Sea Crest Health Care Center

No curmudgeon here, but just one harried boomer, who’s watching life’s intrusions chip, chipping away… One upside of travel used to be the “turn off your mobile phones” announcement, and now, it appears one’s conscience gets no time – off from calorie counting. Regulators’ appetite for calorie counts is about to extend beyond restaurants to include airplanes, movie theaters and convenience stores. The government wants calorie listings posted to make it easier for consumers to select healthier options…and I just want to be left alone.

Sure, I watch what I eat – but I’ll do it on my time & my watch. Though initially appreciative of the health-care overhaul enacted in March that had restaurants post calories, resentment started creeping in on the very rare occasions I was about to succumb. One chocolate chip cookie with my Dunkin Donuts coffee would certainly not wreak havoc on this body… until, I espied the 600 plus calories affixed to that slot.

I know. An airplane is the last place you want their food offerings, but I wish Big Brother would keep its elbows out of my less than roomy aisle seat!

Health advocates say the change could be a powerful tool in fighting the obesity epidemic, a top initiative in Washington since first lady Michelle Obama made childhood obesity her signature cause in February.

Come to think of it…Michelle can stay away too!

As one who passionately builds brands for a living, it saddens me when I am forced to bear witness to the downward spiral of a once-strong brand.  The recent troubles faced by Tylenol and other huge brands from McNeil Consumer Healthcare bear witness to the fact that, while the identity of a brand can help bring a product to the heights of popularity, that same identity, when linked to negative events, can bring the product crashing down in the minds of consumers.

Tylenol has a long history of bumps in the road, starting with drug-tampering problems back in 1982, which resulted in the brand being held up as an example of what to do when disaster strikes your product.  Take responsibility.  Take Action.  Don’t make excuses.

The public was reassured by how the Tylenol scare was handled and sales eventually returned to the brand.  Tylenol came to mean a trusted and safe product once again.  And in a market with unimaginable generic competition, that trust went a long way toward making consumers feel like the branded choice was the right choice.

More recent troubles, however, cannot be blamed on nameless and faceless culprits who are threatening the safety of the American public.  This time the responsibility for manufacturing irregularities fall solidly in the lap of McNeil.  There is no denying that they must take responsibility, there is nowhere else to put it.  But the public is not so quick to forgive this time.

Part of the difference is that this time McNeil is truly to blame for the issue.  And the other part of the difference comes from how the world has changed in those intervening 28 years.  In the world of 1982, the news of the recall and corrective action came through formal channels and gossip about the problem was contained within neighborhoods.  In the world of 2010, news of the recall hit Twitter and Facebook long before it made the front pages of the newspaper or local news broadcasts.  Along with the immediacy of informing the public, McNeil was unable to control the message, and unprepared to deal with the fallout.  Their customer service resources were inadequate, their recall website not up to date, their response times were not up to snuff.

So now, in addition to being worried about the threat that recalled medications might hold for their families, people are angry that McNeil isn’t managing the situation as well as they could.  The brand is breaking.

As the process of restocking medicine cabinets with generic versions of McNeil’s recalled drugs is documented in minute detail via social media networks, more and more people see that generics offer safe, cost-effective alternatives to the branded drugs.  The more social proof that consumers see that the generics are just as effective, the more likely they will be to continue to eschew the branded products.  There is no upside of going back to Tylenol or Benedryl.  Those names are tainted with both the manufacturing issues (real or imagined, it makes no difference) and the customer service disappointments.

The bar for what consumers expect from a generic drug is much lower.  Does it work?  Does it cost less than the branded product?  Is it safe?  Customer service and advertising and image don’t enter into the equation for these purposes.

By dropping the ball so many times, McNeil is training consumers to be satisfied with a less impressive package.  It will be interesting to see if they are able to resolve and recover from this current crisis situation.  As surprised as I am to say this, my bets in this case are against the brand.

I am admittedly not the trendiest girl around.  I don’t have designer shoes or a luxury car or get my hair blown out.  Actually, where I live getting your hair blown out means you drove with a window open, but I don’t do that much either.  The NYC crowd would have a field day with how un-cool I am with my suburban clothes and addiction to Dunkin’ Donuts iced coffee.  I am about as mainstream as they come, and for this I am generally unapologetic.  It’s who I am and I’m OK with that.

