Part of my daily schedule is a workout at the gym. Over the years, I have come to know a number of other regulars there, and in some cases our shared interests have lead to close friendships. A while ago, one of my fellow fitness enthusiasts whom I consider a friend lost his job and remained unemployed for an unnerving period of several months. The stress of existential uncertainty wore heavy on him. Yet, he maintained his regimen the same way he used to when he was working. Every day he continued lifting weights, kept running his 3 miles, ate nutritious food and controlled his weight.

I was impressed. Despite of his dismal situation, this man refused to let himself go. He knew that taking good care of his health needs was especially important now. Besides, maintaining his personal fitness was among the few things he still had control over. It also became his greatest asset in the grueling process of trying to land a new job.

Not everybody acts like this. There are plenty of horror stories of people facing economical difficulties and hardships who end up abusing their bodies with junk food, smoking, alcohol or drugs.

Of course, priorities change with circumstances. Cost cutting measures become necessary. Yoga classes and Pilates sessions are the first to go. Gym memberships are soon abandoned as unaffordable luxury items. High quality foods may be deemed unaffordable and are replaced with cheaper fares.

The psychologist Abraham Maslow described in his famous study, “A Theory of Human Motivation,” how we all form our priorities and adapt them to the different situations we find ourselves in. He called it “the hierarchy of needs.”

Maslow’s theory is often depicted in a pyramid-style graphic consisting of five distinct levels. The lowest level concerns the basic needs for survival. Once the most fundamental necessities for survival are satisfied, others come into play, such as safety needs, emotional demands and, eventually, aspirations for personal growth and self-fulfillment.

As the shape of a pyramid suggests, all these needs are present in every one of us, but they don’t necessarily come to the forefront at the same time and with the same urgency. For instance, if somebody has to worry about food or shelter, he or she may not be as concerned about exotic vacations or philosophical issues at that time. “Higher” interests, like the latter, only come into focus when the more basic elements of the hierarchical order are satisfied. If lower-level needs remain unmet, e.g. sufficient financial security, some higher-level demands or interests may never be addressed at all.

I believe that Maslow’s theory has great merits and has deservedly been acclaimed as a milestone among psychological concepts. However, as in the case of my gym friend, I also realize that people are indeed able to establish their own hierarchies – not only of needs but also of beliefs and values – and maintain these even in the face of dramatic challenges in their lives.

Take as a case in point the movie Eat, Pray, Love, which is currently playing in movie theatres and is based on the bestselling memoir of Elizabeth Gilbert. I heard and read numerous comments about the film as well as the book that downplayed the importance of the author’s personal journey. The idea that someone would travel around the globe in search of her personal identity – after having gone through a nasty divorce, loss of financial security and another heart ache from a brief romantic encounter – does not present itself as a reality-based scenario. But if we are to believe that this is the actual life experience of the author, then we are confronted with a case study of someone trying to carve out her individual hierarchy of needs. For Liz Gilbert, leaving the world she once knew behind and exposing herself to customs, cultures and new relationships in far-flung places was apparently what she needed the most – and it determined her responses to a significant crisis in her life from top to bottom.

The lesson we can learn here is this: Yes, circumstances do dictate some of our choices – but not all of them and not all the time. Even under the most dire circumstances, we can still decide what we are willing to fight for and what we let go. Therefore, we should consider carefully what goes where.

The researchers who conducted the study remained cautious about their findings. Exactly how fish oil can diminish the risk of breast cancer is not altogether clear, but there is significant evidence that fish oil has certain anti-inflammatory effects. Until now, scientists only believed that fish oil can help reduce cardiovascular risks. The potential benefits with regards to cancer are a new consideration and deserve more attention.

Inflammation is a probable contributor to many forms of cancer. Omega-3 fatty acids found in fish, especially in deep sea species like swordfish, salmon and tuna, are known for their inflammation suppressing properties. Because of the high concentration of omega-3 fatty acids, the benefits from fish oil supplements may be even greater than from eating seafood. This is the main reason why a link between fish oil and a lower risk of cancer makes sense.

There are caveats, of course. Fish do not produce omega-3 fatty acids themselves – they get it through their food. Microalgae in the water are the actual makers of the fatty acids. The larger a fish species grows, the longer it lives and the higher it ranks on the food chain, the more omega-3 fatty acids it ingests and accumulates from microalgae and prey – but also higher levels of toxins, including mercury, a common pollutant in fish. Since fish oil is derived from fatty fish tissue, a higher exposure to these toxins through fish oil supplements is not out of the question. In any case, regular users of these products should look for reputable brands that are tested for safety.

