‘Intelligent foods’ could hold the key to fighting obesity.

So say Dutch researchers who say it may be possible to create foods which tell your body that you have eaten enough. They believe these foods could contain a special chemical which mimics the natural message our stomach sends the brain when it is full.

The idea is that if the food you eat can send this message earlier, you will not be tempted to overeat. The researchers, therefore, are trying to decode the natural message that is sent from the gut to the brain.

“We know nutrients interact with gut cells, which dispatch chemical messengers – hormones– to the brain to signal ‘stomach full’,” said endocrinologist Jens Holst of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, speaking to youris.com.

Holst has previously identified a small molecule in the stomach, known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1); this molecule is thought to act on parts of the brain that control appetite.

By investigating exactly how this messaging works, Holst, along with EU funded project Full4Health, hopes to be able to recreate the messaging effect via pills and, one day, by modifying food.

Full4Health project coordinator Julian Mercer, obesity scientist at the University of Aberdeen, said: “There is a raft of hormones, which are all satiety hormones, which will tend to help terminate a meal.

“We don’t know much about which nutrients are involved and whether we can manipulate how food interacts with those signalling systems and how those systems are integrated at different levels in the brain.”

Should they learn more about this process and one day introduce it into ‘smart foods’, it could become invaluable when it comes to tackling obesity, a growing problem in the UK today.

Britain has one of the most sedentary populations in the world, falling even behind the Americans. Britain has twice as many people defined as ‘inactive’ than France, for instance, with 63.3% of Britons failing to meet recommended levels of physical activity.

Even in the US, where more than 30% of people are obese, that figure only stands at 40.5%.

[sociable/] Olive oil is a key component of a healthy Mediterranean diet. Now there’s also new evidence that the healthy oil can aid in weight loss and maintenance – by helping you to feel full.

Researchers discovered that just the smell of olive oil can help increase feelings of satiety and could potentially help you to cut around 175 calories from your diet each day.

During the research conducted by Munich’s Technische Universitaet and the University of Vienna, volunteers ate 500g yoghurt every day for three months; the yoghurt was enriched with either olive oil, lard, butter or rapeseed oil.

Those who ate the yoghurt enriched with olive oil consumed fewer calories overall, with none of those participants putting on weight.

The participants’ blood also had higher levels of serotonin, which the scientists credited for the results. Serotonin is known as the ‘feel-good’ hormone which boosts satiety and helps us to feel full.

Despite rapeseed oil having the same fatty acid levels as olive oil, it wasn’t as effective. That led scientists to conduct another experiment, this time examining the impact of the smell of olive oil.

Researchers believe aroma compounds found in olive oil but not in other oils or fats is the key factor to the success. Indeed, when they added the aroma compound to food but not the olive oil itself, they were still able to replicate the results.

In the smell test, volunteers who ate yoghurt with added olive oil aroma extracts consumed 176 calories a day less on average that those who ate yoghurt without it.

Study author Professor Peter Schieberle said: “Subjectively speaking, participants reported they found the olive oil yoghurt very filling. During the study period, no member of this group recorded an increase in their body fat percentage or their weight.”

He added: “The aroma group adapted their eating habits – but the control group participants were obviously not able to do likewise.

“We also found that in comparison to the other group, the control group had less of the satiety hormone serotonin in their blood.”

The discovery paves the way for the creation of weight loss foods that also work on satiety. After all, one of the common criticisms of diet food is that it doesn’t leave us feeling full afterwards. This finding could soon change that.

[sociable/]We often hear that carbohydrates are bad for us when it comes to our weight. But could Zero Noodles be the exception? Virtually calorie free with no fat or sugar, they have been touted as the Holy Grail of dieting… if you forget the fact that they apparently have very little taste.

It seems that taste is not important to UK dieters, however. The noodles have been very popular since their introduction in the UK last year and retailers say they are struggling to keep up with demand. It seems that eager dieters are latching onto the rubbery noodles with glee.

As well as helping you to lose weight, the noodles could also help to cut the risk of stroke and heart disease by reducing cholesterol, say the manufacturers. A 200g portion of Zero Noodles will load you up with just eight calories.

The noodles, known as shirataki in Japan, are made from the konjac plant, from which glucomannan is extracted. Glucomannan is a soluble fibre that typically swells in the stomach to form a gel solution. This gel takes longer to leave the stomach, thereby helping you to feel fuller for longer and tackling hunger pains.

The noodles contain less than 4% glucomannan fibre and 96% water, but it seems that a little glucomannan goes a long way.

Nutritional therapist Laura Lamont who imports the noodles into Britain from China told the Daily Mail: “They are a bulking food, so you feel full, but they are low-calorie.”

She does admit that the noodles are somewhat of an acquired taste. “The consistency on first try can be surprising because it’s not a texture you’re used to, but after one or two goes people like them. They are not slimy; they have more of an al dente texture.”

Two years ago, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that glucomannan powder could help to reduce weight as part of a calorie-controlled diet IF at least 3g of glucomannan was consumed daily in three doses of 1g each, along with one to two glasses of water before meals.

It is not clear if dieters can enjoy the same effect by eating glucomannan noodles.

The glucomannan in Zero Noodles may help to reduce bad cholesterol (LDL), however, according to the EFSA. Such findings were supported by a meta study from the University of Connecticut Schools Of Medicine And Drug Information. Reviewing 14 earlier studies into glucomannan, the authors concluded that it could reduce LDL cholesterol and help with weight loss.

Shirataki noodles have been used as a low-calorie food in Japan for years but the discovery has only recently come to the UK. Judging by their popularity, however, dieters certainly seem to be making up for the delay.

If you knew the number of calories in a quarter-pound double cheeseburger, would it dissuade you from eating it?

Chances are, according to scientists, no, it wouldn’t. You’d eat it regardless. If, however, you learnt that you would have to walk briskly for TWO HOURS in order to burn off those self-same calories that could well make you think twice.

So say researchers who believe they have found the key to persuading diners to opt for more healthy options and eat less food.

Simply put, being informed of calorie content does little to tempt us away from fattening choices but being told how much exercise we’d need to do to work it off makes us more likely to change our order.

The U.S.-based Texas Christian University study backs earlier research that suggests providing calorie information does little to reduce the number of calories consumed.

In contrast, portraying the calorie quotient in terms that people understand – such as exercise and housework – tends to have more of a reaction.

As quoted in the Telegraph, for instance, it would take two-and-a-half of watering the garden to work off a 260 calorie Mars Bar, while you would have to walk moderately for an hour to burn off a classic Magnum, with its 240 calories. Likewise, you’d need to do two hours of housework to burn off a Starbucks classic blueberry muffin (475 calories).

The study focused on 300 men and women aged 18-30 and measured their reactions to three different menus, one with no calorie information, one with detailed calorie information and a third detailing the amount of exercise needed to burn off the calories.