Although un-hip, I am quite interested in doing things to keep myself and my family healthy.  I try mightily to get my children to willingly eat vegetables. I don’t cook red meat. I choose fresh ingredients rather than food-in-a-box whenever possible.  I am embarking on an experiment to be a vegetarian, and I recently gave up caffeine for a month.  I am willing to try new things – within reason.

There was a recent article in the New York Times about the popularity of a fermented tea drink called kombucha.  Apparently this tea can do all kinds of magical things like re-growing hair, calming digestive issues and curing hangovers.  Those who drink it claim that it is quite delish.  Sounds good, right?  I’m in! I could be the first one in the suburbs to partake of this delightful elixir!  How do I get it?

This is where things get a little hairy for me.  Because kombucha is made by immersing a disk of bacteria into brewed tea and letting it sit, unrefrigerated, for up to two weeks.

A disk of bacteria.

In your tea.

On purpose.

I am so not down with that.

I understand the benefits of probiotics.  I eat yogurt (from the refrigerator, thank you very much).  But, I have to admit that I wouldn’t even drink the plain tea if it sat out for two weeks – and the introduction of the bacteria disk into the equation does nothing to improve the situation for me.

I suppose the nature of kombucha is essentially similar to beer.  Fermented substances in a drink are not that uncommon.  And yet, I can’t quite get my head around voluntarily introducing bacteria into a completely acceptable drink like tea.  I guess I don’t brew my own beer either, although I do enjoy drinking it.

There are packaged versions of kombucha available, including one made by Red Bull.  I am slightly more comfortable with the manufactured versions, mostly because I work under the assumption that beverage manufacturers are as terrified of being sued as I am of dying of kombucha poisoning.

I am a big sucker for slick marketing and putting anything, even something utterly disgusting, in a pretty bottle and giving it a fun name goes a long way to drawing my interest.  If I actually went out and purchased a Carpe Diem Kombucha, it would be an ultimate marking success for them.

Ooooo…pretty bottle….fancy name…who cares what’s in it?  I must have it!

I want to be cool and brave enough to jump on this bandwagon and give kombucha a try.  But the reality is that it’s probably beyond my capabilities to be that cool and brave.  And the Dunkin’ Donuts coffee is working just fine for me, thanks!

Yup, there’s actually such a title. A recent Wall Street Journal article highlighted the growth of a new genre – upscale, more palatable cuisine now offered in healthcare facilities.

The typical hospital fare such as jello, soggy sandwiches and tasteless chow that we’re all familiar with, seems to be a thing of the past.  Think Machaca Steak with Sauce and Curried Banana Pierogi. Hospitals are now competing with the likes of five-star hotels and restaurants by installing sushi stations, organic salad bars and pizza ovens.

The National Society for Healthcare Foodservice Management recently launched an annual cooking competition. “We want to show the world that health-care food is so much different. It can be creative. It can dazzle,” said Betty Perez, a society board member and a hospital food administrator in New Jersey. “We have chefs that can compete with the best of them.”

However, hospital chefs must play by different rules than their glitzy restaurant counterparts. Their creative offerings must be in tune with doctors orders, as well as nutritionists and cost-sensitive food administrators.

600 calories, 20 grams of fat, and 1,000 milligrams of sodium were the max for each contest dish and the production cost per dish could not exceed $5.

So pass the Green Apple-Jicama Slaw and enjoy your stay.

Everyone knows that breakfast’s good for you. How good just became a little clearer. A team of British Researchers have pinpointed scientifically how your brain craves high calorie food when you skip your morning meal.

Utilizing MRI’s of the brain, they studied 20 healthy, thin people who went without breakfast that day.?When those people were exposed to an array of food photos, both high and low fat, their brains become more active at the sight of the high-calorie options than when they saw low calorie foods. When this test was repeated on another day 90 minutes after they ate breakfast, there was no significant difference in their brain’s reaction to different caloric foods

Corresponding to the MRI findings, were ratings of appealing food pictures. After skipping breakfast, participants found calorie laden food choices to be much more tempting.  After eating, however, the group did not show a strong preference for the high-calorie foods.