Those less inclined to make fish oil a staple of their diet can still obtain most of the same benefits from a variety of other foods:

Fish, of course is your other best source of omega-3. The wild-caught varieties are generally preferable to the farmed versions, not just because of concerns over pollution, but also for the higher fat content in deep sea- and cold water fish.

Cruciferous vegetables, like broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts and kale are loaded with antioxidants, which are known inflammation suppressants. Lettuce, spinach, tomatoes and other fresh salad ingredients contain multiple vitamins and nutrients that can help dampen inflammation. So can dark-colored fruits, like cherries and blueberries.

Garlic contains natural anti-inflammatory compounds, and so do certain spices, such as turmeric and curry. Olive oil is a good source of oleic acid, which has inflammation reducing effects. If you use olive oil for salad dressings or dips, opt for a superior quality that is less processed than regular cooking oils.

The best protection against inflammation, of course, is a healthy and balanced diet. Not all, but a significant amount of inflammation is caused by unhealthy eating habits and poor cooking techniques. Only through constant research and better knowledge and understanding how our bodies work can we hope to make the right choices in defense of our health and well-being.

Who would have guessed that nutrition labels could serve as a political football. We are talking about the fine print on the backside of the bags, boxes and cans our food comes in.

Now that the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) is trying to introduce a new national food labeling program, politicians and interest groups from all sides jump on the bandwagon, offering their advice how to go about the project.

So far, government officials from twelve states have petitioned the F.D.A. to demand “complete and unbiased nutritional information from food manufacturers, whether good or bad.” This, they say, will empower consumers to make better-informed choices about the foods they purchase. Somebody shout “Amen!”

For quite some time now, food manufacturers and restaurant operators have been pressured on both federal and state level to be more open about the nutritional quality of their products. Yet, we are still far away from any meaningful consensus.

For example, a legislative effort to introduce tougher restrictions on food advertising to children has quickly become stalled in Congress, which makes further progress uncertain. In the meantime, a group of food manufacturers and advertising agencies have tried to come up with their own labeling program, which they proclaim will help fighting childhood obesity. They named it “The Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative.” Based on certain nutritional criteria, they then began to advertise a number of products as “healthy choices” for children. An official seal of approval was to be awarded for foods and beverages that met the “new” requirements. Surprisingly (or not), the items that made the cut and were certified as “healthy choices,” included sugary cereals, frozen dinners and notoriously fatty fast food items. Even defenders of the campaign admit that the industry could have been more discriminating in its selection.

On the other hand, when Congress asked a number of government agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.), the Agriculture Department (U.S.D.A.) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C.D.C.), to draw up a set of guidelines for food advertisement to children, their recommendations were quickly dismissed by food manufacturers as “unrealistic.” The Association of National Advertisers said that compliance with those guidelines would “virtually end all food advertising as it’s currently carried out to kids under 18 years of age.” In other words, no deal.

Although I support the new attention nutrition labels are getting from all this back and forth, I seriously doubt that improved label designs will lead to better eating habits on a large scale. In a recent study, published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, researchers learned that only slightly more than half of American consumers check nutrition labels regularly, and only 44% say that nutritional data and ingredients have any influence on their purchasing decisions.

Statistics like these may be disappointing, but they are to be expected. Nutrition labels in their current form are not user-friendly. In many cases, they are outright misleading. For instance, most of the relevant data, like calories, fat, cholesterol, sodium, sugar, etc., are measured according to portion sizes – which are often determined arbitrarily.

What we need are radically different ways in which nutritional facts are disclosed and communicated to the public. Most importantly, the product information consumers are given must be more intelligible, truthful and relevant.

If both government agencies and food manufacturers are really interested in combating obesity and improving public health, especially on behalf of children, they will have to do better than simply print new labels. But hey, perhaps it’s a start.

According to a recently released report by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), based on a continued state-by-state survey, titled “Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System,“ obesity rates have nearly doubled since these studies were initially conducted some 16 years ago.

Obesity is measured by the body mass index (BMI). A person with a BMI of 30 or higher is diagnosed as obese. Someone who is a 5’8” tall and weighs 200 pounds, for example, has a BMI of 30.4. The definition can vary for athletes, pregnant women and also for children, depending on their age and gender.

Although obesity rates are up in every part of the population, there are observable racial differences, with more African Americans, Native Americans and Hispanics being affected than Caucasians. Age also seems to matter. Americans tend to become heavier after the age of 50.

