REGULAR FEATURES:

alive magazine Visit Our Learning Center

healthy recipies Healthy Recipes

alive magazine Alive Magazine



Subscription

Our strict privacy policy keeps your email address 100% safe & secure.

IN THIS ISSUE:

It’s Not Hard to Find Whole Grains

Posted Sept 5, 2011

Hey kids, it’s time to start eating more whole grains.

Tell kids that, and you may not get the best response.

But say you want them to eat more popcorn, and they’ll likely dig in.

It’s easier to pack more whole grains into your diet than you may think. Popcorn, for example, when prepared healthfully in an air popper or on the stovetop, is a good whole-grain source.

Sonja Stolfa, registered and licensed dietitian with St. Francis Hospital, said it’s important for kids to eat enough whole grains.

“Especially with the new plate model,” Stolfa said.

The USDA’s recent announcement that the iconic food pyramid will be replaced with the symbol of a plate was seen as a positive move by many dietitians, including Stolfa. The new guidelines recommend that about half of the plate include grains and proteins. Of those grains, the USDA recommends that half be whole grains.

Stolfa would go a step further.

“It’s even better if all or most of those grains are whole grains,” she said. “Studies show people who eat whole grains have lower body fat and better insulin control.”

Whether it’s for a kid’s or an adult’s diet, Stolfa suggests starting slow.

For kids, that might mean making spaghetti with half white noodles and half whole-grain noodles. Or serving half brown rice and half white rice.

“Usually kids will get used to it after a while. It’s older people who have more trouble,” she said.

But both parents and kids need to be on board, said Rene Norman of Nutrition Consultants of Tulsa.

“Parents have to be good role models and eat the grains themselves. Walk the talk,” Norman said.

While adults may be able to curb their need for unhealthy snacks with added protein or fruit, kids often still crave more identifiable crunchy, crispy snacks.

Instead of eliminating those snacks, look for packaged snacks with the whole grains stamp — given by the Whole Grains Council — which you’ll find on products with 8 or more grams per serving of whole grains.

Or, make your own crunchy snacks, like a trail mix made with whole-grain cereal. Norman likes granola made with whole-grain oatmeal.

In her book “Double Delicious,” Jessica Seinfeld writes of the importance, and ease, of adding whole grains to kids’ diets.

She says there’s no need to relearn the way you cook or eat when incorporating whole grains. She suggests adding them to food you’re already making and eating. Meatballs, for example, are just as good with 3/4 cup of ground bran cereal added to the mixture, she said.

It’s the same approach Stolfa takes. When making pancakes and muffins, she substitutes half whole-wheat flour for the all-purpose flour.

Jessica Seinfeld’s recipe is rich in whole grains and has 11 grams of fiber per serving.

Chicken Enchiladas

Serves 6

1 tablespoon olive oil

2 boneless, skinless chicken breasts, cubed (about 3/4 pound)

1/2 teaspoon garlic powder

1/4 teaspoon pepper

1/2 cup sweet potato or carrot puree

1/4 cup fat-free sour cream

1 cup shredded, reduced-fat (2 percent) cheddar cheese or part-skim mozzarella, divided

6 (9-inch) whole-grain or whole-wheat flour tortillas

1/2 cup spinach puree

1/2 cup mild tomato salsa

1. Preheat the oven to 350 degrees. Coat a 9-by-12-inch baking dish with cooking spray. Warm the oil in a large skillet over medium-high heat.

2. Sprinkle the chicken with garlic powder and pepper. Cook the chicken 4 to 5 minutes, stirring occasionally, until it is cooked through and no longer pink in the center. Off the heat, mix the sweet potato or carrot puree, sour cream and half the cheese into the skillet.

3. Fill each tortilla with the chicken mixture, and roll up. Place seam side down in the prepared baking dish. Dot the tops of the enchiladas with spinach puree. Spoon the salsa over the enchiladas, and sprinkle with the remaining cheese.

4. Cover the dish with aluminum foil, and bake until the cheese melts and the filling is hot, 35 to 40 minutes.

It may not scream “whole grains,” but this is a recipe that sneaks some whole grains into a kid-favorite dinner. It comes from Sonja Stolfa.

Easy Chicken Nuggets

Makes 4 servings

3 cups corn cereal

1/2 cup grated Parmesan cheese

1/2 teaspoon salt

1/2 teaspoon seasoned salt

1/4 teaspoon paprika

1/8 teaspoon garlic powder

3 tablespoons butter, melted

1 tablespoon milk

1 pound boneless skinless chicken breasts, cut into 1-by-1-inch pieces

1. Heat oven to 400 degrees. Line cookie sheet with aluminum foil. Crush cereal. Mix cereal, cheese, salt, seasoned salt, paprika and garlic powder in medium bowl; set aside. Stir together butter and milk in small bowl.

2. Dip chicken into butter mixture, then roll in cereal mixture to coat evenly. Place on cookie sheet. Bake 9 minutes; turn nuggets over. Bake about 8 minutes longer or until coating is light golden brown and chicken is no longer pink in center.

Tabouli is a good whole-grain salad that kids may like more than you think. This recipe comes from the “Whole Grain Gourmet.”

Lebanese Tabouli

1/2 cup bulgur wheat (fine bulgur preferred, if available)

1 1/2 cups minced parsley

1/4 cup minced mint leaves

1/3 cup minced green onion

2 tomatoes, diced

Dressing:

1/4 cup olive oil

1/4 cup lemon juice

1 teaspoon kosher salt

1/4 teaspoon cinnamon

1 clove garlic, crushed

Fresh ground black pepper to taste

1. Rinse bulgur. Pour boiling water to cover bulgur wheat and allow to soak covered for 30 minutes. Drain any excess water. Allow to cool to room temperature.

2. Toss bulgur with the parsley, green onion, mint and tomatoes.

3. Whisk the olive oil, lemon juice, salt, pepper, cinnamon and crushed garlic.

4. Pour the dressing over the bulgur mixture. and toss until well coated. Refrigerate for about an

hour before serving.

5 ways to eat whole grains

1. Add 1/2 cup cooked wild rice or brown rice to canned or homemade soup.

2. When making meatballs, meatloaf or burgers, mix 3/4 cup ground bran cereal or wheat germ into each pound of ground turkey.

3. When a recipe calls for all-purpose flour, substitute half of it with whole-wheat flour.

4. Instead of chips and creamy dips, snack on whole-wheat pretzels or whole-grain crackers with hummus, salsa or bean dip.

5. Pop popcorn in an air popper or on the stovetop. Sprinkle with a little grated cheese and salt or spices.

– Source: “Double Delicious”

Natalie Mikles 918-581-8486

natalie.mikles@tulsaworld.com

To see more of the Tulsa World, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.tulsaworld.com.

Copyright © 2011, Tulsa World, Okla.

Posted Sept 5, 2011

Hey kids, it's time to start eating more whole grains.

Tell kids that, and you may not get the best response.

But say you want them to eat more popcorn, and they'll likely dig in.

It's easier to pack more whole grains into your diet than you may think. Popcorn, for example, when prepared healthfully in an air popper or on the stovetop, is a good whole-grain source.

Sonja Stolfa, registered and licensed dietitian with St. Francis Hospital, said it's important for kids to eat enough whole grains.

"Especially with the new plate model," Stolfa said.

The USDA's recent announcement that the iconic food pyramid will be replaced with the symbol of a plate was seen as a positive move by many dietitians, including Stolfa. The new guidelines recommend that about half of the plate include grains and proteins. Of those grains, the USDA recommends that half be whole grains.

Stolfa would go a step further.

"It's even better if all or most of those grains are whole grains," she said. "Studies show people who eat whole grains have lower body fat and better insulin control."

Whether it's for a kid's or an adult's diet, Stolfa suggests starting slow.

For kids, that might mean making spaghetti with half white noodles and half whole-grain noodles. Or serving half brown rice and half white rice.

"Usually kids will get used to it after a while. It's older people who have more trouble," she said.

But both parents and kids need to be on board, said Rene Norman of Nutrition Consultants of Tulsa.

