Are Your Genes Sabotaging Your Diet?

March 10th, 2010 No comments »

I Stumbled across an interesting article by Michael O’Riordan on new a dieting study.  If you have ever wondered why one particular diet works better than this article might shed some light on the reason…but before you jump on the bandwagon make sure you read the last paragraph!

Dieting by DNA? Popular diets work best by genotype, research shows

San Francisco, CA – New data presented last week at EPI|PNAM 2010, the Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention and Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism 2010 Conference, provided some early evidence that the secret to weight loss might lie in DNA and that the best way to shed excessive pounds is to diet according to genotype. Researchers are cautious, of course, but the latest study showed that when individuals were assigned to different diets—including the low-carbohydrate Atkins diet and low-fat Ornish diet—based on their genotype, they lost significantly more weight than those assigned to a diet unsuited to their genetics.

“Say you and your wife went on the Atkins diet, and you both think you followed it religiously, but you lost 13 pounds and she lost nothing and is angry because she followed the same diet. Well, she might have a different genotype,” senior investigator Dr Christopher Gardner (Stanford University, CA) told heartwire. “She isn’t genetically predisposed to do well on a low-carbohydrate Atkins diet.”

Lead investigator on the study was Dr Mindy Dopler Nelson (Stanford University).

From A to Z to DNA          

The new data are derived from a study the group previously conducted in 311 overweight women who were randomized to four popular diets: the very-low-carbohydrate Atkins diet, the low-carbohydrate Zone diet, the very-low-fat Ornish diet, and the low-fat LEARN diet. In that trial, known as the Atkins-Traditional-Ornish-Zone (A TO Z) study, which was previously reported by heartwire, women assigned to the Atkins diet had a modest benefit relative to the other diets, but overall results were disappointing in that the women, on average, lost only about 10 pounds.

“Within every diet group, though, some of the women lost more than 30 pounds and kept it off for over a year,” said Gardner. “And some of the women gained more than 10 pounds. Within every diet, the range is at least 40 to 50 pounds. Between the different diets, the weight loss difference was just a few pounds, yet within the group, the difference is much larger. This is actually much more interesting than the difference between groups. How can the responses to the same diet be so different?”

With these data, the researchers were approached by Interleukin Genetics (Waltham, MA), asking them if they could obtain the DNA of the study participants. The company had previously identified three genes—ABP2, ADRB2, and PPAR-gamma—that could predict weight loss. These genes were shown to predict weight loss in three different studies, were biologically plausible, and were shown to have gene-diet interaction, said Gardner.

The researchers obtained DNA from 138 women and analyzed the weight loss according to genotype and diet in 133 participants. Among those participants who completed the 12-month study, researchers observed a significant interaction between diet assignment and weight loss after taking genotype pattern into consideration.

Women assigned to a genotype-appropriate diet lost 5.3% of their body weight compared with just 2.3% among those not matched to genotype (p=0.005). Within the Atkins group, for example, those appropriately assigned by genotype lost approximately 12 pounds compared with 2 pounds for those who lacked the low-carbohydrate genotype. In the Ornish group, similar reductions in weight were observed among those appropriately assigned by genotype.

Gardner said the proportion of individuals who were genetically predisposed to the low-fat or low-carbohydrate diets is roughly 50-50, so a significant number of people will fall into each category. He stressed, however, that all individuals assigned to the diet groups were instructed to make healthy, wholesome food choices.

“If they were on low-carbohydrate and high-fat, they weren’t told to eat butter and whipped cream but to eat nuts, seeds, and fatty fish,” he said. “If they were on the low-fat diet, they weren’t told to just eat low-fat Snackwell cookies but to eat veggies, whole grains, and beans. I get worried when people just say low-carbohydrate or low-fat because they don’t really understand what that means. This is what really undermines the whole public-health low-fat message.”

Part of the whole nutrition puzzle

Commenting on the results of the study for heartwire, Dr Lawrence J Appel (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD) said there is interest in the genetic underpinnings of nutrition, but these provocative findings need to be replicated by other researchers. He stressed, however, that the environment is key in reducing obesity worldwide.

