BEST DIET : LOSE WEIGHT WITH BEST TRICK

what you see is what you eat, according to the latest study to confirm that watching TV encourages children to eat more junk food. But the researchers say that there may be an easy way to counter the unhealthy snacks in front of the tube, simply by putting healthier foods easily accessible.

Leah Lipsky and Ronal Iannotti, the scientific staff of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Eunice Kennedy Shrive, report that for every hour of children's television shows, they are 8% less likely to eat fruit every day, more than 18% likely to eat sweets, and 16% more likely to eat fast food. These results, reported this week in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine land earlier studies that have linked watching TV with poor eating habits in children.

The reasons for the association are not surprising: young people watching TV are exposed to more advertising for unhealthy foods like fast food or soda, advertisements for fruit and vegetables fresh. television. fruit they ate. "Of course, the link was not nearly as strong as that between the TV and the increased consumption of candy, soda and fast food in general," Lipsky said. "But it kind of suggests that if you have to other options available, and not have the unhealthy options available, children can be encouraged to eat perhaps more fruit. "

This is the message that it Iannotti and hope that parents will take away from their study, which involved more than 12,000 students in grades 5 to 10. The researchers asked the children how long they spent every day watching television, using the computer or playing video games, and also asked the students to report how often they consumed a variety of foods, including fruits, vegetables, soda and fast food.

( LIST: Top 10 iconic Junk Food)

more TV kids watched, the more unhealthy food they ate. Even taking into account that the children sit in front of television or computer could simply eat more overall boredom, the relationship between television time and poor eating habits remained. This suggests that the link goes beyond excessive snacking. "The behaviors that we consider part of a pattern of behaviors that are most likely related to obesity," said Iannotti.

In other words, watch TV can establish a deeper pattern of poor eating habits that can put children up not only for future obesity, but also for many chronic diseases associated overweight, such as diabetes, sleep apnea and heart problems. When children spend more time in front of the screen, they are also less likely to exercise or engage in physical activity can burn calories and keep the heart healthy.

( PLUS can Fast Food Toy Bans really help children eat better)

Lipsky and Iannotti recommend that parents initially limit the amount of time children spend in front of a TV or computer - the American Academy of Pediatrics suggests more than two hours per day for younger children - and since avoid TV altogether is probably unrealistic, at least try to listen television or the environment using a clean computer by giving good kids -them snacks such as fruit and nuts. If eating in front of the TV is blind, at least snacking on healthy foods can help offset some of the bad behaviors TV promotes.

VIDEO: Online ads masquerading as video games can make children obese

Alice Park is a writer at TIME. Find her on Twitter at @aliceparkny. You can also continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.

a study of the guests in this restaurant in New York shows that the prohibition of the city on trans fat diet improved its inhabitants :. fast food customers chose healthier options and reduce their trans fat consumption after the ban

There is promising evidence that such changes at the local level can a significant difference in the consumption of the people - not to force them to change behavior significantly on their own. The study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine also shows that people have reduced clogging of arteries intake in trans fats after the ban, without replacing it with another type of fat.

The study by researchers in the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene compared lunches are people who eat at fast-food chains around the city in 2007 and 2009 - before and after the ban of trans fats came into force. In 2009, fast-food meal dinner average contains about 2.4 grams less trans fat, about half a gram of fat per meal trans. More people bought menu items with 0% trans fats after the restriction went up, representing a 86% increase in these healthier options over a two year period.

Trans fats are known to be particularly dangerous for heart health. Some trans fats occur naturally in dairy products and meat, but the majority of these fats in the average American diet come from partially hydrogenated oils widely used in the preparation of prepackaged foods and pricing options, such as commercial products baked and fried foods like French fries.

In 2006, the federal government began requiring packaged food manufacturers to list the amount of trans fat contained per serving, which was helpful for grocery stores buyers comparing the heart-healthiness relative processed foods. But the federal rule had no effect on restaurant meals, which represents about a third of total calories Americans consume every day.

New York City was the first in the country to adopt a prohibition against the use of artificial trans fats in restaurants, requiring food preparers to reformulate recipes or eliminate certain ingredients, so their prices do not contain more than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving.

