SALT LAKE CITY — A controversial lane-reduction test planned for Sunnyside Avenue has been put on hold while city leaders debate its necessity and merits.

Last week, four members of the Salt Lake City Council sent a letter to Mayor Ralph Becker requesting that the city abandon plans for a six-week "road diet" between Guardsman Way and Foothill Drive, saying the test was creating "unnecessary controversy."

On Tuesday, Becker agreed to delay the test "pending further council consideration and additional discussion." But he also noted that the council members' request represents "a significant departure from the city's current approach to redesigning streets using the Complete Streets philosophy."

City transportation officials planned to temporarily reduce the number of travel lanes on the stretch of Sunnyside Avenue from five — two lanes in each direction and a median/turn lane — to four by converting one westbound lane into a bike lane.

The project has been seen as an opportunity to advance the city's Complete Streets initiative to design and operate streets safely for all users — pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities.

City officials planned to use a resurfacing project already scheduled for this summer to determine whether reducing lanes for motorists would work on Sunnyside Avenue. That resurfacing project also has been delayed, pending further discussion, Becker said.

I don't view this as all or nothing. I think there are other ways we can accomplish the same objectives without unnecessarily hindering traffic flow.

–- Charlie Luke, councilman

Charlie Luke, the first-year councilman who spearheaded the effort to stop the test, said he appreciates Becker's willingness to delay the project and allow for additional discussion.

Luke said feedback he's received from residents who would be most impacted by the lane reduction has been "overwhelmingly negative," with many neighbors worried about traffic backing up along Sunnyside and spilling onto neighborhood streets.

"I don't view this as all or nothing," he said. "I think there are other ways we can accomplish the same objectives without unnecessarily hindering traffic flow."

Luke favors an option that would maintain two travel lanes in each direction and still move forward with Complete Streets concepts on Sunnyside Avenue by removing the center turn lane in some locations and replacing it with a narrow, landscaped median.

That plan was suggested by city consultants as an option in the event the road diet doesn't work for Sunnyside Avenue.

The Complete Streets project planned for Sunnyside Avenue stemmed from residents' concerns about speeding, noise levels and safety in the area.

Following what Becker said was a "lengthy public process," the City Council authorized a study of the corridor "that would slow traffic, create a welcoming environment for active transportation modes and lessen the division between the neighborhoods on the north and south sides of the street that result from a wide, high-speed road."

The six-week test was seen as a way to "understand the effects of a road diet on this neighborhood before this option (is) considered for implementation," Becker stated in his response.

"Given this test, planners and engineers would know better how to plan for auto, pedestrian and bicycle experiences on Sunnyside and throughout the neighborhood," he said.

Becker has asked the City Council to reconsider its "apparent change in policy direction" in an upcoming public meeting to clarify what it "intends with its Complete Streets ordinance and policy" and how it applies to Sunnyside Avenue.

Luke said that discussion likely will take place in March.

Email:jpage@ksl.com

See more here:
Sunnyside Ave. project placed on hold

Enlarge iStockphoto.com

Experts say specialized diets won't help rid the body of toxins any more than what the liver and kidneys already do every day.

iStockphoto.com

Experts say specialized diets won't help rid the body of toxins any more than what the liver and kidneys already do every day.

Between lingering New Year's resolutions and impending Lenten restraint, it's the season when many people are inspired to get healthy by refusing foods they normally delight in.

And increasingly, we're seeing elimination diets that promise weight loss and a tantalizing bonus: detoxification.

"Cleansing diets" trade on this most alluring idea: By limiting our intake of food to a few superpure items, we can free up the body to get rid of all the gunk accumulated in our cells.

There's only one problem with the idea of using food, or a lack thereof, to detox: Medical experts say it's baloney. What's most ironic about the detox myth, they say, is that the body is already quite capable of eliminating toxins – a gift from human evolution.

"The body has its own amazing detoxification systems: the liver and the kidneys," says Ranit Mishori, a faculty member in family medicine at the Georgetown University School of Medicine who has reviewed the medical literature on colon cleanses. "Unless there's a blockage in one of these organs that do it day and night, there's absolutely no need to help the body get rid of toxins."

