skip to main |
skip to sidebar
So there's a drink out there called Borba. No, not boba, that drink with the great big gell-ball things in them. Borba. It's "skin balance water." On the bottle, it claims to "diminish skin's dryness, sensitivity and roughness" (at least that's what it says on the lychee-flavored bottle that Pound360 tested).
It's expensive, too. The bottle we got was on sale for $2.50 (which, we believe was 50 percent off). It tasted okay. Zero calories. But we didn't notice whether or not our skin was any less dry, sensitive or rough.
Now, we wouldn’t argue that this stuff is useless. We're pretty sure if you drink, say, 10 bottles of Borba a day, there would be an impact on skin health (it's tough to tell because it only says to drink Borba "daily" on the bottle -- but neglects to say how much daily -- to "enhance skin").
To make sure consumers know what they're getting into, the manufacturers of this stuff should be required to say exactly how many bottles a day are required to maintain the advertised results. Yes, a big black sticker that says, "It is required that you drink 10 bottles a day of this stuff to get the advertised result." That way a consumer understands it will take $50 per day (if it actually takes 10 bottles daily to get the result) or $1,500 per month to get the same result that, say, you could get from an $8 bottle of skin moisturizer.
Basically, fresh fruit wins. Of course. Yes, dried fruit packs more fiber and nutrients into a smaller package (the same package, basically, without the water), but a number of nutrients (like iron and vitamin C) are lost in the drying process, reports the NY Times. For example, drying apricots wipes out 75 percent of their iron and 95 percent of their vitamin C.
Yes. According to an article at the London Times. White bread is better for you than wheat when it comes to minerals and calcium absorbtion.
Here's why. Since World War II, the flour used to make white bread has been fortified with calcium, iron, vitamin B1 and nicacin. This combination means "white bread triumphs" over whole wheat in the mineral category.
Also, fiber blocks your body's absorption of calcium. So you absorb more calcium from a slice of white bread than wheat.
Sure, whole wheat bread has more fiber (and we at Pound360 think it tastes better), but grab a stalk of celery if you're worried about it.
The Times piece, "Five 'bad' foods that can be good for you," also had positive things to say about red meat (it has the same amount of fat per serving as chicken), ice cream (it's a low-GI food that controls appetite, and a low-cal alternative to super-rich deserts like cheese cake) and butter (one of the few natural foods with vitamin D).
You've seen the "superfood" label on fruits, vegetables and fruit-vegetable hybrids (like Odwalla smoothies) at the store. But some superfoods aren't so super, reports Ask Men.
The fake not-so-super foods are soy and whetgrass juice. Soy can steal a man's sex drive, interfere with your body's ability to digest protein and make it difficult for you to absorb some minerals. Ask Men concludes soy is "neck in neck with Saran Wrap for nutritional content." That's a little harsh. But we've been keeping a skeptical eye on soy for some time here at Pound360.
The other supposed faker, wheatgrass juice, is no more nutritious than "an equivalent amount of broccoli," says Ask Men. But what if Broccoli is a superfood, as Dole swears and the Daily Mail suggested a couple years back?
Depends on the source you trust. I don't entirely trust Dole (they've got broccoli to sell). And it's hard for me to take the Daily Mail list too seriously since they list baked beans as a superfood. But I take it seriously enough to conclude Ask Men is probably stretching a bit on the wheatgrass slam.
A single serving of processed meat (like sausage, bacon, ham or hot dogs) can boost your risk of colon cancer by 20 percent. This according to a World Cancer Research Fund (WCF) study, and reported by the Daily Mail, which noted, "The sobering statistic adds to growing evidence that too much meat in the diet can be deadly."
But not all meat is so risky. It's processed meats that are heavily salted or treated with chemicals that are most dangerous. The processing boosts levels of carcinogens knows as "N-nitroso compounds."
One WCF science advisor referred to processed meat consumption like smoking a cigarette. "The evidence is that whether you are talking about bacon, ham or pastrami, the safest amount to eat is none at all."
For years we've heard 8 glasses of water a day are needed to maintain good health. But a new Dartmouth study, reported by Reuters, finds there's "no real good science -- no real science at all -- behind these claims."