This is why the results of the current study are so encouraging, says co-author Christine Curtis, director of nutrition strategy programs in the New York City Department of Health, especially in light of another citywide ban proposed against large sugary sodas. "We hope that this clearly shows that there is a possibility for local jurisdictions to protect the health of their consumers," she said.

( MORE: The New York City Soda Ban, and a brief history of wizz Bloomberg)

The study included restaurants habits of people who eat 168 restaurants, representing 11 fast food chains like McDonald's, Burger king, Subway, Au Bon Pain, KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, among others. The researchers compared 6,969 twelve o'clock revenue collected in 2007 with 7,885 purchases in the same restaurants in 2009, a year after the ban on trans fat was in full force.

The researchers studied the guests of fast food both high-income and low-income neighborhoods, but found no difference in the pattern of purchases in both places. This suggests that it may be health problems, more than financial, influencing certain maintenance decisions even in low-income areas, an encouraging sign for the implementation of public policy approaches to improve health.

The scientists also found that the concerns of nutritionists that banning trans fats would just drive restaurants in exchange for other trans fatty unhealthy fats were unfounded; although the consumption of saturated fats has increased slightly, people ended up eating trans fats and saturated less combined after the policy took effect. This means that people ate less fat overall, and therefore the consumption of potentially healthier options.

In addition, the results showed that reducing trans fat consumption was not just from smaller portions. The ban restaurants allowed to come up with different ways to meet the limit of 0.5 grams-per-portion, including the reduction of portion sizes. But some restaurants reformulated their menu items to contain less trans fat, while others abandoned trans fat laden items altogether and replace them with healthier products.

The largest decline of the trans average fat consumption occurred in hamburger chains, with a combination of menus and changes in cooking practices reformulated, such as trade in oils partially hydrogenated oils for trans-fat when frying. After the chains hamburgers, Mexican food chains and fried chicken saw the largest declines in the trans-fat consumption customers.

The study did not follow the guests long enough to see if their choices with less fat converted into real gains for health, as a decrease in heart disease or obesity, but other studies show that these benefits are possible. Previous tests have linked even an increase of 40 calories per day of trans fat consumption to a higher risk of heart disease 23%. And on the basis of data collected in the current study, Curtis said the average dinner ate about 20 calories per day less trans fat. "That gives you an idea of ​​the potential political impact this can have on heart disease," she said.

The American Heart Association recommends that people limit trans fats to less than 2 g per day, while the latest dietary government guidelines advising people to eat as little trans fat as possible.

local prohibition of New York City has led to wider benefits, as national chains like McDonald eventually reduce trans fat whole system. so far, 15 other jurisdictions have taken the lead from New York and restricts trans fat as well, but Curtis hopes the results of the study will inform further legislatures on how powerful such policies can be.

Alice Park is a writer at TIME. Find her on Twitter at @aliceparkny. You can also continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME .

a study of the guests in this restaurant in New York shows that the prohibition of the city on trans fat diet improved its inhabitants :. fast food customers chose healthier options and reduce their trans fat consumption after the ban

There is promising evidence that such changes at the local level can a significant difference in the consumption of the people - not to force them to change behavior significantly on their own. The study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine also shows that people have reduced clogging of arteries intake in trans fats after the ban, without replacing it with another type of fat.

The study by researchers in the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene compared lunches are people who eat at fast-food chains around the city in 2007 and 2009 - before and after the ban of trans fats came into force. In 2009, fast-food meal dinner average contains about 2.4 grams less trans fat, about half a gram of fat per meal trans. More people bought menu items with 0% trans fats after the restriction went up, representing a 86% increase in these healthier options over a two year period.

Trans fats are known to be particularly dangerous for heart health. Some trans fats occur naturally in dairy products and meat, but the majority of these fats in the average American diet come from partially hydrogenated oils widely used in the preparation of prepackaged foods and pricing options, such as commercial products baked and fried foods like French fries.

In 2006, the federal government began requiring packaged food manufacturers to list the amount of trans fat contained per serving, which was helpful for grocery stores buyers comparing the heart-healthiness relative processed foods. But the federal rule had no effect on restaurant meals, which represents about a third of total calories Americans consume every day.

