Breastfeeding as an issue of significance in the world of public health and nutrition has gained considerable traction in recent months. With globally publicized opposition by the US to the World Health Assembly Resolution on Infant and Young Child Feeding (triggered by severe restrictions on milk products for older infants and young children) and reports of coercion to further corporate interests, the issue is of great pertinence in today’s times. It being World Breastfeeding Week, this blog will delve into the science of breastfeeding, a nutrition-focused behavior that has amassed a tremendous body of evidence in its favor when concerning infant and young child health [1].

The Lancet series published in 2016 describes both the micro and macro level benefits of breastfeeding for infants in countries of all economic strata. One paper [2] from the series estimates that approximately 823,000 annual deaths among children <5 years of age and 20,000 annual deaths of women from breast cancer can be avoided through the promotion of improved breastfeeding practices. Additionally, breastfeeding has long lasting impacts on morbidity and improves the cognitive capacity and educational potential of children, with economic benefits including higher wages in adulthood [2]. Greater benefits are achieved with longer durations of breastfeeding, and this behavior has impact on morbidity with evidence showing protective benefits against diarrhea, respiratory infections, and asthma [3].

Additionally, a growing body of evidence shows overwhelming support for breastfeeding as protective behavior against long-term health outcomes related to non-communicable diseases including obesity [3]. An analysis of 113 studies shows that longer durations of breastfeeding are associated with a 26% reduction (95% CI: 22-30) in the odds of obesity across income groups. Another pooled analysis of 11 studies showed a 35% reduction (95% CI: 14-51) in the incidence of type 2 diabetes [3]. Prior work has shown that breastfeeding confers protection against obesity later in life, with lower prevalence rates after adjusting for confounders such as socioeconomic status, birthweight and sex [4].

Recent papers published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition highlight the nuanced impact of breastfeeding on child growth trajectories. A study by Kramer et al. (2018) showed, using various different statistical analyses, a causal effect of randomization to a breastfeeding promotion intervention on growth during the first 2-3 months of life [5]. Additionally, these authors noted that children in a breastfeeding intervention group and those who were breastfed for ≥12 months experienced faster growth when compared to those in the control group or those breastfed for <12 months, particularly during the first 2-3 months. The differences in growth velocity between groups was lower in subsequent months and almost equalized by 12 months of age.

A study by Eny et al. conducted in Canada found that maternal BMI was positively correlated to infant BMI [6]. These authors note that maternal BMI has been shown to modify BMI growth rates among children beginning at birth up to 12 years of age [7]. These authors note that the trajectories for growth differed by breastfeeding duration, maternal BMI and birth weight from 1-3 months of age.

Results from these studies and others highlight the need for more prospective research to assess how, when and whether breastfeeding practices influence infant weight gain, and what factors within breastmilk impact lean and fat mass growth [8]. Overall, the case for early initiation, exclusivity of breastfeeding for the first 6 months and continued breastfeeding up to 2 years remain strong and programs, policies and incentives to encourage and promote adequate breastfeeding behaviors remain the need of the hour. So this World Breastfeeding Week, may mothers’ across the world be motivated, encouraged and supported to continue gifting their young one of the most valuable gifts nature has accorded us!

References:
[1] Jacobs, A. (2018). Opposition to breast-feeding resolution by the US stuns world health officials. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/health/world-health-breastfeeding-ecuador-trump.html
[2] Rollins, N.C., Bhandari, N., Hajeebhoy, N., Horton, S., Lutter, C.K., Martines, J.C., Piwoz, E.G., Richter, L.M., Victora, C.G. (2016). Why invest, and what it will take to improve breastfeeding practices? Lancet, 387, 491-504.
[3] Victora, C.G., Bahl, R., Barros, A.J., Franca, G.V.A., Horton, S., Krasevec, J., Murch, S., Sankar, M.J., Walker, N., Rollins, N.C. (2016). Breastfeeding in the 21st century: epidemiology, mechanisms, and lifelong effect. Lancet, 287, 475-490.
[4] Armstrong, J., Reilly, J.J., & Child Health Information Team. (2002). Breastfeeding and lowering the risk of childhood obesity. Lancet, 359 (9322), 2003-2004.
[5] Kramer, M.S., Davies, N., Oken, E., Martin, R.M., Dahhou, M., Zhang, X., & Yang, S. (2018). Infant feeding and growth: putting the horse before the cart. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 107, 635-639.
[6] Eny, K.M., Anderson, L.N., Chen, Y., Lebovic, G., Pullenayegum, E., Parkin, P.C., Maguire, J.L., Birken, C.S. (2018). Breastfeeding duration, maternal body mass index, and birth weight are associated with differences in body mass index growth trajectories in early childhood. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 107, 584-592.
[7] Bornhorst, C., Siani, A., Russo, P., Kourides, Y., Sion, I., Molnar, D., Moreno, L.A., Rodrigues, G., Ben-Shlomo, Y., Howe, L., et al. (2016). Early life factors and inter-country heterogeneity in BMI growth trajectories of European children: the IDEFICS study. PLoS One, 2016:11:e0149268.
[8] Hay, W.W. Jr. (2018). Breastfeeding newborns and infants: some new food for thought about an old practice. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 107, 499-500.