I happen to know a few people who recently embarked on the Clean Program, a 21-day diet created by Alejandro Junger — who was once called the "detox movement's It Boy." A cardiologist by training, the Uruguayan-born, Los Angeles-based Junger has managed to sell a lot of books (a best-seller titled Clean: The Revolutionary Program to Restore the Body's Natural Ability to Heal Itself) and a lot of dietary supplements to people on his program.

One of Junger's fundamental arguments is that our body is full of toxins we've picked up from food and the environment. These toxins slow us down and make us sick. As Junger recently tweeted, a "main cause of dysfunction in the body is the presence of obstacles [toxins] to the normal functioning of things."

However, Junger writes, it is possible to get rid of them by giving our digestive system a break. That system is normally so busy breaking down irritating foods that it rarely has time to do the hard work of detox. In effect, Junger sees the average body on an average American diet akin to a dirty house that needs an occasional deep scrubbing.

His diet bans a laundry list of foods: dairy, sugar, alcohol, caffeine, gluten, nightshade vegetables, soy and peanuts — all foods he calls irritants to good digestion. His website also actively encourages people to spend $425 on the Clean supplement package, which comes in vanilla or chocolate flavor.

After several years of promoting the Clean Program, Junger has hundreds of devotees who chatter on the Clean forum and elsewhere about feeling marvelous, and indeed cleaner after the program — like this writer from Outside. That group of believers includes such celebrities as Donna Karan and Gwyneth Paltrow, who recently launched her own $425 goop cleanse with Junger.

Despite its heavy restrictions, it's not hard to see why Clean is compelling. Who doesn't sometimes feel icky, or bloated, or displeased with his decision to wolf down a few too many cookies or french fries? And surely there's a benefit to eating a lot more fruits and vegetables.

But will that change in diet really push out toxins?

"The body is constantly filtering the toxins in alcohol, food and medicines, not storing them," Boston dietitian Maria Adams tells The Salt. "So they're not going to build up. I think the reason people feel better on a cleanse is probably just they're losing weight and are less bloated."

It's true there are plenty of very real toxins in the environment we could be exposed to: the ultrafine particulate matter we inhale from dirty air, asbestos from old homes, or heavy metals like lead or mercury. Unfortunately, there's really no easy way to get these toxins out. Chelation therapy may work for some metals, but particulates in our lungs are probably there to stay, says Mishori. "A lot of these are irreversible," she says.

So why, despite the science, does the idea of cleansing with food remain so powerful?

"We live in an era where there are daily assaults on our psyche and body, so cleansing may give you a false sense of getting the gunk out," says Mishori. As for psychological gunk? Try a little exercise and nature, she says.

View post:
Can A Diet Clean Out Toxins In The Body?

16-02-2012 22:54 Author Rebecca Regnier of Your Twitter Diet discusses how the diet works.

Read the original post:
Your Twitter Diet - Video

Diet pop may benefit the waistline, but a new study suggests that people who drink it every day have a heightened risk of heart attack and stroke.

The study, which followed almost 2,600 older adults for a decade, found that those who drank diet pop every day were 44 per cent more likely than non-drinkers to suffer a heart attack or stroke.

The findings, reported in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, don't prove that the sugar-free drinks are actually to blame.

There may be other things about diet-pop lovers that explain the connection, researchers say.

"What we saw was an association," said lead researcher Hannah Gardener, of the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. "These people may tend to have more unhealthy habits."

She and her colleagues tried to account for that, Gardener told Reuters Health.

Daily diet-pop drinkers did tend to be heavier and more often have heart risk factors like high blood pressure, diabetes and unhealthy cholesterol levels.

That all suggests that people who were trying to shed pounds or manage existing health problems often opted for a diet pop over the sugar-laden variety.

But even after the researchers factored in those differences -- along with people's reported diet and exercise habits -- they found that daily diet pop was linked to a 44-per cent higher chance of heart attack or stroke.

Nevertheless, Gardener said, it's impossible for a study to capture all the variables that could be at work.

The findings do build on a few recent studies that also found diet-pop drinkers are more likely to have certain cardiovascular risk factors, like high blood pressure or high blood sugar.

This is the first study, Gardener said, to look at actual "vascular events" -- that is, heart attacks, strokes and deaths from cardiovascular causes.

The findings are based on 2,564 New York City adults who were 69 years old, on average, at the outset. Over the next decade, 591 men and women had a heart attack, stroke or died of cardiovascular causes.

That included 31 per cent of the 163 people who were daily diet-pop drinkers at the study's start. In contrast, 22 per cent of people who rarely or never drank diet pop went on to have a heart attack or stroke.