More significant, however, are geographical differences. The states with the highest percentage of obese residents, 30% and over, are almost all in the south. Researchers say that culture and lifestyle may play a role, but also education, income and availability of food resources. Some point to the so-called “grocery gap,” that is the lack of availability and affordability of nutritious foods, like fresh produce, in low-income urban neighborhoods and poor rural areas.

Another massive obstacle is health education, or rather the lack thereof. Large parts of the population are simply ignorant or confused about the basic facts of healthful nutrition. Let’s face it; we have a persistent health illiteracy in this country.

If we are to expect people to improve their eating- and lifestyle habits, we must come up with better, more user-friendly ways to educate them. Many health books are too academic. Diet programs are expensive and promise more than they deliver. Nutrition and ingredients labels are difficult to decipher (perhaps on purpose) and don’t help to make better choices.

It is also futile to call for more physical exercise when neighborhoods are unsafe and parks are closed because of budget cuts. Schools are regularly forced to eliminate physical education (PE) from their curriculum, and poor communities can’t afford public pools and sport facilities.

Government-sponsored initiatives and national campaigns – like Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” program to reduce childhood obesity – could be a good start. But they are insufficiently funded and rarely reach those who need them the most.

What we really need is a mandatory national health literacy program in all public schools, to be taught across all grade levels. The “Edible School Yard” project of Alice Waters in Oakland, California could serve as an initial model. The kids who participate in this program not only learn how to grow foods and vegetables – even in the midst of an urban environment – and how to prepare wholesome meals from scratch, they also discover and appreciate the benefits of healthy living from early on, which will hopefully serve them well for the rest of their lives.

Most shoppers care as much about where eggs come from as they worry about the origins of paper towels or bath tissue. Not at all. Until now, that is.

A sudden outbreak of salmonella has prompted a third recall by some of the biggest egg producers in the country in only two weeks. The Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) has warned that hundreds of millions of eggs may be affected. Ironically, this latest food safety breakdown is happening only a few weeks after new guidelines for egg production were issued by the agency. Now federal health officials say that contamination with salmonella in eggs may be a more serious problem than they had anticipated at the time when the new rules were established.

Egg-laying chickens can get infected with salmonella from unsafe farming methods, contaminated feed or insufficient sanitary procedures. Once the hens are sick, they are likely to pass on the bacteria to their eggs. People can only get affected if they eat salmonella-tainted eggs that are not fully cooked.

The typical symptoms for salmonella infection in humans are diarrhea, vomiting and stomach cramps. In rare cases, more serious complications may develop.

Concerned consumers can protect themselves by eating only fully cooked egg dishes and by washing their hands after handling raw eggs.

Consumer advocates and animal rights activists have long pointed to industrialized farming facilities as potential breeding grounds for bacterial contamination of egg-laying hens. 97% of all eggs produced in America are from “caged” hens. Only 2% are allowed to live “cage-free,” however, this does not mean that these birds enjoy much larger space allotments than the caged variety. Just 1% are actually able to walk a few steps within their compound. These privileged few are called “free-range” hens, and their eggs are among the most expensive you can buy. The price difference between eggs from caged birds and those from free-rangers can be three to four dollars per dozen.

Many (but not all) of the free-range farms are also “certified organic.” The certification has little to do with the space the hens are enjoying, but more with the kind of feed they are given. Also, “organic” does not necessarily mean “small,” nor does it mean “local.” In fact, caged, cage-free and free-range/organic hens are often kept next to each other at the same large farm operation.

Choosing the “right” eggs eventually comes down to money. Eggs are generally safe to eat, if they are fully cooked. Organic eggs are certainly the better choice, if you are willing to pay more. If demand for organic eggs keeps growing, producers will respond accordingly and expand organic farming facilities – which will be a nice change for the birds as well.

While it is not altogether clear why exactly antibiotics, like tetracycline, have this growth-enhancing effect, there is speculation that the drugs kill the natural flora in the animals’ intestines and, therefore, allow for more efficient absorption of their feed. For an industry that measures profits in miniscule amounts, any weight gain is a welcome bonus.

Recently, although not for the first time, the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) has raised concerns about the use of antibiotics for growth purposes, saying that the practice may lead to health risks for humans. To be sure, the treatment of livestock with antibiotics per se is not being questioned by the agency. However, some scientists have become increasingly worried about the treatment of farm animals with the same drugs that are also applied to fight diseases in humans.

If certain antibiotics are routinely administered to animals over long periods of time, the bacteria living in those animals will eventually become resistant to these drugs. In turn, the drugs themselves may no longer be effective to treat humans with illnesses or infections caused by these bacteria.