Unfortunately, it seems, flushing toxins from the body, improving skin tone, reducing hunger and keeping headaches away have little to do with how much water you drink. When examining the connection between each of these benefits and water consumption, Dartmouth researchers found the link was "not verified," there was "evidence lacking," or that there was "no consistent evidence."
In the end, however, nobody seems to have been hurt. And that's the important part. "While it may not help a person to drink lots of water, it may not harm them much either," one Dartmouth researcher explained.
What’s better for you and the environment, soy milk or cow’s milk? Let’s look at it from a nutritional and environmental standpoint.
Nutritionally speaking, it’s pretty much a toss up, according to an article I found at a random website (sorry I couldn’t do better, but there’s very little out there on this subject). Cow has an edge in protein (3.34g per cup compared to soy’s 1.91g), but soy milk is lower in calories (33 compared to 61 calories). Soy has no cholesterol compared to cow’s 14mg, and it has 1.3g of fiber whereas cow has none. But milk has slightly more (.2g) essential amino acids. Milk also has (a little) more calcium.
At “GoAskAlice.com,” (Alice, I presume) suggests that, “Fortified soy milk provides almost the same dietary value as cow milk.” So where nature makes soy and cow milk different, man has evened the score (to compete in the marketplace, of course).
Speaking of markets, profit and all that, Newstarget.com’s Mike Adams doesn’t like soy milk because it’s gotten too commercial. Adams blames “profit-seeking corporations” for loading supermarket-grade soy milk with sugar leaving it “nutritionally inferior.” He also gripes about farmers using genetically modified soy beans (Why is that bad? Seriously?) and the clearing of rainforests to plant crops.
For the record, consider that cows have to eat and drink something to make milk. And from what I understand, it takes ten plant calories (which may very well come from clear-cut rainforests) to make one animal calorie. In other words, a cow needs to eat 610 calories of plants to make one 61-calorie serving of milk. Thus, compared to soy, it would take ten-times the crop land to get the same amount of cow milk.
Considering that, it’s not hard to believe it takes more than a thousand gallons of water to yield one gallon of milk.
Back to our friend Mike Adams, he doesn’t like cow’s milk either. Aside from being “alarmingly high in pus,” pasteurization destroys “beneficial microorganisms” and alters its fat in a way that “ultimately harms the human cardiovascular system.”
What does Mikey like? Fermented raw milk (high in probiotics) and raw almond milk (rich in cancer-fighting phytonutrients).
One other thing, from that random article referenced earlier, Pound360 learned that soy milk appears to have an edge in certain amino acids (arginine for boosting the immune system, alanine for breaking down sugar and aspartic for boosting stamina) and it has more thiamin, niacin, magnesium (for absorbing calcium), copper (for bone formation) and manganese (for storing iron, neural transmission and protein metabolism).
The NY Times “Well” blog is taking on “Medical Myths Even Doctors Believe.” Among them, we find that you don’t need eight glasses of water per day (you get enough water through the foods you eat and drinks like coffee, orange juice), dim light doesn’t ruin your eyesight (it just makes eyes tired) and shaving doesn’t cause hair to grow back more vigorously (we’ve actually known that since studies on the subject in 1928).
So why do these myths persist? The Times doesn’t get into that, but I’d guess they nag on because they seem to make so much sense. And often times, there’s a kernel of truth in there that buoys the nonsense.
For example, the Times tackles the myth of turkey making you drowsy (which we’ve discussed in this blog previously). Sure, you get tired after eating turkey. But think of the times you normally eat it. Holiday meals, right? It’s not the turkey it’s the tremendous amount of energy your body needs to focus on digestion that’s making you tired.
In the Times article, they explain there’s just as much tryptophan in turkey as beef or chicken. Also, there’s more of the amino acid in cheese and pork.
You’ve no doubt heard of studies showing the health benefits of chocolate. It can make you smarter, reduces blood pressure, and more. But a recent editorial at the Lancet tries to keep chocolate off the health food shelf at the supermarket.
I would link directly to the article, but you have to have a subscription or something to see it, so you can read about the article at the NY Times.
At the Times, we learn that the Lancet points out, “the very thing that makes chocolate good for you -- the antioxidants called flavanols -- also make chocolate taste bitter.” Therefore, candy makers pull most of the flavanols out of milk chocolate and all of them out of white chocolate.
