One of the most feared health problems the aging Baby Boomer generation will face is dementia. And it won’t just affect those suffering from mental decline but also those who care for them and society at large, at least in financial terms.

A new study predicts that healthcare costs in connection with age-related dementia, such as Alzheimer’s disease, will soon surpass almost all other medical expenses, including for heart disease and cancer, two of today’s leading causes of death.

The study, which was conducted by economists at the RAND Corporation and sponsored by the federal government, found that expenditures for dementia patients will at least double by 2040.

3.8 million Americans age 71 and older are now diagnosed with some form of age-related cognitive decline. In another generation, the researchers say, there will be over 9 million.

Direct healthcare costs, including nursing home care, per dementia patient run currently between $41,000 and $56,000 a year. Total expenses in the United States in 2010, the year the study collected its data, ranged from $159 billion to 215 billion. It is projected that these numbers will increase to well over $500 billion annually by mid-century.

Not included in these calculations are the costs of what is considered “informal care,” which is usually provided by family members and voluntary caregivers. It is hard to put a price tag on their efforts, but the study estimates a total of $50 billion to $106 billion spent per year.

“The long-term care costs associated with people with dementia are particularly high because of the nature of the disease,” said Donald Moulds, assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in an interview with the New York Times. “People eventually become incapable of caring for themselves, and then in the vast majority of cases, their loved ones become incapable of caring for them.”

So far, there is no cure or effective treatment for dementia. However, there are numerous studies suggesting that certain preventive measures may be helpful, at least in terms of delaying or slowing the debilitating effects.

For instance, certain health and lifestyle factors associated with the risk of Alzheimer’s disease can be controlled, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Scientists are exploring whether prevention strategies like physical exercise, diet and intellectual stimulation can counteract deterioration. Controlling body weight and blood pressure are among the most common recommendations experts give in this regard. Also, keeping the brain engaged by constant learning and participating in a lively social environment are thought to be helpful.

Unfortunately, most of this is guesswork. The truth is that we don’t know why dementia is so dramatically on the rise. Is the reason that we live longer, that we eat the wrong foods, that we exercise too little, that we watch too much TV, that we find ourselves increasingly isolated as we grow older – all of the above and more? We don’t know.

Still, we cannot sit idly and ignore the facts. In any case, adherence to a healthy lifestyle will do no harm. We may not find out the specific causes, if there are any, and there may not be an effective treatment available for the foreseeable future.

But in the meantime, we can and should do everything in our power to stay as healthy and active as possible for as long as we can. A good way of going about that is to satisfy all our health needs in every aspect by eating right, exercising regularly, reducing stress, getting enough sleep, nursing relationships, reading books, learning foreign languages and computer programs and so forth. Not one but all of these together make for what I have called the “pillars of our wellbeing.” Until there are better options, that’s all we can do, and that’s not nothing.

Timi Gustafson R.D. is a registered dietitian, newspaper columnist, blogger and author of the book “The Healthy Diner – How to Eat Right and Still Have Fun”®, which is available on her blog and at amazon.com.  For more articles on nutrition, health and lifestyle, visit her blog, “Food and Health with Timi Gustafson R.D.” (www.timigustafson.com). You can follow Timi on Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest

I practice a special kind of meditation on an almost daily basis. Perhaps meditation isn’t the right word since it doesn’t require me to sit in silence with my eyes closed and legs crossed or anything like that. It’s more a form of taking stock of where my life is going at any particular time.

For this, I have five issues to consider: my physical health, my diet, my emotional state, my intellectual rigor and my social/relational life. These I think of as the pillars of my wellbeing. Each one matters greatly by itself, but each must also be in balance with all the others. If one goes missing, the rest will suffer as well.

Let me give an example. When I injured my shoulder in a tennis game a few years ago, I realized how much was taken away from me, not just because I had to give up playing for a while but also because a dear routine was interrupted with all sorts of consequences.