A case in point is the controversy over an antibiotic named Baytril. This drug is widely used by poultry farmers to protect their chickens and turkeys against E-coli infections. Baytril is a sister drug of Cipro, which was developed for the treatment of humans. Both belong to the same class of antibiotics, known as fluoroquinolone, and are among the most effective drugs of this kind we have currently available. For years, the F.D.A., medical experts and consumer advocates have all warned that Baytril should not be used for agricultural purposes, because it potentially compromises the efficiency of Cipro and other antibiotics needed to treat humans.

The meat industry continues to promote the facilitation of antibiotics as an absolutely vital tool for the protection of both livestock and consumers against the threat of numerous diseases. Although there is a growing awareness among animal feed producers that spreading antibacterial resistance is a serious problem, defenders of antibiotic drug use in agriculture point out that people are already overexposed to antibiotics through medical treatment. Indeed, the World Health Organization (WHO) has repeatedly warned against the excessive prescription of antibiotic drugs for minor illnesses and infections.

The bottom line is that as consumers and as patients we are at risk of being overdosed with antibiotics by ways of food intake and medical treatment. As more bacteria become resistant to the most commonly available drugs, we find ourselves more and more vulnerable to diseases we have no means left to fight.

Already the effects are quite alarming. More than 100,000 patients die annually from infections they acquired in hospitals – caused by bacteria that have become resistant to the available antibiotics. And these people succumbed while they were under medical supervision. The total number of victims is completely unknown.

It is clear that the meat industry is not going to eliminate or reduce even the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics any time soon. According to a report released by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), discontinuing these drugs for growth purposes would inevitably lead to “decrease in feed efficiency, raise food costs, reduce production and raise prices for consumers.” An outright ban on antibiotics beyond disease control would cause tens of millions of dollars in annual losses for the industry, the USDA report concludes. In a word – it’s not going to happen.

The F.D.A.’s renewed demands for changing these policies will probably (again) not be successful. Of course, that is not all the agency’s fault. There is simply not enough political will to stand up to so much industrial might. However, as consumers, we can make our voices heard through our pocket books. Producers and purveyors of meat products are already beginning to take notice and are searching for ways to reduce drug use for the sole purpose of growth enhancement. Unfortunately, the only alternative we have for now is to buy organically-farmed meat and poultry ¬– for a higher price, of course. But if the demand for organic animal farming methods keeps going up, the rest of the industry will eventually respond – or so we can hope.

One of the most common pollutants found in seafood is mercury. In one survey conducted in New York City, seafood dishes from twenty restaurants and sushi bars were tested for mercury content. The results were outright alarming. More than a quarter of the tested items exceeded not only the limits recommended by the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.), they qualified as hazardous enough to be removed from the market by legal action. Since a federal testing program for mercury does not exist, the contamination of seafood sold in the United States remains generally unknown. But there is no reason to assume that the findings of this investigation are limited to New York.

What is mercury?

Mercury is a metal found in soil and rock, but it is also released into the air and the water, mostly through industrial pollution and waste. When mercury gets in contact with water, it forms a toxin called methylmercury, which then is absorbed over time by tiny organisms.

How does mercury get into fish?

All fish species eat these organisms, whether they live in freshwater or in the ocean. Unfortunately, mercury cannot easily be eliminated through the digestive system. Instead, it accumulates and gradually poisons the animals. Larger carnivore fish species ingest the toxins of their prey as well. Consequently, the largest and longest living fish on top of the food chain have the highest concentration of pollutants, including mercury.

What makes mercury dangerous?

There is scientific evidence that elevated levels of mercury adversely affect the nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord. High doses may also cause damage to the digestive system and the kidneys. Children are at higher risk than adults. Because mercury passes through the placenta, it can be especially harmful to fetuses. For that matter, women who are pregnant or plan to get pregnant should exercise extra caution and reduce their seafood consumption if necessary.

Not all fish has the same level of toxins

The larger a fish grows and the longer it lives, the more it is exposed to toxins. Shark, tilefish, king mackerel, swordfish and sturgeon fit in this category and should be avoided or eaten only rarely and in small portions. More recently, the bluefin tuna has also been added to the list of seafood too contaminated for frequent consumption. Moreover, wild bluefin tuna is facing worldwide extinction and may not be available for much longer if demand remains high.