Breastfeeding: Foundation of Life

World Breastfeeding Week is celebrated every year from August 1 – 7 across the globe to encourage breastfeeding and promote healthy practices from the earliest stages of life. This campaign is led by the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action (WABA), a global network of organizations and individuals who work to promote and support breastfeeding practices worldwide. The 2018 slogan is “Breastfeeding: Foundation for Life”.

“In a world filled with inequality, crises and poverty, breastfeeding is the foundation of lifelong good health for babies and mothers.”

Latest Research on Breastfeeding

ASN’s four nutrition science journals often publish new research on breastfeeding, and there were many sessions on the topic at ASN’s annual meeting, Nutrition 2018. ASN also ensures the representation and support of breastfeeding research within our membership and scientific programs through a dedicated research interest section, Maternal, Perinatal, and Pediatric Nutrition. Members who belong to this group focus on the biology of nutrition as it impacts human development, and the role of nutrition on both short-and long-term outcomes in the mother, fetus, infant, and child.

New Research on Breastfeeding from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Breastfeeding newborns and infants: some new food for thought about an old practice

“Feeding newborns and infants is hardly a new topic, but these 2 articles provide some important new food for thought, and hopefully might stimulate appetite for studying how breastfeeding and human milk confer unique advantages on infant growth and development, as well as prevention of later life diseases such as obesity, which are programmed early in life.”

Breastfeeding duration, maternal body mass index, and birth weight are associated with differences in body mass index growth trajectories in early childhood

Infant feeding and growth: putting the horse before the cart

Current Knowledge on Micronutrients in Human Milk: Adequacy, Analysis, and Need for Research

This free supplement was published with the May 2018 issue of Advances in Nutrition. Articles included are:

Introduction to Current Knowledge on Micronutrients in Human Milk: Adequacy, Analysis, and Need for Research

Overview of Nutrients in Human Milk

Limitations of the Evidence Base Used to Set Recommended Nutrient Intakes for Infants and Lactating Women

Micronutrients in Human Milk: Analytical Methods

Retinol-to-Fat Ratio and Retinol Concentration in Human Milk Show Similar Time Trends and Associations with Maternal Factors at the Population Level: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Iodine in Human Milk: A Systematic Review

Vitamin B-12 in Human Milk: A Systematic Review

Breastfeeding and the Microbiome

ASN Fellow Dr. David Heber recently published a video Microbiome #3: Getting it Started. This is what he says:

“The Microbiome is established in the gut during breast feeding. While some bacteria enter the body during delivery and from the mother’s skin, the majority are formed from a special group of complex carbohydrates called Human Milk Oligosaccharides (HMO’s). There are about 150 HMO’s and they feed a single bacterial species called Bacteroides Infantilis which has a series of pumps on its surface bringing these sugars called oligosaccharides inside the cell to be digested. This bacteria is called an “inside” eater and does not share the HMO’s with other bacteria so it becomes the dominant bacteria in the gut Microbiome setting up the baby’s immune system. The breast milk has protein, fat, and lactose (the same sugar in cow’s milk) but is unique in having the 150 HMO’s. This is another reason why it is so important for women to breast feed their babies. Breastfeeding also removes 500 Calories per day from the Mom’s body helping with reducing pregnancy weight gain. During breast feeding women need to get extra protein, Calcium, vitamin D and B vitamins to replace what is being put out in breast milk!!”

Video shared with Dr. David Heber’s permission.

Calcium is traditionally considered the bone-health nutrient. This is because 99% of calcium is contained within the bone, in which calcium creates a mineral complex with phosphate (hydroxyapatite), giving bone its characteristic strength and function. However, besides forming part of bone, calcium is also involved in other functions, such as muscle function, nerve transmission, intracellular signaling, and others.