Those ordering from the menus with no calorie information or detailed calorie information ordered the same as each other. Those who were told how much exercise they would need to do to burn off the fat, however, ordered much less.

All menus featured the same dishes such as chips, burgers, chicken sandwiches, salad and desserts.

Researcher Ashlei James, presenting at Boston’s Experimental Biology 2013 meeting, said: “Brisk walking is something nearly everyone can relate to, which is why we displayed on the menu the minutes of brisk walking needed to burn food calories.”

Dr Meena Shah, the lead for the study, added: “This study suggests there are benefits to displaying exercise minutes to a group of young men and women. This is the first study to look at the effects of displaying minutes of brisk walking needed to burn food calories on the calories ordered and consumed.”

She believed the effectiveness of the exercise information was partly due to how much of an ‘eye opener it was’.

[sociable/] We are often told that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Now new research shows that eating the right breakfast may actually help to control appetite and prevent unhealthy snacking all the way through to the evening.

Eating a breakfast rich in protein significantly reduces unhealthy snacking on high sugar and high fat foods in the evening, says assistant professor Heather Leidy of the U.S. Department of Nutrition and Exercise Physiology.

Examining 20 obese or overweight women (aged 18-20), Leidy asked them to either skip breakfast completely, to eat a high-protein breakfast of eggs and lean beef (35g protein) or to eat cereal for breakfast (a ‘normal protein’ breakfast).

Every breakfast was 350 calories and the amount of fibre, sugar, dietary fat and energy density was the same. All participants provided regular blood samples throughout the day, completed questionnaires and had a brain scan before dinner which measured food motivation.

The study, published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found that those participants who had eaten the high protein breakfast felt fuller and showed a reduction in brain activity which subsequently helped to control food cravings. As a result, those eating the high protein breakfast snacked less in the evening when compared to those who skipped breakfast or who ate the cereal.

“Eating a protein-rich breakfast impacts the drive to eat later in the day, when people are more likely to consume high-fat or high-sugar snacks,” said Leidy. “These data suggest that eating a protein-rich breakfast is one potential strategy to prevent overeating and improve diet quality by replacing unhealthy snacks with high quality breakfast foods.”

Those on the higher protein breakfast ate burritos (egg and beef) or egg-based waffles with sausage. Leidy also recommends eating plain Greek yoghurt, cottage cheese or ground pork lion in order to consume the 35g of protein.

The one thing that study didn’t do is to examine whether eating such a high protein breakfast can help with weight management; this will form part of future research.

There is also good news for those people who don’t typically like eating food first thing in the morning; according to research, it will only take your body three days approximately to adjust to eating early in the day.

The Department of Nutrition and Exercise Physiology is comprised of the University of Missouri’s College of Agriculture, the School of Medicine and the College of Human Environmental Sciences. In the interests of full disclosure, it should be known that this research was funded by the Beef Check-off and the Egg Nutrition Center/American Egg Board.

[sociable/] If you’re limiting your avocado consumption to Guacamole now and again, you’re missing a health-giving trick.

New data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed that the humble avocado really is a wonder food. Not only can it improve the quality of your diet and nutrient intake, but it can also help you to maintain a lower body weight, waist circumference and BMI.

As if that isn’t enough, avocados can also help to boost good cholesterol and lower metabolic syndrome risk, says a recent report in Nutrition Journal.

As an aside, an avocado diet or foods likely to be eaten as part of a Mediterranean Diet can also triple the chances of success for couples going through IVF. Is there nothing the avocado cannot do?

The CDC survey of 17,567 adults in the U.S. reports that those who consumed avocados in any amount during the 24 hours that their diet was recorded had significantly better nutrient intake levels and better health indicators than their none avocado-eating counterparts.

Average daily consumption of avocados was approximately one half of a medium sized avocado.

The results in detail showed that:

• Avocado consumers had 23% more vitamin E, 16% more potassium and 13% more magnesium than those who did not eat avocado.
• They also had a whopping 48% more vitamin K and 36% more dietary fibre.
• Those eating avocados had more ‘good fats’ (monounsaturated (18% more) and polyunsaturated (12% more)) than those who did not, though the two groups’ calorie intake was similar.
• In addition, avocado eaters had significantly lower BMIs, smaller waists and weighed significantly less – 7.5 pounds less on average – than those who did not partake.
• They also had significantly higher levels of ‘good’ (HDL) cholesterol.

It’s hard to believe that such a small fruit could have such dramatic effects, but the benefits don’t even stop there.

Perhaps even more significant, those people eating avocado had 50% less odds of suffering from metabolic syndrome than non-avocado eaters. Metabolic syndrome is the name given to risk factors which together can increase the threat of stroke, type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease.

“These findings suggest an interesting association between the consumption of avocados and better nutrient intakes and other positive outcomes,” said lead author Victor Fulgoni, PhD. “These observations were derived from population survey data, they provide important clues to better understanding the relationships between diet and health, and give direction to future research endeavours.”

There were some limitations to the study. The findings were based on a single 24 hour period which memory lapses or misreporting could make inaccurate and the short timeframe of the study could not prove direct cause and effect.

However it does seem to suggest that the humble avocado is one of nature’s healthy wonders.

[sociable/]If you’re planning a post-festive diet for the New Year, you might want to also use a mobile app to help you lose weight.

According to a recent study by Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, using a mobile app that tracks eating and fitness activity can help you to lose an average of 15 pounds and help you to keep it off for at least a year.

Take note however – the app wasn’t enough to provide such results alone; users also had to put in the effort and attend classes about nutrition and exercise.

The study is said to be the first to show that technology added to weight loss classes or a weight loss programme can help with sustained weight loss.

“The app is important because it helps people regulate their behaviour, which is really hard to do,” says Bonnie Spring, lead investigator. “Most of us have no idea how many calories we consume and how much physical activity we get. The app gives you feedback on this and helps you make smart decisions in the moment.”

Spring added that the app was ‘critical but not magical by itself’, stressing that it helps to have all the tools at your disposal.

The Northwestern study followed 69 overweight and obese adults with an average age of 58, primarily men. As well as those people using a mobile app to monitor their information, they also took classes on nutrition, exercise and behavioural change techniques twice a month for the first six months and then monthly for the following six months.

Each participant was given weekly calorie goals based on their current weight and activity goals based on their current activity. Some participants recorded their eating and activity on paper, while others used the mobile device to submit data to a behavioural coach who monitored their information and offered 10-15 minutes of scheduled telephone coaching twice a month.

The results were clear. Those people who used the mobile app and took 80% of the nutrition and exercise classes lost 15 pounds and managed to maintain the weight loss for one year. Likewise, those who used the mobile app but did not attend all or any of the classes still lost on average 8.6 pounds. This contrasts with those who did not use the mobile app at all – but took the nutrition and exercise classes – who didn’t lose weight at all.

