<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_431"
                     title="Down a Beer to Improve Bone Health? Not So Fast"
                     score="0.013"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/DietNutrition/tb/18347?impressionId=1265811704560"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;A flagon of ale may indeed be a good source of dietary silicon, a recent study showed, but experts say any attempt to link beer drinking to bone health is not based on scientific data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The study of 100 commercial beers in the February issue of the &lt;em&gt;Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture&lt;/em&gt;, by Charles Bamforth, PhD, DSc, and Troy Casey, of the University of California Davis, examined the silicon content that results from different ingredients and brewing processes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although a press release issued with the study prominently mentioned the link between silicon and bone health, the study itself did not look at bone mineral density or analyze any patient data at all, according to several researchers contacted by &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt; and ABC News.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors wrote that they explored the silicon content in beer because the popular beverage has been identified as one of the richest potential sources of dietary silicon in the Western diet. The average intake is 20 to 50 mg/day.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The beers sampled contained an average of 29.4 mg/L of silicon, with a range of 6.4 to 56.4 mg/L. Beers made from a barley-based grist (as opposed to wheat-based beers ) and brews containing more hops had the highest silicon levels.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The beer type with the overall highest silicon level was India Pale Ale, with an average of 41.2 mg/L. Other ales came in second with 32.8 mg/L.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nonalcoholic beers, light lagers, and wheat beers had the least silicon.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the end, the authors concluded that &quot;beer is a substantial source of silicon in the diet&quot; and that &quot;beers containing high levels of malted barley and hops are richest in silicon,&quot; but they did not attempt to establish a link between beer drinking and bone health.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Experts contacted for comment on the study also cautioned the public against establishing any such connection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;To conclude any bone health benefits from this study would require a great leap,&quot; Tim Byers, MD, MPH, deputy director of the University of Colorado Cancer Center in Aurora, wrote in an e-mail.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Other researchers noted that previous studies have shown an association between alcohol consumption and an increased risk of fracture.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That&apos;s probably because of a greater chance of falling after drinking, according to Walter Willett, MD, DrPH, of the Harvard School of Public Health.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In fact, Stephen Richardson, MD, an endocrinologist at NYU Langone Medical Center, noted that &quot;alcohol consumption is a risk factor for osteoporosis.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Still, there is some evidence supporting a positive link between overall dietary silicon and bone health.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A 2004 cross-sectional study in the &lt;em&gt;Journal of Bone and Mineral Research&lt;/em&gt; that used data from the Framingham Offspring cohort found a significant association between greater dietary silicon intake, including that from beer, and higher bone mineral density in the hip in men and premenopausal women.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers concluded: &quot;These findings suggest that higher dietary silicon intake in men and younger women may have salutary effects on skeletal health, especially cortical bone health, that has not been previously recognized.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another study by the same group published last year in the &lt;em&gt;American Journal of Clinical Nutrition&lt;/em&gt; found that moderate consumption of alcohol, including beer, wine, and liquor, was associated with higher bone mineral density in men and postmenopausal women.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, it also showed that men who drank too much liquor were more likely to have lower spine and hip bone mineral density.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The relationship between beer and bone mineral density appeared to be mediated by silicon, the researchers concluded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Bottom line: considering the increased fracture risk and the various other problems associated with drinking too much alcohol, experts agree that guzzling beer is not strategy for improving bone health.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;In the absence of bone density values or preferably fracture incidence, it would be premature to tout beer as a preventative or treatment,&quot; Richardson said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David Katz, MD, MPH, of the Yale School of Public Health, agreed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This is NOT a reason to drink beer,&quot; he said in an e-mail. &quot;This is simply a bit of good news for those who do drink beer already  --  yours truly among them!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors did not make any financial disclosures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This article was developed in collaboration with ABC News. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2009/10/1/14357_1.jpg&quot; mce_src=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2009/10/1/14357_1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_322"
                     title="Switch to Low-Fat Milk in Schools Shows Benefit"
                     score="0.006"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/DietNutrition/tb/18192?impressionId=1265811704560"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;When New York City public schools made the switch from whole milk to skim or low-fat milk, students cut their annual fat and total calorie consumption, department researchers found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Milk-drinking students consumed 5,960 fewer calories and 619 fewer grams of fat per year after they made the switch, Philip M. Alberti, PhD, of the New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and colleagues reported in the Jan. 29 issue of CDC&apos;s &lt;em&gt;Morbidity &amp;amp; Mortality Weekly Report&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At 3,500 calories per pound, the reduction would be the equivalent of 1.7 pounds of body weight over the course of a year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The switch to lower-fat milk likely has improved the overall nutritional environment of NYC public schoolchildren,&quot; Alberti and colleagues wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, most of the low-fat milk consumed was chocolate milk, which has a substantially higher sugar content than unflavored milk, the researchers found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In 2005, the New York City Department of Education began reviewing its food policies and determined that replacing whole milk with fat-free or low-fat milk could decrease students&apos; fat and calorie intake.