Burger King

Scientists Officially Link Processed Foods To Autoimmune Disease.

Posted by

0


microwave meals could be to blame for a sharp increase in autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, including alopecia, asthma and eczema.

processed-foodsA team of scientists from Yale University in the U.S and the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, in Germany, say junk food diets could be partly to blame.

‘This study is the first to indicate that excess refined and processed salt may be one of the environmental factors driving the increased incidence of autoimmune diseases,’ they said.

Junk foods at fast food restaurants as well as processed foods at grocery retailers represent the largest sources of sodium intake from refined salts.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal sent out an international team of researchers to compare the salt content of 2,124 items from fast food establishments such as Burger King, Domino’s Pizza, Kentucky Fried Chicken, McDonald’s, Pizza Hut and Subway. They found that the average salt content varied between companies and between the same products sold in different countries.

U.S. fast foods are often more than twice as salt-laden as those of other countries. While government-led public health campaigns and legislation efforts have reduced refined salt levels in many countries, the U.S. government has been reluctant to press the issue. That’s left fast-food companies free to go salt crazy, says Norm Campbell, M.D., one of the study authors and a blood-pressure specialist at the University of Calgary.

Many low-fat foods rely on salt–and lots of it–for their flavor. One packet of KFC’s Marzetti Light Italian Dressing might only have 15 calories and 0.5 grams fat, but it also has 510 mg sodium–about 1.5 times as much as one Original Recipe chicken drumstick. (Feel like you’re having too much of a good thing? You probably are.

Bread is the No. 1 source of refined salt consumption in the American diet, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Just one 6-inch Roasted Garlic loaf from Subway–just the bread, no meat, no cheeses, no nothing–has 1,260 mg sodium, about as much as 14 strips of bacon.

How Refined Salt Causes Autoimmune Disease

The team from Yale University studied the role of T helper cells in the body. These activate and ‘help’ other cells to fight dangerous pathogens such as bacteria or viruses and battle infections.

Previous research suggests that a subset of these cells – known as Th17 cells – also play an important role in the development of autoimmune diseases.

In the latest study, scientists discovered that exposing these cells in a lab to a table salt solution made them act more ‘aggressively.’

They found that mice fed a diet high in refined salts saw a dramatic increase in the number of Th17 cells in their nervous systems that promoted inflammation.

They were also more likely to develop a severe form of a disease associated with multiple sclerosis in humans.

The scientists then conducted a closer examination of these effects at a molecular level.

Laboratory tests revealed that salt exposure increased the levels of cytokines released by Th17 cells 10 times more than usual. Cytokines are proteins used to pass messages between cells.

Study co-author Ralf Linker, from the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, said: ‘These findings are an important contribution to the understanding of multiple sclerosis and may offer new targets for a better treatment of the disease, for which at present there is no cure.’

It develops when the immune system mistakes the myelin that surrounds the nerve fibres in the brain and spinal cord for a foreign body.

It strips the myelin off the nerves fibres, which disrupts messages passed between the brain and body causing problems with speech, vision and balance.

Another of the study’s authors, Professor David Hafler, from Yale University, said that nature had clearly not intended for the immune system to attack its host body, so he expected that an external factor was playing a part.

He said: ‘These are not diseases of bad genes alone or diseases caused by the environment, but diseases of a bad interaction between genes and the environment.

‘Humans were genetically selected for conditions in sub-Saharan Africa, where there was no salt. It’s one of the reasons that having a particular gene may make African Americans much more sensitive to salt.

‘Today, Western diets all have high salt content and that has led to increase in hypertension and perhaps autoimmune disease as well.’

The team next plan to study the role that Th17 cells play in autoimmune conditions that affect the skin.

‘It would be interesting to find out if patients with psoriasis can alleviate their symptoms by reducing their salt intake,’ they said.

‘However, the development of autoimmune diseases is a very complex process which depends on many genetic and environmental factors.’