Bone is a very dynamic organ in which the rate of formation and resorption (or destruction) is different throughout the lifespan. During childhood and adolescence, the rate of formation is higher than the rate of resorption, leading to maximum bone gain. In older adults these rates are switched, causing loss of bone. This bone loss may lead to osteopenia, osteoporosis, and an increased risk of bone fractures.

Is an increased intake of calcium associated with reduced risk of fractures?

As a way to prevent bone loss and fractures in middle-aged and older adults, there is usually a push from public health initiatives and healthcare professionals to increase the intake of calcium. However, an increased intake of calcium (dietary + supplements) may not necessarily lead to fewer fractures. Two of the most recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses showed that increasing dietary calcium and the supplementation of calcium (and vitamin D) did not reduce the risk of fractures. However, this remains controversial as a previous meta-analysis showed that the supplementation of calcium and vitamin D was associated with a 15% risk reduction in middle-aged and older adults (community-dwelling and institutionalized).

 The use of calcium supplements may lead to a higher risk of cardiovascular disease

The hypothesis is that an increased intake of calcium may lead to a positive calcium balance (intake lower than output in urine + feces), in the absence of increased bone formation. This positive calcium balance may lead to the calcification of tissues other than the bone, such as the vasculature, increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease. However, this association remains controversial. A sub-analysis of the Multi‐Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), showed that those that had higher dietary calcium intake (without supplements) had a lower risk of coronary artery calcification, while those that were taking supplements had a higher risk. However, the National Osteoporosis Foundation and the American Society for Preventive Cardiology suggested that calcium intake (diet + supplements) that does not exceed the tolerable upper level of intake of 2000 to 2500mg/d is not associated with cardiovascular outcomes, and should be considered safe.

Special caution of high intake of calcium in subjects with reduced kidney function

A high intake of calcium, particularly those that use calcium supplements, may represent a problem for those with reduced kidney function, as they may not be able to excrete the extra calcium. In a study by Hill and collaborators, a calcium intake of 2500mg (1000 mg through diet + 1500mg from calcium carbonate), compared with a dietary calcium intake of 1000mg, led to 500mg of calcium retention in patients with reduced kidney function. Similarly, Spiegel and collaborators compared a diet with 800mg vs. 2000mg of calcium in subjects with normal and reduced kidney function. In those on the 2000mg calcium diet, there was a positive calcium balance, which was more marked in those with reduced kidney function. With these results, a calcium intake higher than 800-1000mg (diet + supplements) should be avoided in those patients with a reduced kidney function to prevent calcifications of tissues other than the bone.

Should health care professionals recommend a high intake of calcium?

The current evidence, in middle-aged and older adults, does not seem to support high calcium intakes (above the tolerable upper level) for the prevention of fractures. Additionally, high calcium intakes achieved with the use of supplements may be associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. However, the use of supplements may be useful for patients that have low calcium intake. Finally, special attention should be taken in patients with reduced kidney function, as a high intake (diet + supplements) may lead to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

 

Which consumer are you?

The astute academic or health professional: You have a degree (one or more) in nutrition, you have PubMed bookmarked on your internet browser, and you spend your days dispelling nutrition myths and/or researching the next nutrition breakthrough.

The health foodie. You scour wholesome recipes online, you already know the nutrition trends for 2019, you make detailed grocery lists like it’s your job, you’re a #mealprepsunday veteran, and always know where to find the best deals for natural/organic/raw/fresh eats.

The bachelor/broke student: Is it cheap? Edible? Delicious? Easy to prepare? If yes, it goes in the cart.

The athlete with phenomenal sport skills, and (developing) culinary know-how: You know that the foods you eat influence your athletic performance. You are game for eating better, under one condition: you need quick/easy foods that pack a nutritional punch.

The busy parent: There are lunches to make, picky eaters to feed, and you can’t remember the last time you enjoyed a calm, healthy mealtime at home. Grocery shopping is typically a stressful battle between your healthy intentions, and the little ones’ demands for sugary cereals and flashy marketing.

Photo Credit: Lifehacker

Whether you identify with one or multiple distinct categories listed here, each one is unified by a few common underlying themes:

We all eat.

We crave amazing flavors.

There are never enough hours in the day.

We really do have good intentions; We want to eat well.

Assuming we don’t grow/hunt/gather our own food, we cross paths with one another for a common purpose: Food Shopping! On that note, we’ve been exposed to the same rules of thumb for healthy grocery shopping:

-Shop the perimeter!

-Steer clear of the middle aisles!

