as women, however. Murff said he doesn't have a good explanation for that, but perhaps men are less sensitive to the omega-3s in fish and need to eat more to get any benefit. It could also be that men might eat more omega-6 fats, counteracting the effects of the omega-3s. Omega-6 fatty acids are related to the production of a hormone called prostaglandin E2, which is associated with inflammation. Murff explained that eating omega-3 fatty acids tamps down the body's levels of omega-6 fatty acids. In turn, the body then has reduced levels of prostaglandin E2. He and his colleagues demonstrated this by showing that the women in the study who ate more fish -- and presumably, more omega-3s -- had lower levels of prostaglandin E2. "We know people who have higher levels of this (hormone) are more likely to develop colorectal cancer. So in essence, by eating more omega-3 fatty acids, it's almost like taking an anti-inflammatory medication," Murff said.

There is still more work to be done to prove that the omega-3 fatty acids are actually the reason for the reduced colorectal cancer risk. But, Giovannucci said, "I think this (association) has a pretty strong biologic rationale."

Find us on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Perzonal-Trainer/492595214099791?ref=hl

WEIGHT LOSS MAY PREVENT LEAKY BLADDER IN DIABETES

NEW YORK - Overweight women with diabetes may be able to cut their risk of urine leakage if they shed some pounds, a new study suggests.

Extra pounds, especially in the belly, are considered a risk factor for urinary incontinence. And some studies have found that when overweight women drop even a modest amount of weight, they can curb their risk of incontinence.

Type 2 diabetes, which often goes hand-in-hand with obesity, is also a risk factor for urine leakage, regardless of weight. So weight loss could be especially helpful for heavy women with diabetes -- but studies hadn't looked at the question until now.

In the new study, researchers found that overweight diabetic women who took up diet and exercise changes lost an average of 17 pounds over a year. And with the weight loss came a lower risk of developing incontinence.

Over a year, 10.5 percent of women in the diet-and-exercise group developed new problems with urine leakage. That compared with 14 percent of women who had not made lifestyle changes. "Overweight and obese women with type 2 diabetes should consider weight loss as a way to reduce their risk of developing urinary incontinence," lead researcher Suzanne Phelan, of California Polytechnic State University, said. And of course, she added, there are already known benefits of shedding those extra pounds -- like better diabetes control and a lower risk of heart disease.

The findings are based on 2,739 middle-aged and older women who were part of a larger diabetes study. At the outset, the women were randomly assigned to one of two groups. In one group, the women were encouraged to cut calories and exercise for three hours a week. The other group had three diabetes education sessions. Overall, women in the lifestyle group had a lower rate of urinary incontinence over the next year. And it didn't take a lot of weight loss to start to make a difference, Phelan's team found.

For every two pounds a woman lost, the odds of developing incontinence dipped by three percent. On the other hand, weight loss did not seem to help women who already had urine leakage problems at the study's start. "We aren't sure why weight loss appeared to impact prevention but not resolution of urinary incontinence," Phelan said. It's possible, she said, that weight loss is more effective at preventing, rather than treating, urine leakage. Or there may simply have been too few women with existing urinary incontinence to detect an effect of weight loss, Phelan added. It's also unclear how to account for the drop in incontinence risk -- it might be related to the exercise or the blood sugar reduction, for instance.

Urinary incontinence is very common among women -- in large part because vaginal childbirth is a major risk factor.

One recent study of U.S. adults found that about 53 percent of women older than 20 said they'd had problems with urine leakage in the past year. That was up from less than half of women surveyed several years earlier. Researchers said the increase was partly explained by rising rates of diabetes and obesity.

Like us on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Perzonal-Trainer/492595214099791?ref=hl

MOMS' BOSSINESS AT SNACK TIME TIED TO KIDS' WEIGHT

NEW YORK - Mothers who push their toddlers to eat more at snack time may end up with a heavier child, a new study suggests.

Researchers found that when moms were overly "intrusive" during their young children's snack time, their kids tended to be a bit chubbier by the age of 3. It's not clear whether parents' pushiness actually leads to excess weight gain in their preschoolers. And the weight differences seen in this study were small.

Still, experts already suggest that parents take a more relaxed approach to young kids' meals. That is, give them healthy food choices, but back off when it comes to how much they eat.

Toddlers are famously finicky eaters. And parents often worry their child might not be eating enough, Dr. Julie C. Lumeng, lead researcher on the new study, said in an interview. "So their toddler doesn't want to eat, but parents are saying, 'Come on, honey. Eat, eat, eat!'" said Lumeng, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. It's thought, she explained, that parents may end up "overriding" their little one's ability to listen to the body's natural "satiety signals" -- the brain's way of telling you to stop eating.

A number of studies have pointed to links between parents' "controlling" behavior at meal time and their children's risk of being overweight. But one problem with those studies is that they relied on questionnaires that essentially ask parents if they're pushy at the dinner table. "With this study, we said let's actually observe what mothers are doing," Lumeng said. To do that, the researchers had 1,218 moms come to the research lab, then videotaped them during a 10-minute snack with their child. Families came three different times -- when the child was 15 months, 2 years and 3 years old. Overall, moms who were most "intrusive" during the snacks tended to have heavier kids -- even when factors like family income and race were taken into account.

Lower-income and minority children generally have a higher risk of obesity than white, middle-class kids and studies have found that their moms also tend to be more controlling at meal time, the authors note in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. "Intrusive" in this study meant pushing toddlers to eat rather than offering food, Lumeng explained -- saying, for example, "You know you like it. Take another bite." The association between pushiness and kids' weight was a small one, Lumeng said. If, for example, all of a mother's snack time "prompts" were of the assertive variety, her child would move up slightly on the body mass index (BMI) scale -- akin to moving from the 50th percentile to the 57th, Lumeng explained. And the study has its limits. Videotaping moms has advantages over questionnaires. But it was also done in the research lab, and does not necessarily reflect what's happening at home, Lumeng said. So she and her colleagues are starting a study where they will have low-income families videotape typical meals at home, to see whether parent-child interactions are related to kids' weight.

For now, Lumeng suggested that parents follow experts' current thinking: Give your young children healthy food, but allow them to control how much they eat at a time. "Children will naturally eat the proper amount," she said. If you're worried that your toddler is not getting enough food, Lumeng said, talk to your pediatrician. "Often," she noted, "the kids parents are worried about are actually a very healthy weight."

Find us on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Perzonal-Trainer/492595214099791?ref=hl