Stick to Good Salts

Refined, processed and bleached salts are the problem. Salt is critical to our health and is the most readily available nonmetallic mineral in the world. Our bodies are not designed to processed refined sodium chloride since it has no nutritional value. However, when a salt is filled with dozens of minerals such as in rose-coloured crystals of Himalayan rock salt or the grey texture of Celtic salt, our bodies benefit tremendously for their incorporation into our diet.

“These mineral salts are identical to the elements of which our bodies have been built and were originally found in the primal ocean from where life originated,” argues Dr Barbara Hendel, researcher and co-author of Water & Salt, The Essence of Life. “We have salty tears and salty perspiration. The chemical and mineral composition of our blood and body fluids are similar to sea water. From the beginning of life, as unborn babies, we are encased in a sack of salty fluid.”

“In water, salt dissolves into mineral ions,” explains Dr Hendel. “These conduct electrical nerve impulses that drive muscle movement and thought processes. Just the simple act of drinking a glass of water requires millions of instructions that come from mineral ions. They’re also needed to balance PH levels in the body.”

Mineral salts, she says, are healthy because they give your body the variety of mineral ions needed to balance its functions, remain healthy and heal. These healing properties have long been recognised in central Europe. At Wieliczka in Poland, a hospital has been carved in a salt mountain. Asthmatics and patients with lung disease and allergies find that breathing air in the saline underground chambers helps improve symptoms in 90 per cent of cases.

Dr Hendel believes too few minerals, rather than too much salt, may be to blame for health problems. It’s a view that is echoed by other academics such as David McCarron, of Oregon Health Sciences University in the US.

He says salt has always been part of the human diet, but what has changed is the mineral content of our food. Instead of eating food high in minerals, such as nuts, fruit and vegetables, people are filling themselves up with “mineral empty” processed food and fizzy drinks.

Study Source: 
This is the result of a study conducted by Dr. Markus Kleinewietfeld, Prof. David Hafler (both Yale University, New Haven and the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, and Harvard University, USA), PD Dr. Ralf Linker (Dept. of Neurology, University Hospital Erlangen), Professor Jens Titze (Vanderbilt University and Friedrich-Alexander-Universitat Erlangen-Nurnberg, FAU, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg) and Professor Dominik N. Muller (Experimental and Clinical Research Center, ECRC, a joint cooperation between the Max-Delbruck Center for Molecular Medicine, MDC, Berlin, and the Charite — Universitatsmedizin Berlin and FAU)

Consumers’ estimation of calorie content at fast food restaurants: cross sectional observational study.

Posted by

0


Abstract

Objective To investigate estimation of calorie (energy) content of meals from fast food restaurants in adults, adolescents, and school age children.

Design Cross sectional study of repeated visits to fast food restaurant chains.

Setting 89 fast food restaurants in four cities in New England, United States: McDonald’s, Burger King, Subway, Wendy’s, KFC, Dunkin’ Donuts.

Participants 1877 adults and 330 school age children visiting restaurants at dinnertime (evening meal) in 2010 and 2011; 1178 adolescents visiting restaurants after school or at lunchtime in 2010 and 2011.

Main outcome measure Estimated calorie content of purchased meals.

Results Among adults, adolescents, and school age children, the mean actual calorie content of meals was 836 calories (SD 465), 756 calories (SD 455), and 733 calories (SD 359), respectively. A calorie is equivalent to 4.18 kJ. Compared with the actual figures, participants underestimated calorie content by means of 175 calories (95% confidence interval 145 to 205), 259 calories (227 to 291), and 175 calories (108 to 242), respectively. In multivariable linear regression models, underestimation of calorie content increased substantially as the actual meal calorie content increased. Adults and adolescents eating at Subway estimated 20% and 25% lower calorie content than McDonald’s diners (relative change 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.96; 0.75, 0.57 to 0.99).

Conclusions People eating at fast food restaurants underestimate the calorie content of meals, especially large meals. Education of consumers through calorie menu labeling and other outreach efforts might reduce the large degree of underestimation.