The way I see it, there are two types of people in this world: Those who love the center aisles (but could use a little strategy for picking the best options), and those who openly shun those aisles (but are secretly curious to explore the forbidden foods within).

As a health professional, it’s my duty to pass along this tried-and-true advice. But as a real-life RD on a budget, I hear you: Those middle aisles are mighty tempting, so what’s a guy/girl to do?

Take a deep breath, direct that grocery cart towards those center aisles, keep your eye on the prize and walk with intention because you have a fool-proof plan. Healthy shoppers, unite! Today, you’ll conquer those middle aisles like the savvy consumer you are.

Photo Credit: The Sports Nutrition Coach

Your strategy: Divide and conquer by food group like so:

Whole grains, legumes, and pseudograins: Instant oatmeal, frozen brown rice or quinoa (that’s a pseudograin), ready-to-serve plain cooked rice, Grape Nuts (for impressive iron and fiber content), popcorn, Vaccuum packed pre-cooked lentils (that’s a legume), whole grain bread (can you find bread with 0-1g sugar per serving? Can you find fiber above 2g per serving?)

Fruits and vegetables: Frozen is your friend! These items are picked at peak ripeness and flash-frozen immediately afterwards. Canned items are fine as well (in light syrup or water). Can you get all colors of the rainbow?

Protein: Canned beans, canned tuna, canned chicken, canned salmon, frozen chicken strips (no breading), hummus

Dairy: single serve plain Greek yogurt (Ok, you’ll find this in the perishables, but this is too versatile not to include), string cheese

Fats: Olives, frozen Cool Whip, prepared guacamole

Snacks: Dark chocolate (Pro-tip: Pick one with single-digit grams sugar per serving), nuts (try pistachios, almonds, or walnuts), dried fruit, jerky, whole grain chips, hummus

Drinks: Chocolate milk

Spreads/flavorings: Sriracha, olive oil, balsamic vinegar, mustard, pesto

Photo credit: Smile Sandwich

 Once you return home from this über successful grocery trip, you’ll want to assemble some stellar meals using your new bounty. Try this one-day sample plan:

Breakfast: Yogurt cup topped with frozen fruit, Grape Nuts, nut butter (purchase single serve packets in a pinch!) Feeling extra hungry? Prepare a side of instant oatmeal

Lunch: Tuna sandwich (canned tuna mixed w/ mustard, Ezekiel bread). Side of green salad (found in deli section)

Snack: Handful of nuts, handful chips, and hummus

Post Workout: Classic PB&J, or chocolate milk

Dinner: Defrost that frozen rice, quinoa, or lentils, frozen veggies of choice, top w/ beans (and/or thawed ready-to-eat chicken), salsa, pre-made guacamole, and Sriracha

Dessert: 2-3 squares of dark chocolate, alongside frozen blueberries w/ a dollop of cream

Not everyone has a nutrition coach by their side, but you, ASN reader, have an edge. Use this guide to confidently navigate the previously forbidden center aisles. Print it, internalize it, share it. No nonsense, no gimmicks. Blasphemy? Hardly. Creative and backed in science? Absolutely.

Mother and infant

Maternal diet during pregnancy is thought to be one of the most influential factors on child health and development. However, dietary interventions during this period may miss a critical window to improve health during childhood, as well as adult life.

In a recent series of articles in The Lancet, researchers address the significance of nutrition in the preconception period, or the time before a woman becomes pregnant. The series of three articles challenges the current perspective of the preconception period. Currently defined as 3 months before conception, the authors suggest preconception should also include any time a woman is at child bearing age. This revision is based on an understanding of the biological events occurring during the periconceptional period, or the time immediately surrounding conception. In addition, it addresses a lack of nutritional preparedness for pregnancy in women of reproductive age and the failure of dietary interventions during pregnancy in preventing adverse health outcomes.

How does pre-pregnancy nutrition affect child health?

The periconceptional period begins before fertilization occurs, with maturation of sperm and oocytes, and extends until implantation of the fertilized egg. From the time of fertilization, this process occurs relatively quickly (up to 9 days in humans) but is characterized by drastic changes developmentally, genetically, and metabolically. The embryonic genome undergoes epigenetic modifications, or alterations to the DNA that do not change the genetic code but rather affect how a gene is expressed by turning expression on or off. These modifications are responsive to environmental conditions and nutrient availability, and likely adapt to promote optimal survival under existing conditions. However, the established gene expression pattern may be detrimental in environmental conditions outside of the uterus, promoting disease development later in life.

