When I was a boy each summer we would pick blueberries right off bushes in the backyard and make blueberry ice cream, pies and pancakes. These days any time I have fresh blueberries I am mentally returned to those days. As a nutritionist I understand that taste can be one of the strongest memory stimulators, however now I am wondering if the blueberries themselves don’t play a role as well. That’s because the results of a new study published in the American Chemical Society’s Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry suggests that blueberries can support memory function. Blueberries contain polyphenolic nutrients called anthocyanins that not only color the berry blue but also imparts antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Based on these properties many scientists believe that blueberries, along with other fruits such as tomatos and grapes as well as teas support healthy brain function. So the brainy thing to do is to eat a diet that includes fresh fruits and DHA containing fish or supplements and live a healthy lifestyle that includes exercise for the body and the mind (e.g. puzzles, Sudoku), plenty of sleep and no smoking.
 

The good press surrounding omega-3 fats (namely ALA, DHA and EPA) continues and their positive impact seems to extend to the cardiovascular system, brain, joints and other areas of our body. The benefits of omega-3 fats to general health and disease prevention have lead to an explosion of foods on the market that are formulated around or fortified with omega-3 fats. In the past five years more than 3,000 omega-3 products have been launched worldwide with the majority of these occurring in Europe.   

As a huge fan of the cardiovascular system, I am especially intrigued by the positive impact of omega 3 fats on the heart and blood vessels. However, since omega-3 fatty acids have not been shown to lower blood cholesterol levels in a consistent manner in research studies, the cardio-protective effects must extend beyond that mechanism. For instance, omega-3 fatty acid intake is associated with: 

• Decreased risk of  arrhythmias that can lead to sudden cardiac death 
• Decreased risk of blood clots (thrombosis) that can lead to heart attacks or stokes 
• Lower serum triglyceride levels 
• Slowing the growth of atherosclerosis process (plaque formation) 
• Improving the function of blood vessel walls 
• Decreasing inflammation 

EPA and DHA are found in Atlantic and Pacific herring, Atlantic halibut and salmon, coho, albacore tuna, bluefish, lake trout, and pink and king salmons. It is probably a good idea to include these fish in a regular diet a couple of times a week. ALA, which can be converted to DHA and EPA is found in canola oil and soybean oil, and in even smaller amounts in corn oil, beef fat, and lard. 

A common question asked to doctors and nutritionists is whether or not a person should take fish oil supplements to promote a healthy cardiovascular system? At this time there is enough supporting research to suggest that anyone not consuming fish or other seafood should take a fish oil supplement to derive the beneficial omega-3 fatty acids – DHA and EPA. In fact, many people are avoiding fish and other seafood today because of concerns related to the level of heavy metals such as mercury in seafood. Furthermore, the conversation of ALA to EPA and DHA might not be as efficient as needed for optimal health, especially during certain situations such as in older people.  

People with high blood cholesterol (total and LDL) and tri­glyc­eride levels who take fish oil supplements might experience reductions in one or both, particularly the latter. In addition, fish oil supplementation has also been suggested to lower blood pressure in people with high blood pressure as well as improving glucose tolerance in Type 2 diabetes. For many people, fish oil supplementation can modestly reduce blood pressure and with regard to improving glucose levels in people with Type 2 diabetes, more research is needed to better understand whether or not there is benefit.

In case you are wondering: 

ALA = alpha linolenic acid 

DHA = docosa­hexae­noic acid 

EPA  = eicosapentaenoic acid

Every week it seems that there is a new ground breaking research finding in the world of nutrition. It makes me think what an amazing time it is to be able to understand what those before us could only speculate. For instance, Hippocrates, recognized as the “father of medicine” for his accomplishments nearly 2500 years ago, said “Let thy food be thy medicine”. Meanwhile, ancient Greeks, Romans and Egyptian athletes and warriors are known to have consumed the meat and organs of specific animals based on their respective physical attributes (e.g. strength, endurance, ferocity, etc) and/or to have drank concoctions (e.g. beverages) made from plants based on their physical performance benefit beliefs. 

Within the past few decades, science has transitioned from Captain Kirk and science fiction to the Surgeon General and science infliction. We now have DNA in the courtroom, cloning, retroviruses, and dare we forget a developing global fever (global warming). Meanwhile, our understanding of how nutrients and food allow us to grow, develop, move, think, operate and perform is derived from research studies conducted at universities and other research centers by PhDs, MDs and others. Thus, anecdotal information and the personal philosophies of physicians, nutritionists, coaches and people in general have been replaced with research derived data. Sophisticated laboratory techniques allow researchers to determine the underlying mechanisms (e.g. protein turnover, tissue concentration, enzyme activities, metabolic assessment) of how foods and supplements promote normal health and disease prevention. 

The latter portion of the twentieth century was a time of great strides in modifying the way many nutritionists and health care practitioners viewed nutrition. For decades we made nutritional recommendations based upon what needed to be avoided or limited in our diet choices. The nutritional “bad guys” were fat, (which evolved to saturated fat-rich foods), cholesterol, sodium, and arguably sugar. Today it is quite clear that the other side of the nutrition coin, or “what we should eat,” is probably as significant as “what we should not eat.” 

Nutraceuticals are substances found in natural foods that seem to have the potential to prevent disease or be used in the treatment of various disorders. Meanwhile, functional foods are the foods in which one or more nutra­ceuticals can be found. Nutraceutical substances include some of the more recognized nutrients such as vitamins C and E and the mineral calcium, but also include such substances as genestein, capsaicin, allium compounds, carotenoids (e.g. lutein, lyco­pene, and zeaxanthin) phytosterols, glucosamine, catechins (e.g. EGCG), fiber (e.g. psyllium, oat bran) and so on. 

