Prolonged TV Watching Ups Risk of Diabetes, CV Disease, and Death

Picture Credit: http://news.bbcimg.co.uk

Boston, MA - Confirmation that sitting in front of the television for prolonged lengths of time has long-term adverse effects has come from a new review of studies showing a direct relation between the amount of television viewing and risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and all-cause mortality.

The review, published in the June 15, 2011 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, showed that for every two hours of television watched daily, the risk of diabetes increased by 20%, the risk of cardiovascular disease increased by 15%, and the risk of all-cause mortality increased by 13%.

Coauthor of the study, Dr Frank Hu (Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA), commented to heartwire: "TV watching is worse than other sedentary activities in that it is particularly passive. It has a lower energy expenditure compared with driving, reading, working at a computer, etc."

Associated with junk food

He also maintains that watching television is associated with unhealthy eating behavior. "People tend to eat when they are watching television, and they also tend to eat junk food and sugary beverages rather than healthier food. This might be related to the large amount of commercials for junk food, which increase the appetite, or it may just be due to boredom. Junk food is more readily available and therefore suitable for eating in front of the television. Perhaps if people were not watching television, they would be more inclined to make themselves a proper healthier meal."

Hu notes that the culture of television watching is a direct result of the technological revolution. "With the availability of satellite television, with hundreds of channels, we are watching more and more TV, and with a remote control we don't even have to get up from the sofa to change channels."

He added: "I'm not advocating a ban on television. But our behavior has become excessive. The average American watches five hours of TV every day. That is too much. And people get into a vicious circle. They watch a lot of TV, so start to put on weight, and that makes it more difficult to exercise, so they watch more TV. . . . I think we need to be telling people that they can cut their risks of diabetes and heart disease by reducing their time watching TV."

Exercise while watching TV

"Public-health messages recommend an increase in physical activity, but they don't actually stipulate less television watching. That is something that is not too difficult to change. We should also be suggesting that people do some exercise while watching television. We could develop technology to enable people to expend more energy when watching TV, like using a treadmill or other exercise equipment."

In the paper, Hu and his coauthor, Anders Grøntved (University of Southern Denmark, Odense), report that television watching is the most commonly reported daily activity apart from working and sleeping in many populations around the world, with an average of 40% of daily free time occupied by TV viewing within several European countries and 50% in Australia.

They performed a meta-analysis of eight prospective cohort studies looking at the association between TV viewing and risk of type 2 diabetes, fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular disease, and all-cause mortality. Results showed pooled relative risks per two hours of TV viewing per day of 1.20 for type 2 diabetes, 1.15 for fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular disease, and 1.13 for all-cause mortality.

The estimated absolute risk differences per every two hours of TV viewing per day were 176 cases of type 2 diabetes, 38 cases of fatal cardiovascular disease, and 104 deaths from any cause per 100 000 individuals per year.

By Sue Hughes of theheart.org, June 14, 2011

Sue graduated in pharmacy from Manchester University, UK and worked as a hospital pharmacist before moving on to health journalism.

Grontved A, Hu FB. Television Viewing and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes, Cardiovascular Disease, and All-Cause Mortality, A Meta-analysis. JAMA. 2011;305(23):2448-2455.

How to Remain Relevant When You’re Over 40

Picture Credit: http://rlv.zcache.com

Your earning potential pretty much tops out at age 40. This is because your skills become increasingly valuable until you amass fifteen years’ experience, at which point you’ve hit a peak. According to statisticians at PayScale.com, in all fields except law, people are not paid more money for experience beyond fifteen years.

This means that to remain relevant and continue to increase your value, you are going to have to learn skills outside of your field. Here are five skills you should pick up as your earning power is due to drop.

1. Community building.

Yes, this is an irritating buzzword for social media mavens who are probably fresh out of college and run their whole life on Facebook and tumblr. But the reality is, social media infiltrates everything, in the same way that email became essential 10 years ago. Ninety percent of messages today are via social media link, according to The Pinnacle Group, a New York City think tank. Only ten percent are via email. So we are already at that tipping point where you need to learn social media or go home. People who are exceptional with social media can build a community around themselves in order to get jobs, promotions, and do good works for their company. Here’s a first step: How to start a blog.