Tuna cuts used in sushi generally contain higher levels of mercury than other fish species. The consumption of raw tuna should be limited to one or two pieces per week or less. Better sushi choices with regards to mercury contamination are salmon, squid, octopus, and eel. It is considered safe to eat up to 12 ounces (two servings) of cooked fish per week, such as salmon, cod, shellfish, pollock, haddock, tilapia, sole, snapper and catfish.

What to look for in fish

It is advisable to buy fish only from reputable sources. Freshness and proper storage are most important. Avoid fish that looks slimy, dried out or has blood spots and other blemishes. Reassuring indicators are clear eyes and bright red gills. Fish is highly perishable and must be kept refrigerated, even during defrosting. “Wild caught” is still preferable to farmed fish, although, it may only be a question of time until most available seafood will be farmed. Thankfully, organic fish farming methods are on the rise.

Despite of all the bad news about environmental pollution affecting our food supplies, it must be said that the health benefits of eating seafood still outweigh the downsides. Seafood is a great provider of lean protein. Specific health benefits come from fish oil, which is rich in omega-3 fatty acids. There is general agreement among the experts that including fish in one’s diet can significantly lower the risk of heart disease and stroke. In other words, seafood is an important component of a healthy diet and deserves our protection as a vital resource.

AquaBounty is confident that their salmon is nutritionally and environmentally safe and equivalent to non-engineered farmed salmon in terms of taste, color, omega-3 fatty acids, proteins and other nutrients.

Genetically engineered food products are by no means a novelty. However, surveys have shown that Americans are more concerned about genetically altered animal products than they are about engineered plant foods, which are widely used already.

The salmon in question has been given a specific growth hormone gene. The goal is not to grow a larger fish, though, but rather to speed up the growth process – thereby shortening the time needed for regular farmed salmon by half.

Critics point out that the F.D.A. approval process is being handled too secretly and without input by consumer protection groups and the general public. There are also concerns that the agency does not require specific labeling for genetically altered foods products. In fact, the law only requires identification of genetically engineered foods if they significantly differ in their “nutritional properties” from the non-engineered versions.

The term “nutritional properties” can mean something very specific – it can also be extremely vague. More importantly, we have to ask why the F.D.A. would not demand full disclosure when it comes to the quality and safety of our food. As consumers, we should be able to make informed choices and not be left in the dark. Instead, we are expected to blindly trust that industry and government act on our behalf and protect us from harm. We know better than that.

We have seen this movie many times before. For food manufacturers, it is always too expensive, technically impossible or otherwise too cumbersome to give consumers more information than absolutely necessary. Whether it’s about nutrition facts labels on packaged foods, calorie disclosure on restaurant menus or warnings against potential health hazards – there is always a big fight to be had.

It is hard to understand why it would be such an unreasonable hardship to disclose the fact that certain foods have been genetically manipulated. If these products are safe and of acceptable quality, we consumers will respond accordingly. But, at least, we should be able to make up our own minds, based on full and truthful information.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), almost a third of adults in the United States suffer from various degrees of hypertension. The latest survey lists high blood pressure as the primary or contributing cause of death for 326,000 Americans in 2006 – making it one of today’s most widespread life-threatening diseases.

Hypertension affects both genders equally, although men seem to face it at an earlier age than women. Apparently, race and ethnicity also play a role. Proportionately, high blood pressure is more prevalent among African Americans than Caucasians and Hispanics.

Epidemic proportions

In a more recently conducted study, the CDC reports that nine out of ten Americans now consume around 3,500 milligrams (mg) of sodium every day, which is almost double the recommended limit.

This does not mean that Americans are too heavy-handed with the salt shaker. Most sodium comes from commonly eaten foods, like processed grains in breads, cookies, pizza, poultry and luncheon meats. Many of these items don’t even taste salty. Experts say that sodium has become so pervasive in our diet that it is difficult to stay within the recommended limits, even for those who try to cut back on their intake.

What is hypertension?

Hypertension is elevated blood pressure that can develop into a chronic condition over time. Blood pressure is the force the heart must exert to circulate blood throughout the body. The more force the heart must apply to fulfill its task, the greater the risk of damage.

There are two types of hypertension – “primary” (also called “essential”) hypertension and “secondary” hypertension. There are no known specific causes for “primary” hypertension. Natural factors, like age, gender, race and heredity pre-conditions may all play a role in its occurrence. Secondary hypertension, on the other hand, is caused by certain diseases and deficiencies, including kidney problems and blocked arteries.

The latter are often lifestyle-induced. Stress, anxiety, poor diets and eating habits, weight problems, lack of physical exercise, smoking and excessive alcohol and caffeine intake are all well-known culprits. While there is not much we can do about our age, gender, race and heredity health conditions, we all can make better dietary and lifestyle choices.