Discussion

In this study of diners at fast food chain restaurants in four New England cities, we found that participants purchased large meals, and adults, adolescents, and (parents of) school age children underestimated the calorie content of those meals by 175 calories, 259 calories, and 175 calories, respectively. Nearly a quarter of adults, adolescents, and (parents of) school age children underestimated meal calorie content by 500 or more calories. Estimated calorie content was strongly associated with actual calorie content for each of the samples. Noticing calorie information in the restaurant had no effect on the accuracy of calorie estimations.

In a study of 147 fast food restaurant diners at food courts, Chandon and Wansink also found that people underestimated the calorie content of purchased meals, with larger underestimation for higher calorie meals and no association with recognition of nutritional information in the restaurants.2 Compared with that study and other previous research,1 4 our study has the advantages of a large sample size, comparison of diners at six restaurant chains across four cities, recruitment of a racially and ethnically diverse study population in three age groups, and investigation of predictors of underestimation.

Adult and adolescent diners at Subway restaurants estimated lower calorie content than diners at the other chains. These findings suggest a consistent “health halo” for Subway in these age groups. In a study of 518 participants eating meals with equivalent calorie content at McDonald’s and Subway, Chandon and Wansink found that participants estimated 151 fewer calories at Subway than at McDonald’s.3 Participants also ordered side dishes with more calories at Subway. Dieticians also falsely considered equivalent calorie meals to be lower calorie at Subway than McDonald’s.3Our study extends these findings by showing that this “health halo” is unique to Subway across the six chains and is present across age groups in a diverse sample.

Branding could be an important component of Subway’s “health halo.” Marketing researchers have found that brand positioning is particularly important in guiding consumer choices when specific information about products is not available.8 For example, simply labeling a food item as “heart healthy” led consumers in one experiment to conclude that the item conferred a lower risk of heart disease and stroke than similar unlabeled foods.9 Subway’s positioning as a “healthier” fast food option might lead consumers to view its food as lower calorie, especially when calorie information is not readily apparent.

The forthcoming US federal regulation on labeling calorie content on menus could alter this “health halo” by providing easily accessible information on menus and menu boards.10 11 Previous research has found that information can be most powerful when it contradicts previous expectations (in this case, improper estimation of calorie content of foods with a “health halo”).12 Unlike previous state and local regulations, the federal regulation will also require an anchoring statement that indicates recommended total daily calorie requirements. In our study, participants’ estimates of meal calories strongly correlated with their estimates of total daily requirements, supporting inclusion of daily requirements on menus as an “anchor.” Thus far, research about the effects of calorie menu labeling, in both real world and experimental settings, has been mixed.113 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 It is difficult to ascertain why these studies had inconsistent results, but differing study designs, demographic characteristics, the rare use of an anchoring statement, and weight status might be involved.

In addition to providing an anchoring statement on menus, policymakers could perhaps improve menu labeling by supporting social marketing campaigns to better explain the concept of calories. These efforts could bolster not only menu labeling but nutritional labeling of packaged foods.

Conclusion

In this study of over 3000 diners at six fast food restaurant chains across four diverse New England cities, we found that adults, adolescents, and parents of school age children generally underestimated the calories of meals, especially if the meal was large. Adults and adolescents dining at Subway underestimated calorie content more than diners at other chains. The forthcoming calorie menu labeling requirements of the US Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act might help to correct underestimation of calorie content.

What is already known on this topic

  • Consumers are known to underestimate the calorie content of restaurant meals, especially for large calorie meals
  • Previous studies have been conducted in experimental settings without monitoring consumer choices at actual fast food restaurants, have focused on a narrow range of fast food restaurants, or have enrolled samples with limited racial/ethnic or age group diversity
  • All age groups and racial/ethnic groups studied underestimated the calorie content of meals from fast food restaurants

What this study adds

 

Source: BMJ

 

 

What’s in That Big Mac? More Than You ThinkWhat’s in That Big Mac? More Than You Think.

Posted by

0


83075962fastfoodlabels1-14-11crop

Apparently, fast-food frequenters have no idea how many calories they’re ordering up at the counter.