"Parents have to be good role models and eat the grains themselves. Walk the talk," Norman said.

While adults may be able to curb their need for unhealthy snacks with added protein or fruit, kids often still crave more identifiable crunchy, crispy snacks.

Instead of eliminating those snacks, look for packaged snacks with the whole grains stamp -- given by the Whole Grains Council -- which you'll find on products with 8 or more grams per serving of whole grains.

Or, make your own crunchy snacks, like a trail mix made with whole-grain cereal. Norman likes granola made with whole-grain oatmeal.

In her book "Double Delicious," Jessica Seinfeld writes of the importance, and ease, of adding whole grains to kids' diets.

She says there's no need to relearn the way you cook or eat when incorporating whole grains. She suggests adding them to food you're already making and eating. Meatballs, for example, are just as good with 3/4 cup of ground bran cereal added to the mixture, she said.

It's the same approach Stolfa takes. When making pancakes and muffins, she substitutes half whole-wheat flour for the all-purpose flour.

Jessica Seinfeld's recipe is rich in whole grains and has 11 grams of fiber per serving.

Chicken Enchiladas

Serves 6

1 tablespoon olive oil

2 boneless, skinless chicken breasts, cubed (about 3/4 pound)

1/2 teaspoon garlic powder

1/4 teaspoon pepper

1/2 cup sweet potato or carrot puree

1/4 cup fat-free sour cream

1 cup shredded, reduced-fat (2 percent) cheddar cheese or part-skim mozzarella, divided

6 (9-inch) whole-grain or whole-wheat flour tortillas

1/2 cup spinach puree

1/2 cup mild tomato salsa

1. Preheat the oven to 350 degrees. Coat a 9-by-12-inch baking dish with cooking spray. Warm the oil in a large skillet over medium-high heat.

2. Sprinkle the chicken with garlic powder and pepper. Cook the chicken 4 to 5 minutes, stirring occasionally, until it is cooked through and no longer pink in the center. Off the heat, mix the sweet potato or carrot puree, sour cream and half the cheese into the skillet.

3. Fill each tortilla with the chicken mixture, and roll up. Place seam side down in the prepared baking dish. Dot the tops of the enchiladas with spinach puree. Spoon the salsa over the enchiladas, and sprinkle with the remaining cheese.

4. Cover the dish with aluminum foil, and bake until the cheese melts and the filling is hot, 35 to 40 minutes.

It may not scream "whole grains," but this is a recipe that sneaks some whole grains into a kid-favorite dinner. It comes from Sonja Stolfa.

Easy Chicken Nuggets

Makes 4 servings

3 cups corn cereal

1/2 cup grated Parmesan cheese

1/2 teaspoon salt

1/2 teaspoon seasoned salt

1/4 teaspoon paprika

1/8 teaspoon garlic powder

3 tablespoons butter, melted

1 tablespoon milk

1 pound boneless skinless chicken breasts, cut into 1-by-1-inch pieces

1. Heat oven to 400 degrees. Line cookie sheet with aluminum foil. Crush cereal. Mix cereal, cheese, salt, seasoned salt, paprika and garlic powder in medium bowl; set aside. Stir together butter and milk in small bowl.

2. Dip chicken into butter mixture, then roll in cereal mixture to coat evenly. Place on cookie sheet. Bake 9 minutes; turn nuggets over. Bake about 8 minutes longer or until coating is light golden brown and chicken is no longer pink in center.

Tabouli is a good whole-grain salad that kids may like more than you think. This recipe comes from the "Whole Grain Gourmet."

Lebanese Tabouli

1/2 cup bulgur wheat (fine bulgur preferred, if available)

1 1/2 cups minced parsley

1/4 cup minced mint leaves

1/3 cup minced green onion

2 tomatoes, diced

Dressing:

1/4 cup olive oil

1/4 cup lemon juice

1 teaspoon kosher salt

1/4 teaspoon cinnamon

1 clove garlic, crushed

Fresh ground black pepper to taste

1. Rinse bulgur. Pour boiling water to cover bulgur wheat and allow to soak covered for 30 minutes. Drain any excess water. Allow to cool to room temperature.

2. Toss bulgur with the parsley, green onion, mint and tomatoes.

3. Whisk the olive oil, lemon juice, salt, pepper, cinnamon and crushed garlic.

4. Pour the dressing over the bulgur mixture. and toss until well coated. Refrigerate for about an

hour before serving.

5 ways to eat whole grains

1. Add 1/2 cup cooked wild rice or brown rice to canned or homemade soup.

2. When making meatballs, meatloaf or burgers, mix 3/4 cup ground bran cereal or wheat germ into each pound of ground turkey.

3. When a recipe calls for all-purpose flour, substitute half of it with whole-wheat flour.

4. Instead of chips and creamy dips, snack on whole-wheat pretzels or whole-grain crackers with hummus, salsa or bean dip.

5. Pop popcorn in an air popper or on the stovetop. Sprinkle with a little grated cheese and salt or spices.

- Source: "Double Delicious"

Natalie Mikles 918-581-8486

natalie.mikles@tulsaworld.com

To see more of the Tulsa World, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.tulsaworld.com.

Copyright © 2011, Tulsa World, Okla.

Tags: , , , ,



Back to top

Coffee Could Reduce Prostate Cancer Risk

Posted June 27, 2011

The buzz about coffee has been percolating recently after one study suggested that six cups a day could reduce the risk of prostate cancer.

A study released last week by Harvard scientists indicates that men who drink heavy amounts of coffee could have a reduced risk of lethal prostate cancer.

But before you reach for that sixth cup, you must first think about all the factors associated with coffee consumption, local dietitians say.

In the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, called “Coffee Consumption and Prostate Cancer Risk and Progression,” scientists analyzed 47,911 men. The subjects reported their intake of coffee — both regular and decaffeinated — from 1986 to 2006, in four-year increments.

“We observed a strong inverse association between coffee consumption and risk of lethal prostate cancer. The association appears to be related to non-caffeine components of coffee,” according to the study’s abstract.

“Coffee contains many biologically active compounds, including caffeine and phenolic acids, that have potent antioxidant activity and can affect glucose metabolism and sex hormone levels,” it continues. “Because of these biological activities, coffee may be associated with a reduced risk of prostate cancer.”

But Tulsa-area dietitians still believe that moderation is key for coffee drinkers, no matter what the study reports.

“I thought it was interesting for sure because, really, coffee doesn’t seem to get a really positive buzz in health journals or even in the media,” said Rachel Vincent, a registered dietitian and the Food and Nutrition Manager at St. John Owasso. “Besides antioxidants, it’s not really something I feel has been studied as much.”

She also noted that the study does not “differentiate between caffeinated or decaf,” she said. “There’s definitely a physical addition to caffeine. If you’re drinking six cups of coffee a day, there’s going to be a physical withdrawal if you all of a sudden cannot anymore.”

She said people with other health issues, such as high blood pressure or heart conditions, should talk to their doctor before reaching for more coffee.

“Because caffeine is a stimulant, you have to take into account your total health before adding it into your regimen,” Vincent said.

Cece Davis, a registered dietitian and owner of Nutrition Consultants Of Tulsa, was not influenced by the study.

“To me, this is not a strong case for increasing caffeine intake,” Davis said. “Basically it’s not significant — that’s the takeaway. I can’t believe (the study) is such a big deal.”

Davis said its findings did not persuade her to suggest adding more coffee to the diet.

“In moderation, coffee is fine. There really hasn’t been a strong link to anything (unhealthy) except hypertension,” Davis said. “As long as someone’s already consuming three cups — which would be 24 ounces or under — in a day, there is no risk.”

And coffee has antioxidants because the beans come from plants, both dietitians said.

“A diet high in antioxidants is great. Normally they come in something bright and colorful, like fruits and vegetables,” Vincent said. “But (the study) didn’t really show whether it was regular coffee or instant coffee or espresso. There are a lot of variables in there. I definitely as a dietitian would not start telling all patients we need to see an increase in coffee.”

But she also would not necessarily tell them to stop drinking it altogether.