But where in any of the recent studies has anyone said anything about eating a regular Hershey’s milk chocolate bar to lower blood pressure? It’s always been about eating dark chocolate. And in moderation, of course. We get that chocolate is high in calories and fat. And it’s not a substitute for doing some sit-ups and taking a jog.
Also described in the NY Times piece, a new study shows “measurable improvements in blood flow and vascular function and less clotting” among heart patients taking dark chocolate.
Pound360 isn’t pulling dark chocolate from the menu anytime soon.
Pound360 was saddened earlier this year when research found garlic does not lower cholesterol. But a new article at the New York Times reveals other benefits of garlic, as well as a tip for keeping your breath fresh after eating it.
Researchers at the University of Alabama found garlic cranks up your body’s output of hydrogen sulfide. Yes, that’s poisonous at high levels and it’s a byproduct of refining oil. But at the levels your body produces, it simply relaxes blood vessels and increases blood flow. Also, in lab mice, a hydrogen sulfide booster protected the heart from damage during a heart attack.
To get the benefits, you need to eat two garlic cloves per day. And sorry, data on supplements is “mixed”, so don’t rely on those. And please don’t whine about having to eat two whole cloves of garlic. Koreans and Italians eat eight to 12 per day.
Worried about bad breath? According to the Times, “eating fennel seeds like those served at Indian restaurants helps to neutralize the smell.”
The dreaded question has faced health-conscious people for as long as turkeys have been served: white or dark? Conventional wisdom says white meat is better. And it is, technically. But practically speaking it’s a toss-up, reports the NY Times this week
A serving (one ounce) of white meat has 46 calories and one gram of fat. A serving of dark has 50 calories and 2 grams of fat. But you get added nutritional benefit with those four extra calories and a gram of fat. Dark meat carries more iron, zinc, riboflavin, thiamine, vitamin B6 and B12.
Pound360 is not a medical blog, and not maintained by doctors, but we think the added nutritional benefit is worth those extra four calories and a gram of fat.
What makes white meat different from dark meat? Dark meat is muscle that turkey’s use more, so it has higher levels of “myoglobin,” “a compound that enables muscles to transport oxygen, which is needed to fuel activity.” Since turkeys (and chickens) don’t fly, dark meat is found in and around the legs.
A new book by Gary Taubes takes a controversial look at the question, what should you eat? Food in our society is plentiful, convenient and cheap, so the question is more crucial than ever. But is Taubes on the right track? Pound360 likes what he has to say, but we remain skeptical.
So what should you eat? Less carbs, says Taubes. According to the New York Times book review, “Taubes argues at length that people get fat because carbohydrates in their diet drive up the insulin level in the blood, which in turn encourages the storage of fat.” In other words, “a calorie of fat is much less fattening than a calorie of sugar.”
This of course runs counter to conventional wisdom, but Taubes argues there are a lot of misconceptions floating around about food. “Much of what we’ve come to believe is wrong,” says Taubes. Bad science, he argues, has led to confusion about the relationship between what we eat and serial killers like cancer, obesity and heart disease. For example, Taubes demonstrates how there’s not much of a link between cholesterol and heart disease, salt and high blood pressure, or fiber and reduced cancer risk.
“Taubes convincingly shows that much of what is believed about nutrition and health is based on the flimsiest science,” acknowledges the Times.
However, if “all calories are not alike,” wonders the Times, how is it that people on controlled diets don’t gain weight, no matter what the balance between protein, fat and carbohydrates is adjusted to? Research in the 1950s showed this.
Another issue here is the whole low-carb thing. We’ve been through this with the Atkins craze. And from what Pound360 recalls, the Atkins didn’t perform any better over time than any other diet.
Last night the NBC Nightly News, something strange happened: they led the broadcast with a health story. I watch the Nightly News a lot, and that’s very, very unusual. There’s a war in Iraq, soldiers killing pro-democracy demonstrators in Myanmar, and they lead with a report about the connection between alcohol and cancer.
The findings, according to the Nightly News Report: one drink a day increases a woman’s risk for developing cancer by 10 percent. Three drinks increases the risk 30 percent. Does 10 drinks a day give you a 100 percent chance? They didn’t say.