“This is an area of burgeoning interest,” said Appel, “but the obesity epidemic occurred pretty quickly, over the past 10 or 20 years, and our genetic pool did not change in the same period. Our obesity epidemic is an environmental problem. Given the environment, genes might influence the response to the environment, but are the genes causal? No. It’s likely that the environment has a dominant impact.”

  • Share/Bookmark

Start Making Small Changes!

March 1st, 2010 No comments »

London, UK - The US must focus on simple things to improve outcomes for heart disease—such as encouraging lifestyle changes and good control of hypertension—rather than just concentrating on grand technological gestures and drug use, a new editorial in the Lancet concludes [1].

The editorial comments on two new reports [2,3], the first of which, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), consists of 572 pages and shows that—despite an age-adjusted decline in mortality from heart disease of 41% between 1990 and 2007—heart disease remains the leading cause of death in the US. In 2006, almost 650 000 Americans died from heart disease, it states.

The second report, from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and featured by heartwire earlier this week, specifically addresses hypertension and calls for better management of high blood pressure in the US.

Also increasing exponentially is the prescription of drugs, with use of statins increasing almost 10-fold, from 2% in 1988-1994 to 22% in 2003-2006 in people aged 45 or older, and use of antidiabetic drugs in the same age group rising by about 50%.

“Although blood cholesterol concentrations have been dropping, [the report] also shows that a pharmacological approach alone is not enough to control and manage the escalating burden of heart disease in the USA,” the Lancet editorial comments.

Lifestyle risk factors are neglected in the US, it adds, where 22% of men and 17% of women still smoke, a third of adults are classified as obese, and less than a third of the population engages in regular leisure-time physical activity.

And hypertension is another example of “an easily preventable, simple-to-diagnose, and inexpensive-to-treat disorder related to heart disease.” Yet nearly one-third of the US population (73 million adults) is currently hypertensive, and one in six adults there dies from hypertension-related complications, as detailed in the IOM report, the editorial says.

“Chronic heart disease places an unnecessary burden on the American people and the US healthcare system. Strategic resource reallocation directed at local communities can reach a large number of individuals to provide substantial improvements in population well-being. Small changes can make big differences,” the editorial concludes.

My Suggestion:

Cut out the extra sugar in your diet!  Added sugars are an integral part of the American diet today. We are on a sugar binge. Sugar consumption is 22 to 30 teaspoons per person, per day. Our hedonism packs on 350 to 480 worthless calories that we cannot afford.

The heart association’s new recommendations are 100 calories a day (about 6 1/2 level teaspoons) of added sugars for women and 150 calories (9+ level teaspoons) for men.

Sources

  1. State of the heart in the USA. Lancet 2010; 375:697.
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health, United States, 2009. February 17, 2010. Available here.
  3. Institute of Medicine. A Population-Based Policy and Systems Change Approach to Prevent and Control Hypertension. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010. Available at here.
  • Share/Bookmark

My Favorite Shoulder Mobility Drill Series

February 25th, 2010 No comments »

I have recently been working on Girevoy sport lifts which require high volume kettlebell lifts.  Working high repetitions of any exercise requires specific focus on recovery.  Think of recovery as more than just taking time off, but including joint mobility exercises.  Moving the body in specific fashion helps move nutrients in and waste out which speeds healing.

One of the areas I feel the GS lifts is in my shoulders and one of my favorite series of shoulder mobility drills is the “Tea Cup” movements from the Baguazhang internal martial arts.  Steve Cotter does a brilliant job of explaining the “Tea Cup” exercises in the following videos.

Good luck and keep those rotator cuffs healthy!!