“If they’re already drinking four cups, say two regular and two decaf. I wouldn’t put the breaks on,” she said. Coffee talk Dietitian Rachel Vincent said drinking coffee in moderation is fine, but it depends on how you take your morning java.

“I’m sure in that study when they’re promoting more coffee, they were not promoting something like a frozen coffee drink,” Vincent said. “When you start adding ice cream, you increase the risk of Type 2 diabetes.”

How healthy is your morning cup of Joe?

Black coffee — It has zero calories, no additional fat, no carbohydrates. Vincent recommends this.

Coffee with skim milk — Add lowfat or nonfat milk only. It will add some calcium and a small amount of protein.

Coffee with artificial sweetener — Mix it up. Change from Splenda to Equal to stevia. “Don’t get one artificial sweetener and stick with it,” Vincent said. “No health risks have been proven one way or the other, but if you use only one (sweetener) and it turns out to be unhealthy, you already have had a lot of it.”

Kim Brown 918-581-8474 kim.brown@tulsaworld.com

To see more of the Tulsa World, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.tulsaworld.com.

Copyright © 2011, Tulsa World, Okla.

The buzz about coffee has been percolating recently after one study suggested that six cups a day could reduce the risk of prostate cancer.

A study released last week by Harvard scientists indicates that men who drink heavy amounts of coffee could have a reduced risk of lethal prostate cancer.

But before you reach for that sixth cup, you must first think about all the factors associated with coffee consumption, local dietitians say.

In the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, called "Coffee Consumption and Prostate Cancer Risk and Progression," scientists analyzed 47,911 men. The subjects reported their intake of coffee -- both regular and decaffeinated -- from 1986 to 2006, in four-year increments.

"We observed a strong inverse association between coffee consumption and risk of lethal prostate cancer. The association appears to be related to non-caffeine components of coffee," according to the study's abstract.

"Coffee contains many biologically active compounds, including caffeine and phenolic acids, that have potent antioxidant activity and can affect glucose metabolism and sex hormone levels," it continues. "Because of these biological activities, coffee may be associated with a reduced risk of prostate cancer."

But Tulsa-area dietitians still believe that moderation is key for coffee drinkers, no matter what the study reports.

"I thought it was interesting for sure because, really, coffee doesn't seem to get a really positive buzz in health journals or even in the media," said Rachel Vincent, a registered dietitian and the Food and Nutrition Manager at St. John Owasso. "Besides antioxidants, it's not really something I feel has been studied as much."

She also noted that the study does not "differentiate between caffeinated or decaf," she said. "There's definitely a physical addition to caffeine. If you're drinking six cups of coffee a day, there's going to be a physical withdrawal if you all of a sudden cannot anymore."

She said people with other health issues, such as high blood pressure or heart conditions, should talk to their doctor before reaching for more coffee.

"Because caffeine is a stimulant, you have to take into account your total health before adding it into your regimen," Vincent said.

Cece Davis, a registered dietitian and owner of Nutrition Consultants Of Tulsa, was not influenced by the study.

"To me, this is not a strong case for increasing caffeine intake," Davis said. "Basically it's not significant -- that's the takeaway. I can't believe (the study) is such a big deal."

Davis said its findings did not persuade her to suggest adding more coffee to the diet.

"In moderation, coffee is fine. There really hasn't been a strong link to anything (unhealthy) except hypertension," Davis said. "As long as someone's already consuming three cups -- which would be 24 ounces or under -- in a day, there is no risk."

And coffee has antioxidants because the beans come from plants, both dietitians said.

"A diet high in antioxidants is great. Normally they come in something bright and colorful, like fruits and vegetables," Vincent said. "But (the study) didn't really show whether it was regular coffee or instant coffee or espresso. There are a lot of variables in there. I definitely as a dietitian would not start telling all patients we need to see an increase in coffee."

But she also would not necessarily tell them to stop drinking it altogether.

"If they're already drinking four cups, say two regular and two decaf. I wouldn't put the breaks on," she said. Coffee talk Dietitian Rachel Vincent said drinking coffee in moderation is fine, but it depends on how you take your morning java.

"I'm sure in that study when they're promoting more coffee, they were not promoting something like a frozen coffee drink," Vincent said. "When you start adding ice cream, you increase the risk of Type 2 diabetes."

How healthy is your morning cup of Joe?

Black coffee -- It has zero calories, no additional fat, no carbohydrates. Vincent recommends this.

Coffee with skim milk -- Add lowfat or nonfat milk only. It will add some calcium and a small amount of protein.

Coffee with artificial sweetener -- Mix it up. Change from Splenda to Equal to stevia. "Don't get one artificial sweetener and stick with it," Vincent said. "No health risks have been proven one way or the other, but if you use only one (sweetener) and it turns out to be unhealthy, you already have had a lot of it."

Kim Brown 918-581-8474 kim.brown@tulsaworld.com

To see more of the Tulsa World, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.tulsaworld.com.

Copyright © 2011, Tulsa World, Okla.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,



Back to top

Radiation – Different Types, Different Risks

Posted June 26, 2011

It is entirely possible that life on Earth exists thanks to radiation.

One of the theories on the origins of life on our planet says that ultraviolet radiation, along with lightning and volcanoes on ancient Earth, provided the zap of energy needed for non-organic molecules like methane and ammonia, to combine into more complex organic molecules that include the basic building blocks of life, like nucleotides and amino acids.

Of course, as life slowly kickstarted from the combinations of these simple organic molecules into single-cell organisms, and then multicellular ones, the very radiation that helped trigger the process became poisonous to the evolving and rapidly more complex life-forms.

Where radiation once provided energy to simple molecules, it now disrupted the more complicated bonds within more complex organisms.

Strangely enough, the problem was also the solution. UV radiation itself came to the rescue by causing oxygen in the atmosphere to combine and become ozone.

The ozone layer now protects us from being bombarded by UV radiation that can cause unsustainable levels of mutation in all living creatures on Earth.

However, that does not mean that Earth is a radiation-free zone.

The fact is, radiation is present everywhere in our environment.

It comes from the soil, the stones, the sun, and from many of the essential technological items we use in our daily lives.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, we are all exposed to an average of about 2.4 milliSievert (mSv) of natural background radiation a year.

However, this amount can vary by several hundred per cent depending on where you live.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) reports that the highest level of known background radiation exposure is at the city of Ramsar in northern Iran.

The people who live there receive an annual radiation dose of up to 260 mSv.

The area with the largest populations affected by high natural background radiation are the states of Kerala and Madras in India, where some 140,000 people are exposed to over 30 mSv of background radiation a year.

Other areas with unusually high background radiation doses can be found in China, Brazil and Australia, among others.

However, there has been no evidence to date that the people living in these areas have a higher incidence of cancer or genetic mutations than any other community.

Harmful or not?

Most people will be familiar with man-made radiation sources like nuclear power plants and medical imaging equipment, like X-ray machines and CT scanners.

But are you aware that your mobile phone, microwave oven, television and laptop are also among the many sources of man-made radiation?

Radiation in this context is basically the emission of energy in the form of electromagnetic waves or subatomic particles.

Mobile phones, cordless phones, television sets, and radios all emit radiofrequency waves that help transmit information to and from those devices.

Laptops that are WiFi-enabled, also emit these waves that enable us to surf the Internet, while microwave ovens make use of microwaves to heat up and cook our food.

In this modern, technology-dependent era, we are literally surrounded by all these electromagnetic waves that are essential to our lives.

So, the question is: are they harmful to us?

According to a statement released by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) last month, there is “limited” scientific evidence to show that there is an association between the usage of mobile phones and two types of rare cancer — gliomas and acoustic neuromas, but “inadequate” evidence to link mobile phone usage with other types of cancer.

This followed the gathering of a group of independent scientists at the IARC to analyse the available scientific literature on the possible cancer-causing effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves.

The scientists concluded that while studies have shown that there is a possibility that the radiofrequency electromagnetic waves from mobile phones can cause gliomas and acoustic neuromas, those same studies were not able to rule out the possibility that these findings were due to chance or some other bias in their research methods or analysis.