2. Information processing.

Remember the term “information overload”? That went out of fashion when hipsters made productivity blogs one of the most popular genre of blogs, and time management books hit the New York Times bestseller list. Today you are in a knowledge market, where knowledge workers trade on their ability to synthesize information faster and in more collaborative ways - or faster and in ways that are so innovative that their ideas stand out above the rest. Information processing requires a clear understanding of one’s priorities, and an insatiable curiosity. Starting point: Time management tips for multitaskers.

3. Bridge building.

People who change jobs frequently build a wider set of skills and a wider network - both of which make them more employable. Job hopping enables you to create a series of bridges as you move between companies. The workplace no longer provides secure jobs, but you can provide security for yourself by creating a dynamic career where you move from job to job. You can develop contacts and build relationships outside of a job, for sure, but if people don’t get the chance to work with you, then they can’t endorse your ability to work. Likewise, if you work in a company where people tend to job hop, you can still build this wide network providing you remain in touch with them after they move on.The best way to build a wide network is to actually work with a wide range of people.

Your resume, if you are doing this right, should reflect a significant, positive impact wherever you work, and you should leave in your wake a swarm of happy managers and co-workers who felt lucky to be on projects with you. That’s how strong the performance of a good job hopper is. Subset to this skill: How to quit a job.

4. Manage your personal brand.

If you try to build a community without having a clear sense of who you are, people will not feel connected to you. Each person you meet needs to have a clear understanding of your place in the industry. In a world in which people Google you before they meet you, it’s important to show a good face on the front page of those search results.

Of course, this means it’s important to have updated LinkedIN and Facebook profiles, and, if you are full of ideas, you can have a blog as well. But what you really need is a sense of who you are - what you are good at and where you are going. It can change, it always does, but you have to have your own elevator pitch. If you don’t understand who you are and what you do, then no one else can either. So give it a shot. It’s a work in progress, but it’s how you will maneuver through the workplace. Starting spot for overachievers: How to sell anything to anyone.

5. Commit to life-long learning.

One of the most difficult aspects of this quickly moving information age is how quickly skills and knowledge become obsolete. If you are constantly committed to learning, you are less likely to become obsolete (and therefore, unemployable). The faster you can adapt and recognize shifts in markets the better off you’ll be.

In general, it’s not about how old you are but how open you are to new ways of communicating. Aim to be open, widely networked, and adaptable to new ways of thinking. And in that vein, you should ask yourself routinely, what generation am I?

By Penelope Trunk | June 7, 2011

Penelope Trunk is the founder of three startups, most recently Brazen Careerist, a professional social network for young people. Previously she worked in marketing at Fortune 500 companies including Mattel and Hyundai. Her blog about career advice, blog.penelopetrunk.com, receives half a million visits a month and is syndicated in more than 200 newspapers. She frequently appears as a workplace commentator on CNN, 20/20 and FOX News. She's also the author of Brazen Careerist: The New Rules for Success, a bestselling career advice book for Generation Y.

Aspartame - The Killer In Your Fridge?

The Sweet "Poison"

We wrote about aspartame last year.

Now, a good friend has forwarded us a new version of the Nancy Markle letter that includes a lengthy preamble of a "miracle cure" that brought a loved one back from the brink of death.

He strongly advised that we forward this serious health message to our friends and relatives. But we decided to do a little checking first.

Wah! We found many Web sites that discuss the possible side effects of aspartame and try to link it, through mostly anecdotal evidence, to Alzheimer's, birth defects, brain cancer, diabetes, Gulf War syndrome, lupus, multiple sclerosis and seizures. Straight away, the long list warrants skepticism. Just as no single chemical cures everything, none causes everything.

So we went to a reliable health site, the US National Library of Medicine, to search for the latest peer-reviewed scientific papers on aspartame.

We found “Aspartame—facts and fiction” by Bernadene Magnuson and published in the March 19, 2010 issue of the New Zealand Medical Journal. A summary obtained from the website of the New Zealand Medical Association is reproduced below.

Dr Magnusson has declared that her presentation was funded by Coca-Cola Oceania. However, she has no financial interests in any of the companies that produce or use aspartame or any other high intensity sweetener.

If you are skeptical about this toxicologist, which is quite understandable, you can look up these other authoritative sites recommended by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority:

European Food Safety Authority

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) – Aspartame fact sheet

Health Canada

New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA), Aspartame – what is it and why is it used in our food?