During my prolonged absence from the court, I lost my tennis buddies whose comradeship I had enjoyed tremendously. One of them, a university professor and a true intellectual, had not only been a great partner in doubles but also a stimulating presence in my life that gave me many insights in a vast variety of subjects. Due to the reduced physical activity, I felt less energetic and not as motivated in my work. And I had to watch my diet more carefully to prevent unwanted weight gain.

Needless to say, I was saddened about losing a part of my life that was more important to me than I had been aware of. In fact, it made me miserable for quite some time.

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer once said: “Health is not everything, but without it, nothing is anything.” I am a great believer in that. I know now that my physical health is the foundation of what I can do in life, whether it concerns work or leisurely activities. It also affects my state of mind, my interest and participation in the world around me, and my ability to relate to others. And it works both ways: The happier I am, the more fulfilled I feel, the easier it seems to stay healthy and fit.

Obviously, my little meditational routine is nothing original. If you are interested in taking up this kind of exercise, I can recommend using the so-called “Wellness Wheel”, which follows a similar pattern. As the name indicates, the different components of wellness relate to each other like spokes in a wheel. Each is necessary to hold the whole thing together, none is expendable.

Good nutrition, regular exercise, weight management as well as avoidance of smoking and alcohol and drug abuse are at the core. But so are stress management and getting enough sleep. Our emotional, intellectual and spiritual needs must be cared for. Having goals, a sense of purpose and satisfaction and fulfillment in what we do are all part of it, just like having good relationships with loved ones, colleagues and community.

Not all areas will always be at peak performance. And that’s not even necessary. We can focus on work and put our social life on the backburner for some time. We can take a break from our exercise routine for a day or two and make up for the missed time on the weekend. We can overindulge for a special occasion and then go right back to a healthy diet afterwards. What we can’t do is neglecting or sacrificing entire segments of our wellbeing because, sooner or later, it will affect the whole person.

If you liked this article, you may also enjoy reading “Creating a Health-Promoting Work Environment” and “Healthy Eating – A Never-Ending Learning Curve.”

Timi Gustafson R.D. is a registered dietitian, newspaper columnist, blogger and author of the book “The Healthy Diner – How to Eat Right and Still Have Fun”®, which is available on her blog and at amazon.com.  For more articles on nutrition, health and lifestyle, visit her blog, “Food and Health with Timi Gustafson R.D.” (www.timigustafson.com). You can follow Timi on Twitter, on Facebook and on Pinterest.

I clearly remember a scene when my then two-year-old granddaughter participated in her first Easter egg hunt. We were invited to the home of a friend whose beautiful garden offered endless hiding opportunities for treats. My granddaughter had never been to such an event and was a little overwhelmed by the dozens of fellow-toddlers with parents in tow, all competing for the best treasures.

Every time she detected a colored egg, or a chocolate bunny, or whatever else the hostess had hidden behind grass bushels and tree trunks, she shrieked with delight. It was up to her father, my son, to collect all her findings and keep them safely stored in a hand basket given to him for the occasion. To ensure there was enough for everyone, he every so often put some of the growing bounty back in the grass only to be picked up by the child for a second time with undiminished joy. She had no idea she was having déjà vu experiences.

Only afterwards she asked me why she had gotten so many eggs. Because it’s Easter, I said. On Easter people like to eat eggs. Oblivious to the historical roots of Easter egg hunting, I hoped she wouldn’t want me to go into further detail. I was mistaken. She was at the age when everything had to have a specific reason for its existence. Why eggs? Why are they hidden in the grass? Who put them there? – she demanded to know.

I didn’t want to lie to my own grandchild, not in such important matters anyway, so I did some research. Here, in a nutshell, is what I found out. Mind you, this is the adult version.