Based on this, the IARC, which is part of the World Health Organisation (WHO), has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic waves as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”.

Although gliomas (a type of brain cancer) and acoustic neuromas (a tumour that grows on the nerve running from the ear to the brain) are quite rare, the worry is that so much of the world’s population, including young children and teenagers, use mobile phones, and would risk exposing themselves to these two cancers.

However, generally speaking, radiofrequency electromagnetic waves are classified under non-ionising radiation, along with visible light, infrared and microwaves. (See The Energy Spectrum)

This means that the energy emitted by these low-frequency waves is not strong enough to ionise, or cause electrons to break their bonds within atoms or molecules. These waves are only able to provide more energy to the atoms or molecules they encounter, and cause them to vibrate or move around within their bonds.

Therefore, non-ionising radiation is mostly considered not harmful to living beings, except in certain cases of excessive exposure.

International guidelines for industries manufacturing devices which emit non-ionising radiation are available from the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

This non-profit commission is officially recognised by WHO and the International Labour Organisation as the international independent advisory body for non-ionising radiation protection.

Ionising radiation

The other, more dangerous type of radiation is ionising radiation.

This high-frequency radiation gives out enough energy to break the bonds of electrons in atoms or molecules to create charged particles and free radicals.

There are three main kinds of ionising radiation: alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma rays.

Alpha particles consist of two protons and two neutrons, and are positively charged.

Beta particles are essentially electrons, which are negatively charged.

Gamma rays are pure electromagnetic waves or photons.

Because they are charged, alpha and beta particles can interact directly with atoms and molecules, and disrupt them.

However, they are also easily blocked, as paper is sufficient to halt the progression of alpha particles, while beta particles can be stopped by aluminium.

Gamma rays have a more indirect effect on atoms and molecules as they are not charged, but they can penetrate through anything less thick than heavy concrete.

With high enough dosages, ionising radiation can cause the breaking up and mutation of our DNA, and disruption of our cellular function.

However, the dosage required to cause these conditions is far more than what any average human being is likely to be exposed to, except in highly unusual circumstances, like a nuclear meltdown.

In cases like nuclear bombings and large nuclear power plant explosions, the amount of radiation released is usually sufficient to cause instant radiation poisoning.

Longer-term exposure with smaller doses can result in cancer or genetic diseases in the next generation.

As catastrophes like nuclear bombings and nuclear power plant accidents are thankfully, rare, this leaves the main area of concern as long-term exposure.

Common exposure

In our day-to-day lives, exposure to ionising radiation usually comes in the form of medical imaging — X-rays and CT scans.

At the very least, many of us would have undergone at least a chest X-ray, whether for a general medical check-up for employment or insurance purposes, or as an investigative procedure for a suspected disease.

Chest X-rays are so common and give the lowest radiation dose that they are often used as a standard comparison for the amount of radiation exposure a patient gets.

One chest X-ray is equivalent to 0.02 mSv of radiation dose, which is about the same as three months’ worth of natural radiation exposure.

Imaging different parts of the body results in larger radiation doses, which can go up to the equivalent of 1,000 chest X-rays for a whole body CT scan.

However, despite resulting in increasing radiation exposure, it is generally argued that the benefits obtained from being able to see inside the body for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes far outweigh the small risk of developing cancer from the procedure.

Of course, imaging procedures should only be carried out for a justifiable medical reason, and must be approved by a qualified radiologist, who will judge the necessity of the procedure.

In addition, for cancer cases, fire is used to fight fire, as the very instrument that can cause cancer is also used to destroy cancer cells.

This forms the basis of radiotherapy, which uses radiation to kill off cancer cells.

The reason for this is that, as the patient will die without treatment, it is better to try to save their lives through controlled use of radiation, rather than just letting them die.

An increasingly common use of imaging outside the hospital is the soft X-ray airport scanner.

According to the United Kingdom Health Protection Agency, a full body scan by one of these machines will give a radiation dose of 0.02 to 0.03 microSievert.

Allowing for two to three scans per examination, this means a person would receive a dose equivalent to about one hour’s worth of natural background radiation (about 0.1 microSievert) for one round through the machine.

The agency compares this to flying at 35,000 feet in an aeroplane, where passengers on the plane would receive the same amount of radiation from cosmic rays in the space of one minute.

To see more of the Asia News Network, go to http://www.asianewsnet.net/home/

Copyright © 2011, The Star, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia / Asia News Network

It is entirely possible that life on Earth exists thanks to radiation.

One of the theories on the origins of life on our planet says that ultraviolet radiation, along with lightning and volcanoes on ancient Earth, provided the zap of energy needed for non-organic molecules like methane and ammonia, to combine into more complex organic molecules that include the basic building blocks of life, like nucleotides and amino acids.

Of course, as life slowly kickstarted from the combinations of these simple organic molecules into single-cell organisms, and then multicellular ones, the very radiation that helped trigger the process became poisonous to the evolving and rapidly more complex life-forms.

Where radiation once provided energy to simple molecules, it now disrupted the more complicated bonds within more complex organisms.

Strangely enough, the problem was also the solution. UV radiation itself came to the rescue by causing oxygen in the atmosphere to combine and become ozone.

The ozone layer now protects us from being bombarded by UV radiation that can cause unsustainable levels of mutation in all living creatures on Earth.

However, that does not mean that Earth is a radiation-free zone.

The fact is, radiation is present everywhere in our environment.

It comes from the soil, the stones, the sun, and from many of the essential technological items we use in our daily lives.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, we are all exposed to an average of about 2.4 milliSievert (mSv) of natural background radiation a year.

However, this amount can vary by several hundred per cent depending on where you live.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) reports that the highest level of known background radiation exposure is at the city of Ramsar in northern Iran.

The people who live there receive an annual radiation dose of up to 260 mSv.

The area with the largest populations affected by high natural background radiation are the states of Kerala and Madras in India, where some 140,000 people are exposed to over 30 mSv of background radiation a year.

Other areas with unusually high background radiation doses can be found in China, Brazil and Australia, among others.

However, there has been no evidence to date that the people living in these areas have a higher incidence of cancer or genetic mutations than any other community.

Harmful or not?

Most people will be familiar with man-made radiation sources like nuclear power plants and medical imaging equipment, like X-ray machines and CT scanners.

But are you aware that your mobile phone, microwave oven, television and laptop are also among the many sources of man-made radiation?

Radiation in this context is basically the emission of energy in the form of electromagnetic waves or subatomic particles.

Mobile phones, cordless phones, television sets, and radios all emit radiofrequency waves that help transmit information to and from those devices.

Laptops that are WiFi-enabled, also emit these waves that enable us to surf the Internet, while microwave ovens make use of microwaves to heat up and cook our food.

In this modern, technology-dependent era, we are literally surrounded by all these electromagnetic waves that are essential to our lives.

So, the question is: are they harmful to us?

According to a statement released by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) last month, there is "limited" scientific evidence to show that there is an association between the usage of mobile phones and two types of rare cancer -- gliomas and acoustic neuromas, but "inadequate" evidence to link mobile phone usage with other types of cancer.

This followed the gathering of a group of independent scientists at the IARC to analyse the available scientific literature on the possible cancer-causing effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves.

The scientists concluded that while studies have shown that there is a possibility that the radiofrequency electromagnetic waves from mobile phones can cause gliomas and acoustic neuromas, those same studies were not able to rule out the possibility that these findings were due to chance or some other bias in their research methods or analysis.

Based on this, the IARC, which is part of the World Health Organisation (WHO), has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic waves as "possibly carcinogenic to humans".

Although gliomas (a type of brain cancer) and acoustic neuromas (a tumour that grows on the nerve running from the ear to the brain) are quite rare, the worry is that so much of the world's population, including young children and teenagers, use mobile phones, and would risk exposing themselves to these two cancers.