Researchers conducted a large cross-sectional study of 1,877 adults and 330 school-age kids who regularly visited fast-food chains includingMcDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, KFC, Subway and Dunkin’ Donuts. The investigators collected receipts from the participants in order to calculate how many calories the participants consumed from their meals. They also asked the volunteers to estimate the number of calories they had just ordered. At the time of the study, none of the restaurant chains included calorie information on their menus, as many now do.

 

Reporting in the BMJ, the researchers found that on average, adults consumed 836 calories with each order, adolescents ate 756 and kids downed 733 calories. Not only was that a relatively large amount to consume in a single meal, but the participants also consistently underestimated how dense their meals were by an average of more than 100 calories. Adults and kids underestimated their meals by 175 calories, and adolescents by 259 calories.

The more calories the meals contained, the more the participants underestimated their content. Interestingly, the greatest disparity in calorie estimations were among Subway diners. Adults and adolescents who ate at the sandwich chain underestimated their meals by 20% to 25% more than the participants who ate at McDonald’s, possibly because the Subway choices have an aura of being lighter and healthier than those at fast-food chains.

But starting in 2014, as part of the U.S. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), all restaurant chains that have over 20 restaurants in the U.S. must list the calorie content on their foods on menus. The initiative has received some push back from unlikely places, with some public-health experts saying the plan, rolled out in some cities and states, so far hasn’t resulted in a significant change in eating habits. Some studies of the strategy found that customers don’t notice the labels, or even if they do, they don’t influence what they buy.

A 2011 study of New York City consumers, for example, reported that only about a sixth of fast-food diners used calorie information in deciding what to buy and then bought less food on average after city officials introduced the menu labeling to the city in 2008.

In May, two Johns Hopkins obesity experts wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that without a solid understanding of what the calorie counts mean, simply posting the numbers next to menu items will fall short. They wrote:

In jurisdictions that mandated menu labeling in restaurants before the passage of the ACA, calorie information is usually presented in terms of absolute calories (e.g., a hamburger has 250 calories). If customers don’t understand what 250 calories means or how those calories fit into their overall daily dietary requirements, posting that information on a menu may not be very useful. That difficulty may apply particularly to minority populations and those with low socioeconomic status, who are at highest risk for obesity and tend to have lower-than-average levels of nutritional literacy and numeracy, which may make it difficult for them to translate the information into interpretable equivalents.

However, the 2011 study of New York City diners did reveal that among those who used the calorie information to make eating choices, they purchased on average 106 fewer calories than those who didn’t pay attention to the labels. A significant cut like that could lead to a weight loss of up to 10 lb. a year.

Even if the data don’t yet show that the counts consistently change eating habits, some public-health experts say they may have other benefits. The transparency, for example, is compelling some foodmakers to produce smaller portion sizes and provide lighter options out of concern that high-calorie counts will scare consumers away.

However, other experts say that an obsessive focus on numbers may also backfire. “If [the food industry] responds to that by decreasing portion sizes, that would be great, but if they respond by taking out healthy fats, which is one of the easiest ways to reduce calories, that’s not,” says Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Some healthy foods may actually contain more calories than unhealthy options, and that can be confusing for consumers who are just focusing on the final tally. “For consumers, if you made a choice solely based on menu-calorie labels, you may choose soda over nuts calorie-wise, which is a terrible decision,” he says.

Another approach that may be more successful — and potentially more meaningful for consumers — is to swap calorie counts with more relevant information, like what it would take to burn off those calories. A small study last month showed that when people ordered off menus that listed the minutes of walking needed to burn off the calories in the food, they ordered and consumed fewer calories compared with those who ordered off a menu with no calorie labels. The same study also found no difference between calories ordered and consumed between those who ordered off a standard menu, and those who ordered off a menu that listed the calories for each option, which suggested that listing calories doesn’t result in meaningful changes to eating behavior. As the author of that study said to TIME:

It could take anywhere from one to two hours of moderate exercise such as brisk walking to burn the calories in some of the energy-dense foods. This may then help them make more appropriate food choices.

Helping people to put calories in context — just at the time that they’re ordering food — could be more important than simply throwing numbers at them, say researchers. Giving consumers a more tangible idea of what their food choices mean for their waistline — and their next workout — may help bring their internal calorie meters into sync with what foods actually contain.