Although Easter is a Christian holiday, commemorating the resurrection of Jesus Christ, many of its traditions predate Christianity. Even the name goes back to pre-Christian beliefs when early Saxons celebrated an annual feast in honor of the goddess Eostre on Equinox, around March 21. She was depicted holding a spring hare, symbolizing fertility and the return of life after the cold winter months – perhaps a precursor of today’s Easter bunny.

The Easter egg has similar pagan roots. Many cultures around the world have long regarded the egg as a symbol for life and fertility. Engraved and decorated ostrich eggs found in Africa date back thousands of years. The early Christian communities adopted the custom of painting eggs, usually in bright red, as a reminder that the blood of Jesus was shed on the cross for them. Over the following centuries, the evolving Christian church often made use of symbols, rituals and festivities of other traditions and incorporated them as its own.

Some of those had important practical implications. For instance, during lent (also a tradition shared among many cultures and religions), believers were required to abstain from most animal products, including dairy. Eating eggs on Easter then also signaled the end of the fasting period.

Our contemporary ways of celebrating the Easter holiday is also a hodgepodge of customs and practices. Easter egg hunts and egg rolling were brought here by European immigrants. The idea of hiding eggs for children to hunt after is similar to a component of Seder, the Jewish Passover ritual, where a piece of matza bread is hidden by the head of the household and searched for by other family members.

Obviously, my granddaughter would not have known what to make of all these complex explanations at the time. But what intrigued me in my research was that although many of these traditions have become more or less opaque over time, they still have not lost their appeal entirely.

For example, I was struck by how important the time of lent must have been for our forbearers who had to carve out a living off their land and by their hard labor. Unlike for us, for many of them it was not merely a voluntary act of self-deprivation but also a necessity when food supplies ran low. Easter then was the end of a worrisome time and the beginning of a new season when all life returned – a resurrection, if you will. I’m sure, no matter what this holiday means to us now, we all can relate to that to some extent. Happy Easter.

Timi Gustafson R.D. is a registered dietitian, newspaper columnist, blogger and author of the book “The Healthy Diner – How to Eat Right and Still Have Fun”®, which is available on her blog and at amazon.com.  For more articles on nutrition, health and lifestyle, visit her blog, “Food and Health with Timi Gustafson R.D.” (www.timigustafson.com). You can follow Timi on Twitter, on Facebook and on Pinterest.

Nearly half of all newborns in the United States are introduced too soon to solid foods, causing them digestive problems and nutritional deficiencies that can have lasting health effects as they grow older.

According to a recently published study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 40 percent of interviewed mothers said they gave their babies solid food before they were four months old. Nine percent started as early as four weeks.

Pediatricians recommend that infants should be given nothing but breast milk or, if that is not an option, baby formula or a combination of both at least until the age of six months.

The researchers found that many young parents were either unaware of these guidelines or found them hard to follow, often for financial reasons. Those who turned to solid foods too early were primarily young, less educated and single mothers, according to the study.

Expenses for baby formula can be quite high, between $50 and $100 for the first month and between $1,138 and $1,188 for the first year, according to one cost calculator. Many low-income families cannot easily afford them, especially when there are other children at different growing stages.

Still, nothing good can come from feeding babies food they cannot handle yet, said Dr. T. J. Gold, a pediatrician at Tribeca Pediatrics in Brooklyn in an interview with the New York Times. Before they can sit and hold their heads up without help, it can be difficult if not outright dangerous to put solid food in their mouths. They also don’t have the right gut bacteria for digesting it yet, which can lead to gastroenteritis and diarrhea and interfere with proper nutrient absorption. Long-term problems can include obesity, diabetes, eczema and celiac disease, he added.

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), formerly the American Dietetic Association (ADA), recommends breastfeeding as an “important public health strategy for improving infant and child morbidity and mortality.” In a position statement, the AND says it regards exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life and breastfeeding with complementary foods from six months until at least one year of age as the ideal feeding pattern for infants.

What makes breast milk the ideal source of nutrition for newborns is that it offers a good balance of important nutrients that are easily digestible. Moreover, the mother’s milk changes its composition over time to fit the changing needs of her growing child.