Clearly we live in an amazing time whereby we can prove Hippocrates right and challenge nutrition dogma through scientific research. 

So what do you think? Post your thoughts and comments on the Science Forum.

As a nutritionist a lot of the questions that people ask me are related to weight loss. In fact, I was asked some questions while shopping at the supermarket the other night. Soon enough there were about seven people involved in the discussion which could be likened to information rugby scrum. I found it interesting how many different ideas people have about weight loss and have put into practice. I especially found it interesting that a lot of people still drastically restrict the number of calories they eat to the point of significant hunger. Sure the classic thinking on weight loss was that you have to dramatically restrict calories in order to loss weight. Yet, over the past few decades we have come to understand that effective weight doesn't necessarily mean starving yourself to the point that your stomach cries out for help throughout the day. Don't get me wrong, effective weight loss requires an imbalance between the calories you take in versus the number of calories you burn. However, you don't have to create the imbalance by hacking away at the number of calories you eat exclusively. In fact, there are several ways to rev your metabolism to burn more calories so that you can eat more and make weight loss easier. First and foremost, exercise regularly. Nothing stokes up your metabolism like exercise. Also, develop an exercise program that includes both resistance exercise and aerobic (cardiovascular) exercise. Resistance exercise builds and tones muscle which as a tissue burns calories at an amazingly higher rate than body fat does. For instance a pound of skeletal muscle can burn 35 to 50 calories a day compared to only 2 or 3 calories a day by a pound of fat. Meanwhile, aerobic exercise, like jogging, bicycling, elliptical machines, etc, can double, triple or quadruple the number of calories your body burns during the workout itself. Furthermore, if you work hard enough your metabolism can stay elevated to some degree for several hours after as your muscle recovers. Next, be sure to eat a diet that maximizes calorie burning. The bottom line is that a calorie isn't necessarily a calorie, when you consider how many calories your body burns to process different nutrients. Yes, its true; our bodies burn more calories after we eat. Basically, eating protein calories results in more calorie-burning than the same number of calories from carbohydrates. So, if you eat a diet with 25 to 30% of your calories coming from protein versus 15% you might burn 2-5% more calories daily or 20 to 50 calories. That might not seem significant, but it approximates 2½ to 4 lbs of fat over a year. Likewise, unsaturated fats hold a metabolic advantage over saturated fats. The last point ties into the previous. Even though you are trimming back the calories a bit to enable weight loss, you don't want to trim back the meals. Definitely eat breakfast and eat ever few hours to keep your metabolism revved throughout the day. Also, caffeine can aid in your calorie burning efforts to a small degree. However, be careful not to over-caffeinate yourself throughout the day. So, what are your thoughts? Weigh in on the Metabolism Forum!

I was recently browsing the products in a mall nutrition supplement retail store and came to the following conclusion: Reading the labels of sport nutrition products can be a mind-blowing experience. Based on the marketing claims on the packaging it would seem that sport nutrition companies are spending millions of dollars each year on clinical trials that test the efficacy of their products on people engaged in sport training or competition…Or do they?

Sports nutrition consumers are clearly influenced by clever scientific formulations containing intriguing compounds and scientific marketing content on product labels which are strengthened by bar graphs and percentage-based claims citing research studies. The goal of this strategy is to convince the consumer that the use of the product will lead to significant improvements in strength, muscle development, endurance, metabolism, fat burning and/or other desired affects. Despite this overt application of science and research, the efficacy of most sophisticated sport nutrition product formulations remains to be substantiated by direct, final product research. In fact, in talking to Anthony Almada, a sports nutrition industry veteran and CEO of GENR8 Inc, he said that “a lack of appropriate product-specific research is the norm in the sport nutrition industry and includes products marketed to bodybuilders and strength athletes as well as endurance athletes.” Furthermore, he estimated that the number of products in the sport nutrition market with direct research - in humans and compared to a placebo is less than 0.1%!

Despite a general lack of appropriate product research in general, certainly there are several companies that research final product formulations. Gatorade set the bar early for a research-based marketing platform in sports nutrition and founded the Gatorade Sports Science Institute roughly two decades ago. While being “first to market” as well as their effective marketing of athlete endorsements has helped to secure the majority sport drink market share, one could easily argue that a significant portion of their on-going success can be attributed to research-based marketing. Meanwhile, in the early 90’s EAS pioneered the research-driven model of product development, introducing a suite of products that had been proven in university-based clinical trials before they were marketed, and invested in well over $500,000 on university research in its first four years of business. Other brands, such as Accelerade, EAS, MuscleTech, FSI and new-comer GENR8, have also dedicated money to on-going research programs and market their products based on their research foundation.

Without question, competition can be brutal in the sports nutrition industry and companies must create key points of differentiation for their brands versus competitive brands. However, a general lack of scientific marketing claims that can be substantiated reduces the image of the sport nutrition industry as a whole. Clearly, well-designed research on sport nutrition products, that are also published, can provide key marketing claims and a point of differentiation in a competitive marketplace. But the most important reason for more research on the actual products marketed to consumers should be to offer products that are likely to deliver on their promises. This is critical since many sport nutrition products are expensive.

So the next time you find your self looking for a sport nutrition product, demand research proof of its effectiveness. Check the company website for downloadable research papers and/or call them and ask for copies of the research studies that involve the actual product that you are considering buying. Also, make sure the research papers are published in a reputable science journal. Without proof you could be wasting your money.

So, what do you think? Provide your thoughts on the Sport Nutrition: Supplements Forum.