BEST DIET : LOSE WEIGHT WITH BEST TRICK

It is well -known that obesity may be related to high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, and ultimately death. But now, a new Dutch study links severe obesity for cardiovascular risk factors, even in children as young as 2 years.

The national study in the Netherlands found that two-thirds (67%) of severely obese children already have at least one heart disease risk factor: high blood pressure, high LDL ( "bad") cholesterol, low HDL ( "good") cholesterol, or high total cholesterol, high triglycerides, high fasting glucose or type 2 diabetes

the data are from clinical records doctors across the country. from July 2005 to July 2007, was asked every pediatrician working in a general hospital in the Netherlands to report all new cases of severe obesity in children aged 2 to 18 (with the definition "severe obesity" varying by age and sex). Then, a group known as the Dutch Paediatric surveillance unit compiled the figures and called on pediatricians to report the age, sex, ethnicity and family circumstances of each case as well as measurements of blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, cholesterol and triglycerides. A total of 500 cases of severe childhood obesity have been reported.

Of course, in the US too, there are signs of early heart-disease development in young overweight. A recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that, like the Netherlands, about two-thirds of obese American teens have at least one cardiovascular risk factor. More alarming, the study found that among American teenagers, even those that are not currently overweight, about a quarter have diabetes or pre-diabetes.

What is most remarkable about the new Dutch study, however, is that it is heart disease signs, even in children much younger. Among the severely obese Dutch boys and girls ages 2 to 12, 62% had one or more risk factors. About half of these young people were hypertensive.

Writing in the medical journal Archives of Disease in Childhood Dutch researchers note that among the hundreds of children diagnosed with severe obesity, "One child was obese because of a medical issue, "a hypothalamic tumor. The rest, it seems, instead obese because of unhealthy lifestyle -. A risk factor that continues to spread worldwide

There are no shortage of strategies to lose weight, but that work best for children?

One in three American children weigh too much, according to the latest government statistics, but parents do not have too many attractive options when it comes to help children lose weight. The standard treatment of gold for childhood obesity is generally endorsed by the weight loss specialists involves six months of weekly visits to the clinic every 90 minutes during which families learn the basics of nutrition and are introduced ideas such as "stimulus control" - or providing only healthy food in their homes to reduce the temptation of more unhealthy products mounted calories. But many parents can not afford the time or money that requires.

PLUS Cutting Soda Weight Gain Curbs children, studies show

Now, researchers from the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) say parents can help their children lose weight without the expensive and time consuming intervention based on a self-help method of "coaching" that only requires bi-weekly advice of a pediatrician. In a study published in the journal Pediatrics scientists found that the use of self-help model resulted in 12 midsize lose five pounds over the study period of five months compared to children who received no indication of the weight loss. Those children who received no treatment during the period of study actually gained weight: A 12-year-old midsize put on five pounds. "We have seen significant losses in the self-guided help children while the control group continued to gain weight," says Kerri Boutelle, lead author and professor of pediatrics and psychiatry at UCSD.

The more flexible approach - which reduced the processing time face to face about 36 hours from six months to less than five hours over five months - could help more families and expand the scope of childhood treatment, obesity, say the authors of the study. "This is the first time that this type of model has been tested and it looks promising," says Boutelle

MORE:. BPA linked to obesity in children and adolescents

Fifty families with children overweight or obese between the ages of 8 and 12 participated in the study, with children and parents into two groups :. one took part in the program self-guided aid five months while the other received no specific weight loss treatment during this period

under the program, parents and children learned about the importance of eating healthy food and exercising regularly, and parents have learned to set boundaries and teach their children to follow their own diet by recording everything they ate in a "usual book." Every two weeks, families have visited their doctor for 20 minutes. During these appointments, children were weighed and families were given advice on how to navigate stumbling blocks. Doctors also assigned to children and parents who articulates equipment the same behavior change skills provided in the longer treatment with high intensity reading. "It is not true therapy," said Boutelle. "It is more like coach"

PLUS . Children who exercise are less likely to have fractures in old age )

the idea behind the self-help protocol was to help pediatricians, specialists weight loss, initiate and oversee efforts to help children lose weight heavier. Since pediatricians have the most contact with children and their families, they are likely to be physicians, the first to identify an obese child.