“The coaches’ most important role was being in the wings,” says Spring. “The patients know the coaches are hovering and supportively holding them accountable. They know somebody is watching and caring and that’s what makes a difference.

“This approach empowers patients to help themselves on a day-to-day basis. We can help people lose meaningful amounts of weight and keep it off. To do that we need to engage them in tracking their own eating and activity, learn how that governs weight, and take advantage of social support.”

The participants using the mobile apps had no previous experience with them before but managed to use them easily.

[sociable/]It sounds too good to be true, but you really can lose weight without going on a diet.

Researchers who examined 33 trials across America, New Zealand and Europe discovered that you can lose up to 3.5 pounds, slim your waistline AND cut down on bad cholesterol by  doing one simple thing… choosing low fat foods.

While you won’t see the more dramatic results that you can when on a diet, you can lose weight without really trying to by just substituting fatty foods for lower fat options or reducing your intake.

The second piece of good news is that the results should be consistent if you simply find a way to eat less fatty foods in a way that you can continue for life. It means opting for skimmed milk, low-fat yoghurts and reducing the amount of fatty snacks such as crisps and cake that you eat.

In the studies above, the researchers specifically looked at people who were cutting down on fat but were still consuming a normal amount of food as their intention wasn’t to lose weight. Yet lose weight they did, with participants even keeping their weight down for at least seven years.

“The weight reduction when people ate less fat was remarkably consistent – we saw it in almost every trial,” says Lee Hooper from the University of East Anglia medical school. “Those who cut down more on fat lost more weight.

“What surprised us was that they did lose weight, their BMI (body mass index) decreased and their waists became slimmer.”

The review was commissioned by the WHO’s Nutrition Guidance Expert Advisory Group (NUGAG) in response to the fact that more than half of Europeans are obese or overweight while in America more than 35 % of adults and almost 17% of children are classed as obese.

Published in the British Medical Journal, the results showed that eating less fat helps to reduce body weight by 3.5pounds (1.6kg), reduce BMI by 0.56 kg/m² and reduce the waist by 0.5 cm.

The researchers also found that eating less fat helped to encourage small but significant reductions in cholesterol and blood pressure.

As such, one small change in diet can potentially help to tackle some of the risk factors of obesity such as heart disease. More than 17 million people worldwide die from strokes, heart disease and other cardiovascular diseases, says the WHO.

[sociable/] We’re often told to pile on the fruits and vegetables when embarking on a diet to help us feel full and avoid more calorie-laden fare.

New research from America, however, suggests that this potential dieting trick isn’t quite as effective as first thought, especially not in the long term.

Eating fresh or dried fruit before a meal may help you to feel slightly less hungry during the main course, but this benefit doesn’t last when you are on a fruit and vegetable-heavy diet for months, say researchers.

Drinking fruit juice before a meal is even worse and may actually boost hunger instead as the body misinterprets thirst for hunger.

Volunteers given fruit juice before a meal ended up consuming up to 100 more calories throughout the meal than those who had no fruit juice, say the researchers at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana.

A study found that volunteers given the option for a regular all-you-can-eat macaroni and cheese lunch ate 785 or 821 calories on average, depending on the day. The same participants given fresh or dried fruit first ate 678 calories on average, including the fruit. Volunteers given fruit juice instead consumed an average of 891 calories.

Those people drinking the fruit juice therefore ate more calories than those who didn’t, meaning it is a poor dieting option.

Likewise, while participants seemed to eat fewer calories after being given fresh or dried fruit, the researchers discovered this benefit didn’t last when taken over several months.

The findings seem to contradict the popular diet theory that people should ‘fill up’ on fresh fruit and vegetables in order to help them to feel full and to avoid fat or sugary snacks. It may even make it harder to shed pounds, said Richard Mattes from Purdue University.

Instead he recommends counselling and other nutritional programmes to help people shed weight instead.

Other experts stress that you need to emphasise substitution rather than addition.

Barbara Rolls, chair of nutritional sciences at The Pennsylvania State University in University Park, who was not involved in the research, says: “If you tell people to add anything to their diet, you’re going to potentially have no weight loss, or weight gain, even with fruits and vegetables.

“You need to be careful to make sure that you emphasise substitution, not just, ‘Eat more of this or that.’”

[sociable/]If you’re on a diet, you’d best avoid cookery shows.

Scientists have discovered that we’re much more likely to tuck into unhealthy snacks and junk food if we’re watching the likes of Jamie, Delia or Nigella.

It doesn’t even seem to matter if the cookery show in question is focusing on healthy recipes: we’ll still be tempted to munch on sugary, fatty options.

Instead the best TV shows to watch to keep your figure nice and trim are nature programmes apparently.

American psychologists from Hobart and William Smith Colleges in New York recruited 80 adults to help them ascertain what impact television viewing has on our taste buds. Half of the participants were told to watch cookery shows while the others were asked to watch nature programmes.

The viewers were given three bowls containing chocolate sweets, raw carrots or cheese curls to eat at their leisure. All bowls were weighed before and after the TV sessions.

Those watching the cookery programmes got through a lot more of the chocolate sweets than those watching the nature show; the latter were more inclined to munch on carrots.

The scientists therefore believe that watching food-related programmes may trigger the desire for calorie-laden products, thus affecting eating behaviour.

In a report published appropriately enough in the journal Appetite, the researchers said: “TV watching has been associated with overeating and obesity. But how popular food-related shows affect eating behaviour has not been examined.

“Significantly more chocolate-covered sweets were consumed among those who watched the cooking programme. These findings may have implications for obesity prevention.”

[sociable/] Researchers may have finally cracked the most frustrating aspect of weight loss… why the weight seems to inevitably come back.

The somewhat disheartening news is that the longer you are overweight or obese, the harder it is to keep the weight loss that you worked so hard for.

That’s because after an extended period of time overweight, the body resets its ‘normal’ body weight to be higher than it should be. This even applies after you’ve dieted and lost pounds.

The joint research between the American University of Michigan and the Argentina-based National Council of Science and Technology (CONICET), done on mice, casts doubt on the success of severe calorie restricted diets and strenuous exercise.

It implies that the body is already pre-programmed to gain back the weight lost by such severe diet regimes, suggesting that other diet options may be more efficient. It also stresses that addressing childhood obesity early on, rather than letting it continue, is crucial to future good health.

Published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, senior author Malcolm J. Low, M.D., Ph.D., said: “Our model demonstrates that obesity is in part a self-perpetuating disorder and the results further emphasise the importance of early intervention in childhood to try to prevent the condition whose effects can last a lifetime.”

The professor of molecular and integrative physiology and internal medicine added: “Our new animal model will be useful in pinpointing the reasons why most adults find it exceedingly difficult to maintain meaningful weight loss from dieting and exercise alone.”

