Moderate amounts of protein, rather than a lot, might be best for muscle

Protein is essential for building muscle, but how much protein is needed is often disputed. Many bodybuilders, for example, tout large amounts to develop serious musculature.

But a new study says smaller may be better. Researchers tested 34 men and women--17 young and 17 elderly. They divided them into four groups, giving some younger and older participants 12 ounces of beef, and the other younger and older participants 4 ounces of beef. After eating, all had blood samples and thigh muscle biopsies taken.

In all groups there seemed to be little difference in protein muscle synthesis. Eating 12 ounces increased it by 46% in both the young and elderly groups, while 4 ounces sparked a 50% increase.

The researchers pointed out some limitations: Most people eat a variety of foods during a meal, not just protein, and some studies suggest older people may not synthesize protein as well when they combine it with carbohydrates, as compared with younger people. The authors also speculate that protein synthesis might be greater if protein were eaten near the time of physical activity.

The study's senior author suggested in a news release that people might want to redistribute their protein intake throughout the day: "You don't have to eat massive amounts of protein to maximize muscle synthesis, you just have to be a little more clever with how you apportion it," said Dr. Douglas Paddon-Jones, associate professor in the department of physical therapy at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. "For breakfast consider including additional high-quality proteins. Throw in an egg, a glass of milk, yogurt or add a handful of nuts to get to 30 grams of protein, do something similar to get to 30 for lunch, and then eat a smaller amount of protein for dinner. Do this, and over the course of the day you likely spend much more time synthesizing muscle protein."

The study was partly funded by the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn. Checkoff Program and appears in the September issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Assn.

-Jeannine Stein

Photo credit: Armend Nimani / AFP/Getty Images

Recommendations for new school meal nutrition standards

The nutrition standards behind the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program have not been updated since 1995. Today, the federal Institute of Medicine is issuing a report recommending new standards, calling for more produce, more whole grains. And for the first time, a limit to calories.

Thirty million children eat school lunch, and 10 million eat school breakfast -- and the IOM panel says it hopes new standards will help those children develop good habits that they carry into adulthood. That, the panel says, should help curb obesity and other health problems associated with diet.

The panel's recommendations go to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for possible implementation. It was the USDA which requested the report.

The panel says new standards would cost money -- for food as well as for training and capital improvements. But it says food costs would go up by less than 10% for breakfast and 25% or less for lunches. The government now spends $8.7 billion a year in reimbursements for school meals to school districts.

The recommendations are meant to bring school food in line with the dietary guidelines the government issues for Americans. It seeks to have the amount of sodium in school meals reduced by more than half over the next decade.

Among its recommendations: that calories be limited, based on age level, for breakfast and lunch, and that the sodium level for a typical lunch be eventually reduced to 740 milligrams. It also sets out targets for weekly servings of fruits and vegetables, and it calls for more whole grains.

"It's about time," says Matthew Sharp of the California Food Policy Advocates and one of the people who testified before the panel. Meals, he says, should be nutritious and affordable and they also should "teach kids healthy habits" and expose them to a variety of foods.

-- Mary MacVean

Aquarium looks to the future of the oceans -- and seafood consumers

The nutrition experts say eat more fish. But then marine scientists say the oceans are being depleted and many species are increasingly threatened. What's a healthful eater who cares about the planet to do?

One answer is to eat from the Monterey Bay Aquarium's "Super Green" list of seafood that's good for people and the planet. It's part of the aquarium's "State of Seafood" report issued today. The report says that prospects for the oceans are improving with a growing consensus of how to manage wild and farm fishing.

The report sets out significant problems that remain for the oceans, and the primary factor in the oceans' decline is the human demand for seafood, the report says. Industrial-scale fishing has threatened commercial fisheries and threatened populations of animals including whales, tunas and sharks, it says. It notes that "bycatch," the unintentional capture of animals in fishing gear, is the single greatest threat for nearly 250 species of ocean animals.

"Ocean life is still in decline and we clearly need to take urgent action to turn things around," says Julie Packard, executive director of the aquarium. "The good news is that we know what it will take and that key players are working more closely than ever to solve the problems."