Although epigenetic changes can occur throughout one’s lifetime, the periconceptional period is unique in that a small number of cells are present. Full exposure to the environment allows this founder population of cells to establish the genetic program that persists throughout development.

How does this change current practice?

The influence of maternal nutrition during the periconceptional period on disease and development in offspring is not a new concept. Both maternal overnutrition and obesity, as well as undernutrition have been known to adversely affect metabolic regulation in offspring and increase the risk for metabolic disease development.

More recently, analysis from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey suggest that less than 10% of women of reproductive age meet the recommended daily intakes during pregnancy for several key micronutrients including zinc, vitamin A, folate, and calcium. Only 30% of women meet the daily intake recommendations for iron. A lack of success of multiple micronutrient supplementation during pregnancy in improving child health outcomes, including survival, growth, body composition, and blood pressure, indicate the importance of correcting such nutritional deficiencies well before pregnancy.

These findings suggest that preconception intervention strategies should include population targeted interventions for women of reproductive age, in addition to those targeting the 3 months before conception. This will allow adequate time to correct for nutritional deficiencies before pregnancy.

2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans

The U.S. Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS) are seeking public comments on topics and supporting scientific questions to inform the development of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This is a new step in the development process. View the Federal Register Notice here.

Topics and questions proposed by USDA and HHS are based on four criteria: relevance, importance, potential federal impact, and avoiding duplication. The topics for 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines are within a life stages approach, focusing on priority scientific questions from birth through older adulthood. In addition, the topics reflect a continued focus on patterns of what we eat and drink as a whole, on average and over time.

Learn more on the development of the dietary guidelines hereSubmit your comments here.

Listed below are the five life stages with proposed topics and scientific questions. The guidelines will also describe current dietary patterns, including intakes of food groups and nutrients, for each stage of life.

Infants and toddlers from birth to 24 months (healthy, full-term infants)

Topic Question(s)
Recommended duration of exclusive human milk or infant formula feeding What is the relationship between the duration of exclusive human milk or infant formula consumption and 1) growth, size, and body composition; 2) food allergies and other atopic allergic diseases; and 3) long-term health outcomes?
Frequency and volume of human milk and/or infant formula feeding What is the relationship between the frequency and volume of human milk and/or infant formula consumption and 1) micronutrient status; and 2) growth, size, and body composition?
Dietary supplements (e.g., iron, vitamin D, vitamin B12) What is the relationship between specific micronutrient supplements for infants fed human milk and/or infant formula and 1) micronutrient status; and 2) growth, size, and body composition?
Complementary foods and beverages*: Timing of introduction, types, and amounts

*Beverages (cow’s milk, water, 100% fruit juice, sugar-sweetened beverages, milk alternatives)

What is the relationship between complementary feeding and 1) micronutrient status; 2) growth, size, and body composition; 3) developmental milestones; 4) food allergies and other atopic allergic disease; and 5) bone health?

What is the relationship between complementary feeding, including foods and beverages, and achieving nutrient and food group recommendations of infants and toddlers?

Note: Evidence related to dietary patterns (including beverage patterns) consumed during the complementary feeding period will be considered as part of these questions.

 

Children and adolescents, ages 2-18 years old (with data reviewed by age group)

Topic Question(s)
Dietary patterns to promote health and normal growth and meet nutrient needs What is the relationship between specific dietary patterns (Dietary Guidelines-related, Mediterranean-style, Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH), vegetarian/vegan, and low-carbohydrate diets) consumed during childhood and adolescence and 1) growth, size, and body composition; and 2) bone health?

Are changes to the USDA Food Patterns needed based on the relationships identified? If so, how well do USDA Food Pattern variations meet nutrient recommendations for children and adolescents?

Beverages (cow’s milk, water, 100% fruit juice, sugar-sweetened beverages, milk alternatives, caffeinated beverages) What is the relationship between beverage consumption during childhood and adolescence and achieving nutrient and food group recommendations?
Added sugars What is the relationship between added sugars consumption during childhood and adolescence and achieving nutrient and food group recommendations?

How much added sugars can be accommodated in a healthy diet during childhood and adolescence while still meeting food group and nutrient needs?

 

Adults, ages 19-64 years old (with data reviewed by age group)

Topic Question(s)
Dietary patterns to promote health, prevent disease, and meet nutrient needs What is the relationship between specific dietary patterns (Dietary Guidelines-related, Mediterranean-style, Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH), vegetarian/vegan, and low-carbohydrate diets) consumed during adulthood and 1) body weight or obesity; 2) risk of cardiovascular disease; 3) risk of type 2 diabetes; and 4) risk of certain types of cancer?

