Friday, October 28, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Low B-12 again linked to cognitive decline
Guidelines suggest serum B12 measurement in patients with suspected dementia in order to screen for severe B12 deficiency as a potentially treatable cause of cognitive decline. There remains a concern that some individuals with more modestly low levels of B12 may also experience cognitive decline that may be made clinically worse by high levels of serum folate, a more common occurrence in the United States since the introduction of mandatory folic acid grain supplementation.
A recent study aimed to examine the relationship between cognitive decline, MRI changes, and levels of B12 and other biochemical markers of B12 deficiency, namely serum homocysteine and methylmalonic acid (MMA). In a study of 6158 persons, both homocysteine and MMA were significantly associated with poorer cognitive testing across multiple domains; B12 levels demonstrated no such association. Access Medicine, October 2011
A recent study aimed to examine the relationship between cognitive decline, MRI changes, and levels of B12 and other biochemical markers of B12 deficiency, namely serum homocysteine and methylmalonic acid (MMA). In a study of 6158 persons, both homocysteine and MMA were significantly associated with poorer cognitive testing across multiple domains; B12 levels demonstrated no such association. Access Medicine, October 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Antioxidants Key to Avoiding the Flu?
Why do some people end up in bed feverish, hacking and sneezing for days from the flu — when others seem to never get sick? To answer that question, University of Michigan researchers did the first study of its kind: They infected 17 healthy people with the flu virus and discovered that everyone who is exposed to the flu actually is affected by it, but their bodies just have a different way of reacting to it. Half of the study participants got sick; the other half didn’t notice a thing. According to the journal PLoS Genetics, there is an active immune response which accounts for the resistance of certain people getting sick, and that response is just as active as the response we all know and hate, which is being sick with the sniffles, fever, coughing and sneezing. It’s just that the responses are different.
Although they understand that some people’s immune systems resist the virus, they still don’t know how or why that happens. There is a behind the scene active immune response even when you don’t get sick. What they found were differences in their biological metabolism and gene expression. These differences had to do with antioxidants.
Moreover, the researchers claim it is certainly possible that people who resisted the flu virus had very high levels of antioxidant precursors in their blood, and this may what protected them, but they cannot say that because they don’t know.
Although they understand that some people’s immune systems resist the virus, they still don’t know how or why that happens. There is a behind the scene active immune response even when you don’t get sick. What they found were differences in their biological metabolism and gene expression. These differences had to do with antioxidants.
Moreover, the researchers claim it is certainly possible that people who resisted the flu virus had very high levels of antioxidant precursors in their blood, and this may what protected them, but they cannot say that because they don’t know.
Too many babies getting reflux meds?
Bonnie - Hmm. Where have you heard this before?
In a commentary published in Journal of Pediatrics, Eric Hassell, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist, warns that the use of acid-suppressing medications to babies under 1 year old has skyrocketed. One large study in the U.S. found a 16-fold increase in the number of prescriptions for a kid-friendly liquid form of acid-suppressing drugs between 1999 and 2004. Despite this recent spike in prescriptions, Hassall argues that the vast majority of infants don't have gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), which is what these drugs are meant to treat. He suggests that a baby's inconsolable crying and spitting up, which are separate symptoms, have become combined into a diagnosis of acid-reflux disease by some pediatricians.
But this spitting up likely isn't "acid reflux" because infants have frequent feedings that tend to buffer stomach acid. Most reflux is physiological. In most cases, it's not the spitting up that should be treated. The real issue is the unexplained crying. Some moms and dads put a lot of pressure on pediatricians to "do something" to help their hard-to-soothe infants. It's sometimes easier and quicker for a doctor to write a prescription instead of taking the time to explain what parents can try in place of drugs. He suspects that both parents and pediatricians are unaware of the extent to which acid-reducing drugs are being overprescribed or of their potential side effects if used long-term.
According to Esther Israel, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist, "Gastroesophageal reflux is not a disease in infants. It's a normal physiological response that babies often outgrow." She says that before turning to medications, there are a lot of things that can be done from a behavioral perspective. These include soothing-type activities, such as rocking or patting the newborn in a quiet place. Dietary approaches such as switching from a milk protein-containing formula to a soy-based or hydrolyzed one may also make a difference. If a mother is breastfeeding, she can try eliminating milk products from her diet to see how her baby responds. If colic is a concern, infants usually outgrow it in their first three to four months of life.