According to Tony Goldstone, MD, PhD, a consultant endocrinologist with the MRC Clinical Sciences Centre at Imperial College London, “Our results support the advice for eating a healthy breakfast as part of the dietary prevention and treatment of obesity, When people skip meals, especially breakfast, changes in brain activity in response to food may hinder weight loss and even promote weight gain.”

The irony is quite delicious:  Scientists believe they have indeed found the Fountain of Youth and it is found right at the entry of our mouths- as long as we seriously restrict our calorie intake while maintaining all essential nutrients?

For the first time, researchers have shown that restricting calories in primates maintains their youth and prevents age-related disease.

According to a  long-running study by  Richard Weindruch, PhD, of the University of Wisconsin Madison, and colleagues running study of rhesus macaques, suggest that a similar effect might occur in humans and open the door to drugs that would mimic so-called caloric restriction, “We now have proof of efficacy of caloric restriction in primates,” Dr. Weindruch said, and  once the mechanisms are understood, it may be possible to develop “mimetics”– drugs that would have the same effect, but without the need for altering human diets.

Our diet controlled monkeys did extraordinarily well on calorie-restricted diets:

None of the animals on caloric restriction — even those with compromised metabolic function at baseline — had impaired glucose homeostasis.

The incidence of neoplasia was reduced by 50% in the animals on caloric restriction, compared with controls.

The incidence of cardiovascular disease was reduced by half in the diet-controlled monkeys, compared with controls.

They had  significantly slower rates of age-associated brain atrophy in some regions than controls.

The researchers also monitored when age-associated diseases appeared and found that caloric restriction reduced disease onset significantly.

Monkeys on the restricted diet appeared and acted biologically younger than their counterparts in the control arm and physically looked considerably better.

“Not only do the animals stay biologically younger longer, they look younger longer,” Dr. Weindruch said.

Dr. Sierra’s institute is sponsoring a study on calorie restriction in humans — the so-called CALORIE study — but he noted that “you have to be a special type of person to subject yourself to this . . . it’s a self-selected group.” Conducting a calorie restriction study in people in general “would be difficult, let’s put it that way,” he said.

You think?

Is it a question of “Beauty OR Brains” that influences one’s success in the work force?

New research conducted by Timothy Judge, PhD, a management professor at the University of Florida, suggests replacing that “OR” with an “AND.” His research appears in the May issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association.

Attractiveness will definitely be integral to your landing jobs, but one’s intelligence quotient gives one the edge when climbing the salary ladder.

“Little is known about why there are income disparities between the good-looking and the not-so-good-looking. We’ve found that even accounting for intelligence, a person’s feeling of self-worth is enhanced by how attractive they are, and this in turn, results in higher pay.”

Judge and his team analyzed data from the Harvard Study of Health and Life Quality. 191 men and women between the ages of 25 and 75, each interviewed three times, six months apart beginning in 1995, answered queries about household income, financial strain, education, and also evaluated how happy or disappointed they were with their achievements up to that time. After completing several intelligence and cognitive tests to gauge mental ability they had their photographs taken.

Scientific researchers averaged the results of six ratings of each person’s attractiveness, relative to their age and gender.

Significantly, the researchers found that physical attractiveness had a significant impact not only on how much people got paid, but how educated they were and how they evaluated themselves. They found that people who were rated as good-looking made more money, were better educated, and more confident.

But a person’s intelligence affected their income more than their looks did.

“We can be somewhat heartened by the fact that the effects of general intelligence on income were stronger than those of facial attractiveness,” Judge and colleagues write. “It turns out that the
brainy are not necessarily at a disadvantage to the beautiful, and if one possesses intelligence and good looks, then all the better.”

It became readily apparent that good-looking people do tend to highly assess their worth and capabilities, which may lead to less financial stress and more money.

“Moreover, the effects of self-concept are particularly noteworthy. Its effects on income are stronger than those of attractiveness and nearly as strong as those of intelligence. The influence of core self-evaluations on both income and financial strain underlines the critical role it can play in both objective and subjective life success,” the researchers say.

Validation is not just a feel-good exercise, but a key ingredient to the successful life.