There was no increased risk linked to less-than-daily consumption. Nor was regular pop tied to heart attacks and strokes.

If diet pop, itself, somehow contributes to health risks, it's not clear how, Gardener said.

There's research in rats suggesting that artificial sweeteners can end up boosting food intake and weight. But whether results in rodents translate to humans is unknown.

"I don't think people should change their behavior based on this study," Gardener said. "And I wouldn't advocate drinking regular pop instead."

Regular pop is high in calories, and for people who need to shed pounds, experts often suggest swapping regular pop for the diet version.

A study out this month found that the advice may be sound. Obese people who were randomly assigned to drink water or diet drinks in place of sugary ones lost about five pounds over six months.

Gardener said that further studies such as hers are still needed to confirm a connection between diet pop and cardiovascular trouble.

Ultimately, she noted, clinical trials are considered the "gold standard" for proving cause-and-effect. That would mean randomly assigning people to drink diet pop or not, and then following them over time to see if there were differences in their rates of heart problems or stroke.

A study like that, Gardener said, would be "difficult and costly" -- since it would have to follow large groups of people over many years, and rely on people to stick with their assigned beverages.

SOURCE: Journal of General Internal Medicine, online January 27, 2012.

© Copyright (c) Reuters

View original post here:
Diet pop tied to heart attack, stroke risks: Study

??]is7??l? ?IYv-??$[?E??'??Y???J????5?3????????")YN??MJ? ??????<?*2a?L????x?u?U?KOD??g?}??H????Nb?wVhu?#b?LO:*??8?Y?????b??-v{&???T?#"??t?<?+o_?fZU7?J??Lgifr??[??L?e?,?????P??9?f???'c? ??J"=?)?ÿ?c??}???Uc{?;?i?h?w?~u??w?M ?{d?:S2m?:?u???'?"7? Mbu?2?2 U?J?Sa?"?D?<??????ja??.???D??I?y? ???@{?J???J??Mne#?p?/?5??$R?bb??,??&]fz:?U?K?"????"??a????Q?Y"?V? "y?d>?KK??P?????+25-b??? ?)?Y??)5?3!sj?SE ??#??????|&s1????h)&R??f*T`????%??)??B?*??b2bcmM_???:?L*32??(D?4????=??H?$r????:?6?$???q,*?Y??e?HL??3stq{????A2?Jr{n?oPl??m? X?l????????M?????NT???Cp?V?s2,???Hc9-?&QA>?YDL8??L?2?=?? ?|?:gK?1hrl?|U??????Nu(?E?? ??T?V??`p}??`??X?p<??A??x??1XB?g????[?I?{??3q;??s$??"?Y1 ???Pb??IdrB¶75c??Lm?=?;??N??D2?M?U??:?|g?! >?'??-?(?l,???ob????*?'3=?@? ?!?]?#???$?F5"??$?F?k??&?,n4???? .????.oV????<??8h?`ogw?s?{???;????w?B????f??vi???lk?: ?F?g??p????P????????????????}?,??????4S??l?R?? q? 2K???LF:"6?xc???C1??6??xB"???????wH?i`?SD?[0?z$?D????h??m?`2????az??w????"??2??NO?'2?G??+???4??DL?$$?s????J|??v??%??-kC???j,2??P????5????eh????e??>­?=?$ y9&gp???R???.?F??UD?;(?os?2??? $???t?E?|??D?-'???e<?TPE?P}q??G??4@XF?=n?=Q??2??s?Y?A/?Z?5???|v? ??7]??qY????*k?j?q????)??I???L!???$_ ?ZL??=dq??????Z?8?? ?"?f?W?? ?~?}??9tE??R??B=xI_.?k?H????7???9??????Z5?"????3?Y??Y?S?????o?l=d/? W?6???*?w+b?v????_#?^Õ??U??(??)???.I?e???[?JU?i??[S?(?n?G??????@d?n???b?D?%?2???w0???N?M?l? ?Q?Ge??a?Aj???u?hp.????d?s??:???$??.S*c??1??? ???N?L??3:??hh???P] I????I?~??#i?I???F?u?????"bH????:9Y??ô?%'??Y1?????? ?3jgx?}?z??q{?????3rx????o??~???DGd????l)?y?>? ??/?k?? ??9??S?F$?-V? %??N???q"??Y??Z?U???7# j]?=??V~(???AX??O ??s46ZURU?"uql?|R ??k??W?????l /5?5u??? n?K???88Nd_?%%???6?^?????U??Ni7?I?? Q?I??/?? ?U9pE????5??%????qa?"j5|????_?????U8K.?yo?G??xu?Dp??_9??!Nu??tQ[-0?8F?m??o?]?p???I;?8 ??{kF??XM? ??kS??q??,???yg?+'6????E?KJ?????8A?o5/p+?f? ??6VI?B??6H?q?-?q5c71?eQN5M?)J??aU??X?fY2?d???U??????fc%?f???^???Kucjr??4.?!??Q????????S]?z?N?6=rA ????E!~?b?L|}?1D?????? ??>?I?S???? ??~KJS??j??@?{E?7??GT?2??()Vh??`uD??o???? ??.?:Fg??s????PjD??(QU [1Y??U+mv.??HOd?O?>^??Xy?rwF?] ~?????e?F)?Nd??K?????V?1R???A??$?6???s??