There are also important benefits from breastfeeding for the health of the mother, including bonding with the child, increased energy expenditure, leading to faster return to pre-pregnancy weight, decreased risk for postpartum depression and improvement of parenting skills, among others.

The AND advocates a number of measures for the promotion of breastfeeding, including professional counseling for pregnant and postpartum women and their families as well as public policy changes and legislation that favors and facilitates breastfeeding.

Timi Gustafson R.D. is a registered dietitian, newspaper columnist, blogger and author of the book “The Healthy Diner – How to Eat Right and Still Have Fun”®, which is available on her blog and at amazon.com.  For more articles on nutrition, health and lifestyle, visit her blog, “Food and Health with Timi Gustafson R.D.” (www.timigustafson.com). You can follow Timi on Twitter and on Facebook.

Now that “Obamacare” has become the law of the land and the political disputes over healthcare reform are largely settled, many Americans are worried about the costs of the new insurance policies, especially considering the dismal health status of millions of our citizens.

“Why should we pick up the tab when so much disease in our country stems from unhealthy behavior like smoking and overeating,” asked one commentator in the New York Times. I’m sure such sentiments are widely shared. Many Americans would welcome higher premiums for those who indulge in unhealthy lifestyles, thereby punishing them for their lack of personal responsibility.

“But personal responsibility is a complex notion, especially when it comes to health,” says Dr. Sandeep Jauhar, a cardiologist and director at the Heart Failure Program at Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New York. “Unhealthy habits are one factor in disease, but so are social status, income, family dynamics, education and genetics. […] When people advocate the need for personal accountability, they presuppose more control over health and sickness than actually exists.”

The same goes for those who enjoy excellent health. Their advantages are not based on virtue alone. A report that was commissioned a few years ago by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, titled “Reaching America’s Health Potential,” concluded that the greatest differences in people’s health status are determined by their education levels, which, of course, also reflects to a large extent socio-economic differences. Even life expectancy is affected by educational standards, one study found.

Education is a marker for an array of opportunities and resources that can lead people to better or worse health, says Dr. David Williams, the staff director of the commission tasked with the report. A good education can offer greater job and career opportunities, higher income, more meaningful and creative work, a wider social network and support system. And access to healthcare is more likely.

When the sociologist Robert K. Merton of Columbia University first coined the term “Accumulated Advantage,” a.k.a. the “Matthew Effect” (taking the name from the Gospel of Matthew, verse 25:29), he described these dynamics as applicable to nearly every part of our lives, including our health.

Getting an education, and particularly health education, is not necessarily a matter of formal learning. It starts in the home, in early childhood. If healthy eating is encouraged, if food is valued, if sharing meals is a part of family life, chances are a solid foundation is laid for a lifetime of nutritional wellbeing. The same applies for physical activity and weight management. One leads to the other. Conversely, if fast food and pizza are the usual choix du jour, if smoking, drinking or drug abuse are considered acceptable behavior, if exercise is rare or nonexistent, then the consequences are predictable from the start.

But let’s be honest. There are poor eating habits, but there are also food-deserts where nutritious food is hard to come by. There is lack of exercise, but there are also not enough safe sidewalks, bike paths and public parks in low-income neighborhoods. There are dysfunctional families, but there are also countless parents working sometimes multiple low-paying jobs while desperately trying to provide their kids with a sense of home.

Universal health care must address all these issues, not just in terms of giving access to treatment for everyone who needs it but, even more importantly, in terms of preventing illness as much as possible. We cannot afford less.

If you liked this article, you may also enjoy reading “What Your Neighborhood Says About Your Health.”

Timi Gustafson R.D. is a registered dietitian, newspaper columnist, blogger and author of the book “The Healthy Diner – How to Eat Right and Still Have Fun”®, which is available on her blog and at amazon.com.  For more articles on nutrition, health and lifestyle, visit her blog, “Food and Health with Timi Gustafson R.D.” (www.timigustafson.com). You can follow Timi on Twitter and on Facebook.

Moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages can have a place in a healthy lifestyle, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The question is what counts as moderate. Two drinks for men and one drink for women per day are permissible, says the agency. Excluded from these recommendations are children and adolescents, women who are pregnant or trying to conceive, and individuals who cannot control their alcohol intake, are on certain medications, or plan to drive or operate machinery.

All that is well known and widely accepted. But a new study found that even smaller amounts of alcohol than what is deemed acceptable by the USDA’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans may be too much when it comes to preventing certain diseases, including cancer. In fact, having just one drink per day can increase the risk.

Researchers from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) determined that alcohol-related cancer accounted for three to four percent of all cancer deaths in the United States annually and that even light drinkers were at an increased risk.

Well over half a million Americans die from cancer every year. Of these, approximately 20,000 cases are linked to alcohol, according to the study.

We talk a lot about tobacco and poor diets, but alcohol use is a factor that is often missed in the discussion over preventable diseases and deaths, says Dr. David Nelson, director of the Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program at the NCI and lead author of the study report. While the majority of cancer-related deaths from alcohol occurred in people who consumed substantially more than what is considered moderate drinking, Dr. Nelson’s team found that 33 percent of the diseased had no more than one alcoholic drink per day on average.

Although only 18 percent of men and 11 percent of women are heavy drinkers, meaning they have more than the recommended daily amount on any given day, it is still a significant health concern, said Patricia Guenther, a nutritionist at the USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion and author of a separate study on the issue, in an interview with Reuters

Among men, 31 to 50 year olds consume the most alcohol, according to the study. Among women, the heaviest drinking takes place between ages 51 and 70. The researchers did not investigate the reasons for the differences in age.

Besides cancer, other well-known health risks from alcohol use are high blood pressure, heart disease, liver damage, pancreatitis, nerve damage, depression and dementia.

Moderate alcohol use has long been considered as harmless if not beneficial. Especially red wine is thought of by some as heart healthy. But conflicting messages like these only confuse consumers, says Dr. Nelson.

“The purported benefits of alcohol consumption are overrated when compared to the risks,” he says. “Even if you take into account all the potential benefits of alcohol, it causes 10 times as many deaths as it prevents worldwide.”

If you liked this article, you may also enjoy reading “Almost Half of All Cancer Cases May Be Preventable.”

Timi Gustafson R.D. is a registered dietitian, newspaper columnist, blogger and author of the book “The Healthy Diner – How to Eat Right and Still Have Fun”®, which is available on her blog and at amazon.com.  For more articles on nutrition, health and lifestyle, visit her blog, “Food and Health with Timi Gustafson R.D.” (www.timigustafson.com). You can follow Timi on Twitter and on Facebook.

.

Two thirds of Americans are overweight. One third is obese. Obesity and a host of illnesses related to weight problems kill more people than any other disease. Experts are scrambling to find answers for what causes the epidemic and seem to come up with new explanations every day, only to be contradicted by the next study. Unsurprisingly, consumers are confused and stop paying attention.

How is it that we are eating ourselves to death, not just here but increasingly around the world? Does the so-called “Western diet,” consisting of cheap, highly processed, highly caloric foods, make us fat? Or is it sugary sodas? Are portion sizes too big? Does the food industry turn us into addicts? Do we just not exercise enough?

So far, none of the countless studies on these subjects have had much impact in practical terms. Lobbying efforts and political gridlock are oftentimes blamed for the maddeningly slow progress. But that may not be the only reason. Some experts warn that despite of all the research, finding definite answers may prove elusive for some time to come.

“If we can find the causes of obesity, we can try to eliminate or counter them,” wrote Christopher Chabris, a professor of psychology at Union College, together with his colleague Daniel Simons of the University of Illinois in an op-ed piece in the New York Times. “Unfortunately, finding causes is easier said than done, and causes we think we see can turn out to be illusions.”