The research used obesity-programmed mice and ‘flicked a genetic switch’ to control hunger, keeping track of the results.

Those mice immediately ‘switched’ after weaning never became obese. Those ‘switched’ in early adulthood, having previously maintained a healthy weight by diet alone, were able to continue at a healthy weight without dieting after turning on the switch.

For those mice with early onset obesity, chronically overfed over time, however, the results were not as promising. Despite flipping the switch to control hunger, reduce food intake and increase activity, these mice never returned to a normal weight.

Low theorised: “Somewhere along the way, if obesity is allowed to continue, the body appears to flip a switch that re-programmes to a heavier set weight.

“The exact mechanisms that cause this shift are still unknown and require much further study that will help us better understand why the regaining of weight seems almost unavoidable.”

Obesity can trigger type 2 diabetes and other health issues such as cardiovascular diseases and hypertension.

[sociable/]You were probably told by your mother that breakfast is the most important meal of the day and it turns out that she was right – and scientists now know exactly why.

It has long been suspected that skipping breakfast only encourages you to eat more throughout the day and a new study suggests this is because the brain thinks we’re fasting.

As such, it is primed to seek extra calories in order to replace (or to be accurate, more than replace) those we didn’t eat earlier. Meaning that we start to crave high-calorie foods much more than we would if we’d eaten breakfast.

The results of the study hint at bad news for anyone contemplating fasting in order to lose weight – namely that it just won’t work.

The Imperial College London compared people’s MRI brain scans in relation to their eating pattern when people both ate breakfast and also skipped it.

Some of the participants ate a large 750 calorie breakfast before undergoing scans an hour and a half later. Others underwent their scans without eating breakfast first. During the scans, both groups were asked to rate pictures of high calorie food in terms of how appealing they found it.

All participants were then also served lunch and the amount they ate was closely monitored.

The researchers noted that the brain scans of the two groups had different patterns of activity in the orbitofrontal cortex – situated just above the eyes – depending on whether the person had eaten or skipped breakfast. This area of the brain, known to influence the reward value of food and judge how pleasant food is, was most active when looking at pictures of high calorie food in those people who didn’t eat breakfast, suggesting it plays a key role when it comes to our food choices.

The findings show that missing breakfast can increase hunger, boost the appeal of high-calorie foods (hampering our willpower to avoid them) and as such, increase the amount people eat throughout the day as a result.

Lead author Tony Goldstone said: “Through both the participants’ MRI results and observations of how much they ate at lunch, we found ample evidence that fasting made people hungrier, and increased the appeal of high-calorie foods and the amount people ate.”

The results also suggest that fasting is not a good way to lose weight; all it seems to do instead is to encourage the brain to seek out high-calorie foods.

[sociable/]If you’re struggling to stick to a diet because you’re constantly hungry, a new Japanese brand of noodles may be the answer.

Zero Noodles, made of 96% water, have only 10 calories per 200g and can help you to feel full without piling on the pounds. The noodles contain the ground root konjac, which is said to help stabilise blood sugar levels and prevent hunger pangs.

Already very popular — health food retailer Holland & Barrett sold out within a week when trialed at selected stores – fans say the noodles essentially trick your brain into thinking you’ve eaten a full meal.

As such, they can help you to reduce your calorie intake by up to 500 calories per meal and prevent overeating.

All you need to do is to replace your traditional pasta with these noodles, say UK distributors Glow Nutrition.

Beware however – the noodles should not be eaten alone but as part of a healthy nutritional meal.

Tam Fry, of the National Obesity Forum, warned: “Zero noodles contain only ten calories. That is not enough for anybody.”

Holland & Barrett nutritionist Kate Butler added: “Those wanting to diet sensibly need to ensure they are getting adequate nutrition from a sensible portion of protein and/or vegetables, eaten alongside the Zero Noodles.”

The noodles, priced at £1.99 per pack, are now on sale throughout Holland & Barrett’s 700 stores.

[sociable/]If you’re one of the three-quarters of Britons who struggle to eat your five a day, there could be hope for you in the shape of a new powder.

Spanish scientists have found a way to freeze dry certain foods such as fruits and vegetables and turn them into a powder that can then be either sprinkled on food or added to milk or water to create fruit juice.

The researchers, at Universitat Politècnica de València, have already freeze-dried grapefruit, kiwi and strawberries while maintaining their health benefits. As well as sprinkling onto food and drinking in juice, the powder can also be added to teas and purees.

The World Health Organization recommends eating 400g of fruit and vegetables a day at least to lower the risk of obesity and related health problems such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and stroke.

Three quarters of us, however, are not managing it, according to a survey by the World Cancer Research Fund. Different research has even suggested that one in 10 children only manage one portion a day.

The freeze-dried powder, therefore, could make all the difference and help people hit the government’s five a day recommendation (which advocates getting five 80g portions a day).

Freeze drying 100g of fresh grapefruit gains between 10 to 15g of powdered grapefruit. It also helps to conserve the beneficial antioxidants in the fruit.

Lead researcher Nuria Martínez Navarrete said: “Grapefruit is a citrus fruit with great nutritional and functional value but its consumption is very small because, among other reasons, it is very bitter.”

[sociable/]Your mother may have told you to eat three square meals a day but researchers now say that you should think about eating up to NINE small meals a day in order to lose weight.

That’s because eating little and often helps to keep energy and blood sugar levels steady and may help to encourage lower blood pressure, cholesterol and weight loss.

The latest trial to advocate ‘grazing’, reported in the Daily Mail, comes out of Imperial College in London. There they compared the diets of more than 2,000 people from the UK, U.S., China and Japan.

Half the participants ate less than six times a day, while the other half ate more than six times a day. All ate the same food and had the same calorie intake.

The findings showed that those who ate less than six times a day had a higher systolic blood pressure – and were also significantly heavier – than those who ate more frequently.

The research follows earlier studies that seem to suggest eating breakfast, lunch and dinner is a little outmoded.

The University of Athens, for instance, found that children who ate five times a day were 32.6% less likely to have significant levels of bad cholesterol than those who ate fewer meals.

Likewise, a Maastricht University study has already advocated a ‘nibbling’ diet – eating at least four small meals a day – to speed up metabolism and lower obesity risk.

“Splitting food intake so we eat many times a day will have metabolic benefits over and above the same food consumed in a small number of meals,” Dr Susan Jebb, head of the Medical Research Council’s Human Nutrition Research Unit, told the Daily Mail.

The key to healthy and plentiful meals is to keep them small; the Imperial College study made sure each meal averaged approximately 300 calories.

The regular meals may help to prevent a build-up of fatty acids which can contribute to high cholesterol.