New York City was the first in the country to adopt a prohibition against the use of artificial trans fats in restaurants, requiring food preparers to reformulate recipes or eliminate certain ingredients, so their prices do not contain more than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving.

This is why the results of the current study are so encouraging, says co-author Christine Curtis, director of nutrition strategy programs in the New York City Department of Health, especially in light of another citywide ban proposed against large sugary sodas. "We hope that this clearly shows that there is a possibility for local jurisdictions to protect the health of their consumers," she said.

( MORE: The New York City Soda Ban, and a brief history of wizz Bloomberg)

The study included restaurants habits of people who eat 168 restaurants, representing 11 fast food chains like McDonald's, Burger king, Subway, Au Bon Pain, KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, among others. The researchers compared 6,969 twelve o'clock revenue collected in 2007 with 7,885 purchases in the same restaurants in 2009, a year after the ban on trans fat was in full force.

The researchers studied the guests of fast food both high-income and low-income neighborhoods, but found no difference in the pattern of purchases in both places. This suggests that it may be health problems, more than financial, influencing certain maintenance decisions even in low-income areas, an encouraging sign for the implementation of public policy approaches to improve health.

The scientists also found that the concerns of nutritionists that banning trans fats would just drive restaurants in exchange for other trans fatty unhealthy fats were unfounded; although the consumption of saturated fats has increased slightly, people ended up eating trans fats and saturated less combined after the policy took effect. This means that people ate less fat overall, and therefore the consumption of potentially healthier options.

In addition, the results showed that reducing trans fat consumption was not just from smaller portions. The ban restaurants allowed to come up with different ways to meet the limit of 0.5 grams-per-portion, including the reduction of portion sizes. But some restaurants reformulated their menu items to contain less trans fat, while others abandoned trans fat laden items altogether and replace them with healthier products.

The largest decline of the trans average fat consumption occurred in hamburger chains, with a combination of menus and changes in cooking practices reformulated, such as trade in oils partially hydrogenated oils for trans-fat when frying. After the chains hamburgers, Mexican food chains and fried chicken saw the largest declines in the trans-fat consumption customers.

The study did not follow the guests long enough to see if their choices with less fat converted into real gains for health, as a decrease in heart disease or obesity, but other studies show that these benefits are possible. Previous tests have linked even an increase of 40 calories per day of trans fat consumption to a higher risk of heart disease 23%. And on the basis of data collected in the current study, Curtis said the average dinner ate about 20 calories per day less trans fat. "That gives you an idea of ​​the potential political impact this can have on heart disease," she said.

The American Heart Association recommends that people limit trans fats to less than 2 g per day, while the latest dietary government guidelines advising people to eat as little trans fat as possible.

local prohibition of New York City has led to wider benefits, as national chains like McDonald eventually reduce trans fat whole system. so far, 15 other jurisdictions have taken the lead from New York and restricts trans fat as well, but Curtis hopes the results of the study will inform further legislatures on how powerful such policies can be.

Alice Park is a writer at TIME. Find her on Twitter at @aliceparkny. You can also continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME .

Eating too much sodium can contribute to high blood pressure in adults. Is a salty diet as dangerous for children?

In a study published in the journal Pediatrics researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) say that young children eat as much salt as adults , putting them at increased risk can develop a pressure, a risk factor for heart disease and premature death. high blood pressure risk can most among the 37% of American children are considered overweight or obese, the study found.

The scientists examined diet data and blood pressure on 6,235 children aged 8 to 18 who participated in the great survey of the National Health and Nutrition Examination funded by the government between 2003 and 2008. the children came to mobile sites where trained researchers asked detailed questions about what they had eaten during the previous 24 hours. Children also had their blood pressure measured three times to ensure consistent readings.