But it’s not jus the NBC news that’s flipping over this story (yes, I consider leading the broadcast with a health, or science, story “flipping”). There are hundreds of results from the last 24 hours at Google News for “alcohol breast cancer,” with sensational headlines like, “Any 3 alcohol drinks a day boost breast cancer risk by 30%.”
Anyhow, the Nightly News asks, “should women be concerned?” I don’t think so (but I’m not a doctor, so my opinion doesn’t count and nobody should listen to me). Who drinks a drink every single day? If you do, you probably have bigger problems. Yes, we’ve all heard the research that a drink a day decreases the risk of heart disease, but who really does this? Now, three drinks a day? Again, bigger problems, people.
The Nightly News also puts these findings in context by pointing out, “women who smoke a pack of cigarettes a day have about a 2000 per cent increase in their risk for lung cancer.”
Over at the Wired Science blog, the latest post is, “Overreacting to Alchohol's Breast Cancer Risks.” In it, they point out that, “there's a world of difference between having a few to many drinks and having a few too many drinks every single day.”
If you’re faithfully devouring pounds and pounds of fruits and vegetables each day to lower your risk of colon cancer, we at Pound360 have some bad news: another study shows healthy eating does little in the fight.
This time, our friends at the University of Montreal found “higher intake of fruits and vegetables does not strongly reduce your risk of colon cancer,” reports WebMD.
This is indeed lame news for those of us dedicated to boring, healthy diets full of fruits and vegetables (I’m one of those). But it’s great news if you regularly treat yourself to burgers, fries and ice cream in place of broccoli, tofu and carrots.
As a consolation for us healthy-eating suckers (if you can even call a diet rich in fruits and vegetables healthy anymore), WebMD assures us that, “a diet rich in fruits and vegetables is still recommended for a number of other reasons.” Although they didn’t dig into details on what those reasons might be.
Sigh… I’m off to get a bucket of onion rings from Burger King.
I came across a headline straight out of Bizzaro World today at ABC News: “Antioxidants May Up Women's Skin Cancer Risk.”
Yup, once wholesome, pure things like vitamin C and E (some common antioxidants), friends of us health-obsessed types for years, are now scarred with asterisks, like Barry Bond’s homerun record in the annals of MLB history.
So here’s the deal. In a French study, researchers found women age 35 to 60 taking a supplement with antioxidants (C, E, beta carotene and selenium) had a 68 percent greater risk of getting skin cancer. That’s a big percent.
Critics of the study say the number of skin cancer cases, 157 out of the 13,000 people in the study, was too small to make any solid conclusions. Also, critics suggest the women were too old for the antioxidants to have an effect.
Still, 68 percent? If the difference were five or 10 percent, then I’d be a bit more onboard with the critics. At the very least, this study strongly contends antioxidants don’t do much good when it comes to fighting skin cancer.
Some experts weren’t surprised by the findings. They point to previous research showing antioxidants do not protect heart health in women and other studies which show beta carotene in high doses can increase lung cancer risk for smokers.
Another interesting observation by researchers, the increased risk was not found in men. Possible reasons for this include the fact that women have higher concentrations of antioxidants in their skin, they have estrogen receptors in their skin and, according to one physician, “women have thinner skin than males.”
For more on disgraced foods and vitamins, check out this post.
After pounding 14 shots of espresso while working her father’s coffee shop, 17-year-old Jasmine Willis “was feeling unwell and crying and laughing uncontrollably in front of bewildered customers.” This according to Britain’s Daily Mail. Dad sent her home, of course, where she managed to get some sleep. But in the morning, her lips were numb and she struggled to breathe, so she was taken to the hospital where the diagnosis was a caffeine overdose.
The ordeal included heat palpitations, uncontrollable sweating, hyperventilation and those uncontrollable emotional outbursts. Yeah, so cocaine should really be… oh, wait… this is a story about a coffee overdose. Sorry.
All this and some scientists wonder if coffee even helps keep people alert. In the Daily Mail story, I also learned a Bristol University study found “levels of alertness among those who drank coffee were almost the same as those who had drunk none.”
But the article is quick to point out that other studies show coffee can delay the onset of Parkinsons and “keep the mind sharp into old age.”