Eating set small meals at regular times — such as a boiled egg with a slice of toast, a bowl of pea and ham soup, grilled salmon with couscous — may also be crucial to weight loss; in contrast other studies have suggested that random snacking throughout the day can actually lead to weight gain.

[sociable/]Bad news! You may be opting for low fat products to keep yourself in trim, but a new Which? study reveals that some low fat options contain almost the same amount of calories as their normal counterparts.

Some low fat or ‘light’ foods even have more sugar, the survey found. Indeed, some of the supposedly lower fat options would still be rated red under the traffic light labelling system.

Six out of 10 consumers eat low fat products several times a week, say Which?, but they are being fooled. Many of the ‘snapshot sample’ of 12 low fat, reduced-fat or light products chosen for the survey had little or no difference in actual calories.

The Which? Sample highlighted that:

• A Tesco low-fat yoghurt has 130 calories per pot – more than a standard Activia yoghurt, which has 123. The Tesco yoghurt also contained more sugar.
• A ‘light’ McVitie’s chocolate digestive biscuit contains 77 calories, whereas a standard one contains only eight calories more. You would only need to swim or run for less than a minute extra to burn off the additional calories in the standard biscuit.
• Cathedral City lighter cheddar would still be given a red rating under the traffic light food labelling system, due to its high fat and saturated fat content.

The only solution, says Which? executive director Richard Lloyd, is to look at nutritional labels very carefully.

The study also highlighted that most consumers don’t really understand the definition of ‘reduced fat’ and ‘light’.

In order for someone to be defined as low fat, it should contain less than 3% fat; terms such as reduced fat, lite and light mean items should contain 30% less fat than an original or standard product. According to Which?, only 16% of consumers in a 1,005-strong survey were able to identify the latter.

If something has more than 20g of fat per 100g, it is classed as high fat.

Richard Lloyd added: “Consumers are choosing low-fat and light options believing them to be a healthier choice.

“But our research has found that in many cases they’re just not living up to their healthy image.

“Our advice to consumers is to read the nutritional labels carefully.”

Which? is campaigning for Morrisons and Iceland to use the traffic light labelling system alongside the other supermarkets that already do.

[sociable/]By far one of the best methods to lose weight and keep trim is to look at food labels while you’re doing your shopping, say researchers.

That’s because women who read the labels weigh more than half a stone LESS — 9lbs — than those who ignore them, a study has found.

That means they have on average a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 1.49 points lower than their non-label reading counterparts. The news isn’t quite as rosy for men, however – those who read information on food packets only have a BMI of just 0.12 points lower than those who don’t, suggesting food labelling has the most impact on women.

Researchers from Spain’s University of Santiago de Compostela say educated white city-dwelling women are more likely to read food labels, helping them to choose their food wisely and, as a result, have a BMI 1.76 points below those who do not check labels.

Those people who had a high school education and university education also reported reading labels too.

The Spanish study, in conjunction with the Agricultural Economics study – partnered with the University of Tennessee and the Norwegian Institute for Agricultural Finance Research – quizzed 25,640 American consumers about their eating, shopping and health habits.

It discovered that nearly three-quarters (74%) of women habitually or always read information on food packets, compared to 58% of men. In contrast, those who smoked didn’t tend to pay much attention to food labels, possibly because their lifestyle in general involves less healthy habits.

Professor Marma Loureiro, lead researcher on the project, said: “First we analysed which was the profile of those who read the nutritional label when purchasing foods, and then we moved on to the relationship with their weight.

“We know that this information can be used as a mechanism to prevent obesity. We have seen that those who read food labels are those who live in urban areas, those with high school and high education.

“As we would hope therefore, campaigns and public policy can be designed to promote the use of nutritional labelling on menus at restaurants and other public establishments for the benefit of those who usually eat out.”

[sociable/]Researchers have now discovered the set of traits that could determine how well you are likely to stick to a diet.

People who struggle with the traits, which include a form of memory, are considered more likely to give in to temptation and may even forget they are on a diet.

The traits, collectively known as executive function, include the ability to plan ahead, multi-task, weigh up options and have a form of recall called prospective memory.

Those with poor prospective recall forget to do things planned in the near future such as meeting a friend, posting a letter or locking the door. This could also be what encourages dieters to forget they are on a diet in the first place.

Studies by Aberdeen University have demonstrated the effect of poor executive function.

When dieters wrote down their intake over a three day period, for instance, those with poor prospective memory ate more sugary food than they had intended.

Researcher Julia Allan said: “Prospective memory keeps you on track. Every time you are offered something to eat, you have to bring to mind that you are on a diet.”

Speaking at the British Science Festival in Aberdeen, she added: “A person with less efficient executive function is less likely to resist temptation and stick with what they had planned on any given day, than someone with excellent executive function.”

This could help to explain why some people find it harder than others to stick to a diet or stop smoking.

“We know that there has been a lot of time, effort and money directed at health information campaigns telling people what they should be eating, why they should be eating more fruit and vegetables, why they should be eating less fat.

“But when you look at the Scottish population, the vast majority know what they should and shouldn’t be doing and the problem is more that people don’t act on these intentions.”

Dr Allan is now looking at ways to help people with poor executive function eat healthily. She has already trialed a sign that sits on coffee shop counters containing pictures of the snacks on sale together with their calorie count. The items with the fewest calories are shown on the left to tap into our instinctive reading bias to look from left to right.

When trialed for three months, sales of the healthier snacks increased while those of the more fattening treats fell. Dr Allan says the signs also act as a memory aid to those people with poor prospective memory, a group in which she classes herself.

She said: ‘From our research, it is clear that sticking to a diet is not simply a case of making a decision to eat more healthily.

“Dietary control involves lots of different psychological skills and resources and so will be much easier for some people than others.”

[sociable/]You may have heard of the Longevity Diet, a 2005 book that advocates a lifelong calorie-restricted diet in order to add years to your life.

A recent survey of rhesus monkeys however has bad news for devoted followers of such drastic diets – namely that it doesn’t work.

Eating a low calorie diet will NOT help you to live longer.

A 25-year study using the monkeys has just determined that the drastic diet – 70% of the calories of a normal lab diet with the same vitamins and minerals — didn’t increase their lifespan in any way.

The National Institute on Aging (NIA), part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, conducted the research into the calorie-restricted monkeys. While they found that most had healthier immune systems, hearts and lower rates of cancer, diabetes and other illnesses, they didn’t actually live any longer than their control monkey counterparts.

Steven Austad who analysed the study in the journal Nature, said: “You can argue that the calorie-restricted animals are healthier. They have better cholesterol profiles, less muscle loss, less disease. But it didn’t translate into greater longevity.

“What we learn from this is you can un-link health and longevity.”

The biologist, from the University of Texas Health Science Center, added: “If there’s a way to manipulate the human diet to let us live longer, we haven’t figured it out yet and it may not exist.”