Hoping for a smoking gun that lets us clearly identify causation may not be in the cards, ever. As an example, the authors cite a study that analyzed potential connections between food advertising on billboards and prevalence of obesity in certain parts of Los Angeles and New Orleans. The study results showed that areas with more outdoor food advertisements had a higher proportion of obese people than those with fewer ads. So, there seems to be a direct link.

Not so fast, say the professors. Studies like these have a significant problem: They can show association between separate phenomena but not causation. In this particular scenario, interpretations of the findings could go in totally different directions. Even if you accept the existence of a correlation between food advertisements and obesity, you still have to consider a wide field of possible explanations. One could be that food vendors tend to invest more of their advertising budget in places where they believe food consumption is especially high. Obesity then may be an indicator that this is a good market for them. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

So does this mean there is no proof that food advertising influences people’s eating habits, and not necessarily in a good way? Studies like these can at best provide some indication that there may be a link, but they don’t provide evidence for causation, the professors conclude. Only the gold standard of scientific research, which is the randomized controlled trial, could prove such connections, they say. And these standards are often not achievable in the real world.

The question is what does that mean in terms of taking anti-obesity measures. Do we have to remain indolent in the face of this alarming health crisis just because we can’t pinpoint its causes with the highest standards of certainty? Food manufacturers and restaurant operators support that view. But if no compelling evidence can be had that advertising works, why would they keep spending billions of dollars every year on doing just that?

With all due respect for scientific standards, I can’t help but think that calling for more and more studies on the causes of obesity only delays critical action that ought to be taken now. We may not know whether food ads influence everyone’s eating habits, but we still can ban them from children’s programs on TV. We may never be sure whether drinking sugary sodas or consuming sweet snacks cause diabetes, but we still can stop offering them on school campuses. It may be unclear whether posting calorie counts in restaurants will make patrons order smaller portions, but we should at least give them the option, so their choices can be better informed. How many more studies and trials do we really have to conduct before we take at least a few steps in the right direction?

If you liked this article, you may also enjoy reading “How Serious Is the Food Industry About Helping in the Fight Against Obesity?” and “Obesity Must Be Addressed on Multiple Levels.”

Timi Gustafson R.D. is a registered dietitian, newspaper columnist, blogger and author of the book “The Healthy Diner – How to Eat Right and Still Have Fun”®, which is available on her blog and at amazon.com.  For more articles on nutrition, health and lifestyle, visit her blog, “Food and Health with Timi Gustafson R.D.” (www.timigustafson.com). You can follow Timi on Twitter and on Facebook.

Health experts have long insisted that improving our public health requires improving the environment we live in. This, of course, includes environmental protection measures such as pollution control and management of resources but also attention to housing and living conditions. Part of the latter is a better understanding of how land use, residential development and architectural design impact our health and well-being.

“Virtually everything in our built environment is the way it is because someone designed it that way. We now realize that how we design the built environment may hold tremendous potential for addressing many of the nation’s greatest current public health concerns, including obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, asthma, injury, depression, violence, and social injustice,” says Dr. Richard Joseph Jackson, professor for environmental health sciences and urban planning at the School of Public Health of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).

There is a growing awareness in communities across the country of the need for health-promoting surroundings. And city planners begin to pay attention. They realize that sidewalks, bike paths, pedestrian zones and parks not only add to public safety but also enhance the quality of life in general. Here are a few examples:

New York City has tasked its Department of Design and Construction (DDC) to come up with new guidelines for the promotion of physical activity and health in architectural design to make future building projects “more livable and hospitable.” The guidelines are meant to give designers the tools to facilitate healthy lifestyle choices and to address health concerns such as obesity and diabetes through intelligent design, according to Arch Daily an architectural online magazine. New York City, of course is already one of the most walkable cities in the country. Still, there is room for improvement, e.g. better public transportation to recreational facilities and open spaces.