Cow's Milk Usually to Blame
As the piece above alludes, there are times when infant formula needs to be changed. A study in the October issue of Gut Liver explains that in children who actually do have Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease, cow's milk allergy (CMA) is the major culprit. 81 children with actual GERD were enrolled in the study. All subjects received omeprazole for 4 weeks after the initial evaluation. Empirical elimination of cow's milk from the diet was started for the patients who did not respond to the omeprazole treatment.
Cow's milk was eliminated from the diets of the remaining 27 patients who did not respond to treatment. All signs and symptoms of GERD were resolved in this group after a 4 week elimination of cow's milk from the diet. A diagnosis of CMA was considered in one third of the pediatric cases with signs and symptoms of GERD. This finding shows that CMA can mimic or aggravate all signs and symptoms of severe GERD during infancy.
In a commentary published in Journal of Pediatrics, Eric Hassell, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist, warns that the use of acid-suppressing medications to babies under 1 year old has skyrocketed. One large study in the U.S. found a 16-fold increase in the number of prescriptions for a kid-friendly liquid form of acid-suppressing drugs between 1999 and 2004. Despite this recent spike in prescriptions, Hassall argues that the vast majority of infants don't have gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), which is what these drugs are meant to treat. He suggests that a baby's inconsolable crying and spitting up, which are separate symptoms, have become combined into a diagnosis of acid-reflux disease by some pediatricians.
But this spitting up likely isn't "acid reflux" because infants have frequent feedings that tend to buffer stomach acid. Most reflux is physiological. In most cases, it's not the spitting up that should be treated. The real issue is the unexplained crying. Some moms and dads put a lot of pressure on pediatricians to "do something" to help their hard-to-soothe infants. It's sometimes easier and quicker for a doctor to write a prescription instead of taking the time to explain what parents can try in place of drugs. He suspects that both parents and pediatricians are unaware of the extent to which acid-reducing drugs are being overprescribed or of their potential side effects if used long-term.
According to Esther Israel, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist, "Gastroesophageal reflux is not a disease in infants. It's a normal physiological response that babies often outgrow." She says that before turning to medications, there are a lot of things that can be done from a behavioral perspective. These include soothing-type activities, such as rocking or patting the newborn in a quiet place. Dietary approaches such as switching from a milk protein-containing formula to a soy-based or hydrolyzed one may also make a difference. If a mother is breastfeeding, she can try eliminating milk products from her diet to see how her baby responds. If colic is a concern, infants usually outgrow it in their first three to four months of life.
Cow's Milk Usually to Blame
As the piece above alludes, there are times when infant formula needs to be changed. A study in the October issue of Gut Liver explains that in children who actually do have Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease, cow's milk allergy (CMA) is the major culprit. 81 children with actual GERD were enrolled in the study. All subjects received omeprazole for 4 weeks after the initial evaluation. Empirical elimination of cow's milk from the diet was started for the patients who did not respond to the omeprazole treatment.
Cow's milk was eliminated from the diets of the remaining 27 patients who did not respond to treatment. All signs and symptoms of GERD were resolved in this group after a 4 week elimination of cow's milk from the diet. A diagnosis of CMA was considered in one third of the pediatric cases with signs and symptoms of GERD. This finding shows that CMA can mimic or aggravate all signs and symptoms of severe GERD during infancy.
Study blows the doors off "statin fortress"
A recent study from Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice has just blown the doors off the "statin fortress".
According to the study, many clinical guidelines for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention contain risk estimation charts/calculators. These have shown a tendency to overestimate risk, which indicates that there might be theoretical flaws in the algorithms. Total cholesterol is a frequently used variable in the risk estimates. Some studies indicate that the predictive properties of cholesterol might not be as straightforward as widely assumed. The researchers aim was to document the strength and validity of total cholesterol as a risk factor for mortality in a well-defined, general Norwegian population without known CVD at baseline.
They assessed the association of total serum cholesterol with total mortality, as well as mortality from CVD and ischaemic heart disease (IHD). The study population comprised 52,087 Norwegians, aged 20–74, who were followed-up on cause-specific mortality for 10 years (510 297 person-years in total).
Among women, higher cholesterol meant lower all-cause mortality as well as CVD mortality. Among men, the association of cholesterol with mortality from CVD and in total followed a ‘U-shaped’ pattern.