The NIA study is in direct contrast to previous research which seemed to offer hopes on longevity via eating a low calorie diet. Since 1934 research into numerous species such as lab rats, fruit flies, round worms and mice has shown that, on average, those eating up to 40% less than their non-diet restricted counterparts lived up to 30% longer.

Such studies have sparked a steady community of people who follow reduced calorie diets such as that advocated in the Longevity Diet book and by the CR Society International (CR standing for Calorie Restriction).

The NIA study is no doubt raising significant questions right about now. It also throws doubt on drugs made to mimic calorie restriction, such as those made by Procter & Gamble and Nu Skin Enterprises.

Rhesus monkeys were chosen because they have a physiology, genetics and median lifespan (27 years) much closer to humans than the rodents and other species used in previous research.

In a conflicting turn of events, however, another 20-year study also done on rhesus monkeys by the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center seemed to show that monkeys on a calorie-restricted diet did live longer than those on the standard diet.

Experts speculate that the longevity difference between the two groups of monkeys could be down to diet – both used a similar calorie restriction but the Wisconsin monkeys in both the restricted and control groups were eating more and weighed more than the NIA monkeys; they were also eating a purified diet and both groups had different sources for proteins, fats and carbohydrates, for instance.

Environment and genetics could also come into play. Some have also theorised that the Wisconsin calorie-restricted monkeys didn’t really live longer as such, but looked to have increased longevity purely because their control monkeys ate themselves into an earlier grave, being allowed to eat whatever they wanted.  The Wisconsin monkeys for instance were given seven times the table sugar of the NIA’s group.

“Comparing calorie restriction to what you think is a normal diet but is in fact an unhealthy diet with too much food and too much sucrose can trip you up,” said Austad.

“If you keep your control animals to a healthy weight, as the NIA did, a diet that produces extreme emaciation has no further effect on longevity.”

Perhaps now people will believe that a healthy diet and not a drastic one is better for longevity.

[sociable/]If you’re struggling to lose weight despite dieting and exercising, you might want to look at your body clock.

Scientists believe that disruption of our usual routines such as sleeping and eating can directly contribute towards making us fat. Studies on night shift workers, for instance, have shown that not only are they more likely to put on weight but they are more susceptible to diabetes and other diseases.

Of course, some body clock disturbances are inevitable; others are increasingly common in our busy lifestyles, so what can we do about it?

Researcher Dr Cathy Wyse, from the University of Aberdeen, recommends sleeping in pitch darkness and eating and sleeping at regular times in order to get our natural body clock – also known as the circadian rhythm — back on track.

Our body’s sleeping, waking and digestive cycles releases hormones which control our metabolism and other functions. It stands to reason that messing with these is going to cause problems – after all, in her review of recent research, Dr Wyse notes that the body clock of animals and plants is the key to their survival.

We humans have interfered with that evolutionary process in the search for development.

Light is the overwhelming force controlling our body clocks, the same as it does for plants and animals. Traditionally this helped us to synch with the earth’s orbit of the sun; nowadays however electric light encourages us to interfere with this ancient process.

Says Dr Wyse: “Electric light allowed humans to override an ancient synchronisation between the rhythm of the human clock and the environment.

“Over the last century, daily rhythms in meal, sleep and working times have gradually disappeared from our lives.

“The human clock struggles to remain tuned to our highly irregular lifestyles and I believe this causes metabolic and other health problems, and makes us more likely to become obese.”

Published in Bio-Essays, Dr Wyse’s paper also points out that previous research on mice demonstrated that throwing their body clocks into disarray caused changes to genes in the liver; it is these genes which are responsible for breaking down fat and glucose. As a result, the mice put on weight without eating any more.

Dr Wyse added: “This was a really significant finding. We don’t know how the mechanism works, but the circadian rhythm is important in regulating metabolism, more important than we suspected it was.

“The reason for the relatively sudden increase in global obesity in the developed world seems to be more complicated than just diet and physical activity. If there’s one thing that’s certain about obesity, it’s a complex mix of how we live, what we eat, when we sleep and what we do for work. Circadian rhythm is something we need to keep in mind.”

A new slimming powder that turns to gel in the stomach could soon be added to food to help dieters feel fuller and eat less.

The white powder, an updated form of methyl cellulose, could be added to shakes, ice cream, yoghurts, smoothies and soups. Turning to gel in the stomach at room temperature, the powder helps dieters to feel fuller and therefore reduce the amount of calories consumed at a subsequent meal.

The Switzerland-based company Dow Wolff Cellulosics applied to the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) for permission to market the powder as a dietary fibre in this country and now the FSA has just given its preliminary approval, stating that it has no safety concerns over the ingredient though it should not be given to children. It is waiting for a report from food experts before deciding whether to approve it for widespread use.

In tests, volunteers consumed an average of 13% fewer calories in a second meal after taking the powder than they did in their first.

A form of this ‘anti-hunger’ powder is already used as a food additive and has been for years, being used to bind together snacks, ready meals and baked goods. Normally, this powder would simply pass through the system but in this case, scientists have modified it to form a gel that lingers in the stomach for a little while before passing into the small intestine.

The new form of the powder has been nicknamed SATISFIT-LTG.

The scientist who conducted the trial, Carsten Huettermann Ph.D, said: “This ingredient would make people feel full after eating smaller amounts of food. With that sense of fullness and hunger-satisfaction, they would not crave more food.

“In our first study, we saw that fewer calories were consumed at the following meal after eating our new product. Our next step now is to investigate in further studies the mechanism of action and whether this may have an impact on weight management.”

Many people might argue that you shouldn’t mess with the nation’s beloved chocolate recipes. Yet if scientists could create a ‘healthy’ chocolate, wouldn’t you rush to take advantage of it?

That dilemma could come sooner than you think after researchers at the University of Warwick revealed they have been able to replace up to 50% of the fat content in chocolate with fruit juice.

The research team has been able to reduce the amount of cocoa butter and milk fats in the little chocolate chunks of Heaven by replacing them with juice droplets, under 30 microns in diameter.

The real question, of course, is does the ‘healthy’ chocolate taste as good?

According to the study, conducted by Dr Stefan Bon from University of Warwick, infusing cranberry and orange juice into white, dark and milk chocolate does NOT take away the ‘mouth feel’ of chocolate that the traditionally fatty ingredients provide.

Dr Bon argues that it is traditionally the fat in chocolate that gives people satisfaction – namely providing its texture and the melt-in-the-mouth effects; if this can be effectively replicated, he argues, the new chocolate should be just as rewarding and healthier.

The researchers do admit, however, that the chocolate will taste fruity, though they propose that a combination of water and a small amount of vitamin C could be used instead.

Dr Bon said: “Everyone loves chocolate – but unfortunately we all know that many chocolate bars are high in fat. However it’s the fat that gives chocolate all the indulgent sensations that people crave – the silky smooth texture and the way it melts in the mouth but still has a ‘snap’ to it when you break it with your hand.