in a second phase of the study, children who received no treatment during the early stages were provided with self-help advice. Their weight loss results were combined with the initial group and an average of all children have lost a body mass index (BMI) the Focus, a significant decrease for most children, although the exact number of pounds lost varied from child to child. "Losing five pounds in an 8-year-old is much more than losing five pounds in 12 years," said Boutelle

MORE:. Use of antibiotics in the first months related later weight gain

Boutelle is particularly encouraging that all children lost weight while using the self-help program and plans to test the program on a larger scale in clinics primary care. Pediatricians Offering relatively easy to implement weight loss program could prompt more doctors to discuss obesity with their patients and provide a practical solution as well. "Pediatricians are really good at giving nutrition and recommendations for physical activity, but parents often ask, how am I supposed to get there? "said Boutelle. "We created a method for pediatricians to do this in short visits." And these short-term investments could translate into benefits for the long-term health for children.

MORE : Yay for Recess: Pediatricians Say It is as important as math or reading)

loading on burgers and sausages may be tempting, but too much red meat could trigger metabolic changes that upset the glucose balance body.

Adding to a growing body of research published over the last two years between the consumption of red meat to a variety of health problems, a new study published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine documented an association between red meat consumption and an increased risk of type 2 diabetes is only the latest survey to link the popular protein for chronic diseases such as obesity and cognitive decline and even premature death.

Previous studies have also found that people who eat more red meat tend to have higher rates of diabetes, but in the final analysis, Pan An, Assistant Professor at the National University of Singapore and colleagues wanted to see if people started eating more red meat would result in a higher risk of chronic disease over time. They studied the long-term health data from three cohorts Harvard University which included more than 26,300 men participating in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study; more than 48,700 women in the study Health Nurses; and just over 74,000 female Health Study II Nurses.

( PLUS Eating Red meat increases your risk of early death)

All participants reported their eating habits through dietary questionnaires including their consumption of red meat every four years to an average of 20 years of follow up. Meanwhile, 7,540 people developed diabetes type 2. And within each cohort, those who ate more red meat as the study progressed showed higher rates of diabetes than those whose consumption has not changed.

Those who added more than half a red portion of meat per day from the time the study began showed 48% higher risk of type 2 diabetes in the balance sheet the next four years compared to participants who increased consumption in that period. Adding more meat to their diet also tended to make them heavier, and weight gain may have contributed to their higher risk of diabetes, say the authors. On the other hand, people who reduced their red meat consumption by more than half a portion each day since the beginning of the study had a 14% risk unless you have type 2 diabetes over the whole study compared to those who don 't change the amount of red meat they ate (the benefits of cutting back on red meat, alas, took longer to deploy than the evils of eating more meat). Diabetes rates were higher among people who consumed meat mainly processed meats such as price and hot dogs compared to those who ate unprocessed red meat.

( MORE: It is not enough fat: There is another Red Meat Way can harm the heart)

In an editorial accompanying the study, William J. Evans, GlaxoSmithKline and Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, noted that the results do not necessarily suggest that red meat is the culprit; instead, saturated fat embedded in red meat may be liable for any damages to the health of the heart and upset the balance of glucose:

A recommendation to eat less red meat can help reduce the epidemic of [Type 2 diabetes]. However, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence molecular, cellular, and clinical epidemiology suggests that public health messages should be directed to the consumption of high quality protein low in total fat and saturated ... These public health recommendations should include cuts of red meat are low in fat, as well as fish, poultry and low-fat dairy products. It is not the type of protein (or meat) that is the problem. It is the type of fat

Many studies have established that high levels of saturated fat in red meat are primarily responsible for clogged arteries, while other types of mono fats -unsaturated, such as olive oil, are associated with numerous health benefits, including lower levels of inflammation. A study by Brigham and Women's Hospital in March 2012 revealed that saturated fats and trans fats in meat and butter were linked to poor cognitive function and memory in women over time, while the "good" fats such as monounsaturated fats in avocados and olive oil have been connected to better brain function.

( PLUS Vegetarians may live longer)

But it is perhaps unfair to put the blame entirely on saturated fats. Another study, published in April, found that human intestinal bacteria turn red meat a compound called carnitine agent in the clogging of arteries in mice that caused atherosclerosis, a recipe for blocked blood vessels and heart disease.