 

Source: Time.com

 

Science in the Courtroom.

Posted by

0


Scientific evidence concerning the biological causes of bad behavior is becoming increasingly common in the courtroom. Forensic psychiatrists at Vanderbilt University have genetically screened defendants charged with first-degree murder for a gene associated with antisocial personality disorder, for example. And when it came time to sentence convicted murderer Brian Dugan, neuroscientists performed neuroimaging on Dugan’s brain in order to claim he has a defective, psychopathic brain.

What would you do if you were faced with such a decision? Imagine you’re a juror tasked with the job of recommending a sentence for a criminal found guilty of aggravated battery. The criminal, Jonathan Donahue, went into a Burger King restaurant with the hope of robbing it, then beat the manager so severely that he sustained brain damage. After he was arrested, Donahue seemed to revel in his crime, even going so far as to have a king’s crown tattooed on his back.

At the sentencing hearing, a psychiatrist provides expert testimony saying that Donahue is a diagnosed psychopath. She explains that psychopathy is a clinical diagnosis defined by impulsivity, lack of empathy, and lack of remorse. The judge tells you that the standard sentence for cases of aggravated battery is about 9 years.

First Question: With this information, how many years in prison will you recommend for Donahue?

There’s one more expert witness. This one is a neurobiologist, and he tells you that Donahue has a particular gene that contributes to atypical brain development. Specifically, the part of Donahue’s brain that controls his violence-inhibition mechanism is damaged. In normal humans, the violence-inhibition mechanism automatically creates anxiety when they recognize that other humans are in pain or distress. Psychopaths, like Donahue, lack a normal violence-inhibition mechanism.

Second Question: In light of this additional neurobiological evidence, how many years in prison will you recommend for Donahue?

How did you answer the Second Question relative to the First Question? If you increased Donahue’s sentence, you probably did so because you interpreted the neurobiological evidence as suggesting his biological constitution makes him a continued threat to society. On the other hand, if you decreased Donahue’s sentence, you probably did so because you interpreted the neurobiological evidence as suggesting his biological constitution makes him less responsible for his actions. Or, you could have dismissed the neurobiological evidence entirely and recommended the exact same sentence.

This is the double-edged sword of the science of criminal behavior. The exact same evidence could either increase or decrease punishment, depending on how that evidence is interpreted.

With scientific evidence about the causes of criminal behavior becoming more and more common in the court room, the legal system faces a pressing question: Which way will the double-edged sword cut? In Dugan’s murder case, a jury ultimately sentenced Dugan to death, but according to his attorney the scientific evidence switched a slam dunk case against Dugan into a much more complicated decision for the jurors. To investigate this question in a systematic way, my colleagues and I performed a national experiment involving US state trial court judges. We presented the judges with Donahue’s case and asked them to sentence him. The results of this experiment were published last month in Science. The judges told us that on average they sentenced convicts guilty of aggravated battery to about 9 years in prison. The judges who received only expert testimony concerning Donahue’s diagnosis of psychopathy sentenced him on average to almost 14 years in prison. But the judges who received the expert testimony concerning Donahue’s diagnosis of psychopathy as well as the evidence concerning the neurobiological causes of his psychopathy sentenced him on average to about 13 years in prison. Compared to just the diagnosis of psychopathy, that is, the neurobiological evidence reduced Donahue’s sentence by roughly a year (a statistically significant difference).

So, our study suggests which way the double-edged sword might cut—towards slightly shorter sentences. But there is another pressing question, one at the intersection of science, philosophy, and the law: Which way should the double-edged sword cut?

The presence of scientific evidence about the causes of criminal behavior is only likely to increase in the courtroom. As a result, scientists and non-scientists alike need to discuss this issue and decide how biological knowledge should influence the legal system.

To get the conversation going, in the Comments section below, list your answers to the First and Second Questions and explain your justification for the increase, decrease, or lack of any change in the prison sentence that you recommended for Donahue.

James Tabery is a professor of philosophy at the University of Utah.

Source: http://www.the-scientist.com