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At subsequent board meetings, milk industry advocates suggested that without whole milk or chocolate- or strawberry-flavored milk, student milk consumption would decline, thus decreasing calcium and vitamin intake.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nonetheless, the Department of Education began phasing out whole milk in 2005, and limited flavored milk to fat-free chocolate milk.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers didn&apos;t have data on student consumption of milk, so they analyzed system-wide school milk purchases.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They found that per-student school milk purchases dropped 8% between 2004 and 2006, but then gradually began to increase. By 2009, purchases had risen 1.3% from five years prior: from 112 per student in 2004 to 114 in 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Fat-free milk accounted for 42% of all purchases in 2009, compared with less than 7% in 2004.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In 2004, students purchased more than 18 billion calories and 520 million grams of fat in the form of milk. That fell to less than 14 billion calories and 98 million grams of fat in 2009, representing a 25% and 81% decrease, respectively.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Over that five-year time period, the researchers calculated that if calorie and fat savings were distributed among all students  --  including those who don&apos;t drink milk  --  they would consume 3,484 fewer calories and 382 fewer grams of fat each year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the data were limited to students who do drink milk during the school day  --  62% of students in 2004 and 63% in 2009  --  the savings increased to 5,960 calories and 619 fat grams per year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Alberti and colleagues wrote that the data show the milk policy change reduced fat and calorie intake while still providing protein, calcium, and vitamins A and D.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Other school systems can use these results to guide changes to their own school food policies,&quot; they said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They noted, however, that the majority of low-fat milk consumed  --  60% of all milk purchases  --  was chocolate milk, a concern because sweetened milk has more calories than reduced-fat white milk and contains twice as much sugar.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But limiting its availability would &quot;further reduce milk consumption,&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors noted that the study was limited because there were no data to evaluate the magnitude of the correlation between milk purchasing and milk consumption. Also, no data were collected on students&apos; diets, so the researchers could not assess the policy&apos;s larger effects on diet.&lt;/p&gt;

    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_265"
                     title="How Many Calories in that Happy Meal? (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.002"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/DietNutrition/tb/18099?impressionId=1265811704560"
                     
      Putting nutrition labels on fast food may lead parents to pick lower-calorie meals for their children, researchers say.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;In a small waiting room study, parents ordered about 20% fewer calories for their kids when they chose from a menu with nutrition information on it, Pooja Tandon, MD, of the University of Washington, and colleagues reported online in &lt;em&gt;Pediatrics&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&quot;One hundred calories over time and at a population level is actually a significant amount in terms of being able to avert weight gain,&quot; Tandon told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Many fast-food restaurants don&apos;t provide nutrition information at the point of purchase. In a recent study, just about half  --  54%  --  of the largest chains made some nutritional information available on site. The majority  --  86%  --  provided it only through their Web sites, leaving consumers clueless while ordering.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Labels have long been advocated as a means of lowering calorie consumption. So to determine whether nutrition labeling specifically on fast-food menus would lead to lower-calorie choices for children, the researchers conducted a randomized, controlled experiment in a primary care pediatric clinic in Seattle.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Parents of children ages 3 to 6 were given a McDonald&apos;s menu, and then asked to pick out meals anonymously&lt;strong&gt; &lt;/strong&gt;for themselves and their child.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The menus were identical, with one exception: those given to parents in the intervention group included nutrition information, while the menus given to parents in the control group had none. The menus did include prices for both groups.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A total of 99 parents participated between October 2008 and January 2009. Some 62% reported eating fast food one to four times over the previous month, mostly because it was quick, cheap, or fun.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers found that parents who were given nutritional information ordered an average of 102 fewer calories for their kids than did controls (567.1 cal versus 671.5 cal, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.04).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On average, the nutrition-labeled menu reduced total calories ordered by 20%, the researchers wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The difference remained significant after adjustment for gender, race, education, BMI, fast-food frequency, and child&apos;s BMI z-score (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.004).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;We know that fast food consumption is rising alongside alarming rates of child obesity in this country,&quot; Tandon said. &quot;These results make me optimistic that if parents are given nutritional information at the point of ordering  --  and not on a Web site or tray liner  --  they will have the tools to make healthier, lower-calorie choices for their children.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Research has suggested that even small changes in behavior that affect energy balance by about 100 calories per day could avert weight gain in most adults.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, Tandon said, there were no differences between the groups when it came to parents&apos; choices for themselves. Both ordered about the same number of calories.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;I&apos;m not sure exactly what&apos;s going on with this group of parents, but this is a trend we&apos;ve seen,&quot; Tandon said. &quot;I would hypothesize that there are some other factors at play when people are choosing for themselves and their children in terms of wanting children to eat healthier than they might for themselves.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There was also a positive correlation between how many calories the parent ordered and how many calories he or she ordered for the child (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.02).