Are changes to the USDA Food Patterns needed based on the relationships identified? If so, how well do USDA Food Pattern variations meet nutrient recommendations for adults?

Beverages (cow’s milk, water, 100% fruit juice, sugar-sweetened beverages, milk alternatives, caffeinated beverages) What is the relationship between beverage consumption during adulthood and achieving nutrient and food group recommendations?
Added sugars What is the relationship between added sugars consumption during adulthood and achieving nutrient and food group recommendations?

How much added sugars can be accommodated in a healthy diet during adulthood while still meeting food group and nutrient needs?

Saturated fats What is the relationship between saturated fats consumption (types and amounts) during adulthood and risk of cardiovascular disease?

 

Pregnancy and lactation

Topic Question(s)
How additional calorie needs should be met during pregnancy and lactation What is the relationship between specific dietary patterns (Dietary Guidelines-related, Mediterranean-style, Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH), vegetarian/vegan, and low-carbohydrate diets) consumed among women who are pregnant and 1) risk of gestational diabetes; 2) risk of hypertensive disorders during pregnancy; 3) gestational age at birth; and 4) birth weight standardized for gestational age and sex?

What is the relationship between specific dietary patterns (Dietary Guidelines-related, Mediterranean-style, Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH), vegetarian/vegan, and low-carbohydrate diets) consumed among women who are lactating and human milk composition and quantity?

Are changes to the USDA Food Patterns needed based on the relationships identified? If so, how well do USDA Food Pattern variations meet nutrient recommendations for women who are pregnant or lactating?

Dietary supplements (e.g., iron, folate, vitamin D) What is the relationship between micronutrient supplements consumed during pregnancy and lactation and 1) micronutrient status; 2) birth outcomes; and 3) human milk composition and quantity?
Diet during pregnancy and lactation and risk of food allergy in the infant What is the relationship between maternal diet during pregnancy and lactation and risk of infant allergies and other atopic allergic disease?
Seafood What is the relationship between seafood consumption during pregnancy and lactation and neurocognitive development of the infant?
Beverages (cow’s milk, water, 100% fruit juice, sugar-sweetened beverages, milk alternatives, caffeinated beverages) What is the relationship between beverage consumption during pregnancy and lactation and 1) achieving nutrient and food group recommendations; 2) birth outcomes; and 3) human milk composition and quantity?
Alcoholic beverages What is the relationship between maternal alcohol consumption during lactation and human milk composition and quantity?

 

Older adults, ages 65 years and older (with data reviewed by age group)

Topic Question(s)
Dietary patterns to promote health, prevent disease, and meet nutrient needs What is the relationship between specific dietary patterns (Dietary Guidelines-related, Mediterranean-style, Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH), vegetarian/vegan, and low-carbohydrate diets) consumed across the lifespan and 1) body weight or obesity; 2) risk of cardiovascular disease; 3) risk of type 2 diabetes; 4) risk of certain types of cancer; and 5) risk of osteoporosis?

What modifications to dietary patterns are effective in preventing or reversing declines in muscle mass or bone density in older adults?

Are changes to the USDA Food Patterns needed based on the relationships identified? If so, how well do USDA Food Pattern variations meet nutrient recommendations for older adults, age 65-80 years and those age 81+ years?

Specific nutritional needs related to older adults What modifications to food and beverage choices promote meeting nutrient needs in older adults with impaired dentition, dry mouth, or other aspects of aging that interfere with food and beverage consumption?

Comments are accepted through March 30, 2018. If you have a new topic or question to suggest, provide a brief summary including information pertaining to the four prioritization criteria. After the review of comments and finalization of topics and supporting questions, USDA and HHS will post a public call for the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee nominations.

Read more about the Dietary Guidelines here.

If you have any suggestions to inform ASN’s comments please reach out to Sarah Ohlhorst, Senior Director of Advocacy and Science Policy, at sohlhorst@nutrition.org or 240-428-3647.

 

 

Lifestyle interventions targeted at obtaining/maintaining a healthy body weight and/or incorporating physical activity and healthy eating habits have great potential in improving outcomes in cancer survivors. Cancer diagnosis is a “teachable moment” wherein many patients are highly motivated to make changes (1). Furthermore, a balanced diet and moderate exercise can improve prognosis, quality of life, physical function, and survival across the cancer continuum. As such, groups such as the Amercian Cancer Society, National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American College of Sports Medicine have released lifestyle guidelines for cancer survivors.