However, generally speaking, radiofrequency electromagnetic waves are classified under non-ionising radiation, along with visible light, infrared and microwaves. (See The Energy Spectrum)

This means that the energy emitted by these low-frequency waves is not strong enough to ionise, or cause electrons to break their bonds within atoms or molecules. These waves are only able to provide more energy to the atoms or molecules they encounter, and cause them to vibrate or move around within their bonds.

Therefore, non-ionising radiation is mostly considered not harmful to living beings, except in certain cases of excessive exposure.

International guidelines for industries manufacturing devices which emit non-ionising radiation are available from the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

This non-profit commission is officially recognised by WHO and the International Labour Organisation as the international independent advisory body for non-ionising radiation protection.

Ionising radiation

The other, more dangerous type of radiation is ionising radiation.

This high-frequency radiation gives out enough energy to break the bonds of electrons in atoms or molecules to create charged particles and free radicals.

There are three main kinds of ionising radiation: alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma rays.

Alpha particles consist of two protons and two neutrons, and are positively charged.

Beta particles are essentially electrons, which are negatively charged.

Gamma rays are pure electromagnetic waves or photons.

Because they are charged, alpha and beta particles can interact directly with atoms and molecules, and disrupt them.

However, they are also easily blocked, as paper is sufficient to halt the progression of alpha particles, while beta particles can be stopped by aluminium.

Gamma rays have a more indirect effect on atoms and molecules as they are not charged, but they can penetrate through anything less thick than heavy concrete.

With high enough dosages, ionising radiation can cause the breaking up and mutation of our DNA, and disruption of our cellular function.

However, the dosage required to cause these conditions is far more than what any average human being is likely to be exposed to, except in highly unusual circumstances, like a nuclear meltdown.

In cases like nuclear bombings and large nuclear power plant explosions, the amount of radiation released is usually sufficient to cause instant radiation poisoning.

Longer-term exposure with smaller doses can result in cancer or genetic diseases in the next generation.

As catastrophes like nuclear bombings and nuclear power plant accidents are thankfully, rare, this leaves the main area of concern as long-term exposure.

Common exposure

In our day-to-day lives, exposure to ionising radiation usually comes in the form of medical imaging -- X-rays and CT scans.

At the very least, many of us would have undergone at least a chest X-ray, whether for a general medical check-up for employment or insurance purposes, or as an investigative procedure for a suspected disease.

Chest X-rays are so common and give the lowest radiation dose that they are often used as a standard comparison for the amount of radiation exposure a patient gets.

One chest X-ray is equivalent to 0.02 mSv of radiation dose, which is about the same as three months' worth of natural radiation exposure.

Imaging different parts of the body results in larger radiation doses, which can go up to the equivalent of 1,000 chest X-rays for a whole body CT scan.

However, despite resulting in increasing radiation exposure, it is generally argued that the benefits obtained from being able to see inside the body for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes far outweigh the small risk of developing cancer from the procedure.

Of course, imaging procedures should only be carried out for a justifiable medical reason, and must be approved by a qualified radiologist, who will judge the necessity of the procedure.

In addition, for cancer cases, fire is used to fight fire, as the very instrument that can cause cancer is also used to destroy cancer cells.

This forms the basis of radiotherapy, which uses radiation to kill off cancer cells.

The reason for this is that, as the patient will die without treatment, it is better to try to save their lives through controlled use of radiation, rather than just letting them die.

An increasingly common use of imaging outside the hospital is the soft X-ray airport scanner.

According to the United Kingdom Health Protection Agency, a full body scan by one of these machines will give a radiation dose of 0.02 to 0.03 microSievert.

Allowing for two to three scans per examination, this means a person would receive a dose equivalent to about one hour's worth of natural background radiation (about 0.1 microSievert) for one round through the machine.

The agency compares this to flying at 35,000 feet in an aeroplane, where passengers on the plane would receive the same amount of radiation from cosmic rays in the space of one minute.

To see more of the Asia News Network, go to http://www.asianewsnet.net/home/

Copyright © 2011, The Star, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia / Asia News Network

Tags: , , , , , , , ,



Back to top

Chinese Intentionally Contaminate Food For Profit

Posted June 22, 2011

Intentional contamination by food producers and processors driven by profits are largely being blamed for the food safety crisis in China, officials with the country’s top food security watchdog said.

“Instead of sheer accidents, most of the recent stomach-turning food safety incidents are a consequence of intentional violations of food safety regulations and processing procedures,” said Yu Jun, a senior official with the Food Safety Commission under the State Council, China’s Cabinet, at the Third China Food Safety Forum.

“Cases include incidents caused by additives, such as melamine, clenbuterol and the steamed buns colored with chemicals found in Shanghai and Zhejiang province,” Yu said.

The 2008 melamine-tainted baby formula scandal spurred the Chinese government to announce food safety a national priority. Nationwide outrage exploded over melamine-contaminated baby milk that sickened 300,000 infants and killed six children.

Clenbuterol, an additive that makes pigs leaner but causes health problems in humans, stirred another widespread fear of pork safety in the country in recent months. China’s largest meat processor, the Shuanghui Group, apologized in April for selling pork products that contained the additive.

In April, steamed buns containing illegal dyes were found in Shanghai and Wenzhou in Zhejiang province. Authorities closed a Shanghai-based bun company and later shut down an unlicensed workshop making steamed buns after the buns were allegedly found to contain prohibited chemicals.

More recently, the disease control authority in Hangzhou, capital of Zhejiang province, said it found that products of a local company contain plasticizer used to soften plastic.

“In addition to physical, chemical and biological pollution that caused food safety incidents, the contamination of violators’ integrity is more salient,” said Wang Hong, deputy director of the department of food production supervision under the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine.

“In the past, food safety issues in China were caused by sanitation problems, such as microbiological and environmental pollution. Now the situation has changed. The lust for profits stimulates some food producers to break the law,” Yu said.

Food safety experts said a well-rounded legal framework and a reliable and powerful law enforcement agency is badly needed.

“Shady food producers will only adventure into the game of risk and return when they know the chance of being investigated and treated is very small,” said Peter Ben Embarek, food safety and nutrition technology officer of the World Health Organization’s China Office.

To address the existing problems, the Chinese government will continue to carry out a variety of supervision and investigation campaigns on food safety, officials said.

To see more of the Asia News Network, go to http://www.asianewsnet.net/home/

Copyright © 2011, China Daily, Beijing / Asia News Network

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For more information about the content services offered by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services (MCT), visit www.mctinfoservices.com.

Intentional contamination by food producers and processors driven by profits are largely being blamed for the food safety crisis in China, officials with the country's top food security watchdog said.

"Instead of sheer accidents, most of the recent stomach-turning food safety incidents are a consequence of intentional violations of food safety regulations and processing procedures," said Yu Jun, a senior official with the Food Safety Commission under the State Council, China's Cabinet, at the Third China Food Safety Forum.

"Cases include incidents caused by additives, such as melamine, clenbuterol and the steamed buns colored with chemicals found in Shanghai and Zhejiang province," Yu said.

The 2008 melamine-tainted baby formula scandal spurred the Chinese government to announce food safety a national priority. Nationwide outrage exploded over melamine-contaminated baby milk that sickened 300,000 infants and killed six children.

Clenbuterol, an additive that makes pigs leaner but causes health problems in humans, stirred another widespread fear of pork safety in the country in recent months. China's largest meat processor, the Shuanghui Group, apologized in April for selling pork products that contained the additive.

In April, steamed buns containing illegal dyes were found in Shanghai and Wenzhou in Zhejiang province. Authorities closed a Shanghai-based bun company and later shut down an unlicensed workshop making steamed buns after the buns were allegedly found to contain prohibited chemicals.

More recently, the disease control authority in Hangzhou, capital of Zhejiang province, said it found that products of a local company contain plasticizer used to soften plastic.

"In addition to physical, chemical and biological pollution that caused food safety incidents, the contamination of violators' integrity is more salient," said Wang Hong, deputy director of the department of food production supervision under the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine.

"In the past, food safety issues in China were caused by sanitation problems, such as microbiological and environmental pollution. Now the situation has changed. The lust for profits stimulates some food producers to break the law," Yu said.