“We’ve found a way to maintain all of those things that make chocolate ‘chocolatey’ but with fruit juice instead of fat.

“Our study is just the starting point to healthier chocolate – we’ve established the chemistry behind this new technique but now we’re hoping the food industry will take our method to make tasty, lower-fat chocolate bars.”

The study was published in the Journal of Materials Chemistry.

He’s never been one to shy away from controversy and now Dr Pierre Dukan, creator of the phenomenally popular Dukan Diet, has described the obese as suffering from a ‘mental problem’.

In an interview with the The Mail on Sunday’s You magazine, the weight loss ‘guru’ said he feels sorry for those people who are significantly overweight.

He told You magazine: “It’s a mental problem. I’ve never seen an obese person who has said, ‘I am well in the mind.’

“I suffer for them. I like them because they are not really ill, like with the cancer, but feel they are outside of society…. I want to help.”

Dr Dukan has hit headlines for his provocative comments before. He has even been struck off as a doctor in France after being accused of giving dangerous advice to teenagers following contentious remarks that slimmer school pupils should be awarded extra marks than their fatter counterparts.

He suggested there should be an extra subject called ‘ideal weight’ which pupils could pass simply by being slim.

The author, who has sold more than 30 million books promoting his diet, subsequently asked to be struck off the medical register after being told he faced an investigation into whether his multi-million pound diet and food empire was compatible with the French medical ethics code.

The Dukan Diet is an extreme form of a high protein and low carbohydrate diet. Similar to the Atkins Diet, it actually goes beyond the latter and restricts fat as well. In its first phase, no carbohydrates are allowed at all, aside from a small quantity of oat bran.

Critics have accused the diet of being unhealthy.

Dr Dukan hits back at his detractors however, saying it was “natural there are critics” of his methods and adding: “I am convinced deeply that for now, mine is the best [diet] on the market: it is the most healthy and the most ethical.

“My allowed foods are the foods of the old genes, the fruit of the hunter gatherer, the fish and vegetable.”

The British Dietetic Association, however, disagrees. It named the Dukan Diet as the worst celebrity diet of 2011, stressing there was no bone fide science behind it. Other health organisations have also been critical, warning that it could lead to serious nutritional imbalances.

Finally… scientists find out why we just can’t resist that sweet treat when we’re faced with it for the second time…

You were so good rejecting that doughnut or slice of cake when it was first offered. Score a win for your self-control. So why then did you cave in and say yes when asked for the second time? Drat your sudden lack of willpower.

The good news, however, is that it may not be entirely your fault. Self-control or willpower is apparently a limited commodity, scientists have discovered. And worryingly, the more you use it, the weaker it becomes.

A new study in the Journal of Consumer Research put willpower to the test by asking 16 people to perform tasks requiring self-control while being monitored by an fMRI scanner. The participants were asked to do either a demanding mental task or an easier task and then to swap.

The first time around, the participants did well. Brain scans from the session showed activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) part of the brain, which deals with decision-making, as well as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), an area of the brain that helps with self-control.

The second session, however, showed weakness. Those who were given the demanding task to do showed less activity in their DLPFC, the self-control centre of the brain.

What this shows, says lead author and neuroscientist William Hedgcock, from the University of Iowa, is that “if you exert a significant amount of self-control at one time, you’ll have a hard time exerting it later.”

That later could be the same day or even two days afterwards – if you sat in front of a plate of doughnuts or brownies at work today and resisted them, for instance, you’ll probably find your willpower is not quite as strong when faced with them again, even days later.

Hedgcock believes self-control is like a muscle and if used a lot in the short term, it will become tired and weak.

So how can you prevent your will-power from simply running out?

The best idea, says Hedgcock, is to control how often you need to use it. Either don’t put yourself in a position to need it, or give your body a little of what it wants so your self-control is still intact for when you need it later.

For instance, allow yourself a healthy smoothie if you crave something sweet, as opposed to eating an ice cream. That way your body still gets what it wants and while you have used your will-power a little, you haven’t overworked it. Meaning it will still be there for when you need it again.

Here’s some news to encourage your weight loss efforts…

Overweight or obese men and women can achieve an entire DECADE’S worth of health benefits by just losing 20 pounds.

That’s what researchers told the American Psychological Association’s annual convention.

Even better, those health benefits are still applicable even if you regain the weight again later in that same decade (though ideally you won’t).

Rena Wing, professor of psychiatry and human behaviour at Brown University, referenced her work from a Diabetes Prevention Programme. The national study follows 3,000 overweight individuals with impaired glucose tolerance.

All were shown how to change their behaviour, as opposed to being given drugs. The study showed that even modest weight loss of 14 pounds on average reduced the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by a whopping 58%.

This health benefit lasted for up to 10 years, even if the people studied put the weight back on.

“Helping people find ways to change their eating and activity behaviours and developing interventions other than medication to reinforce a healthy lifestyle have made a huge difference in preventing one of the major health problems in this country,” said Wing in an interview.

“Weight losses of just 10 per cent of a person’s body weight (or about 20 pounds in those who weigh 200 pounds) have also been shown to have a long-term impact on sleep apnoea, hypertension and quality of life, and to slow the decline in mobility that occurs as people age.”

The participants lost weight via basic behavioural strategies, such as tracking what they ate, reducing the amount of unhealthy food in their homes, increasing their physical energy and meeting with weight loss coaches regularly.

There are three good habits that are key to sustained weight loss and maintenance, a recent study has found.

After studying 123 women trying to lose weight, researchers discovered that the ones who did so most successfully followed three significant rules – they kept a food diary, avoided eating out and never skipped meals.

The women who obeyed these basic dieting commandments lost five to eight pounds more than their counterparts.

Researchers following the 123 women aged 50 to 75, who were talking part in a larger Nutrition and Exercise for Women study, discovered that those women who kept a food diary, logging all the food and drink they consumed on a daily basis, lost six pounds more on average than those who didn’t keep such a diary.

Likewise, those dieters who ate three meals a day consistently were able to lose eight pounds more than those who skipped meals – thought to be due to the fact that skipping meals causes you to subsequently overeat.

Finally, women who ate outside the home for lunch at least once a week lost five pounds fewer on average than those who stayed at home. This suggests a lack of control over calories when in a restaurant. Interestingly, restaurant lunches were a particular culprit for stalling weight loss –fast food restaurants weren’t to blame either as only 10% of participants reported eating out in them.

“We were surprised at how much of a difference using food journals and eating at home made,” admitted researcher Dr. Anne McTiernan, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

“We found that the better women in our study were at consistently writing down everything they ate and drank, the more weight they were able to lose.”