( PLUS Top 10 salt sources in your diet)

On average, participants ate about 3387 mg of sodium per day - about the same as the adults. (Current dietary guidelines recommend that children and adults consume no more than 2,300 mg per day.) Older children tend to consume more salt than younger children. And the salt that children eat, the higher their blood pressure readings were. Children with the highest sodium intake were twice as likely to have prehypertension or hypertension than those who consumed the least salt. In addition, children with the highest intake of salt and were also overweight or obese were more than three times the risk of high blood pressure, compared with the lowest salt intake group.

This means that the combined effect of the two excess sodium and excess weight has an amplified effect on blood pressure than either would alone, said lead author of the study Quanhe Yang, senior researcher in the division of heart disease and the prevention of stroke in CDC. And since hypertension is a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke in adulthood, suggesting that a generation of children could be more vulnerable to these conditions than ever before.

Previous studies have linked higher sodium intake in children and increased blood pressure, but none had taken into account the effect of weight on this relationship. Understanding how both sodium and excess weight can influence blood pressure is essential, said Yang, since more than a third of American children are overweight or obese.

( MORE: To Salt or not Salt study questions benefits of dietary sodium reduction)

The good news, however, is that reducing salt intake in children can have a profound effect on their blood pressure, and lead to a greater drop in the risk of hypertension is that weight loss alone or sodium restriction. "If we could reduce the sodium intake, which will achieve more than the expected reduction in cases of hypertension due to the synergistic effect," he said.

study shows that Yang the average American child exceeds the daily dose of sodium recommended by over 1000 mg. so, even if they have not already hypertension, young people today are more at risk of developing hypertension that they become adults. Recognizing that salt can begin to affect the blood pressure of a young age could focus public health efforts to reduce sodium intake in children and adults, he said, and hope have a broad effect on the control of blood pressure in the general population.

"If we reduce salt intake in childhood, the effect will follow through society, and probably result in a significant change in systemic blood pressure now and in the future, "he said.

PLUS Are we Babies Crave Salt Formation

Alice Park is a writer at TIME. Find her on Twitter at @aliceparkny. You can also continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.

Eating too much sodium can contribute to high blood pressure in adults. Is a salty diet as dangerous for children?

In a study published in the journal Pediatrics researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) say that young children eat as much salt as adults , putting them at increased risk can develop a pressure, a risk factor for heart disease and premature death. high blood pressure risk can most among the 37% of American children are considered overweight or obese, the study found.

The scientists examined diet data and blood pressure on 6,235 children aged 8 to 18 who participated in the great survey of the National Health and Nutrition Examination funded by the government between 2003 and 2008. the children came to mobile sites where trained researchers asked detailed questions about what they had eaten during the previous 24 hours. Children also had their blood pressure measured three times to ensure consistent readings.

( PLUS Top 10 salt sources in your diet)

On average, participants ate about 3387 mg of sodium per day - about the same as the adults. (Current dietary guidelines recommend that children and adults consume no more than 2,300 mg per day.) Older children tend to consume more salt than younger children. And the salt that children eat, the higher their blood pressure readings were. Children with the highest sodium intake were twice as likely to have prehypertension or hypertension than those who consumed the least salt. In addition, children with the highest intake of salt and were also overweight or obese were more than three times the risk of high blood pressure, compared with the lowest salt intake group.

This means that the combined effect of the two excess sodium and excess weight has an amplified effect on blood pressure than either would alone, said lead author of the study Quanhe Yang, senior researcher in the division of heart disease and the prevention of stroke in CDC. And since hypertension is a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke in adulthood, suggesting that a generation of children could be more vulnerable to these conditions than ever before.

Previous studies have linked higher sodium intake in children and increased blood pressure, but none had taken into account the effect of weight on this relationship. Understanding how both sodium and excess weight can influence blood pressure is essential, said Yang, since more than a third of American children are overweight or obese.

( MORE: To Salt or not Salt study questions benefits of dietary sodium reduction)

The good news, however, is that reducing salt intake in children can have a profound effect on their blood pressure, and lead to a greater drop in the risk of hypertension is that weight loss alone or sodium restriction. "If we could reduce the sodium intake, which will achieve more than the expected reduction in cases of hypertension due to the synergistic effect," he said.

study shows that Yang the average American child exceeds the daily dose of sodium recommended by over 1000 mg. so, even if they have not already hypertension, young people today are more at risk of developing hypertension that they become adults. Recognizing that salt can begin to affect the blood pressure of a young age could focus public health efforts to reduce sodium intake in children and adults, he said, and hope have a broad effect on the control of blood pressure in the general population.