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;We do know that if a child has one or two parents who are overweight, that increases their chance of being overweight, so [obesity] probably is a combination of genetic and environmental factors,&quot; Tandon said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Tandon noted that a growing number of local and state governments have adopted restaurant menu labeling regulations, and legislation for federal labeling standards has been introduced in both the House and the Senate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;At a time when menu labeling is being discussed throughout country at the national level, I think these results support the&lt;strong&gt; &lt;/strong&gt;idea that an informed parent will be able to make smarter healthier choices for their child,&quot; she added.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The study was limited because it was not conducted in a real restaurant setting. Food choices are made within social and environmental contexts, Tandon said, and the results of a mock menu survey in a clinic may not fully represent that reality. A randomized experiment in a real restaurant setting would be an ideal follow-up.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_235"
                     title="Congenital Anomalies Linked to Mom&apos;s Diabetes (CME/CE)"
                     score="-0.001"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/tb/18065?impressionId=1265811704560"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Pregestational maternal diabetes was associated with an increased risk of a major congenital anomaly, but obesity itself was not, a cross-sectional study found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a multivariable logistic model, the major contributor to a rising rate of congenital anomalies was maternal pregestational diabetes (OR 3.8, 95% CI 2.1 to 6.6), according to Joseph R. Biggio, Jr., MD, and colleagues from the University of Alabama at Birmingham.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Because hyperglycemia is a major contributor to developmental malformations, interventions to address obesity and identify women at risk for diabetes and hyperglycemia should be considered in efforts to reduce the occurrence of congenital anomalies,&quot; they wrote in the February issue of &lt;em&gt;Obstetrics &amp;amp; Gynecology.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Maternal obesity has been linked with numerous problems, including preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, fetal and neonatal death, and birth trauma, but scientists have disagreed over whether it also contributes to the risk of fetal malformations, the researchers noted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To help settle the issue, Biggio and colleagues used a perinatal database in their university health system that included all women with singletons delivered between 1991 and 2004.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They divided the cohort into three time periods  --  1991 to 1994, 1995 to 1999, and 2000 to 2004, with a total of 41,902 pregnancies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For their primary analysis, they defined maternal obesity as a first prenatal visit weight greater than 200 lb, because during the earlier epochs many women did not have body mass index (BMI) calculated. For their secondary analyses they used BMI greater than 29 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; as the criterion for obesity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In each epoch, there were increases in mean maternal weight, mean BMI, the proportion of women weighing more than 200 lb, the proportion with a BMI greater than 29 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, and the prevalence of pregestational diabetes (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001 for all).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Univariable analysis determined that the rate of major anomalies, particularly involving the cardiac and pulmonary systems, also increased during each time period.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But there was no independent association between congenital anomalies and maternal obesity using either definition, during any of the three time periods or during the study overall.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although no direct association was seen between congenital malformations and maternal obesity, the investigators reported that the proportion of anomalies that could be attributed to obesity increased from 0% to 23% during the overall study period.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The proportion of anomalies that could be attributed to diabetes ranged from 58% to 76%.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Moreover, for obese women with diabetes the proportion of anomalies attributed to diabetes increased sharply, from 48% in the first epoch to 74% in the third epoch.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In contrast, for the obstetric population as a whole, the population-attributable risk of congenital malformation related to obesity rose from near zero in the first epoch to 6.1% in the third epoch, while that related to diabetes increased from 3.3% to 9.2%, the investigators reported.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During the course of the study there was a nearly 15-lb increase in maternal weight and a 30% increase in the proportion of women whose BMI exceeded 29 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There also was a nearly twofold increase in the rate of major anomalies  --  and a 250% increase in the prevalence of diabetes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors observed that there has been much interest in the effects of maternal obesity on birth defects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although the pathophysiologic basis for this possible association have not been identified, hypotheses have included increased serum insulin, lower levels of folic acid, chronic hypoxia, and increased inflammatory mediators.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Our study provides evidence that the defects may not be due solely to the maternal obesity per se but may be due to undiagnosed diabetes,&quot; the investigators wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;From a public health standpoint, the study findings suggest that efforts to reduce the prevalence of congenital anomalies should be focused less on obesity and aimed more closely at correcting hyperglycemia.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;If euglycemia could be achieved before pregnancy, or at least embryogenesis and organogenesis, the majority of these anomalies could potentially be avoided,&quot; they observed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They also suggested that even women of normal weight, but with other diabetes risk factors, could benefit from closer attention to glycemic control.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A weakness of the study was the fact that detailed data on glycemic control was not available in the perinatal database, &quot;and therefore we cannot comment on the association between glycemic control and anomaly rates,&quot; the investigators wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported in part by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20090101_10_811"
                     title="Dairy Consumption by Kids No Guarantee of Stronger Bones"
                     score="-0.005"
                     href="