New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) submission to the Health Select Committee 2007

UK Food Standards Agency

US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA)

As always, if you have questions about the safety of the foods and other substances you ingest, your best source for answers are health professionals. If you are concerned about negative effects from aspartame or other artificial sweeteners, consult your doctor, pharmacist or a registered dietitian. Recommended this article to your friends and relatives and break this outdated and questionable chain!

The Sweet Poison?

Aspartame—facts and fiction

by Bernadene Magnuson

In September of 2008, I was invited to New Zealand by the New Zealand Nutrition Foundation to discuss the results of a recent review on the safety of aspartame published in the scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology.1 Unfortunately urban myths surrounding this sweetener are causing undue concern and many New Zealanders are choosing to switch from diet versions of products to high calorie sugar-sweetened versions. This is of concern in a nation where obesity and diabetes, which have well-document health risks, are on the rise. Therefore, I welcomed the opportunity to present the scientific facts about aspartame, in order to help New Zealanders make informed decisions.

As lead author for a team of nine independent internationally esteemed toxicologists, I reviewed hundreds of studies on aspartame safety, providing me with a clear understanding of the science. This review was powerful because as a team, we arrived at our conclusions based on the totality of all safety studies available—published and unpublished (pre-market safety evaluation studies).

The key findings of the review1 with respect to aspartame safety were:

• Aspartame is completely broken down in the intestine to components found in other foods.
• Aspartame consumption (even at levels much higher than consumed by the highest users) has virtually no impact on blood levels of amino acids, methanol or glucose.
• Aspartame safety is clearly documented and well established through extensive laboratory testing, animal experiments, human clinical trials and epidemiological (population) studies.
• There is no evidence from numerous well conducted studies that consumption of aspartame at levels found in the human diet are associated with conditions of nervous system, behaviour, or other illness.
• Aspartame does not cause mutations, and there is no credible evidence that it causes cancer.

Therefore, the overall conclusion of the study is that, based on the current information available, aspartame is safe to consume even at levels much higher than the highest users are currently consuming.

The problem with many of the "aspartame toxin" stories is that they contain just enough science to make them sound plausible, so I wasn’t surprised to hear that even some medical professionals have been questioning the safety of aspartame.

To counter some of the misinformation, I make five key points:

• Firstly, when aspartame undergoes digestion in the gut lumen and epithelial cells lining the gut, the breakdown products are phenylalanine and aspartic acid (two amino acids present in many protein-containing foods) and a small amount of methanol (also present in most fruits and vegetables).2,3 The amounts of these are much less than found in other foods. For example, aspartame from a can of diet soft drink provides less methanol than a banana, and far less (only 20%) than from the same amount of tomato juice.2,4 Because aspartame never enters the bloodstream as a whole,3,5 studies where aspartame is directly injected into the body, or added to cells grown in a dish, cannot be used to assess safety for humans. This also explains why aspartame cannot possibly cross into the fetus during pregnancy or into breast milk. In fact studies show that amounts normally consumed in the diet are safe during pregnancy and lactation.6-12
• Secondly, it is necessary to explain how our body deals with the methanol produced when the body digests aspartame. The human body is well-equipped to use small amounts of methanol routinely produced from foods and drugs. First, alcohol dehydrogenase in the liver converts it into formaldehyde, which is used within seconds or converted to formic acid, which in turn is used by the body or converted into water and carbon dioxide for excretion.13 The fact that formaldehyde and formic acid are breakdown products of aspartame sounds scary. But the body is very efficient at using up formaldehdye (it actually needs it for some reactions and therefore produces it endogenously in much greater amounts than we could ever produce by ingesting aspartame),14 and so formaldehdye never builds up in the body. If the body doesn't need it, it converts formaldehye to formic acid within minutes. In most cases the formic acid will be either excreted in the urine, or broken down to carbon dioxide and water. However, this takes more time and if there is a lot of methanol (or formaldehye) coming into the body, formic acid can build up and that causes the adverse effects seen in methanol poisoning.13

So when the safety of aspartame was being assessed, many studies were conducted to examine whether the consumption of aspartame would affect blood methanol, formaldehyde or formic acid levels in humans. People consuming up to 200 mg aspartame/kg body weight (the normal daily consumption is 5 mg/kg) had a small increase in blood methanol, but this was 100X lower than the amount needed to cause methanol poisoning), no change in formic acid levels (there is always a small amount in blood) and formaldehyde was not detected. Studies in infants and children showed the same thing. People given 10 mg aspartame /kg body weight (about double a normal daily amount), every hour for 6 hours were monitored and there was no change in blood methanol, or any other metabolites.3,5 So, the amount of aspartame in diet drinks or foods produces so little methanol that there is no chance it could cause a build up of formic acid and cause adverse effects.