Just when you think you’ve got the healthy eating thing down right, some scientific papers come out to upend your sense of equilibrium.

While you’ve been vigilant in pursuing “healthy” options in your food purchases, you and millions of others are being “played” by the less scrupulous in the food industry.

Melinda Beck, in her comprehensive article, “The Fine Print: What’s Really in a Lot of ‘Healthy’ Foods” in the May 5th Wall St. Journal, provides far too many instances of manufacturers determination and success at fooling a well-intentioned but easily misguided public.

Chicken: Roughly one-third of the fresh chicken sold in the U.S. is “plumped” with water, salt and sometimes a seaweed extract called carrageenan that helps it retain the added water- and are allowed by The U.S. Department of Agriculture to label it “all natural” or “100% natural” because those are all natural ingredients, even though they aren’t naturally found in chicken.

The “plumped” chicken has between 200 and 400 mgs of sodium per serving, almost as much as a serving of fast-food french fries. And marketers attest to blind taste tests to underline the reality that more consumers prefer these “enhanced” versions.

Salt substitutes: Many contain potassium chloride, which can exacerbate kidney problems and interact badly with some heart and liver medications- not exactly the direction you wanted to take when looking for the alternative to salt.

Artificial Sweeteners: Many brands of Sugar-free gum, mint and candy contain sorbitol, a plant extract that isn’t completely absorbed by the body and works as a natural laxative. That’s why you often experience bloating, flatulence, stomach pains and diarrhea after consuming only one pack of gum, or sucking on a few sugar-free candies. Some diabetics and others who are sensitive to the effect, find that sugar alcohols, i.e maltitol and xylitol can raise their blood sugar.

Trans fat, Cholesterol- Free, Calories-Free: Manufacturers are allowed to “round down” their numbers when it comes to trans fat, “sugar-free,” “calorie free” and “cholesterol-free” labels….! Products labeled zero grams of trans fat can have up to 0.49 gram of fat per serving. You could still be consuming significant amounts of trans fat: if the ingredients include partially hydrogenated oil, hydrogenated oil or shortening, a product isn’t completely trans-fat free. And it may have considerable saturated fat as well. And foods that have trace calories and up to 0.49 gram of fat and carbohydrates per serving- can, yes, be labeled “free” of those properties!

Super Water: The Center for Science in the Public Interest states that drinks — with names like “defense,” “rescue,” “energy” and “endurance” — are mainly sugar water with 125 calories per bottle…

Government surveys show that most Americans aren’t deficient in many of the vitamins supplied in these drinks, and the excess gets excreted anyway. Coca-Cola Co. was sued earlier this year over claims on its Vitamin Water beverages.

Consumers had better be armed with a “HEALTHY” DOSE OF REALISM WHEN SEARCHING FOR THAT PERFECT HEALTHY FOOD.

Yep, here’s another proof that exercise, “often” is really counter-intuitive. A recent study documented the fact that people tended to lose less weight than expected when they passed a certain threshold of serious activity…which is what I all too often discover.

What is it that induces us to sabotage when we’re actually doing the right thing? Maybe it’s our need to pamper ourselves just a bit, cognizant there aren’t too many people on line to do it for us! So we increase the exercise, and OK, take another bite...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2009-02-17-exercise-eating_N.htm?csp=34

By Nancy Smith

Today’s medical announcement would be astounding if it wasn’t almost intuitive; the results clearly demonstrate that lifestyle behaviors do contribute to stroke risk independently of the intermediate risk factors.

We are all aware that the following four behaviors are beneficial to one’s health. Physical activity, moderate alcohol consumption, no smoking, and the daily consumption of five or more servings of fruits and vegetables a day can only have a positive impact. The strength of that impact was recently bolstered by a defining EPIC (European Prospective Investigation of Cancer) study conducted in England.

20,040 men and women ages 40 to 79 had a physical exam and completed a detailed health and lifestyle questionnaire upon enrolling in the study. This data determined which participants smoked, drank, were physically active, and whether they ate their fruits and vegetables. The risk of stroke for those who did not practice any of the above mentioned behaviors increased twofold compared with individuals who adopted all four.

“These results provide further incentive and support for the notion that small differences in lifestyle can have a substantial potential impact on risk,” the authors concluded.