From the benefits of vitamin D to the spinach scare, 2006 was a mix of good news and bad news on the food front.
Like so many other years, it brought conflicting study findings, food controversies and encouraging news stories. We welcomed the news about vitamin D and fish. The crackdown on trans fats continued to build steam with many health-conscious Canadians.
But along with the good news came unsettling headlines that left many wondering whether scientists are capable of making up their minds. Studies cast doubt on the benefits of calcium supplements and a low-fat diet. And the year wasn't kind to certain fresh vegetables.
As 2006 winds down, a number of nutrition stories stick in my mind. Here's a look at a few of the year's highs and lows:
Low-fat advice questioned
People who had been shunning butter and counting their grams of fat to ward off myriad health problems were dealt an apparent blow in February when the results of a large-scale study came up short.
The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, determined that a low-fat diet offered no protection from breast and colon cancer or heart disease for postmenopausal women.
In the study of 48,835 women aged 50 to 79, 40 per cent were assigned a 20-per-cent fat diet with at least five servings of fruits and vegetables a day; the remaining women did not alter their diets.
The eight-year study showed the low-fat group did manage to significantly reduce their fat intake, but seemed to gain no advantage.
It's possible that the results would have been different with an even lower fat intake, consumption of more fruits and vegetables, a longer study period, or making dietary changes before the age of 50.
And despite the study results, it's still a good idea to continue to limit saturated and trans fats. If possible, choose unsaturated fats such as those in vegetable oils, nuts, seeds and fish.
Calcium conundrum
In what seemed like a steady stream of nutrition flip-flops, doubt about calcium's benefits arrived on the heels of the disappointing low-fat-diet news. The New York Times headline read, "Big study finds no clear benefit of calcium pills." Any woman who had been faithfully taking calcium supplements in the hope of fending off osteoporosis was bound to be confused.
The study of 36,282 postmenopausal women found that standard calcium and vitamin D supplements had no effect on preventing bone fractures in the spine, arms and hips. Half the women in the study were assigned to take a supplement containing 500 milligrams of calcium and 200 international units of vitamin D, twice daily; the remaining women took placebo pills.
As is often the case with epidemiological studies, you need to dig beyond the headlines to get the real story. After analyzing the results only for women who were most compliant in taking their calcium pills, researchers found the risk of hip fracture was reduced by 29 per cent compared with the placebo group.
Calcium and vitamin D supplements also appeared more effective among women 60 or older, the age group at greatest risk for hip fractures.
The bottom line: Women should continue to consume adequate amounts of calcium and vitamin D from their diets and supplements if needed. If you do take calcium supplements, try to take them every day.
Vitamin D's benefits shine
Vitamin D was a hot topic in 2006 for reasons beyond bone health. In January, researchers from the University of California at San Diego analyzed data from 63 studies and concluded that taking a daily vitamin D supplement could reduce the risk of breast and ovarian cancers by up to one third. Other studies suggested that vitamin D could guard against pancreatic and digestive cancers as well as type 2 diabetes.
In March, experts convened in Toronto to discuss the health benefits of vitamin D and the best ways to obtain it. The key findings suggested that many Canadians are not getting enough -- and that our current recommendations (for example, 200 IU a day for adults aged 19 to 50) are too low for optimal health.