• Thirdly, another urban myth is that the methanol in aspartame is handled differently from the methanol in foods, because it is not consumed with ethanol, as it often is in other foods. As I’ve already explained, there isn’t enough methanol produced from consuming aspartame to cause methanol toxicity. However the statement is worthy of discussion because it is based on science, but is incorrectly extrapolated. Ethanol is also metabolised in the liver by alcohol dehydrogenase. This is why methanol poisoning (high blood methanol, high blood formic acid), is treated clinically by administering ethanol. This stops further production of formic acid as alcohol dehydrogenase will preferentially metabolise ethanol, and slow the methanol metabolism. This gives the body time to breakdown the excess levels of formic acid before more is produced.

So the argument that the ethanol protects against methanol poisoning is correct, but this only is relevant when there is sufficient levels of methanol to cause a build-up of formic acid, and when there is sufficient ethanol to offset the metabolism of methanol. When people consume foods and drinks containing aspartame, such a small amount of methanol is released and metabolized, that there is no change in blood methanol or blood formic acid levels, so it makes absolutely no difference if you concomitantly consume ethanol or not.

• Fourth, allegations have been made that industry-funded studies always find no adverse effects while “independent” studies find adverse effects. This argument is both misleading and false. For example, three studies in mice conducted by the US National Toxicology Program (an independent group) concluded that aspartame is not a carcinogen.15 And a recent large scale US National Cancer Institute epidemiological study (also independent) came to the same conclusion.16 In addition, industry-initiated research most often examines the effects of ingesting aspartame—so as to test what happens when aspartame is consumed in foods and drinks. Many “independent” researchers study unrealistic situations such as injecting aspartame directly into the bloodstream, brain or other organs, and/or use doses far beyond what anybody could conceivably consume. At doses thousand of times what human consume, as with any compound, adverse effects will be seen. This is often a result of creating an unnatural and imbalanced intake of amino acids.
• Lastly, two studies in rats conducted by the Ramazzini Foundation17–19 are often upheld as scientific proof of adverse effects due to aspartame. The first study reported an association between aspartame and leukaemia and lymphomas, and the second reported increased cancers in rats fed aspartame for their lifetime, and whose mother was fed aspartame during pregnancy. This research, which is in contrast to all previous studies finding no effect of aspartame on cancer, has been carefully reviewed by numerous international food safety authorities and other experts. All found serious flaws in the research methodology and interpretation of results, which are discussed at length in our most recent review1 as well as a subsequent letter to the editor.20

Some of the flaws included:

• The experimental animals were housed unconventionally, without the treatment groups being in the same environment. This resulted in some groups contracting high rates of respiratory infection—a known risk factor for lymphoma and leukaemia.
• When the pathology slides used to draw conclusions about the rates of leukaemia and lymphoma by the researchers were examined by independent reviewers, they did not draw the same conclusions.
• The researchers did not provide information about the baseline rat diet used in their studies. It is known that it is not the conventional “rat chow” diet, and that nutrient levels were not re-adjusted depending on dose of aspartame used, as they are in conventional studies. Therefore there is a possibility that some findings could have been due to nutritional deficiencies in some groups.
• The researchers most recently reported a cancer risk from prenatal exposure to aspartame, without providing any data on aspartame intake (or indeed any other parameter) during pregnancy in rats.

In addition, 14 previous studies in various animal models found no evidence of aspartame causing or promoting cancer development.1 Thus the independent reviews all agree that there is no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic.

I hope that this article helps clarify the scientific facts about aspartame so that New Zealanders can make fully informed choices about their consumption of aspartame sweetened foods and beverages in future.

Competing interest:. Funding for this summary of Dr Magnusson's presentations in New Zealand was provided by Coca-Cola Oceania, however the author has no financial interests in any of the companies that produce or use aspartame or any other high intensity sweetener.