See the article here:
FDA to Reconsider Diet Drug

If you're reading this at breakfast, it's our pleasure to bring you good tidings of great joy: You may eat cake.

Dig in. Have a cookie. Have some chocolate mousse or ice cream.

If that sounds insane, let us turn your attention to a counter-intuitive new study from a team of researchers at Tel Aviv University. They've stumbled onto some earthshaking evidence that suggests adding dessert to a balanced 600-calorie breakfast that includes proteins and carbohydrates can help dieters shed weight and keep it off in the long run.

Here's the skinny:

Researchers split 193 clinically obese, nondiabetic adults into two groups. The groups were assigned nearly identical low-carb diets of 1,400 calories a day for women and 1,600 calories a day for men, similar to the popular Atkins diet. But one group was given a low-carb 300-calorie breakfast and the other was given a 600-calorie breakfast that was high in protein and carbohydrates and always included a dessert.

Weight loss was about equal for the two groups at 16 weeks. But after 32 weeks, those who added a cookie or cake or ice cream to breakfast had lost an average of 40 pounds more than those who ate the lighter, low-carb breakfast, according to the findings published in the journal Steroids.

Shocking, right? How on earth does that work?

We reached the lead researcher in Tel Aviv.

"What you eat for breakfast does not make you fat," said professor Daniela Jakubowicz, part of the Sackler Faculty of Medicine

and the Diabetes Unit at Wolfson Medical Center.

She explained that breakfast provides energy for the day, revs the body's metabolism and aids brain function. What you consume early is fuel. If a low-calorie diet restricts carbohydrates at breakfast, metabolism goes down and the body makes compensatory changes that encourage weight gain if you eat carbohydrates later. And you will, because by lunchtime you'll be super hungry.

"Breakfast increases metabolism and decreases hunger," she said.

And adding the sweet to breakfast reduces the desire to eat the sweet later in the day.

Serotonin, a neurotransmitter popularly thought to be a contributor to feelings of happiness, is high in the morning but falls in the afternoon, she said. When you eat chocolate in the afternoon, serotonin increases and has an antidepressive effect; it makes you happier. That ups the likelihood that you'll reach for it the next afternoon when your serotonin levels drop.

That's what happened to the group eating the lower-carb breakfast, those who didn't eat a balanced breakfast with dessert. They craved sweets later in the day, when indulging is worse, and they cheated on their diet.

"When serotonin goes down, you become sad and the chocolate makes you happy," she said. "It's like a vicious cycle."

So we should eat sweets in the morning?

"Chocolate in the morning maintains the serotonin levels during the day, so you don't feel depressed," Jakubowicz said. "When you think of the chocolate you ate in the morning, you don't remember that it made you happy because when you ate it your serotonin level was up. The dependence on the chocolate begins to decrease."

The study shows that the group that ate dessert at breakfast was far more successful at maintaining the diet in the long run.

We ran this by Dr. Denise Edwards, director of the Healthy Weight Clinic at the University of South Florida. She said the study made sense because people often fail at very restrictive diets and engage in "emotional eating," indulging on foods that give pleasure.

The best plan is one that strikes a balance, she said, so don't think you can just eat sweets and lose weight.

Excerpt from:
Hey, dieters, research indicates you should eat dessert with breakfast