Curious about how much coffee will kill you? Check out this handy calculator. For me, it would take about 87 cups of regular, cheap drip coffee, or if I’m in a hurry to get the job done, I can pound 45 cups of Starbuck’s drip.
You may be used to this argument for tomatoes, but watermelons? Yes, it seems there is a bit of confusion when it comes to classifying watermelons. The reason I bring this up is because I heard today that Oklahoma declared watermelon as the state vegetable. I couldn’t find confirmation that Governor Brad Henry signed it, but the legislature sent him a bill according to this piece.
So what is a watermelon? Just because a state legislature does something doesn’t mean it’s right. Could it be that lobbyist representing the watermelon lobby played a part in this? If I were a few million dollars richer and a lot more bored than I already am tonight, I’d launch a full investigation tomorrow. But I digress.
Let’s turn to our friends Merriam and Webster for some definitions. According to the world famous dictionary, a vegetable is no less than something “of, relating to, constituting, or growing like plants.” Well, that pretty much covers everything doesn’t it? Sticks, leaves, roots, fruit and all. Okay. Let’s look up the definition of fruit. According to the dictionary, a fruit is “a product of plant growth.” Okay. Sounds exactly like a vegetable, yeah? Well, another part of the definition reads, “the ripened ovary of a seed plant and its contents.” Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. Kind of.
Over at Wikipedia, things get even murkier with their entry for “watermelon.” According to their definition, the term watermelon, “refers to both fruit and plant of a vine-like herb.” Wait. Herb? Is that a plant or a fruit? And how is Wikipedia using the term plant? Check that quote out again. How is “plant” different than the “fruit?” Isn’t the fruit part of the plant?
I went to the Wiki entry for plant and it didn’t help. Plants, according to the entry, are exactly what you’d think: everything on earth except for single celled organisms (bacteria, eukaryotes), fungus and animals.
After becoming utterly confused (and rethinking my decision not to pursue the scandalous Oklahoma watermelon lobby conspiracy) I went to the Wiki for vegetable and got some comforting info. According to the entry, “Vegetable is a culinary term which generally refers to an edible part of a plant. The definition is traditional rather than scientific and is somewhat arbitrary and subjective.”
There, you see? When science is pulled out of the equation, all manor of chaos erupts. This reminds me of the whole “definition of a planet” thing.
Now, botanically speaking (we’re talking science, now), “fruits are reproductive organs (ripened ovaries containing one or many seeds).” This leaves “vegetative organs which sustain the plant” to be vegetables. Finally, some reason. So, a watermelon is not a vegetable. It’s a fruit. Oklahoma state legislature, you are wrong.
But the Oklahoma state legislature is not the first to foul up the distinction between fruit and vegetable. In 1893, the Supreme Court ruled that, “a tomato is a vegetable for the purposes of 1883 Tariff Act.” (See Nix v. Hedden in Wikipedia) This despite the fact that, in scientific terms, a tomato is a fruit.
Another interesting side note has to do with why a watermelon is called a watermelon. Remember its origins lead back to Africa, where watermelons are among the most common melons in the Kalahari Desert. Since they are relatively abundant, and water is not, they became “a popular source of water in the diet of the indigenous people.”
Over at MSN, there’s an article with the interesting title, “Go vegetarian to save money.” I like the idea, but after reading the piece, I wasn’t convinced.
In the article, the author, Scott McCredie, points out that common sources of protein for meat eaters (like beef and chicken which cost around three dollars per pound) are more expensive than proteins that many vegetarians rely on (like beans and tofu which are between one and two dollars per pound).
I happen to know a bit about vegetarian diets, and know a few vegetarians, and tofu rarely, if ever, comes to the table.
Cheese does. So do nuts. And soy milk. Fake meats, too; like soy burgers. I don’t know for sure, but I’d bet gram-for-gram, these proteins cost as much as the animal variety.
McCredie actually acknowledges that fake meat can cost around five dollars per pound. He also acknowledges that vegetables themselves aren’t all that cheap. And if you go for organic veggies, you’re really paying a lot.
So how do you save money by being a vegetarian?
When I saw this article’s headline, I was hoping for results from an actual study of vegetarian, vegan and omnivore shopping carts over the course of a year. But all I got was a lot of speculation. Kind of a let down, especially considering how charged people get when debating the value of a vegetarian diet.