Overall, the data seem to suggest that red meat can affect health in a variety of ways that are not yet identified, while a plant-based diet can be beneficial in a manner equally unexplained. One of the largest studies to date, for example, recently reported that vegetarians live longer than meat eaters counterparts, and the authors of the study believe that longevity may result not only of prevention vegetarian red meat, but the fact that they benefit from a variety of nutrients found in fruits and vegetables. A similar British study of vegetarian diet that included more than 47,250 participants did not find the same improvement in longevity, however, which may reflect differences in the types of foods that American vegetarians and U.K. favor; Americans tend to eat more fiber and vitamin C, for example, and both have been associated with reduced risk of cancer and other chronic diseases that can shorten life.

All this leads nutrition experts concluded that maintaining a healthy diet is not only cut certain foods like red meat and dishes rich in fat, but you sure that you substitute in the right nutritious options. Noting that the magic formula for longevity and a life free of disease, however, remains a challenge.

the following is an excerpt of Your code Paleo Personal Chris Kresser published December 31, 2013 (Little, Brown and Company).

Agriculture: The worst mistake in human history

Like it or not, humans are animals. And like all other animals, we are biologically adapted to a diet "in appropriate species" and lifestyle.

When animals eat and live in accordance with the environment to which they are suited, they . thrive cats, with their sharp and short tract teeth have evolved to be carnivores, so when we kibble rich cereals infants, they develop kidney problems and other ailments cows naturally graze on grass. when they eat too much grain, harmful bacteria proliferate and make them sick. We humans face a similar shift. Our biology and genes adapted to a particular environment. While the environment has changed much faster than we could adapt -with some important exceptions which I will cover later in this chapter. the result?

for most of our existence, we humans lived as hunter-gatherers of the Paleolithic, living off of the meat we hunted we caught fish and vegetables, fruits and tubers we made the move. The agricultural revolution dramatically changed our food supply and lifestyles. We learned to stay put, planting crops and domesticating animals such as cows, sheep, goats and pigs. The first farmers were given foods than their predecessors of hunter-gatherers do not eat, such as cereals, milk and meat from domestic animals, legumes and other crops.

MORE: The Craze Paleo Diet: What is good and evil About eat like a Caveman

While scientists have argued that these developments we allowed to flourish socially and intellectually, the consequences of the passage of a Paleolithic to agricultural food and lifestyle have been disastrous for human health. In evolutionary terms, 11,000 years is a wink, not long enough for humans to fully adapt to this new way of eating. That is why the scientific and influential author Jared Diamond called agriculture "the worst mistake in human history." He argued that hunter-gatherers "practiced the most successful lifestyle and most durable of human history" and were all but guaranteed a healthy diet because of the diversity and density of food nutrients they consume. Once we changed diet and became more sedentary, our naturally robust health began to decline.

Our Paleo ancestors Did not die young?

A common question I hear from skeptics Paleo is something along the lines of "Why should I eat Paleo? Did not the stone age die before their thirtieth birthday?"

It is true that, on average, our ancestors died Paleo younger. However, these averages do not include the largely absent challenges of our modern lives: high infant mortality, violence and accidents, infectious diseases and lack of modern medical care. Hunter-gatherers had infant mortality rate about 30 times higher than those of the United States early childhood mortality rates more than 100 times higher today. These infant mortality and childhood higher rates were caused by accidents, trauma, exposure to the elements, violence, war, and acute infectious disease issues which, fortunately, few of us face today. These premature deaths have had the net effect of dragging down the average life expectancy. If 10 people, three died in infancy, two died during childhood exposure to the elements and two died in adolescence in the war, although the other three lived a long life, good health, the average life span in this hypothetical group would be even shorter.

Recent research that had high infant mortality rates of our Paleolithic ancestors into account suggests that if they survived childhood, they had an average life span roughly equivalent to those living in industrialized societies, with a range from 68 to 78 years. More importantly, they have reached that age without any signs or symptoms of chronic, inflammatory and degenerative diseases that we consider "normal" in developed countries - including obesity, type 2 diabetes, gout, hypertension, cardiovascular disease and cancer. Of course, those of us living in modern industrialized societies could live a little longer than average acculturated hunter-gatherers. But most of our elderly people suffer from painful and debilitating diseases, take multiple medications daily, and a reduced quality of life.

Fortunately, we do not have to choose between eating like our ancestors or reap the benefits of modern medicine. We can combine them to get the best of both worlds and enjoy long life without degenerative diseases that are so common in the industrialized world.