The study provides an updated epidemiological indication of possible errors in the CVD risk algorithms of many clinical guidelines. If the findings are generalizable, clinical and public health recommendations regarding the ‘dangers’ of cholesterol should be revised. This is especially true for women, for whom moderately elevated cholesterol
(by current standards) may prove to be not only harmless but even beneficial.
The entire study can be found here.
According to the study, many clinical guidelines for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention contain risk estimation charts/calculators. These have shown a tendency to overestimate risk, which indicates that there might be theoretical flaws in the algorithms. Total cholesterol is a frequently used variable in the risk estimates. Some studies indicate that the predictive properties of cholesterol might not be as straightforward as widely assumed. The researchers aim was to document the strength and validity of total cholesterol as a risk factor for mortality in a well-defined, general Norwegian population without known CVD at baseline.
They assessed the association of total serum cholesterol with total mortality, as well as mortality from CVD and ischaemic heart disease (IHD). The study population comprised 52,087 Norwegians, aged 20–74, who were followed-up on cause-specific mortality for 10 years (510 297 person-years in total).
Among women, higher cholesterol meant lower all-cause mortality as well as CVD mortality. Among men, the association of cholesterol with mortality from CVD and in total followed a ‘U-shaped’ pattern.
The study provides an updated epidemiological indication of possible errors in the CVD risk algorithms of many clinical guidelines. If the findings are generalizable, clinical and public health recommendations regarding the ‘dangers’ of cholesterol should be revised. This is especially true for women, for whom moderately elevated cholesterol
(by current standards) may prove to be not only harmless but even beneficial.
The entire study can be found here.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Results from Adverse Event Reporting (AER) System
The Food & Drug Administration AER system ensures that dietary supplement and prescription drug manufacturers report significant adverse events related to their products. The figures from 2008 were recently published.
- 1,080 from supplements (over half the US population, 154 million, take supplements)
- 526,527 from prescription drugs. For every adverse event from supplements, there are 488 adverse events from prescription drugs.
Counterstudy: elderly do need multivitamins
The status of vitamins A, E and C was generally satisfactory. Eighty-eight percent and 42% of participants were deficient in vitamins D and K, respectively, as were 29% for B6; up to 10% of participants were deficient in vitamins B1, B2, B12 and folate. A considerable percentage of participants was, however, at risk for vitamin deficiencies (vitamins B1, B6, B12, folate: 20–30%, vitamin B2: 60%). Except for vitamins A and K, regular intake of supplements had a significant positive influence on vitamin levels.
These results indicate that use of supplements significantly improved the status of several vitamins in elderly people. Due to age-related problems concerning the intake and digestion of nutrients, a moderate, regular supplementation might be a useful option for older people who are otherwise unable to satisfy their micronutrient requirements.
Soft drinks linked to violence
Teenagers who drink large amounts of soft drinks are more likely to be aggressive and violent. Drinking more than five cans of soda a week was linked to significantly higher levels of violent assaults, scientists non-diet soft drinks they drank during the past week, with a higher consumption increasing the likelihood of them being violent. Just over 23 percent of those drinking one or no cans had carried a gun or knife, rising to just under 43 percent of those drinking 14 or more cans. Writing in the journal Injury Prevention, the researchers concluded that sugar or caffeine could lead to aggression.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Risks with fertility drugs?
Bonnie wanted to comment because it has been a major topic in news lately.
Bonnie - many of you who know me can attest to the fact that I have never liked fertility drugs. However, it is not my place to insist that my clients shun them. If you have ever worked with couples who cannot conceive, it is heartbreaking. I always insist that couples exhaust every other option before they resort to taking fertility drugs. I have had many cases where dietary and lifestyle changes is all that is needed. In cases where diet and lifestyle is not enough, I still work with clients to make sure they are nutritionally optimal to handle the effects of the drugs.
Will I be surprised if in the next decade we see an large uptick in female cancers from fertility drugs? Unfortunately, not. Can I blame these individuals for taking them? Unfortunately, not. What I can blame is the appalling environmental, diet, and lifestyle habits that has driven so many to resort to these drugs.
Bonnie - many of you who know me can attest to the fact that I have never liked fertility drugs. However, it is not my place to insist that my clients shun them. If you have ever worked with couples who cannot conceive, it is heartbreaking. I always insist that couples exhaust every other option before they resort to taking fertility drugs. I have had many cases where dietary and lifestyle changes is all that is needed. In cases where diet and lifestyle is not enough, I still work with clients to make sure they are nutritionally optimal to handle the effects of the drugs.