When it comes to restaurants, she added: “I think the real key is knowing how many calories you’re getting, and controlling the amount. That’s very difficult to do in restaurants where you can’t always tell how many calories are in your meal.”

Dr McTiernan believes that restricting total calories is much more important than restricting only certain types of calories, such as when following a low-fat or low-carbohydrate diet. She stressed that dieters needed to find the form of calorie reduction that worked best for them.

Looking for a reason for being overweight? It could be a result of the 100 quintillion bacteria in your gut.

Scientists now believe that the microscopic bacteria in your stomach can directly interfere with your weight, particularly when exposed to artificial sweeteners, sugar alcohols and a specific type of sugar known as fructose.

That’s because the sweeteners encourage your gut bacteria to adapt and change; unfortunately, they are doing so in a way that seems to interrupt the body’s metabolism and satiety signals, according to a paper in Obesity Reviews.

This discovery about gut bacteria may partly explain the link between diet sodas (which contain sweeteners) and obesity, though other reasons have also been speculated such as the idea that the sweeteners may fool the brain into craving more sugar.

The natural process of the bacteria in our gut is to digest our food. When doing so, they give off by-products known as short-chain fatty acids; these can be useful as sources of energy in the body.

The problem comes when the bacteria has adapted to sweeteners and large amounts of fructose. More adept at processing the fructose corn syrup, your gut bacteria now produce more and more of these short-chain fatty acids. Too many of these, and the body’s natural satiety signals – the signal that tells the body it is now full – are disrupted.

Even worse, too many short-chain fatty acids can also cause inflammation in the gut lining. No one is quite sure how it happens but when it does, the bacteria in the gut can ‘escape’ out of the damaged gut lining and pass into the blood stream. This in turn can lead to insulin resistance as well as an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, stroke and coronary artery disease.

It is not clear at this stage if one diet soda a day could damage gut flora any more or less than 10 sodas could.

Amanda Payne, lead author of the study, says: “I will say from a personal perspective that I don’t drink sodas–diet or regular–and I rarely eat processed foods, especially if they have high-fructose corn syrup listed on their label.”

To avoid the danger, it’s best to consume sweeteners only in moderation and drink water instead of sodas. Gut flora will thrive best if you eat whole grains and a wide variety of fruits and vegetables.

Not all calories are created equal, says a new study. In fact, if you want to lose weight, a low-glycemic index (GI) or very low carbohydrate diet may be better than a low fat one for lasting weight loss.

So says a study published in the Journal of American Medical Association. The reason a low GI or low carbohydrate diet may work best is because both reduce the surge in blood sugar after a meal. Going further, a low-GI diet seems to offer similar metabolic benefits as the very low carb diet without the stress and inflammation of following the latter.

It has long been known that one of the biggest reasons for weight re-gain isn’t just waning motivation to diet and exercise but is also determined by biology. When you lose weight, the rate at which your body burns calories falls, meaning you have a slower metabolism. At this point, you’ll notice that it is harder to continue losing weight. Lower energy and thus fewer calories burned via exercise contribute to this potential ‘plateau’.

Depressingly, research demonstrates that only one in six people will maintain any weight loss long-term (and that might only be 10% of it).

The study led by the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center Boston Children’s Hospital discovered that a low GI diet beats other traditional weight loss methods in continuing to burn calories and keep energy expenditure high after weight loss. As such, it offers the best potential for long term weight maintenance.

The study focused on 21 adults aged 18 to 40 who first had to lose 10 to 15% of their body weight. After that, they were put on all three types of diets – low GI, low carb and low fat – one after the other in four week stages.

A low GI diet was classed as one made up of vegetables, legumes, processed grains, healthy fats, and fruits. Forty percent of calories came from fat, another 40% from carbohydrates and the final 20% from protein. The carbohydrates eaten were low on the glycemic index, meaning they digested slowly and helped to keep hormones and blood sugar stable after a meal.

A low fat diet had 60% of calories from carbs, only 20% from fat and 20% from protein. Whole grain products, fruits and vegetables were encouraged and dietary fat reduced.

A low carbohydrate diet was similar to the Atkins diet with only 10% of daily calories coming from carbs. Instead, 60% came from fat and 30% from protein.

State of the art methods of detection were used to track energy expenditure.

The research found that while the low carb diet heralded the greatest improvement in metabolism, it increased cortisol levels (which can contribute to insulin resistance) and also raised C-reactive protein levels. Both of these can also increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

In addition, a low fat diet caused an unhealthy lipid pattern, insulin resistance and the greatest decrease in calories burned by energy expenditure.

“We’ve found that, contrary to nutritional dogma, all calories are not created equal,” says David Ludwig, director of the New Balance center. “Total calories burned plummeted by 300 calories on the low fat diet compared to the low carbohydrate diet, which would equal the number of calories typically burned in an hour of moderate-intensity physical activity.”

“In addition to the benefits noted in this study, we believe that low-glycemic-index diets are easier to stick to on a day-to-day basis, compared to low-carb and low-fat diets, which many people find limiting,” added Cara Ebbeling, associate director. “Unlike low-fat and very- low carbohydrate diets, a low-glycemic-index diet doesn’t eliminate entire classes of food, likely making it easier to follow and more sustainable.”

Eating large amounts of protein but little carbohydrate can increase your risk of heart attacks and strokes, says a new study.

Following a high protein but low carbohydrate intake such as that recommended by an Atkins-style diet could increase the danger of strokes and heart attacks by more than a quarter, say researchers.

The solution for better health is to follow a balanced diet rather than to try to cut out bread, potatoes or other carbohydrates altogether.

Researchers from the University of Athens followed 43,400 women, aged 30 to 49, for a 15 year study. They discovered that those who ate few carbohydrates but a lot more protein were 28% more at risk from strokes and heart attacks.

That means that if 10,000 women were to follow an Atkins-style diet, an extra five of them would be likely to suffer from a heart attack or stroke compared to another 10,000 women eating a balanced diet instead.

“This study highlights the need for us to achieve balance in our diets,” Victoria Taylor, senior dietitian at the British Heart Foundation, told the Daily Mail.

“Don’t feel you have to choose between carbohydrates or protein. Eating a mixture of all food groups, rather than cutting anything out completely, will help you to stay healthy inside and out.

“Try and include lean proteins and low-fat dairy, wholegrain and high fibre carbohydrates, along with lots of fruit and veg and small amounts of healthy fats.

“Enjoying all of these in a balanced way is far better for your heart and your waistline than trying to stick to a strict diet.”

A spokesman for the Atkins Diet hit back at the research, saying to call it an Atkins-style diet was misleading.

He said: “This observational study simply states that ‘fewer carbs’ and ‘higher protein’ intake was associated with higher incidence of heart disease. In fact, Atkins is a nutritional strategy which stresses nutrient-dense carbohydrates as part of a balanced eating plan.”