Sweet Greens

Childhood obesity has been a major issue in the United States for many years, and now it’s about to become more apparent than ever. Currently, the national childhood obesity rate is 18.5%. However, the LA Times says that by the time today’s children turn 35, 57% of them will be obese.

A study by Harvard researchers says most of the children that are bound to become obese are not currently obese. The study claims that health experts dropped the ball in terms of childhood obesity.

“Our findings highlight the importance of promoting a healthy weight throughout childhood and adulthood,” the researchers said in the study. “A narrow focus solely on preventing childhood obesity will not avert potential future health damage that may be induced by the ongoing obesity epidemic.”

The team of researchers had one specific question they were focusing on in this study. Zachary Ward, the leader of the team, commented on the question.

“We wanted to predict for children now at a certain weight and certain age, what’s the probability that they will have obesity at the age of 35?” Ward said.

The researchers say they picked the age 35 because that’s when many health issues related to weight, including obesity and diabetes, begin.

Along with the study from Harvard, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that 20% of children ages six to 19 are already obese.

The study from Harvard that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine says that children who are currently not obese are the only ones that have a better chance of not becoming obese in the future. On the other side, heavier children have more of a chance of being an obese adult. The study says that an obese two-year-old has a 79% chance of being obese as an adult. An obese 19-year-old has a 94% chance of being obese by the time they reach 35 years of age.

WDTV reports that helping children maintain a healthy weight starts with their parents or guardians.

Stomach bothering you? You might find yourself searching the web for some specific cause.

Today, nutritional information is only a click away, so digestive woes often lead people to search for an allergy or intolerance.  For instance, you can find all you need about IBS vs IBD, and how you can help yourself in mere seconds. And in recent years, gluten intolerance has become somewhat of a buzzword for health-conscious individuals.

While many people are giving up this grain protein in suspicion of intolerance, a recent study brings up another possible culprit:

Fructan.

This is according to a recent study by researchers at Monash University in Australia and the University of Oslo in Norway. Published in Gastroenterology, the study focused on people with non-celiac gluten sensitivity. The 59 people involved in the study were on gluten free-diets by choice, and they were instructed to eat a diet including gluten, fructan, or a placebo for seven days. They then rated their gastrointestinal discomfort, including stomach pain and bloating, on a scale.

According to Healthline, test subjects who are fructan were higher on this scale than those who ate gluten or the placebo. This research opens possibilities for those who may not need to be eating gluten-free. Dr. Amy Burkhart said in a statement to Healthline that a fructan intolerance test and one for non-celiac gluten sensitivity have not yet been developed. She said that physicians typically start by testing for celiac disease, which affects about 1% of the population.

“Celiac disease must be ruled out before the pathway to determine fructan versus gluten is undertaken, as it will require removal of gluten to determine,” she said. “If gluten is removed from the diet, celiac testing is invalid. If symptoms have resolved with a gluten-free diet, most people will refuse to reintroduce gluten once it is removed… The treatments, diet, and follow-up care are different so differentiation is important.”

Dr. Burkhart also told Healthline that non-celiac gluten sensitivity may soon be classified as non-celiac wheat sensitivity, as researchers learn more about how the components of wheat impact the human body.

“There are other components of wheat that appear to be culprits in gluten sensitivity such as the fructans and amylase-trypsin inhibitors (ATI) proteins [found in wheat],” she said. “Others are also being investigated.”

Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), recently uncovered a controversial 1968 study funded by the International Sugar Research Foundation (ISRF) and have compiled a new paper based on their findings.

The 1968 study, titled Project 259, studied the effects of sugar on rats. According to the historical documents the researchers uncovered, preliminary findings revealed that ingesting large amounts of sugar may be associated with heart disease. Shortly after these findings were uncovered, the ISRF pulled funding from the study.

“All we know is that the plug got pulled and nothing got published,” Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at UCSF and a co-author of the new paper, told CNN.

Glantz continued, explaining that very little is known about what the researchers themselves were allowed to do with the data they compiled in that fateful 1968 study.

The study, which seemingly provides hard evidence of the negative effects of ingesting too much sugar, was never published. Countless studies have proven that sugar, as well as other factors, have an effect on oral health. Age, for example, affects oral health in that 70.1% of adults 65 years and older have some form of periodontal disease. There’s no reason to hide this information. So why hide the effects of sugar on other health issues?

According to an analysis published by the same UCSF researchers in JAMA International Medicine last year, it’s been suggested that the ISRF later sponsored a study that concluded fat to be “the dietary culprit” in heart disease and related health issues.

The ISRF, now called the Sugar Association, contested the analysis brought forth by UCSF researchers.

“[It’s] not actually a study, but a perspective: a collection of speculations and assumptions about events that happened nearly five decades ago, conducted by a group of researchers and funded by individuals and organizations that are known critics of the sugar industry,” a representative told CNN.

This isn’t the first time a large industry or corporation has attempted to cover up potentially harmful findings, either. Glantz has compared the ISRF’s actions to those of big tobacco, calling them “manipulation science.”

Another such instance of manipulation came in 2015, when The New York Times reported that Coca-Cola had paid scientists to muddle the link between high sugar content and obesity. In addition, The Associated Press discovered that candy makers had funded skewed research in 2016.

These studies can make or break a big industry, which helps, in part, explain why big players might not want the results getting out. But at the same time, research that reveals the health effects of certain foods is critical to shaping federal dietary guidelines.

“Industry-funded research often shows results that are in line with the sponsors’ interests,” Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University, told The Verge.

When it comes to medical research, facts such as “99.7% of adults believe a healthy smile is socially important,” and “one in five Americans doesn’t have an ideal bite,” are rarely disputed because the public trusts in the validity of the scientific findings there. It appears the food industry may be another story altogether.

“This wasn’t about science. This was about marketing,” Nestle concluded.