Food safety experts said a well-rounded legal framework and a reliable and powerful law enforcement agency is badly needed.

"Shady food producers will only adventure into the game of risk and return when they know the chance of being investigated and treated is very small," said Peter Ben Embarek, food safety and nutrition technology officer of the World Health Organization's China Office.

To address the existing problems, the Chinese government will continue to carry out a variety of supervision and investigation campaigns on food safety, officials said.

To see more of the Asia News Network, go to http://www.asianewsnet.net/home/

Copyright © 2011, China Daily, Beijing / Asia News Network

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For more information about the content services offered by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services (MCT), visit www.mctinfoservices.com.

Tags: , , ,



Back to top

Parents Deal with Their Children’s Obesity

Posted June 15, 2011

When Nannette Magno looks at her youngest son, she sees a sweet 8-year-old who plays soccer and baseball and likes to help out in the kitchen.

Other people, she realized a few years ago, see something different. There was that day in church, for instance, when they ran into one of his classmates.

“That fat boy is in my school!” the kid yelled out, excited to see a familiar face.

Magno doesn’t generally talk about this with other moms. It’s too painful. But one day, looking for help, she will begin to share. First she’ll show you his soccer team photo.

“He does stand out,” she says. And indeed, he does.

She will go on to tell you that three of her four kids are significantly overweight and that she’s overweight herself. She will confide that as much as she keeps it inside, the problem consumes her. She is confused. Frustrated. And ashamed.

“I feel sometimes we’re being judged,” she says quietly.

She’s right, of course.

But also know this: Magno, a Seattle telecom analyst, is smart and hardworking, a devoted mom who reads nutrition labels, enrolls her kids in sports and cooks up homemade meals. She’s trained her brood to actually like their vegetables. Yet … there was that boy in church.

“You look at your kids and think, are they truly not normal?” she says. Then she wonders.

“Did I cause that?”

OK, stop right there. I know you’re blaming Magno. You’re probably blaming every other parent with overweight kids, too. But this is much more complicated than it might seem.

We’re not going to make the usual pronouncements that families are stressed for time, that healthy food is expensive, that school lunch is the problem. We’ve all heard it before.

Instead, Magno and other parents are going to talk about the battle going on inside their heads. There’s the relentless voice that tells them their kids are overweight, and the one that wants to protect them from the truth; the voice that makes them feel guilty when they let their kids have a treat and guilty when they say no; the one berating them to do more, and the one nagging at them — as they see a world of hurt in their children’s eyes — that nothing they could say seems right.

Maybe you’re already familiar with that voice. Because if the statistics are right — that 30 percent of kids are overweight or obese — a whole lot of you will read about these families and think, sadly, “That is us.”

JUST SO we’re clear, Woodinville mom Susan Stoltzfus would like to make a point. She and her son have weight problems, but that doesn’t mean they’re not trying to do something about it.

And another thing: The human body is a mysterious creation.

On the day her twins, Nathan and Noah, were born 14 years ago, there were 6 ounces difference between them. Quickly, they began to diverge.

“They are completely different in their weight and in their relationship with food,” Stoltzfus says. Nathan struggles with his weight. Noah’s a beanpole.

Clearly, there’s something more than parenting going on here.

Stoltzfus recalls when the twins were nursing, Nathan always seemed so much hungrier than Noah. He cried more, so she’d feed him first. Any mother would. As the boys got older, Nathan’s appetite continued.

Initially, it didn’t seem like a problem. It’s not as if they woke up one day and Nathan was suddenly huge. The weight just crept up.

Until the truth became inescapable. By the time they were 13, Nathan had 80 pounds on his twin.

But what was the solution? “Should I have sent him to Weight Watchers at 8?” Stoltzfus wonders. It seems ridiculous. Limiting one twin while indulging the other also seems fraught with problems.

By this point, too, habits had set in.

Now she and her husband were faced with a real challenge, one that’s familiar to every parent out there. They had to figure out how to take things away — things that Nathan, like most kids, had gotten quite accustomed to.

This is the crux of the problem.

STOLTZFUS KNOWS moms sometimes have to lay down the law. But sorting out weight issues? It’s just so emotionally fraught. Every day she goes through the same balancing act in her head. She doesn’t want to overemphasize food; parenting books advise against that. She doesn’t want to dictate every food choice; she wants her teens to learn to make their own decisions. Most of all, she doesn’t want to hurt Nathan.

“If I push him to do well with music it helps him develop his self-esteem,” she notes. “If I push him to lose weight it has the opposite effect.”

Nathan is doing better at eating reasonably, ever since he lost 37 pounds on Weight Watchers last year, but it’s a daily struggle.

When he overindulges, Stoltzfus debates: Should I say something now? She factors in his mood, considers how he might best learn healthy habits for the long term. And she wonders: Will her words lead him to eat more?

Mostly, she tiptoes.

“There was always that feeling I was the fat guy,” Nathan admits. “I never really told myself that, though. I would always cover it up.”

He pauses. “It’s actually kind of hard to accept.”

Which brings up another point: Do you even want your kid to accept this?

NANETTE MAGNO doesn’t want to hurt her kids, either. In the process, she’s beating up on herself.

She traces the problem back to the Bagel Bites. They’re pizza-like snacks you cook in the toaster oven, and her four kids loved them from the first taste. They wanted more and more.

Next it was chicken nuggets and frozen taquitos. And guilt.

“I got lazy,” she says.

Hardly. She used to regularly get up at 3:30 in the morning to make soup, which she’d pour into thermoses for school. She’d work during the day, race around to her kids’ activities, then be back in the kitchen for dinner, cooking up everything from salmon and asparagus to Filipino family recipes. Like her own mother, Magno would leave the pot on the stove, in case anyone wanted more.

Often, the kids would go back for seconds. Maybe even thirds. In some ways, it was flattering. At some point, though, she began trying to limit them.

That’s when they’d pull the trump card. I’m still hungry. A kid says he’s hungry, you can’t just say no, can you? She tries, of course, then feels like a control freak. More guilt. “I’m so tired of being the watchdog all the time,” she says.

The dilemmas never end. Her kid wants to have a pizza party after a team victory. Does she suggest a salad party instead? Going to church, to restaurants, even walking in the mall as a family, she feels the judgment.

“I think people are like, ‘Look at that unhealthy family,’ ” she says.

At parties, she’s convinced people are tracking how much her kids eat. It’s probably true.

She has made changes. The family goes out less, and the kids get fruit with their lunch. She’s talked to her mother about cutting back on her elaborate after-school snacks.

But it’s not like there are visible results. Guilt times three.

“I’m kind of lost,” she says.

What she and Stoltzfus are hearing from the experts — eat more vegetables, buy lower-fat products, substitute fruit for cookies — misses the point completely. What they need are strategies for subtraction.

That’s where our next family comes in. They’ve made radical changes in their lifestyle.

Boy is it hard.

LESLIE WHITAKER remembers the moment it hit her. She was with her grandchildren, Nikita and Darius Steele, at the Great Wolf Lodge last November. As she looked around, she saw only one other kid shaped like them.

A doctor later confirmed what Whitakeer saw. At age 11 and 12, these Bellevue tweens were about 30 pounds overweight — a third more than the charts said they should weigh. Nikita, a sixth-grader, had high cholesterol.

Whitaker, her daughter, Lara Steele, and Lara’s husband, Shawn, had talked about making changes, but they were never able to stick to anything. Lara, who stays at home, would battle the kids all day trying to keep them from junkie snacks; Shawn would come home from work at Microsoft and say, “Let’s go to Taco Bell!”

The night of the doctor’s visit, the three adults holed up in the bedroom for a heart-to-heart. They talked about Whitaker’s fondness for treating them to big pancake breakfasts; Lara’s sweets; Shawn’s fast food. All three had to make changes.

“We built a consensus that didn’t point fingers,” Whitaker says.

Consensus doesn’t burn calories, of course. The situation called for drastic action: They’d go cold turkey. No meals out, period.

And they would no longer fix the kids a separate dinner, which usually wound up being frozen nuggets or mac and cheese in the playroom. Every night, they’d all sit at the table.