  • Share/Bookmark

My Soy Dilemma, Part 1

February 22nd, 2010 No comments »

I am struggling with a choice that my wife and I have been making for the past couple months.  My seven month old daughter weaned herself last month and now is solely consuming formula.  The dilemma comes from my daughter having a dairy intolerance and so we have been giving her a soy based formula.  This tells you which side of the fence I am on, but I am still wrestling with the choice.  The pro soy side talks about the heart health, cholesterol lowering, anti-cancer benefits of soy.  The con side talks of soy depressing thyroid function, hormone impact (male fertility), and causing cancer.  So over the next few weeks I will share a series of posts that has led me to my decision to give my daughter a soy based formula.  However, I am open to discussion on what is best, so with your input and comments I am willing to re-evaluate my position. 

Here is what we know… 

Soybeans provide a complete protein that calorie for calorie has twice the protein as red meat and ten times the protein as whole milk.  Soybeans contain EFAs in the form of omega-3s, iron, calcium, phosphorous and a good source of B vitamins. 

Cultures have subsisted on soy for generations without ill effects.  The studies that show negative effects from soy are largely conducted on animals which does not always translate to humans (think Thalidomide, Phen-Phen, and Opren for examples).  However, those cultures did not eat the amounts of soy that we currently eat or in the processed forms we consume.  The change from soybeans, tofu, tempeh, and miso to soy “meats, cheeses, ice creams” and soybean oil in processed foods.  This is overlaid with genetically modified soy, thank you Monsanto (typed sarcastically).  We also can not ignore the pesky phytoestrogens and isoflavones in soy which have been called estrogen mimickers because they are structurally similar.

A little bit of doubt…   

Is there a problem then if we only eat organically grown soy?  I am not convinced, but reading Dr. Mike Fitzpatrick’s, an environmental scientist, work has me doubting my decision.  Here is a quote from Dr. Mercola commenting on a study by Dr. Fitzpatrick:

Folks, soy formula is one of the worst foods that you could feed your child. Not only does it have profoundly adverse hormonal effects as discussed above, but it also has over 1000% more aluminum than conventional milk based formulas. 

Let me know which side of the soy controversy you are…pro- or con- and why.

To be continued…

  • Share/Bookmark

Indian Club Swinging: What is Old is New Again!

February 21st, 2010 1 comment »

Active recovery is all the rage right now and one of the best tools to use are light weight clubs or Indian Clubs.  Just because it is popular now doesn’t mean that it is new so here is a classic club twirling video, a collection of quotes for light club work, and an updated take on the benefits of club swinging.   Take a step into the time warp…

  • “… besides the great recommendation of simplicity, the Indian Club practice possesses the essential practice of expanding the chest and exercising everymuscle in the body concurrently.” –Indian Club Exercises, by E.B. Warman (1921)
  • “The effect of these exercises, when performed with light clubs, is chiefly a neural one, hence they are primary factors in the development of grace, coordination and rhythm. As they tend to supple the muscles and articulation of the shoulders and to the upper and fore arms and wrist, they are indicated in cases where there is a tendency toward what is ordinarily known as “muscle bound.” – The United States Army Manual of Physical Training(1914)
  • “[Indian Clubs] cultivate patience and endurance, and operate most happily upon the longitudinalmuscle of the back and shoulders, thus tending to correct the habit of stooping.” — The New Gymnastics for Men, Women and Children by Dio Lewis (1867)
  • “The club exercise will do much to develop the proper outlines of the shoulders back and waist. The man who uses the clubs diligently will never need to have his coats “built out” on the shoulder or padded on the front and rear.” — Indian Clubs by C.R. Treat (1869)
  • “Indian club exercises have of late years become one of the most universal methods of developing the muscular anatomy of the human body. Schools, colleges and even theological seminaries have adopted their use in their respective institutions with the most beneficial results. For keeping the body in a healthy and vigorous condition there has as yet been nothing invented, which for its simplicityand gracefulness can be favorably compared with the Indian Club exercise.” — Indian Clubs and Other Exercises by M. Bornstein (1889)

What was old is now made new!

Check out Scott Sonnon explaining the areas of the body engaged by club swinging.



Clubbell Equipment


  • Share/Bookmark