The Seattle Housing Authority has created a program called “Breathe Easy Homes”, which subsidizes affordable housing projects with features to improve air quality and reduce the risk of asthma, especially among children.

The Denver Housing Authority uses a procedure called “Health Impact Assessment” (HIA) for all its urban redevelopment plans as part of its wellness initiative, “Denver Healthy People 2020”. HIA is an assessment tool that has been put into practice in other parts of the world for many years and is increasingly accepted here as well.

“The [HIA] process is one of the foremost tools used to plan for healthy, sustainable communities. Used around the world, it promotes and assesses environmental effects upon physical and mental health. With land use policies, designs and plans influencing individual and community health, it is more important than ever to strengthen the relationship between planning and public health,” the agency states on its website.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) also recommends HIA as a good resource to measure the impact of community projects on health issues.

But governmental action alone will not suffice in the creation of more health-conducive living spaces. Private developers will have to come on board as well. To ensure that today’s students of architecture and urban planning will be more sensitive towards these issues, Clemson University in South Carolina offers a program called “Architecture Plus Health,” where relationships between architectural settings and the health of their inhabitants are researched. The goal is to teach future architects and designers how to apply their skills with the well-being of individuals and the larger population in mind, says Dr. David Allison, the program’s director.

If you liked this article, you may also enjoy reading “Making America’s Cities More Walkable – The Benefits Are Endless” and “Your Surroundings Can Sabotage Your Commitment to Healthy Living.”

Timi Gustafson R.D. is a registered dietitian, newspaper columnist, blogger and author of the book “The Healthy Diner – How to Eat Right and Still Have Fun”®, which is available on her blog and at amazon.com.  For more articles on nutrition, health and lifestyle, visit her blog, “Food and Health with Timi Gustafson R.D.” (www.timigustafson.com). You can follow Timi on Twitter and on Facebook.

A new diet has become all the rage in Britain and is now making landfall on our shores as well. It’s called the “Fast Diet” and millions of weight loss candidates already swear by it.

Like all commercial diet programs, this one promises quick results without much effort and little changes in established eating habits. Followers can eat anything they want for five days but then have to undergo a fasting period of 48 hours where they cannot consume more than 500 to 600 calories per day.

The authors, Dr. Michael Mosley, a medical journalist, and Mini Spencer, a food and fashion writer, claim they both have experienced amazing weight loss successes themselves while experimenting with various forms of intermittent fasting. They also believe their approach can promote overall health and even longevity.

The idea of submitting oneself to periods of food deprivation is nothing new, of course. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors did it, although perhaps not voluntarily, and many religions recommend it as a ritual for cleansing, both physically and spiritually.

“Voluntarily abstaining from eating for short periods of time will allow you to eat what you like, most of the time, and get slimmer and healthier as you go,” the authors proclaim on their website. “The joy of the Fast Diet is that the side-effects are all good,” they say.

But are they?

Even if its true that our bodies are genetically programmed to endure periods of famine, as our forbearers were forced to with regularity when food supplies ran scarce, that doesn’t mean it is a good idea to disrupt your metabolism every so often just to shed a few extra pounds in a hurry.

For example, when the body is subjected to severe calorie restriction, it goes into a different metabolic mode where it switches from burning carbohydrates (glucose), its preferred fuel, to burning fat. This may at first sound like a good idea since body fat is what dieters want to get rid off. However, if this process continues for too long, it can lead to a state known as ketosis.

When fat stores become the primary source for fuel, weight loss will occur – but not without side effects. During ketosis, the body builds up substances known as ketones, which can cause a number of health problems. Loss of appetite, nausea, dizziness, irritability, tiredness and bad breath are among the milder symptoms. More serious consequences include dehydration, gout, kidney stones and even kidney failure.