Author information: Bernadene Magnuson, Adjunct Professor in Nutritional Sciences (also toxicologist who works as consultant to the food and dietary supplement industries on safety and regulatory issues), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Correspondence: Bernadene Magnuson, PhD, Senior Scientific & Regulatory Consultant, Cantox Health Sciences International, 2233 Argentia Road, Suite 308, Mississaunga, ON, Canada L5N 2X7. Fax: +1 905 5421011; email: bmagnuson@cantox.com

References

1. Magnuson BA, Burdock GA, Doull J, et al. Aspartame: A safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2007;37(8):629-727.
2. Stegink LD. The aspartame story: a model for the clinical testing of a food additive. Am J Clin Nutr. 1987;46:204-15.
3. Butchko HH, Stargel WW, Comer CP, et al. Aspartame: review of safety. Reg Toxicol and Pharmacol. 2002;35:S1-93.
4. Butchko HH, Kotsonis FN. Acceptable daily intake vs actual intake: the aspartame example. J Am Coll Nutr. 1991;10:258-66.
5. Renwick AG. The metabolism of intense sweeteners. Xenobiotica. 1986;16:1057-71.
6. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Aspartame. Toxicological evaluation of certain food additives and contaminants. World Health Organisation Technical Report Series No.653. Prepared by the 23rd report of JECFA. Food Additive Series 15. World Health Organisation: Geneva; 1980.
7. Brunner RL, Vorhees CV, Kinney L, Butcher RE. Aspartame: assessment of developmental psychotoxicity of a new artificial sweetener. Neurobehavioural Toxicology. 1979:1;79-86.
8. Holder MD. Effects of perinatal exposure to aspartame on rat pups. Neurotoxicol and Teratol. 1989;11:1-6.
9. Lennon HD, Metcalf LE, Mares SE, et al. The biological properties of aspartame. IV. Effects on reproduction and lactation. J Environ Pathol and Toxicol. 1980;3:375-86.
10. Ranney RE, Mares SE, Schroeder RE, et al. The phenylalanine and tyrosine content of maternal and fetal body fluids from rabbits fed aspartame. Toxicol and Appl Pharmacol. 1975;32:339-46.
11. Lederer J, Bodin J, Colson A. Aspartame and its effects on gestation in rats. Journal de Toxicologie Clin et Experimentale. 1985;5:7-14 [in French].
12. Kotsonis FN, Hjelle JJ. The safety assessment of aspartame: Scientific and regulatory considerations. In: Tschanz C, Butchko HH, Stargel WW, Kotsonis FN (Eds). The clinical evaluation of a food additive assessment of aspartame. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 1996:23-41.
13. Kostic MA, Dart RC. Rethinking the toxic methanol level. Review. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol, 2003; 41: 793-800.
14. Clary JJ, Sullivan JB. Formaldehyde. In: Sullivan JB, Krieger GR (Eds). Clinical environmental health and toxic exposures. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, 1999: 1007-14.
15. National Toxicology Program (NTP). NTP report on the toxicology studies of aspartame in genetically modified (FVB Tg.AC hemizygous) and B6.129-Cdkn2a (N2) deficient mice and carcinogenicity studies of aspartame in genetically modified [B6.129 Trp53tm1Brd (N5) haploinsufficient] mice (feed studies). National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NZ. Report 06-4459, 2005:1-224.
16. Lim U, Subar AF, Mouw T, et al. Consumption of aspartame-containing beverages and incidence of hematopoietic and brain malignancies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Sep;15(9):1654-9.
17. Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Esposti DD, Lambertini L. Aspartame induces lymphomas and leukaemias in rats. Eur J Oncology. 2005;10:107-16.
18. Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Esposti DD, et al. First experimental demonstration of the multipotential carcinogenic effects of aspartame administered in the feed to Sprague-Dawley rats. Env Health Perspect. 2006;114:379-85.
19. Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Tibaldi E, et al. Lifespan exposure to low doses of aspartame beginning during prenatal life increases cancer effects in rats. Env Health Perspect. 2007;115:1293-7.
20. Magnuson B, Williams GN. Carcinogenicity of aspartame in rats not proven. Env Health Perspect. 2008;116:A239-40.