And the big one: If it was unhealthy, it wasn’t allowed in the house.

The next morning, when the kids went to school, Lara and Leslie went through the kitchen. Out went the Oreos and the Cheez Whiz and the chips. Out went the Sprites and the sugar-filled fruit drinks. Out went the white rice and high-sodium cans of soup.

It took three hours. The castoffs filled the entire back of Lara’s SUV.

“It was sad to realize how much junk I had in the house just to save time cooking,” Steele says.

Then they went to Whole Foods. They deliberated over every purchase, read every label. The bill: $200.

They felt good.

When the kids heard the plan, they flipped.

“I threw an immature little-girl temper tantrum,” Nikita says. “Also cried.”

Darius opened the fridge. “It’s all green!”

A FEW WEEKS into their new regimen, the Steele kids are still adjusting.

Walking to their school-carpool pickup site instead of driving isn’t their idea of fun. But when Whitaker sets out one afternoon with Darius, he doesn’t grumble too much.

Fifteen minutes later, he peers in the wibndow of a convenience store as they wait for Nikita. “Can I have a doughnut?”

And later, “Can I have some gum?”

He fidgets. “I need food now,” he says.

“You may eat any fruit that you find at home,” Whitaker tells him calmly. She has brought “no” back into their vocabulary.

As soon as Nikita gets out of the car, Darius spots it: “Nikita’s got gum!” he says.

Back home, Whitaker gives the kids a snack of carrots, celery and peanut butter. Then she sets about making spaghetti sauce and whole-wheat pasta.

If she were making it for herself, she’d throw in a lot of vegetables. But for the kids?

“They’re not going to want a sauce that complex,” she says. “So I’ll serve the broccoli and asparagus separately.” Same goes for the salad — everything’s separate.

Of course, she doesn’t really expect the kids to eat any of it.

“But it’s exposure,” she says.

Darius can be convinced to try new things. Nikita has more trouble.

“Nikita, would you try a little salad please?” Lara asks. Nikita shakes her head no.

“I’m just going to put a little bit of it on your plate,” Lara continues.

Again with the head. “Please try a bit of lettuce.”

The head shaking becomes fiercer.

Finally, she takes a nibble. And winces.

Darius changes the subject. “Mom, what’s for dessert?”

“Nothing is for dessert,” Lara says.

Darius closes his eyes and tries a cucumber slice. He shudders, then goes for a bowl of Cheerios.

“You can eat your cereal, but please eat a couple pieces of cooked broccoli,” Lara says. “I know you like it.”

“I hate cooked broccoli,” he answers. “How about cooked marshmallows?

Nikita gets a second bowl of pasta, minus the sauce. Then she gets some Cheerios.

“You need to slow down a little bit to give your body a chance to catch up,” Lara says.

Shawn interjects. “We normally don’t talk about the food this much.”

The kids may be playing things up. Still, you wonder: Is changing your kids’ diet harder on the parents than it is on the kids?

ON A SPRING Tuesday, Lara is making the rounds at Whole Foods.

Into the cart go apples and carrots and broccoli. Yes, broccoli. Nikita’s even eating some now.

“It’s starting to get more natural and normal for us,” Lara says.

She picks up a small box of cereal for Nikita. The bulk packs might seem more economical, Lara explains, but it will inevitably lead to one of two things: Nikita will eat more or Lara will have to say no more.

She reads labels.

She gets ground buffalo to make burgers, and says she serves them on smaller buns, with a half slice of cheddar, seven French fries, a salad and some peas.

“The average American would look at that and say, that’s no food at all,” Lara says. “Four months ago, I would have said the same thing.”

Everyone was down 12 to 14 pounds.

What about all the time it takes to cook versus going out? Lara thinks she comes out even: “It doesn’t take any longer to stand in the kitchen for an hour than it does to wait for a table for 20 minutes, order your food and wait for it to come.”

The biggest surprise was financial. Her weekly Whole Foods bill is usually in the $150-to-$200 range. The Steeles realized they spent about the same amount when they were eating junk.

Sure, there have been some slip-ups. Lara says she sometimes just doesn’t have the energy to cook. The family went on vacation and indulged. They even went to McDonald’s once.

“The kids said it didn’t taste as good,” she says. “The last time we drove by, they said, ‘McDonald’s. Gross!’ ”

Maureen O’Hagan is a Pacific Northwest magazine staff writer. John Lok is a Seattle Times staff photographer.

To see more of The Seattle Times, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.seattletimes.com.

Copyright © 2011, The Seattle Times

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

When Nannette Magno looks at her youngest son, she sees a sweet 8-year-old who plays soccer and baseball and likes to help out in the kitchen.

Other people, she realized a few years ago, see something different. There was that day in church, for instance, when they ran into one of his classmates.

"That fat boy is in my school!" the kid yelled out, excited to see a familiar face.

Magno doesn't generally talk about this with other moms. It's too painful. But one day, looking for help, she will begin to share. First she'll show you his soccer team photo.

"He does stand out," she says. And indeed, he does.

She will go on to tell you that three of her four kids are significantly overweight and that she's overweight herself. She will confide that as much as she keeps it inside, the problem consumes her. She is confused. Frustrated. And ashamed.

"I feel sometimes we're being judged," she says quietly.

She's right, of course.

But also know this: Magno, a Seattle telecom analyst, is smart and hardworking, a devoted mom who reads nutrition labels, enrolls her kids in sports and cooks up homemade meals. She's trained her brood to actually like their vegetables. Yet ... there was that boy in church.

"You look at your kids and think, are they truly not normal?" she says. Then she wonders.

"Did I cause that?"

OK, stop right there. I know you're blaming Magno. You're probably blaming every other parent with overweight kids, too. But this is much more complicated than it might seem.

We're not going to make the usual pronouncements that families are stressed for time, that healthy food is expensive, that school lunch is the problem. We've all heard it before.

Instead, Magno and other parents are going to talk about the battle going on inside their heads. There's the relentless voice that tells them their kids are overweight, and the one that wants to protect them from the truth; the voice that makes them feel guilty when they let their kids have a treat and guilty when they say no; the one berating them to do more, and the one nagging at them -- as they see a world of hurt in their children's eyes -- that nothing they could say seems right.

Maybe you're already familiar with that voice. Because if the statistics are right -- that 30 percent of kids are overweight or obese -- a whole lot of you will read about these families and think, sadly, "That is us."

JUST SO we're clear, Woodinville mom Susan Stoltzfus would like to make a point. She and her son have weight problems, but that doesn't mean they're not trying to do something about it.

And another thing: The human body is a mysterious creation.

On the day her twins, Nathan and Noah, were born 14 years ago, there were 6 ounces difference between them. Quickly, they began to diverge.

"They are completely different in their weight and in their relationship with food," Stoltzfus says. Nathan struggles with his weight. Noah's a beanpole.

Clearly, there's something more than parenting going on here.

Stoltzfus recalls when the twins were nursing, Nathan always seemed so much hungrier than Noah. He cried more, so she'd feed him first. Any mother would. As the boys got older, Nathan's appetite continued.

Initially, it didn't seem like a problem. It's not as if they woke up one day and Nathan was suddenly huge. The weight just crept up.

Until the truth became inescapable. By the time they were 13, Nathan had 80 pounds on his twin.

But what was the solution? "Should I have sent him to Weight Watchers at 8?" Stoltzfus wonders. It seems ridiculous. Limiting one twin while indulging the other also seems fraught with problems.

By this point, too, habits had set in.

Now she and her husband were faced with a real challenge, one that's familiar to every parent out there. They had to figure out how to take things away -- things that Nathan, like most kids, had gotten quite accustomed to.

This is the crux of the problem.

STOLTZFUS KNOWS moms sometimes have to lay down the law. But sorting out weight issues? It's just so emotionally fraught. Every day she goes through the same balancing act in her head. She doesn't want to overemphasize food; parenting books advise against that. She doesn't want to dictate every food choice; she wants her teens to learn to make their own decisions. Most of all, she doesn't want to hurt Nathan.