The report notes some positive developments: a consensus set of principles for restoring ecosystems and commercial fish populations; commitments from major seafood buyers to sustainable sources; and improved government policies to manage fisheries and fish farming. And, the report says, there is a growing public awareness of the need to take action.

The report says that the world seafood supply was 110 million tons in 2006 -- eight times what it was in 1950, with Asia accounting for more than half the global catch. And in the next year, people will eat more farmed seafood than wild for the first time.

Farmed fish, the report says, can help fight hunger, but aquaculture also can cause pollution and disease among other problems. It cited some success stories, including arctic char, eaten as an alternative to salmon and raised on land in tank systems that don't harm the oceans.

While the health benefits of seafood have been well documented, seafood also contains risky toxins such as mercury. The aquarium's report says no accepted methodology exists for quantifying the risks and benefits of eating seafood with high contaminant levels, though U.S. authorities have recommended that children, pregnant women and others avoid certain fish, including shark and swordfish.

The "Super Green" list was developed in conjunction with the Harvard School of Public Health and the Environmental Defense Fund.

This year is the 25th anniversary of the aquarium and the 10th anniversary of its Seafood Watch program, which advised people on what fish to buy and to avoid for their health and that of the oceans. The aquarium says it has distributed 32 million Seafood Watch pocket brochures.

-- Mary MacVean

Aquaculture photo courtesy of Monterey Bay Aquarium

Extra help for the portion-challenged

The obesity crisis may be chalked up to a hundred different factors, but portion control is probably in the top 10. With people piling more and more food on their plates, it's no wonder that physicians and health experts are forever telling us we need to cut back on what we eat. They've even given us helpful tips, like using a deck of cards as a template for how big our protein servings should be.

But evidently people don't play cards anymore, or they don't know basic measurement units, because somebody felt extra help was needed.

Thus, Flavor Magic Portion Control Sheets were born. These thin sheets of dry marinade measuring three inches by four inches serve as both a guide for accurately measuring three to five ounces of protein cut one-half to one inch thick, plus add flavor and seasoning. Place the meat, chicken or fish on top of the sheet until the marinade and seasonings have transferred (about half an hour), then cook as desired. Flavors include zesty Cajun-Creole, garlic citrus teriyaki, Dijon honey mustard, and riviera tomato and basil, and the company claims they contain no MSG or preservatives. Each package of 15 servings retails for about $9.

While we're all for whatever works when it comes to eating more healthfully (within reason), it seems most people can figure out a reasonable portion size once they're given the dimensions. Of course, those same people are usually shocked when they come face to face with what a normal portion really looks like, but once they get used to it, it's not difficult to nail it. This isn't rocket science.

-- Jeannine Stein

Photo credit: Courtesy of Real Chef

Heart-healthy fish consumption: Is the big one getting away?

For even the most skeptical consumer of news on health and nutrition, the link between increased consumption of fish and better heart health seemed to be something one could take to the bank--a reliable, unassailable finding.

No more. A major European study that tracked the health and habits of every older adult in a suburb of Rotterdam, the Netherlands, has found no significant relationship between their consumption of fish and their likelihood of developing heart failure. The latest Rotterdam study is published in the October issue of the European Journal of Heart Failure.

By the time a person reaches 40, he or she has roughly a one-in-four likelihood of suffering heart failure, and an estimated 5.7 million Americans live with the condition. Strong evidence exists that the regular consumption of even small amounts of the long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (also known as "Omega-3s") lowers an individual's risk of coronary heart disease. The American College of Cardiology recently published a review of four studies of Omega-3 intake and concluded there is "great promise" for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in the consumption of long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. 

Omega 3 consumption is thought to affect cardiovascular risk by suppressing inflammation, reducing heart rate, blood pressure and the buildup of fatty deposits in the blood, as well as by helping to maintain normal heart rhythm. But the current study suggests that the heart muscle's failure to pump sufficient blood for everyday activities is not averted by Omega-3 consumption.