How is hypertension measured?

An instrument, called a sphygmomanometer, also known as a blood pressure cuff, measures blood pressure when the heart muscle contracts to push blood out into the arteries, called “systolic” pressure, and again when the heart is at rest between beats, which is called “diastolic” pressure. The test results are measured in millimeters of mercury (mm Hg). An optimal reading for adults is a systolic pressure of 120 or less and a diastolic pressure of 80 or less – or 120/80 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic mm Hg).

Managing the risks of hypertension through…

Keeping a healthy weight range

Managing a healthy weight range is essential for controlling blood pressure. What constitutes a healthy weight range depends on age, gender, frame size and physical activity level. There are easy ways to determine your body mass index (BMI), waist size and daily calorie needs, all of which you can do by yourself in the privacy of your home. (For guidelines, go to http://www.timigustafson.com @ Succeeding at Weight Loss and Just 12-Weeks to Total Health and Fitness.)

Limiting sodium intake

When in good health, the body usually adjusts to a temporarily higher intake of dietary salt (sodium chloride). The kidneys are able to excrete the extra sodium without raising blood pressure. However, with age and/or diminishing kidney functions, the natural regulation of the sodium excretion may become impaired, which can lead to the increase of blood-water volume. When this happens, blood pressure becomes elevated and there is a higher risk for heart disease and blood vessel damage.

To decrease your sodium intake, you should follow a diet plan that is dominated by fresh food items, like fruits and vegetables as well as whole grains, beans, legumes, low-fat dairy products and only lean poultry, fish and meat.

Otherwise healthy adults should limit their daily sodium intake to 1,500 to 2,300 milligrams (mg) or less. (One level teaspoon of table salt equals 2,300 mg sodium.)
Those diagnosed with hypertension should aim for an upper limit of 1,500 mg sodium per day.

A health-conscious diet

Healthy eating starts at the grocery store. Your diet is only as healthful as the ingredients you use and the cooking techniques you apply. A little knowledge about food in general and how to prepare it can help you make better choices.

To limit sodium content, it is important to read and understand food labels. The amount of sodium in packaged food items is listed on the “Nutrition Facts” labels. Observe the “Serving Sizes,” since the amount is measured per serving.

As mentioned in the CDC report, sodium can be excessively high in baked goods, frozen dinners, luncheon meats, soups and many other packaged and canned food items. Watch out for salty snacks, like potato chips and pretzels.

When cooking food at home, you can use herbs and spices, in place of salt, to enhance the flavors. For home-made soups, you can make chicken-, fish- or vegetable stock from scratch, instead of bouillon cubes or broths from cans. Go easy on certain condiments, like ketchup, mustard, soy sauce, monosodium glutamate (MSG), BBQ sauce, salad dressings, salsa and gravies.

Cutting back on alcohol and caffeine

Moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages, especially red wine, may have some health benefits, including lowering blood pressure. But these positive effects are quickly lost if you overindulge.

It is common knowledge that excessive alcohol consumption can lead to addiction and may contribute to serious diseases, including cancer. The presence of alcohol in the body can interfere with its nutrient absorption and metabolism. Moreover, alcoholic beverages are all high in calories (7 calories per gram) and can cause weight gain.

Consumed in moderation (up to 300 mg per day or two 8-oz cups of coffee), caffeine has not been shown to carry any significant health risks for adults. However, caffeine acts as a stimulant, which affects the cardiac muscle and central nervous system. That is why it has the “wake-up” effect.

Excessive use of caffeinated beverages can lead to increase of blood pressure and heart beat irregularity. Another potential problem is dehydration. Caffeine is a diuretic, enhancing the loss of fluids.

Stress reduction

Chronic stress is a widespread cause of high blood pressure. Unlike acute stressors, which allow eventually for relief once a particular threat has passed, chronically stressful situations produce a permanently elevated state of alertness and tension.

There are many ways to manage stress. Relaxation techniques, such as meditation, yoga, massage or simply a warm bath, along with healthy eating habits and sufficient sleep, can do wonders. If your own efforts don’t work, seek professional counseling.

Regular exercise

Physical activity is a must-have for every healthy lifestyle. How much and how often you are able to exercise may depend on your lifestyle and personal situation. If you don’t have access or are too busy to visit a gym or other sports facilities, look for alternative opportunities to put your muscles to work, e.g. by taking walks during lunch hour, or by using stairs instead of elevators. (For a whole range of ideas for “in-between exercises,” go to http://www.timigustafson.com @ Basic Information About Exercise.)