"If we reduce salt intake in childhood, the effect will follow through society, and probably result in a significant change in systemic blood pressure now and in the future, "he said.

PLUS Are we Babies Crave Salt Formation

Alice Park is a writer at TIME. Find her on Twitter at @aliceparkny. You can also continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.

It is one thing to find a strategy that works in the lab, but quite another to prove it is effective in the real world as well.

A decade of the National Institutes of Health researchers made headlines when they published the results of the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP). The study, which was designed to compare the effects of diet and exercise against the best drugs against chronic disease, surprisingly showed that diet and exercise were better than the best drugs scientists have developed to protect those most at risk of developing diabetes.

The results are encouraging and discouraging at the time, however, since lifestyle changes are notoriously the most difficult to implement. It is too difficult for patients stick with a diet and exercise program, and even if they did, their motivation is usually weakens after six months.

PLUS Type 2 diabetes is more difficult to treat in children and adolescents

But the conclusions -The diet and exercise group reduced their risk diabetes get 58% from those drugs -were too amazing to ignore. The DPP was based on an intensive and highly individualized to help patients stay on their diet and fitness regimes. How strategies used in the DPP could be modified to work in the real world, where personal nutritionists and trainers are not always at our disposal?

Dr. Jun Ma, an investigator associated with the Palo Alto Medical Institute Research Foundation and consulting professor at Stanford University, was eager to find out. As a primary care doctor, she said, "we know there are many patients out there who need this type of intervention. We just do not have the manpower and resources to provide interventions such as the one tested in the DPP. It motivated me and my staff to find practical ways to provide the principles of the DPP for a more realistic manner "

VIDEO :. The competition to Type 1 diabetes Olympics

Ma joined forces with the University of Pittsburgh scientists who had participated in the DPP government and were already addressing this issue very. The 12-week program involved weekly sessions either face-to-face with a dietitian and fitness instructor in a classroom setting in which participants learned and discussed the diet and exercise techniques that are healthy, or a self-motivation program based DVD that taught participants with similar healthy living techniques. I used the same group and Lifestyle Balance program DVD in his study of 241 people with pre-diabetes, but changed that the group of self-motivated received in adding online and email advice.

After three months of intensive training and a year of maintenance sessions, the group led by coaches lost an average of 14 pounds, while the DVD group shed 10 pounds; the control group, who received standard care but no specific target weight loss, lost only five pounds. More than double the proportion of people who use coach-led sessions (37%) met the target DPP lost 7% of their body weight departure, while 36% of those using DVDs and only 14% of those receiving usual care have achieved this.

PLUS Heart Risks for Diabetics may be exaggerated

The results confirm that the new strategies to help those at risk to control and even reverse the impending symptoms can be just as effective, if not more in some cases, the treatments currently available. "I would encourage national initiatives to consider other ways to lower the risk of diabetes, such as those we tested," said Ma. "Based on the evidence, interventions face-to-face seem have the strongest effect, but there are data to support the accumulation of alternative delivery strategies such as DVD or online. And given the number of people at risk for diabetes and heart disease, we need to find effective and sustainable ways to reach these people. "

Ma said she and her colleagues deliberately tested strategies such as the use of e-mail reminders, online tips and DVD self-initiated sessions because they rely on resources already existing and would not require significant investments in infrastructure. Although the study only followed participants for 15 months, Ma said further research on these alternative strategies may lead to methods that are more sustainable and still inspire greater compliance in the future. "in the longer term monitoring and the long-term success is something that attracts a lot of research interest at the moment," she said. And as the results suggest, for good reason.