"If I push him to do well with music it helps him develop his self-esteem," she notes. "If I push him to lose weight it has the opposite effect."

Nathan is doing better at eating reasonably, ever since he lost 37 pounds on Weight Watchers last year, but it's a daily struggle.

When he overindulges, Stoltzfus debates: Should I say something now? She factors in his mood, considers how he might best learn healthy habits for the long term. And she wonders: Will her words lead him to eat more?

Mostly, she tiptoes.

"There was always that feeling I was the fat guy," Nathan admits. "I never really told myself that, though. I would always cover it up."

He pauses. "It's actually kind of hard to accept."

Which brings up another point: Do you even want your kid to accept this?

NANETTE MAGNO doesn't want to hurt her kids, either. In the process, she's beating up on herself.

She traces the problem back to the Bagel Bites. They're pizza-like snacks you cook in the toaster oven, and her four kids loved them from the first taste. They wanted more and more.

Next it was chicken nuggets and frozen taquitos. And guilt.

"I got lazy," she says.

Hardly. She used to regularly get up at 3:30 in the morning to make soup, which she'd pour into thermoses for school. She'd work during the day, race around to her kids' activities, then be back in the kitchen for dinner, cooking up everything from salmon and asparagus to Filipino family recipes. Like her own mother, Magno would leave the pot on the stove, in case anyone wanted more.

Often, the kids would go back for seconds. Maybe even thirds. In some ways, it was flattering. At some point, though, she began trying to limit them.

That's when they'd pull the trump card. I'm still hungry. A kid says he's hungry, you can't just say no, can you? She tries, of course, then feels like a control freak. More guilt. "I'm so tired of being the watchdog all the time," she says.

The dilemmas never end. Her kid wants to have a pizza party after a team victory. Does she suggest a salad party instead? Going to church, to restaurants, even walking in the mall as a family, she feels the judgment.

"I think people are like, 'Look at that unhealthy family,' " she says.

At parties, she's convinced people are tracking how much her kids eat. It's probably true.

She has made changes. The family goes out less, and the kids get fruit with their lunch. She's talked to her mother about cutting back on her elaborate after-school snacks.

But it's not like there are visible results. Guilt times three.

"I'm kind of lost," she says.

What she and Stoltzfus are hearing from the experts -- eat more vegetables, buy lower-fat products, substitute fruit for cookies -- misses the point completely. What they need are strategies for subtraction.

That's where our next family comes in. They've made radical changes in their lifestyle.

Boy is it hard.

LESLIE WHITAKER remembers the moment it hit her. She was with her grandchildren, Nikita and Darius Steele, at the Great Wolf Lodge last November. As she looked around, she saw only one other kid shaped like them.

A doctor later confirmed what Whitakeer saw. At age 11 and 12, these Bellevue tweens were about 30 pounds overweight -- a third more than the charts said they should weigh. Nikita, a sixth-grader, had high cholesterol.

Whitaker, her daughter, Lara Steele, and Lara's husband, Shawn, had talked about making changes, but they were never able to stick to anything. Lara, who stays at home, would battle the kids all day trying to keep them from junkie snacks; Shawn would come home from work at Microsoft and say, "Let's go to Taco Bell!"

The night of the doctor's visit, the three adults holed up in the bedroom for a heart-to-heart. They talked about Whitaker's fondness for treating them to big pancake breakfasts; Lara's sweets; Shawn's fast food. All three had to make changes.

"We built a consensus that didn't point fingers," Whitaker says.

Consensus doesn't burn calories, of course. The situation called for drastic action: They'd go cold turkey. No meals out, period.

And they would no longer fix the kids a separate dinner, which usually wound up being frozen nuggets or mac and cheese in the playroom. Every night, they'd all sit at the table.

And the big one: If it was unhealthy, it wasn't allowed in the house.

The next morning, when the kids went to school, Lara and Leslie went through the kitchen. Out went the Oreos and the Cheez Whiz and the chips. Out went the Sprites and the sugar-filled fruit drinks. Out went the white rice and high-sodium cans of soup.

It took three hours. The castoffs filled the entire back of Lara's SUV.

"It was sad to realize how much junk I had in the house just to save time cooking," Steele says.

Then they went to Whole Foods. They deliberated over every purchase, read every label. The bill: $200.

They felt good.

When the kids heard the plan, they flipped.

"I threw an immature little-girl temper tantrum," Nikita says. "Also cried."

Darius opened the fridge. "It's all green!"

A FEW WEEKS into their new regimen, the Steele kids are still adjusting.

Walking to their school-carpool pickup site instead of driving isn't their idea of fun. But when Whitaker sets out one afternoon with Darius, he doesn't grumble too much.

Fifteen minutes later, he peers in the wibndow of a convenience store as they wait for Nikita. "Can I have a doughnut?"

And later, "Can I have some gum?"

He fidgets. "I need food now," he says.

"You may eat any fruit that you find at home," Whitaker tells him calmly. She has brought "no" back into their vocabulary.

As soon as Nikita gets out of the car, Darius spots it: "Nikita's got gum!" he says.

Back home, Whitaker gives the kids a snack of carrots, celery and peanut butter. Then she sets about making spaghetti sauce and whole-wheat pasta.

If she were making it for herself, she'd throw in a lot of vegetables. But for the kids?

"They're not going to want a sauce that complex," she says. "So I'll serve the broccoli and asparagus separately." Same goes for the salad -- everything's separate.

Of course, she doesn't really expect the kids to eat any of it.

"But it's exposure," she says.

Darius can be convinced to try new things. Nikita has more trouble.

"Nikita, would you try a little salad please?" Lara asks. Nikita shakes her head no.

"I'm just going to put a little bit of it on your plate," Lara continues.

Again with the head. "Please try a bit of lettuce."

The head shaking becomes fiercer.

Finally, she takes a nibble. And winces.

Darius changes the subject. "Mom, what's for dessert?"

"Nothing is for dessert," Lara says.

Darius closes his eyes and tries a cucumber slice. He shudders, then goes for a bowl of Cheerios.

"You can eat your cereal, but please eat a couple pieces of cooked broccoli," Lara says. "I know you like it."

"I hate cooked broccoli," he answers. "How about cooked marshmallows?

Nikita gets a second bowl of pasta, minus the sauce. Then she gets some Cheerios.

"You need to slow down a little bit to give your body a chance to catch up," Lara says.

Shawn interjects. "We normally don't talk about the food this much."

The kids may be playing things up. Still, you wonder: Is changing your kids' diet harder on the parents than it is on the kids?

ON A SPRING Tuesday, Lara is making the rounds at Whole Foods.

Into the cart go apples and carrots and broccoli. Yes, broccoli. Nikita's even eating some now.

"It's starting to get more natural and normal for us," Lara says.

She picks up a small box of cereal for Nikita. The bulk packs might seem more economical, Lara explains, but it will inevitably lead to one of two things: Nikita will eat more or Lara will have to say no more.

She reads labels.

She gets ground buffalo to make burgers, and says she serves them on smaller buns, with a half slice of cheddar, seven French fries, a salad and some peas.

"The average American would look at that and say, that's no food at all," Lara says. "Four months ago, I would have said the same thing."

Everyone was down 12 to 14 pounds.

What about all the time it takes to cook versus going out? Lara thinks she comes out even: "It doesn't take any longer to stand in the kitchen for an hour than it does to wait for a table for 20 minutes, order your food and wait for it to come."

The biggest surprise was financial. Her weekly Whole Foods bill is usually in the $150-to-$200 range. The Steeles realized they spent about the same amount when they were eating junk.

Sure, there have been some slip-ups. Lara says she sometimes just doesn't have the energy to cook. The family went on vacation and indulged. They even went to McDonald's once.

"The kids said it didn't taste as good," she says. "The last time we drove by, they said, 'McDonald's. Gross!' "

Maureen O'Hagan is a Pacific Northwest magazine staff writer. John Lok is a Seattle Times staff photographer.

To see more of The Seattle Times, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.seattletimes.com.

Copyright © 2011, The Seattle Times

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,



Back to top