Make sure you consult with your physician before starting a new health and fitness program. If you have had little or no exercise for some time, begin slowly and cautiously test your limits.

Not smoking

Nicotine causes blood vessels to constrict and make the heart beat faster – thereby raising blood pressure. The Surgeon General has named smoking as the most serious risk factor for coronary heart disease. Smoking is to blame for almost half a million preventable deaths in America every year. Additionally, secondhand smoke is estimated to kill as many as 40,000 non-smokers.

Countermeasures are simple and commonly known: If you don’t smoke, don’t start. If you do smoke, quit now or ask your physician how you can overcome your smoking habit.

Taking action

It is easy to feel discouraged in the face of all these statistics and negative reports. But instead of giving up and letting things slide even further, we all can take steps in the right direction. The world we live in may not always afford us the opportunity for radical changes, independent from circumstances and structures. But we can consciously and deliberately make small improvements, find alternative solutions and take responsibility for our actions. And that can be a very freeing and empowering experience.

This is not a fluke of nature. The ability to store more fat makes sense for women during childbearing age. Obviously, additional fat storage is beneficial for women in times of fertility, fetal development and lactation.

It has long been assumed that hormones are, at least in part, responsible for fat distribution and fat storage in the human body, which would explain the differences between the sexes. However, a causal link has not yet been clearly identified. Only recently, scientists at the University of South Wales (UNSW) have published a study in Obesity Reviews, a journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity, that may shed a bit more light on the subject.

The study focuses in particular on the role of estrogen in the distribution of fat in the female body. While men are prone to store visceral fat around the vital organs, also known as belly fat, woman typically accumulate subcutaneous fat around the hips and thighs – at least until they reach menopause. With post-menopausal hormonal changes, however, many women experience a “shift” in fat distribution toward the waist.

Some see their waist lines expand without significant changes to their total body weight, not only because of loss of muscle mass that comes with aging, but also because limb fat often decreases while abdominal fat accumulates.

Excessive accumulation of visceral fat in the body is believed to be more harmful than that of subcutaneous fat, potentially causing a number of obesity-related illnesses. The reason is that fat stored in the abdomen seems to have a greater tendency to become inflamed. By contrast, subcutaneous fat, which is located between the skin and the abdominal wall is less likely to have the same effects on the inner organs.

Contrary to widespread belief, fat cells are by no means inactive. Especially visceral fat cells are able to produce adverse substances in the body, which, in turn, can lead to further hormonal disruptions and imbalances.

This concerns both genders, but particularly women in their post-menopausal years who carry significant amounts of fat in the abdomen may be at higher risk of hypertension, heart disease, stroke, breast cancer, diabetes, insulin resistance, high triglycerides and metabolic syndrome.

Although some weight gain in the abdominal area may be an acceptable, if not inevitable part of the aging process, it should not be altogether dismissed as harmless. The good news is that belly fat can be kept in check by healthy eating habits and regular exercise. Hormone therapy for women for the single purpose of fighting belly fat, however, is not recommended. The potential risks simply outweigh the benefits for such an invasive treatment.

A few simple tests can tell whether you are within your healthy range of abdominal fat or beyond. For this, you can calculate your body mass index (BMI), or an even simpler and perhaps more indicative way is to measure your waist size with the help of a tape measure. As a rule, depending on frame size and body type, men’s waists sizes should not go over 40 inches and women should stay under 35 inches. For more details, you can continue reading about your healthy weight range.

Far from being restricted to non-perishable staples, today’s online food services include freshly prepared meals, individually customized menus, expensive gourmet items, exotic ingredients and also health foods and meal plans specifically designed for weight loss. Particularly the latter caught my attention.

Depending on where you live, you can set up an account online with a provider of your choice. In some metropolitan areas, there may be dozens of them. You place your order(s) and wait until delivery starts within a day or two. Some companies deliver meals daily, others once a week. You may order all your meals or pick specific items.

This highly customized service is not cheap. You’re looking at $100 to $400 for five to seven days of delivery. Not only the prices can vary significantly, so can the quality, freshness and taste of your mail-order meals. But considering the organization and labor that go into the whole process and the time you can save by not having to shop and cook yourself, it may still turn out to be a bargain.