The study divided its 5,299 subjects, with a mean age of 67.5 years, into five groups depending on the frequency and amount of their fish consumption. At the end of 11.4 years, the 669 subjects who developed heart failure were no more nor less likely to eat fish than those who did not, even after researchers took account of other lifestyle and dietary habits that might contribute to heart problems.

Dr. Marianne Geleinjse of Wageningen University in the Netherlands, one of the study's authors, acknowledged the study appears to run counter to mounting evidence for fish consumption's beneficial effects. "Based on our data, we would not change... advice" suggesting that people eat at least two weekly servings of fish, she added. Geleinjse cautioned that Dutch intake of fish is extremely low--on average less than one serving per week. "So maybe higher intakes are needed for any protection against heart failure," she noted.

-- Melissa Healy

Chocolate milk instead of chocolate candy? This is a choice?

Those Got Milk? folks. They've always got an angle. This time, they're tackling Halloween, urging kids to promise to look for nutritious treats instead of small chocolate bars and other candy.

What, you might ask, would one of those nutritious treats be? Chocolate milk.

Fill out this pledge and you'll get a Got Milk? treat: "To celebrate the day, I will try to look for delicious and nutritious treats such [sic] chocolate milk instead of candy."

Now chocolate milk may have some health benefits compared to say, a cup of milk chocolate M&Ms -- but let's not kid ourselves:

1 cup, low fat: 158 calories
1 cup, reduced fat, 179 calories
1 cup, regular milk, 208 calories

That's from the Nutrient Facts website. Borden's chocolate milk is 220 calories, according to The Daily Plate. Lucerne's is 230. And those are for eight-ounce, who-remembers-what-those-look-like servings, not today's typical portion sizes.

Water's good too, I've heard.

 -- Tami Dennis

Credit: Los Angeles Times

Check the expiration date on foods

A study of Los Angeles food markets has found high numbers of products with expired freshness dates. The study was conducted primarily in markets in low-income neighborhoods in Los Angeles, but it's possible the sale of expired foods is a problem elsewhere, said author of the study LaVonna Lewis, a professor of Policy, Planning and Development at USC.

The study, which began in April 2008, and ended in February, enlisted 90 members of the community to keep checklists of what they encountered during their food shopping trips. A total of 657 checklists were submitted. The surveyed stores were primarily in the South Los Angeles area, but some checklists were submitted on stores in other communities. The stores included small markets and large supermarket chain stores.

The shoppers found at least one expired poultry, beef of dairy product in about one-third of the stores visits made over the study period. In 18% of the visits, residents found at least three expired poultry, beef or dairy items.

In an analysis of five stores that were heavily surveyed, the rates of expired poultry ranged from 19.2% to 39.5%. The range for expired beef was 20% to 41.8% and for dairy products, 26% to 45.4%.

The shoppers, however, found sufficient access to special diet foods, such as low-salt, low-sugar and lactose-free foods.

The study was sponsored by the Community Health Councils Inc., a project that addresses healthcare inadequacies in communities in a partnership with USC. Lewis presented the data last month at the 2009 California Reach Us Conference and is preparing her findings for publication in a scientific journal.

Future studies will try to determine if expired food products are found more often in low-income areas, Lewis said.

"It's a quality question," she said. "Shouldn't people have access to fresh, healthy foods no matter where they live? It's also a resource question. If you have limited resources, aren't those resources used less effectively if the food you purchase in your neighborhood is quickly out of date?"

-- Shari Roan

Photo credit: Tim Boyle  /  Getty Images

More study needed to determine whether adding calorie counts to menus curbs obesity, researcher says

Going to McDonald's or KFC? What if you see the calorie counts posted on the menu? Would you change your plans? Researchers in New York tried to answer the question. You can read about their study here.

It’s no surprise that eating habits are hard to change. But the lead researcher also notes that it’s hard to assess the many anti-obesity public health efforts underway. Brian Elbel of New York University says more research is needed into the effects of putting calorie counts on menus.

It’s possible, he says, that the labels -- required in New York since July 2008 -- need more time to make a difference. Or perhaps the effect is hard to track at fast-food outlets. The researchers surveyed customers and examined receipts from several fast-food places. But what if the labels have kept some people away all together?