Will I be surprised if in the next decade we see an large uptick in female cancers from fertility drugs? Unfortunately, not. Can I blame these individuals for taking them? Unfortunately, not. What I can blame is the appalling environmental, diet, and lifestyle habits that has driven so many to resort to these drugs.
When Doing Nothing Makes Sense.
How refreshing to see an M.D. step up and be honest with us.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/when-doing-nothing-is-the-best-medicine/?ref=health
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/when-doing-nothing-is-the-best-medicine/?ref=health
Does your doc laugh at alternative medicine?
A Health Service Research study says your doc could be pulling a fast one. The researchers set out to examine personal use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among U.S. health care workers. The researchers examined a sample of 14,329 employed adults. They discovered that health care workers are more likely than the general population to use CAM. Among health care workers, health care providers are more likely to use CAM than other occupations.
Antidepressant use skyrockets...again
Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 2005–2008
- Eleven percent of Americans aged 12 years and over take antidepressant medication.
- Overall, females are 2½ times as likely to take antidepressant medication as males. Twenty-three percent of women aged 40–59 take antidepressants, more than in any other age-sex group.
- Non-Hispanic white persons are more likely to take antidepressants than are non-Hispanic black and Mexican-American persons.
- About one-third of persons with severe depressive symptoms take antidepressant medication.
- More than 60% of Americans taking antidepressant medication have taken it for 2 years or longer, with 14% having taken the medication for 10 years or more.
- Less than one-third of Americans taking one antidepressant medication and less than one-half of those taking multiple antidepressants have seen a mental health professional in the past year.
Antidepressants were the third most common prescription drug taken by Americans of all ages in 2005–2008 and the most frequently used by persons aged 18–44 years. From 1988–1994 through 2005–2008, the rate of antidepressant use in the United States among all ages increased nearly 400%.
This data brief discusses all antidepressants taken, regardless of the reason for use. While the majority of antidepressants are taken to treat depression, antidepressants also can be taken to treat anxiety disorders, for example.
Staggering Statistic? About one in 10 Americans aged 12 and over takes antidepressant medication.
Full report is at http://cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db76.htmWednesday, October 19, 2011
Diet Drinks or Water?
Obese patients enrolled in the six-month CHOICE trial at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, were twice as likely to lose 5% of their body weight no matter if they'd been randomly assigned to a water group or a diet drink group, as opposed to a control group.
But in every other result, water drinkers outshines the diet beverage drinkers, according to data presented at the Obesity Society's annual meeting.
The two intervention groups were instructed to replace at least 200 kcal of caloric beverages every day with either water or diet drinks. At six months, they said, there was no difference in absolute weight between the two study groups -- but those who drank water had a significantly greater improvement in fasting glucose and a trend toward a lower diastolic blood pressure compared to the control group.
At three months into the trial, participants consuming diet drinks were more likely to be consuming more calories in general compared to the water drinkers.
After six months, the diet beverage drinkers were more likely to consume non-sugar carbohydrates compared to the water group.
Diet beverage drinkers were also more likely to eat desserts, sweeteners and breads at three months, compared to the water drinkers.
There have been several recent studies actually linking diet beverages to weight GAIN, so the weight-loss percentage in this study is questionable as it is.
Let there be no doubt, however: water far outshines diet beverages in every way.
It's Simple. Better Diet Equals Better Mental Health.
In a new and burgeoning area of research, two new studies show that diet quality can have a significant effect on mental health outcomes and may potentially have a role in preventing and treating such common illnesses as depression and anxiety.
In PLoS One, researchers found that better diet quality was associated with better mental health in adolescents cross-sectionally and over time. Importantly, these findings suggest it may be possible to prevent teenage depression by ensuring adolescent diets are sufficiently nutritious, and improving diet quality may help treat depressive symptoms in this population.
Three quarters of lifetime psychiatric disorders emerge in adolescence or early adulthood, and a recent survey showed more than 22% of adolescents aged 13 to 18 years had already experienced a clinically significant mental health problem.