However, implementing changes in individuals and healthcare systems is challenging, to say the least. This is a recent topic covered by Karen Basen-Engquist and a number of colleagues as part of a special Issue of Obesity (Transdisciplinary Research on Energetics and Cancer)(2). Their article provides a 6-point agenda for translating research into clinical and community action, as follows:

  1. Increase the availability of different types of activities for weight management, nutrition counseling, and physical activity. One size will never fit all when it comes to improving health. Individual goals/preference, resources, and logistics all come into play, and cancer-specific programs may be needed.
  2. Improve screening and referral to lifestyle interventions. A system for evaluating and triaging patients for health programs should be developed. Importantly, an individual’s physical status, health needs, and goals should be considered.
  3. Improve the health care provider’s ability to screen, assess, and refer survivors for lifestyle programs. Oncology providers have a powerful role in helping cancer survivors; however, they often do not feel confident in screening, giving advice, or administering recommendations for lifestyle-related constructs. Implementation of processes such as the 5As (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, Arrange), which has been successful in tobacco cessation (3) and obesity management (4) might prove beneficial.
  4. Expand the support of oncology-specific professional training and certification. Professional organizations of dietitians, exercise professionals, psychiatrists, and physical therapists have additional certification programs for oncology or are working on developing one for its members. However, professionals with specific expertise in oncology are still greatly needed to address the unique needs of this population.
  5. Expand dissemination and implementation research. Many research programs do not address how a program could be implemented in a real-world setting (external validity). Dissemination of research findings with consideration of the sustainability and generalizability of programs is essential for broader impact.
  6. Advocate for health care policies that support lifestyle services for cancer survivors. Coverage for health programs is highly variable and often has barriers such as large co-payments, no coverage in grandfathered plans, and cost sharing. A potential solution could be incentivizing nutrition and exercise services, although more research is needed to determine the effectiveness of such actions.

As the authors eloquently articulate, the time has come to enable research into action for optimal healthcare in all cancer survivors.

References:

  1. Demark-Wahnefried W, Aziz NM, Rowland JH, Pinto BM. Riding the crest of the teachable moment: promoting long-term health after the diagnosis of cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:5814–30.
  2. Basen-Engquist K, Alfano CM, Maitin-Shepard M, Thomas CA, Schmitz KH, Pinto BM, et al. Agenda for Translating Physical Activity, Nutrition,and Weight Management Interventions for Cancer Survivors into Clinical and Community Practice. Obesity 2017; 25, S9-S22.
  3. Siu AL, Force USPST. Behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions for tobacco smoking cessation in adults, including pregnant women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2015;163:622-634.
  4. Rueda-Clausen CF, Benterud E, Bond T, Olszowka R, Vallis MT, Sharma AM. Effect of implementing the 5As of Obesity Management framework on provider-patient interactions in primary care. Clin Obes 2013; 4, 39-44.

 

Potential mothers, new mothers and mothers of multiples often worry about how their nutrition will affect their children. With the high rates of childhood obesity, some mothers worry more than ever about what they are putting in their bodies. Although this could be a discussion that includes pesticides on food, chemicals in cleaners and even air pollution, let’s just focus on nutrition.

 

It has been shown that a strong predictor of a child’s future BMI is the mother’s pre-pregnancy BMI (Schou-Anderson et al, 2012). This prediction comes from two sources, environment (how parents eat directly influences how children eat) and genetics (especially epigenetics). Epigenetics is how our cells control gene expression without changing the core DNA sequence and can include both DNA methylation and histone modification. It is consistently reported that maternal diet can directly alter DNA binding sites (Aagaard-Tillery et al, 2008) and DNA methylation (Dudley et al, 2011) in the offspring of mothers fed high fat diets. High fat diets contain energy dense foods consisting of >45% of total calories from fat, essentially mirroring the typical Western diet, which is full of highly palatable, highly processed energy dense foods. While this is certainly not a comprehensive list of publications on this topic, it is safe to say that maternal diet can influence an offspring’s risk of developing obesity through epigenetics (a nice review here). Hence the idea that whatever you eat, your baby also experiences.

 

While this may not be a novel concept, it is more important than ever to educate mothers (and fathers!) about the influence their diet could have on their future children’s body composition and their overall risk for obesity-associated diseases. While this information may initially leave parents anxiously asking questions like “Is there anything I can do?!”; “Is the damage already done?”; or “What could I have done differently?”, our goal is to provide information that is both reassuring and accurate knowing that with the right nutritional decisions, your child will be just fine!