Elbel and other researchers are still evaluating the data they collected. And they’re planning another study, this time in a city (still to be decided) that’s about to adopt labeling laws, so they can look at the before and after.

Menu labeling is just one effort to combat obesity, and the diseases associated with it -- such as high blood pressure and diabetes. And Elbel says it may take several programs in conjunction. In L.A., the City Council banned new fast food spots in South Los Angeles -- an effort that isn't likely to help, according to a Rand Corp. study.

-- Mary MacVean

Photo: Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times

Mediterranean diet reduces depression, study suggests

Jetting to the sunny climes of the Mediterranean couldn't hurt if you feel a bout of depression settling in.

But a new study in the Archives of General Psychiatry finds that if your aim is to minimize your risk of depression in the first place, you might stay right where you are and make your plate look like it's been to the Mediterranean. You should scale back on the meats and dairy fats, eat some nuts, and increase your consumption of fish, vegetables and legumes doused in olive oil.

Oh, and pour yourself a glass of wine. Not half a bottle; one glass, maybe two.

The Mediterranean diet has been linked to reduced risk of heart disease, stroke, Type 2 diabetes and cancer. it was only a matter of time before researchers would begin to wonder whether a Mediterranean diet could also reduce the risk of depression -- which, like all of the above diseases, is linked to higher levels of inflammation throughout the body. They found tantalizing suggestions of such a link: Compared with Northern Europe, the countries surrounded by the Mediterranean report lower rates of mental illness and suicide. 

The study linking adherence to a traditional Mediterranean diet with reduced depression risk is the first to test that link prospectively. It followed a group of subjects over several years, tracked their eating patterns and recorded how many reported several symptoms or a diagnosis of depression. This one tracked 10,094 graduates of the University of Navarra in Spain for roughly 4 1/2 years and found that the more closely subjects stuck to the principal elements of a Mediterranean diet, the lower their likelihood of developing depression.

So what is it -- the sunshine, the hillside towns that keep even octogenarians walking daily on errands? The tradition of far niente? The wine, the fish, the nuts, the legumes, the olive oil? While acknowledging that lifestyle factors or genetics may contribute to the lowered risk of depression, the researchers focused largely on the dietary components, and sought to single out one or two more powerful than the others in warding off depression.

In the end, they noted, "the role of the overall dietary pattern may be more important than the effect of single components." They even suggested that depression may yield in the face of a "synergistic combination" of polyunsaturated fats from olive oil and nuts, antioxidants from fruits and flavenoids, B vitamins and natural folates from vegetables and wine.

-- Melissa Healy

Obviously, giving kids sweets leads to a life of crime

Sometimes a study comes along that is just so ... well, words fail me. Let's turn to the researchers' words instead.

The introduction, from researchers at Cardiff University in the United Kingdom, states: "We hypothesise that excessive confectionery consumption increases the likelihood of violence in adulthood."

Seriously.

To test this hypothesis, the researchers used the British Cohort Study to obtain information on the frequency of sweets consumption at age 10 and on violence convictions by age 34.

They found that 69% of people convicted of violence had in fact eaten sweets nearly every day when they were younger. Only 42% of those who had been nonviolent until age 34 reported such daily consumption.

The study concludes: "One plausible mechanism is that persistently using confectionery to control childhood behaviour might prevent children from learning to defer gratification, in turn biasing decision processes towards more impulsive behaviour, biases that are strongly associated with delinquency. Furthermore, childhood confectionery consumption may nurture a taste that is maintained into adulthood, exposing adults to the effects of additives often found in sweetened food, the consumption of which may also contribute towards adult aggression. Moreover, although parental attitudes were associated with adult violence, the effect of diet was robust having controlled for these attitudinal variables. Irrespective of the causal mechanism, which warrants further attention, targeting resources at improving childhood diet may improve health and reduce aggression."

I'm not making this up. Here's the study. It was published in the October issue of British Journal of Psychiatry.

-- Tami Dennis

Photo: Please! Be careful with those things. Credit: Bryan Chan / Los Angeles Times