Paltrow reveals her latest diet decisions in his new cookbook. And they do not understand some of the favorite foods of children's comfort.

child nutrition is an important topic. On the one hand, there are too many children who are now overweight or obese. On the other hand, many tweens and teens develop eating disorders. As parents, we are exhorted to feed our children good food, and we all think we know what that means :. Whole grains, vegetables, fruits and lean proteins

But there is more to life than quinoa and kale. Take bread, rice and pasta, for example. In most kitchens, they are not considered edible ARCHENEMY. Yet the actress Gwyneth Paltrow has recently aroused great controversy by suggesting in his next book It's all good that is to limit the number of carbohydrates in the diet of children.

The reason, according to Daily Mail is that his family can not tolerate gluten, a protein found in grains.

The decision was based on the fact that everyone in his house - including her husband Chris Martin -. Apparently gluten intolerant, dairy products and chicken eggs

comments Miss Paltrow is an admission that his habit of going to the last fad diet is filtering to the way it behaves like a mother. . In recent years, gluten-free diets have become popular even among those not affected by the state as a way to lose weight, eat healthier and "clean". Many experts have questioned the effectiveness of such an approach, however.

Regardless, it looks like mac and cheese will not be on the many menu for Apple, 8, and Moses, 6, according to their mother who seems to recognize in the book it is difficult to cut the carbs: ["Sometimeswhenmyfamilydoesnoteatpastabreadorprocessedgrainslikewhitericeweendupwiththisspecifichungerthatcomeswithavoidingcarbs"

PLUS : These are the calories, Stupid: weight gain depends on how - Not What - You Eat

undoubtedly, Paltrow is sure she is doing with his children. But is it? According to registered dietitian Shelly Summar the answer is probably not.

There is no reason to avoid carbs completely; They are one of three nutrient containing energy, protein and fat. They are packaged in undeniably healthy products such as fruit, milk, whole grains and vegetables. But the reduction of highly processed carbohydrates - cookies, cakes, candies, brownies - makes some sense healthy. "When talking about the elimination of carbohydrates, which is a very general statement," Summar said. "It's hard to understand what they do, but if Gwyneth Paltrow says she's eliminating all carbs this means that it is cutting things that have a lot of nutrition in them. "

If she embraces junky pastries goodbye however, it could be something that everyone should consider.

As with so many diets, however, people can go to extremes. I shudder to serve white rice with my children when brown rice can provide more fiber and protein. But my son flat-out refuses brown stuff. Summar noted that it is not as white rice is unhealthy; it is still nutritious, but just do not pack as much good-for-you ingredients like brown rice. And it's even better than potato chips. So "a thing we should do is try not to get caught up in fads," says Summar, who is coordinator of the weight management program at Mercy Hospital for children in Kansas City, Mo.

( PLUS vs Calorie Calorie: Study Evaluates Three plans to stay thin)

Why many children prefer white on the first wheat? Is it a matter of taste? Perhaps, but it could also have something to do with a taste of a baby "solid food," which is usually white rice cereal. In 2011, Stanford pediatrician Alan Greene called for a "WhiteOut" - a farewell to white rice cereal and hello to better replacements. Babies receive most of their calories in their first year of life treatment white rice baby cereal; he advocates subbing brown rice cereal or real food like mashed avocado or sweet potato.

I wrote about the idea of ​​Green in a position Healthland:

Greene worried that introducing babies to refined food as their first foray into the world of solid food will anchor their taste buds in the treated food camp, dooming them to an unhealthy life - or not-as-health -. choice

At the age when babies can not talk back and require cookies instead of cauliflower - they are essentially prisoners in their culinary high chairs - why not offer them food with more nutritional value

? Meanwhile, the researchers found that Paltrow can not be alone in his quest: the children eat fewer carbohydrates they used to, according to US Centers for Control and Prevention of disasters. they may be cutting back on sugary drinks, which are high in carbohydrates as well.

( PLUS : Study :? Does eating white rice increase your risk of diabetes)

Yet it is a encouraging trend. The key to promoting healthy eating habits in children, experts say, is not to teach them to avoid or cut out certain foods, but to preach moderation. "This is bad, especially with children, is when we get too rigid and start eliminating foods or food groups," she said. "Children are growing. If you become too rigid, you run the risk of creating nutritional deficiencies and stunting their growth. There is a fine line and must pay attention to what parents, "says Summar Maybe Paltrow was right in the title of his book. it's all good

.