At the end of the piece, McCredie tries to explain that a vegetarian diet is likely to save money later in life because, we’re supposed to believe, vegetarians are healthier. Better health, of course, means you won’t spend so much on medical bills. But are vegetarians really healthier later in life? Is a diet that includes meat necessarily a bad one that leads to poor health? McCredie expects the reader to believe these things without any evidence.
This is pretty concerning. When I see articles like this, it tells me the subject of the article is trendy (in this case, being a vegetarian). Does this make sense? When something is trendy, and people will drop everything and read all about it, almost any half-baked article on the subject gets published. And when that happens, and bad articles like McCredie’s slip through the editorial net at publications like MSN, straw men (in this case, bad articles) are set up for the other side to swagger over and tear to pieces. I wouldn’t even consider myself on the other side of this issue, but I’m sitting here tearing this thing apart.
Look, Mr. McCredie, if you’re reading… or if your editors at MSN are reading… I know your heart is in the right place, but an article like this doesn’t help anyone’s cause. It actually makes vegetarians look like idiots, and gives people critical of them added leverage.
For some real numbers, facts on how vegetarian diets are better, check out past coverage at Pound360:
Vegetarian diet better for losing weightVegetarian diet is better for environment
The New York Times recently took on the myth of raw fish being excessively risky for your health.
In the article, they begin by showing how in the US, doctors tell pregnant mothers to avoid raw fish. However, in Japan (where people actually live longer), they actually encourage pregnant mothers to eat it. Are Japanese doctors crazy? It’s possible, but not likely. “The Japanese government is fanatical about public health, and Japanese medical scientists are among the best in the world,” explains the Times.
So what’s going on? As usual, Americans have distorted the facts to create their assumptions. Most shocking about this is that this distortion actually affects medical “science.” But anyhow…
Raw mollusks (oysters and clams), not fish, are the primary cause of seafood-related illness in the US. In fact, raw oysters and clams account for 85 percent of cases, according to the Times report. Pull that out of the equation and the chances of getting sick from seafood are 1 in 1,000,000. Still scared? Consider this: with chicken, you have a 1 in 25,000 chance.
As I learned in the Times, there are a few reasons that raw fish is relatively safe in the US. One, FDA guidelines require fish is flash-frozen before serving. “This freezing kills any parasites as sure as cooking would.”
Another reason you’re chances of getting sick with raw fish are slim is the type of fish that ends up as sushi. “Most species used for sushi don’t have parasites,” reports the times. Tuna, for example, usually hang out in very deep, cold water that makes them less prone to parasites. Also, sushi restaurants usually stick to farm –raised salmon which don’t have the same parasite problems that wild salmon do. Finally, fish that usually have parasites (for example, cod and whitefish) don’t usually end up on sushi menus.
But who cares if we eat raw fish or not? Fish is healthy, and the reputation that raw fish gets means some “are being scared off fish altogether.”
So don’t be scared.
Last year I mentioned in a post how echinacea probably doesn't do anything for colds. This backedup research from 2005 that found echinacea didn't work any better than a placebo in fighting colds. But according to the latest research, "echinacea may not only help reduce the symptoms of a cold but may help prevent infection with some cold viruses," according to a CNN report.
What are we supposed to believe?
According to the University of Connecticut's Dr. Craig Coleman, who worked on the latest study, previous research only studied one type of cold virus. That's a problem since there are around 200 differnt viruses that cause a cold. Also, the 2005 research I cited earlier was done on a much smaller group than the U Conn study.
Results from the latest research show echinacea cuts cold risk by 58 percent. Take it with vitamin C and your risk goes down 86 percent. That's a pretty big impact.
For the conspiracy nuts out there, consider this: "drug companies cannot patent such a widely used herbal product," according to the CNN report. Am I suggesting that drug companies, a government influenced by the drug lobby, or schools influenced by withheld funding have tampered with, or controled previous echinacea research? Maybe not in a positve way. It could be that the wrong research (stuff that focuses on one kind of cold virus and small sample sizes) has gotten all the funding. How crazy does that sound next to another of today's headlines: "CIA Turned to Mobsters in an Effort to Kill Fidel Castro."