As I mentioned earlier, some of these companies specialize in health conscious and weight management diets. Typically, after an initial consultation via e-mail or over the telephone, you can set up a personal program that determines your optimal daily calorie intake and other nutritional specifications and have your meals designed accordingly. Offerings like these are especially popular with people who wish to lose weight, but don’t have the time or the inclination to manage their own meal plans. As one client explained his motives to try some of these assisted diets: “I decided to [have my diet meals home-delivered], knowing I would never be able to stick to a diet if I had to do the buying and cooking myself.” (As seen in the New York Times on 5/5/2010)

As a health counselor, I think there is a place for this approach, and not only because I believe that simplicity and convenience are important factors in people’s efforts to make positive changes in their lives. It may be a good idea to set someone with bad eating habits on the right path by sending them nutritious foods in appropriate portion sizes through the mail. Provided there is no cheating, programs like these may actually do the trick – for a while. But what happens when clients reach their weight loss goal or discontinue the regimen for whatever reason? Once they find themselves on their own again, will they have learned enough and muster the required discipline to keep them going?

One important aspect of my work with patients struggling with weight issues is to have them develop a personal relationship to their food. Weight gain can routinely be associated with what is called “mindless eating.” Most of us, myself included, sometimes reach for food for reasons other than hunger. We may find ourselves munching on snacks or sweets because we are bored, stressed or tired – often without noticing. By contrast, the conscious planning of a home-cooked meal, the shopping for specific ingredients, the careful and loving preparation in the kitchen, and finally the enjoyment of the food and sharing with loved ones can provide a much more satisfying experience.

I admit, I am a great fan of farmers markets. I love to feel, squeeze, smell and taste the fresh fruits and vegetables I find there. I appreciate the human touch, the exchange and interaction with the people who have grown and harvested these foods and whom I implicitly trust with my health and well-being. I don’t deny the convenience of having a ready-to-eat meal dropped off at my doorstep when I’m exhausted from a long day. But I hope I will never lose touch with nature’s great gifts. I don’t ever want to see that part of my life become extinct, no matter what they invent next…

Energy drinks typically combine a variety of ingredients, most of which are stimulants, such as guarana, ginkgo, ginseng, taurine, glucuronolactone and also plenty of sugar and vitamins. The main active ingredient, however, is caffeine.

Depending on the brand, the caffeine content can be much higher than in regular coffee, although it has been pointed out that many “mainstream drinks” like cappuccinos and espressos contain just as much caffeine, if not more.

As of now, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not regulate the caffeine content of energy drinks, as it does with cola-type sodas. Manufacturers argue that regulation is altogether unnecessary, since their products don’t contain any dangerous substances. Energy drinks are not marketed as sodas, but as “dietary supplements” and are expected to be used as such.

So, why should anyone be worried? Proponents of regulation warn that energy drinks may be a major cause for so-called “caffeine-related disorders.” Medical research has long known about the dangers of heart disease and even cardiac arrest in connection with excessive caffeine consumption. Now there are concerns about cases of caffeine intoxication, which are sharply on the rise, especially among college students and young professionals.
And it is not only the young and restless crowd that regularly fuels up, professional drivers and night shift workers also operate frequently under the influence of power drinks.

Unfortunately, energy drinks are not only popular as boosters, they are often mixed with alcohol as well. The problem is that alcohol works as a depressant. Mixing stimulants with depressants can be a dangerous combination, and it is certainly not healthy. Imagine yourself driving a car with one foot on the gas and the other on the break at the same time. These cocktails can make you feel alert and energized, although you are really drunk. Your judgment may be even further impaired because the normal effects of alcohol, like sleepiness, are absent. In terms of safety, this is a recipe for disaster.

So, should the FDA look into regulating energy drinks? Clinical studies (e.g. in Drug and Alcohol Dependence, January 2009) have indeed recommended that the FDA require labeling that specifies the potential dangers of energy drinks. Moreover, they recommend having manufacturers list the exact amount of caffeine, along with the other ingredients in their products. This should not be dismissed as an unreasonable burden on the industry, especially since the information is already available on the Internet. It may not significantly impact the behavior of consumers, but, at least, nobody could say they hadn’t received a fair warning.

Caffeine content by comparison:

Red Bull® Energy Drink: 80 mg per 8.3 oz. serving
Monster® Energy: 160 mg per 16 oz. serving
Wired® X505: 505 mg per 24 oz. serving

Starbucks® “Tall” Coffee: 260 mg. per 12 oz. serving
Stash® “English Breakfast” Black Tea: 60 mg. per 12 oz. serving

Coca-Cola® Classic: 34.5 mg per 12 oz. serving
Pepsi® Cola: 38 mg. per 12 oz. serving
Dr. Pepper®: 42 mg. per 12 oz. serving