A healthy diet was defined as one that included fruit and vegetables as "core food groups" and included both 2 or more servings of fruit per day and 4 or more servings of vegetables, as well as general avoidance of processed foods including chips, fried foods, chocolate, sweets, and ice cream. An unhealthy diet was high in snack and processed foods. The investigators found that higher healthy diet scores at baseline predicted higher (better) Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory scores at follow-up, whereas higher "unhealthy" baseline scores predicted poorer mental health. Adolescents who improved the quality of their diets also experienced improved mental health. In contrast, those whose dietary quality deteriorated experience a worsening of their mental health status. During the 2-year study period, adolescents who improved the quality of their diets also experienced improved mental health. In contrast, those whose dietary quality deteriorated experience a worsening of the
These findings come directly on the heels of another study by the same researchers in Psychosomatic Medicine, revealing a significant link between better-quality diets and improved mental health outcomes, and specifically depression and anxiety, in a cohort of adult men and women. Individuals with better quality diets were less likely to be depressed, whereas a higher intake of processed and unhealthy foods was associated with increased anxiety.
In PLoS One, researchers found that better diet quality was associated with better mental health in adolescents cross-sectionally and over time. Importantly, these findings suggest it may be possible to prevent teenage depression by ensuring adolescent diets are sufficiently nutritious, and improving diet quality may help treat depressive symptoms in this population.
Three quarters of lifetime psychiatric disorders emerge in adolescence or early adulthood, and a recent survey showed more than 22% of adolescents aged 13 to 18 years had already experienced a clinically significant mental health problem.
A healthy diet was defined as one that included fruit and vegetables as "core food groups" and included both 2 or more servings of fruit per day and 4 or more servings of vegetables, as well as general avoidance of processed foods including chips, fried foods, chocolate, sweets, and ice cream. An unhealthy diet was high in snack and processed foods. The investigators found that higher healthy diet scores at baseline predicted higher (better) Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory scores at follow-up, whereas higher "unhealthy" baseline scores predicted poorer mental health. Adolescents who improved the quality of their diets also experienced improved mental health. In contrast, those whose dietary quality deteriorated experience a worsening of their mental health status. During the 2-year study period, adolescents who improved the quality of their diets also experienced improved mental health. In contrast, those whose dietary quality deteriorated experience a worsening of the
These findings come directly on the heels of another study by the same researchers in Psychosomatic Medicine, revealing a significant link between better-quality diets and improved mental health outcomes, and specifically depression and anxiety, in a cohort of adult men and women. Individuals with better quality diets were less likely to be depressed, whereas a higher intake of processed and unhealthy foods was associated with increased anxiety.
One organization that shuns corporate funding
Unlike the American Dietetic Association (soon to be Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics), the prestigious organization that grants Bonnie Minsky her C.N.S. (Certified Nutrition Specialist) certification accepts no corporate funding.
"Dear Members and Friends of the College,
Many members of the College have expressed that they wish the College to be a strong voice for unbiased nutrition science. On September 28, 2011, the Board of Directors adopted a policy that the College shall accept no corporate funding. The policy states: "The American College of Nutrition accepts no funding from for-profit corporations. This policy fosters our mission and our ability to advance unbiased science without compromise." We are proud to have taken this important step as a scientific body, and believe this will strengthen even further the voice of the College as an advocate for the crucial role of rigorous, unbiased nutrition science in improving human health."
"Dear Members and Friends of the College,
Many members of the College have expressed that they wish the College to be a strong voice for unbiased nutrition science. On September 28, 2011, the Board of Directors adopted a policy that the College shall accept no corporate funding. The policy states: "The American College of Nutrition accepts no funding from for-profit corporations. This policy fosters our mission and our ability to advance unbiased science without compromise." We are proud to have taken this important step as a scientific body, and believe this will strengthen even further the voice of the College as an advocate for the crucial role of rigorous, unbiased nutrition science in improving human health."
Hoodia no better than placebo (no surprise here)
A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that the weight management plant hoodia performed no better than pacebo in affecting energy intake or body weight. While the trial was just published, major supplement manufacturers, such as Unliver, have known this for several years, which is why they backed out of a $20 million deal with a major hoodia producer.
Bonnie - I never bought into the hoodia hype. The data, as well as waning consumer demand, is bearing this out.
Bonnie - I never bought into the hoodia hype. The data, as well as waning consumer demand, is bearing this out.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Local Doc dishes on supplements
Courtesy of Dr. Patrick Massey, contributor to the Daily Herald
Do vitamins increase the risk of death? According to one recent medical study, the conclusion may be yes. However, does the data really support the conclusions or are the results being exaggerated? In my opinion, the conclusions of the study are a real stretch based on the structure of the study itself.