Zestz for LAUGHS : Police Nationale

Picture Credit: www.financetwitter.com

A Disclaimer: Please note that the uniform of the law enforcer resembles that of the French Police Nationale. This with the crucifix on the wall makes it obvious that the scenery is not Malaysian.

Photosensitivity

Some of you may recognise this cartoon from last Saturday's Star

It's John McPherson's play on the side effect of certain drugs.

Drug-Induced Photosensitivity

Photosensitvity is inflammation of the skin induced by the combination of sunlight and certain medications or substances. This causes redness (erythema) of the skin and make look similar to sunburn. Drug-induced photosensitivity or photosensitising medications can cause unexpected sunburn or a dry, bumpy or blistering rash on sun-exposed skin (face, neck, arms, backs of hands and often lower legs and feet). The rash may or may not be itchy.

What are some common photosensitizing drugs?

Common photosensitizing drugs include the following:

Antibiotics

- the quinolones [for example, ciprofloxacin (Bactiflox, Ciloxan, Ciprobay),

- levofloxacin tetracyclines [for example, tetra, doxycycl (Doline, Doxycylin, Vibramycin)

- sulfonamides [for example, sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim (Bactrim, Cotrim, Trimexazole)

Antihistamines

- diphenhydramine (Benadryl)

Malaria medications

- quinine (Quinerva, Quinite, QM-260)

- chloroquine (Aralen)

- hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil)

Cancer chemotherapy drugs

- 5-fluorouracil (5-FU, Efudex, Carac, Fluoroplex)

- vinblastine (Velban, Velsar)

- dacarbazine (DTIC-Dome)

Cardiac drugs

- amiodarone (Aratac, Cordarone)

- nifedipine (Adalat, Cordipin)

- quinidine (Quinaglute, Quinidex)

- diltiazem (Cardil, Dilem, herbesser)

Diuretics

- furosemide (Lasix)

- thiazides [hydrochlorothiazide (HCT)

Diabetic drugs

- sulfonylureas [chlorpropamide (Diabinese), glyburide (Micronase, DiaBeta, Glynase)]

Painkillers

- non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs [naproxen (Naprosyn, Naprelan, Anaprox, Aleve), piroxicam (Feldene)

Skin medications

- photodynamic therapy for skin cancer [ALA or 5-aminolevulinic acid (Levulan), Methyl-5-aminolevulinic acid)

Acne medications

- isotretinoin (Accutane)

- acitretin (Soriatane)

Psychiatric drugs

- phenothiazines [chlorpromazine (Matcine)]

- tricyclic antidepressants [desipramine (Norpramin), imipramine (Apo-Imipramine, Tofranil)

Is anyone taking these drugs at risk for developing sunburn?

It is important to realize that not everyone taking any of these drugs will develop photosensitivity reactions. Certain individuals have more susceptibility to these medications than others.

Can any foods or plants cause photosensitivity reactions?

Some vegetables and plants may cause sun sensitivity if they come into contact with the skin. Mango peel, lime juice, parsnips, or celery, for example, may cause temporary discoloration (darkening) of the skin contact area when in the sun. Common phototoxic fruits and vegetables include:

- Lime

- Celery

- Carrots

- Figs

- Parsley

- Parsnips

For further information, please speak to our pharmacist or visit dermnetnz.org

Teach Your Child Healthy Eating Habits

Picture credit: http://conniemartin.files.wordpress.com

And Avoid Issues With Their Weight

It may be difficult to keep your children at a healthy weight. Experts say the best way is to offer them healthy foods and drinks, and to set a good example yourself.

The American Academy of Family Physicians suggests how parents should teach kids about healthy eating:

• Feed your child a healthy, nutritious and balanced diet, including lots of fruits, vegetables and whole grains. Be sure to include an appropriate number of calories, based on the child's age.
• Limit sugary drinks to no more than one serving per day. Encourage your children to drink water.
• Make healthy eating a family habit. Eat meals together at the table, and turn off the TV at meal time.
• Don't push your children to eat when not hungry or to finish all the food on the plate; let your children eat slowly and stop eating when they start to feel full.
• Offer your children rewards other than food.
• Limit fast-food meals.

A Multivitamin with Lysine and Prebiotics Tablets for children, who can start to chew, to improve their appetite, digestive health and promote growth.

CLICK HERE for more information or talk to our pharmacists TODAY!