For healthy individuals, short-term ketosis may not carry serious risks. However for diabetics, restricting carbohydrates in their diet may give rise to complications. In extreme cases, ketone levels can become so elevated that a situation develops where high blood sugar is met with a severe shortage of insulin. This is known as diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). The results, if not immediately treated, can be fatal.

Many followers of weight loss diets are plagued with one or more of these conditions. Experimenting with one’s metabolism, especially when done without supervision by a medical professional, can only make matters worse.

Last but not least, there are the long-term implications to be considered. Are we to believe that a five-day period of no dietary restrictions followed by two days of disciplined fasting is a viable option for most people? It seems to me such a regimen bears a strong resemblance to many of the crash diets that may produce quick results but inevitably fail over time.

In response to this latest diet craze, Britain’s National Health System has posted a warning on its website that says: “Despite its increasing popularity, there is a great deal of uncertainty about IF (intermittent fasting) with significant gaps in the evidence.”

Timi Gustafson R.D. is a registered dietitian, newspaper columnist, blogger and author of the book “The Healthy Diner – How to Eat Right and Still Have Fun”®, which is available on her blog and at amazon.com.  For more articles on nutrition, health and lifestyle, visit her blog, “Food and Health with Timi Gustafson R.D.” (www.timigustafson.com). You can follow Timi on Twitter and on Facebook.

Diabetes affects over 25 million Americans today, more than 8 percent of the population. One in four seniors suffers from the disease, and the numbers among young people, including teenagers, are dramatically on the rise. Over a third of all diabetics in the United States remain undiagnosed and are not treated, according to the latest statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In most cases, type 2 diabetes (traditionally known as adult onset diabetes) develops in connection with overweight and obesity. A new study, however, found that consuming large amounts of sugar may cause the disease independently from weight problems.

For the study, researchers from Stanford University School of Medicine, the University of California, Berkeley (UCB) and the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) compared the availability of sugar and diabetes rates in 175 countries. The underlying data came from the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations and the International Diabetes Federation.

The scientists believe they have clearly identified a correlation between rising sugar consumption and the growing diabetes epidemic. Specifically, they found that an additional 150 calories from sugar per person per day – the equivalent of just one 12-ounce soda drink – increased the prevalence of diabetes by one percent in that population. The longer the exposure to the higher amount of sugar lasted, the more pronounced the diabetes risk became. Conversely, whenever sugar consumption was reduced, diabetes rates diminished as well. These variations still registered when other potentially contributing factors like weight, age, gender and race were taken into account.

While the research cannot prove direct causation, the evidence is compelling, said Dr. Robert Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF and senior author of the study. “This study is proof enough that sugar is toxic. Now it’s time to do something about it,” he was quoted saying by the New York Times.

Many of his colleagues in the science community agree. “The results make clear that sugar consumption is fueling the global epidemic of diabetes and that reducing that consumption is an essential step in controlling the rise of the disorder,” said Dr. Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, to the Los Angeles Times.

Based on his findings, Dr. Lustig said, manufacturers of sugary sodas can no longer claim that calories from their products don’t differ from those of other sources.

In an op-ed article written in response to the study, Mark Bittman, a food writer for the New York Times, called for immediate action by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that should include re-evaluating the toxicity of sugar and removing fructose (the molecule that gives sugar its sweet taste) from the list of products the government considers safe to use.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a consumer advocacy group, has reportedly petitioned the FDA to revise safety limits for sugar consumption.

By contrast, the American Beverage Association (ABA) has rejected the conclusions drawn from the study. “This study does not show – or even attempt to show – that consuming sugar causes diabetes,” the trade group says in a statement on its website.

Timi Gustafson R.D. is a registered dietitian, newspaper columnist, blogger and author of the book “The Healthy Diner – How to Eat Right and Still Have Fun”®, which is available on her blog and at amazon.com.  For more articles on nutrition, health and lifestyle, visit her blog, “Food and Health with Timi Gustafson R.D.” (www.timigustafson.com). You can follow Timi on Twitter and on Facebook.