This study, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, is not a double blind, placebo controlled, prospective study. It is part of a larger study and concluded that elderly women who took vitamins had a slightly increased risk of death compared with those who did not. In contrast, this study also suggested that calcium, as a supplement, was associated with a 3.8 percent reduced risk of death.
The data was part of the very large Iowa Women’s Health Study consisting of 41,836 postmenopausal women, ages 55 to 69 who filled out questionnaires in 1987, 1997 and 2004. The questionnaires covered many aspects of health including vitamin use. Although these studies are essential because they provide a large amount of data, correlation does not prove causation. This means that self-reported data is notoriously unreliable, and since there are no controls, the results are far from conclusive. These types of studies are usually the foundation for further, well-designed and controlled studies.
There are a number of factors that can affect the skew, the statistics and the conclusions. It may be possible that those women who have more illnesses and are at a greater risk of death simply use more. Medication use also is important. Even safe over-the-counter pain medications can increase the risk (small but real) of serious hospitalization and death. In addition, physical activity, diet and habits like smoking and alcohol abuse all can affect the outcome.
Among health care professionals, whether vitamins are helpful, harmful or a waste of money is very controversial. However there are, literally, thousands of well-designed, prospective studies worldwide demonstrating the benefits of vitamins for heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, pain, Alzheimer’s disease, etc. It is important that accurate information is available to the general public and health care community.
Fortunately, there are now a number of credible resources for accurate information about vitamin use. One of these sources is the Natural Health Research Institute (I hold an unpaid position on the scientific advisory board). The institute is described as “an independent, nonprofit organization that supports science-based research on natural health and wellness.” Its goal is to inform people about the benefits of good food, supplements (if needed) and healthy lifestyles.
The institute is having its sixth annual scientific symposium in Schaumburg on Friday, Oct. 28. The symposium is open to the public and the speakers are internationally recognized experts in the area of vitamins and health. The topic is “Measuring the efficacy, safety and cost savings of dietary supplements.” More information can be found on their website: naturalhealthresearch.org/nhri.
• Patrick B. Massey, M.D., Ph.D is medical director for complementary and alternative medicine for the Alexian Brothers Hospital Network.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Healthy Halloween Tips
Do you cringe around Halloween time? Weeks of parties, school events, and trick-or-treating increase your child's (and sometimes your) candy/sweet consumption ten-fold over any other time of the year. Do you find your child's attention span off, emotional and physical highs and lows more pronounced? More immune-depressed than usual? All the excess sugar and chemicals help to create these symptoms.
Here are some ideas to make Halloween a bit healthier:
Here are some ideas to make Halloween a bit healthier:
- Trick-or-treating: what to do with all the candy! If you are an enterprising parent or child, turn that candy into cash! We have used the following method for two generations of Minsky children. Tell your child that for every piece of candy, they will receive a nickel or dime (your choice). When you explain to them what it can add up to, and they can use the $ to spend as they wish, they usually jump at the chance. Don't forget to let them know that they can still eat a piece or two of their spoils (if interested).
- School Parties or Events: we always recommend kids eating healthy snacks instead of candy. Although, if your child is going to eat candy, try to accompany them with their own candy (free of artificial ingredients and hydrogenated fats) and always, ALWAYS accompany it with a healthy fat (like nuts/seeds) or lean protein (jerky, deli turkey, etc.). This will protect against blood sugar highs and lows.
- Handing Out Candy: do your visiting trick-or-treaters a favor. If you are going to pass out candy, try to offer the best of the worst (free of artificial sweetners, artificial flavors, artificial colors, hydrogenated or partially-hydrogenated fats). For instance, Whole Foods has on sale Yummy Earth Organic Gummy Bears and Lollipops, Wee Glee Gum, as well as, Endangered Species Dark Chocolate Squares.
Or better yet, do not hand out candy at all. You can also hand out pretzels, seeds, trail mix, raisins, or other dried fruit.
Non-food items like a pencil, eraser, stickers, trading cards, toothbrushes, or coins are great ideas. - Eat a Meal or Big Snack Before Halloween Parties/Events: this way, your kids will be less apt to gorge on the junk because they are already satiated.
- What to Do With the Leftover Candy? Adults, do not consume it. It's bad for you too and does not set a good example. Do not give it away to neighbors or charity (why would you want others to consume junk). Throw it in the trash!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