 

Multiple studies have shown interventions in eating patterns and exercise work for reducing obesity and risk for associated diseases (reviewed here, here, here, here, here etc.).

 

The trick? Implementing these changes in your families diet and exercise routines to change the trajectory that epigenetics may have imposed when your little one was no larger than a grain of rice.

 

As a new parent you can go no longer than 24 hours without hearing the phrase “Breast is Best.” I know this to be true because I became a parent in June of this year. In the hospital we were offered consults with lactation and had no less than six posters in our room touting the benefits of breastfeeding. As a PhD student I was intrigued by the literature behind these recommendations and eagerly spent multiple late night nursing sessions on my iPad reading the latest research. What I found were some studies finding associations with reduced risk of obesity, and others failing to find this same association (literature). Overall, it was concluded in the previous review that breastfeeding was associated with a reduced risk of obesity.

While this was great news, I could not help but question; was this association because of breastmilk or mode of delivery? Bottle feeding is typically associated with formula feeding but a growing number of women have begun pumping their breastmilk after returning to work or in cases of pre-term birth and latch issues.

Could bottle feeding breastmilk still ameliorate the risk of obesity later in life?

I was not the first person to raise this question which has been addressed here, here, here, and here. Overall the consensus seems to be that early bottle feeding, of breastmilk or formula, is associated with an increased risk for excess weight gain and poor self regulation. Exclusively feeding expressed milk is also associated with early cessation of breast-milk feeding.

So this leads to the inevitable question; what is a mother to do?

While the literature is still unclear if bottled breastmilk can fight obesity risk, it is clear the breastmilk has multiple other benefits according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and should be offered when possible. So to those mothers who pump a little, a lot, or all the time, I say pump on ladies!

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as food stamps until 2008, has its roots in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal as a part of the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933. This act was an effort to reduce the supply-side surplus of agricultural products, which resulted from the demand for increased exports during World War I. The federal government stepped in to restore the purchasing power of agricultural commodities to the levels seen prior to the war, primarily through the taxation of intermediary processers.

In 1939, the “Food Stamps Plan” was passed and began to resemble the current-day SNAP program. The Food Stamps Plan allowed those with low incomes to purchase food stamps with the benefit of a 50% tax-funded match in additional stamps for restricted use on foods designated to be in a surplus. The special stamps for surplus foods were eliminated in 1961.1

Fast forward to 2016 and SNAP has more than 44 million beneficiaries receiving a monthly payment of $125.50 per individual.2 About two-thirds of SNAP recipients are vulnerable individuals such as children, the elderly, and the disabled.  Of those served, 42% earn incomes below 50% of the poverty line, and 40% earn incomes between 51-100% of the poverty line.3 In general, to qualify for SNAP, the individual can’t make over 130% of the federal poverty line in gross monthly income and no more than 100% of the federal poverty line in net monthly income.4  67% of the SNAP recipients are in the aforementioned category of vulnerable individuals and are not expected to work. Of the remaining 33%, about 14% were employed, and 19% were unemployed.3

In a 2015 report by the United States Census Bureau, SNAP was shown to have kept 4.6 million Americans out of poverty, lowering the overall poverty rate by 1.4%.5 The virtues of injecting SNAP monies into the economy have been touted by many Keynesian economists for the theoretical multiplier benefit of consumption spending on the economy. It has been estimated that every $1 spent in the SNAP program generates $1.79 in economic activity.6 Though this point is debated, framing a safety-net program such as SNAP in terms of its downstream effects on the general economy is removed from the intent of the program, which is to provide aid to individuals in need of sustenance. The SNAP program continues to garner much public support as shown by a recent study, which found that 80% of individuals agreed that SNAP benefits should be raised by 19-43% depending on the scenario.7

The current presidential budget proposal for fiscal year (FY) 2018 entitled A New Foundation For American Greatness suggests cutting the SNAP program by 29% over the next ten years. The proposed budget seems to lament that the typical ebb and flow of this public safety-net program has been replaced in recent years by continual spending increases. SNAP participation usually decreases when the economy is strong and increases when the economy is weak. SNAP reached a historic high during the recession, but even with the improved employment numbers since then, “SNAP participation remains persistently high.” Furthermore, the proposed budget states that the reforms to SNAP will “close eligibility loopholes, target benefits to the neediest households, and encourage work.” Loopholes and safeguards against fraud are important steps to take, especially with the knowledge that the amount of SNAP benefits paid in error totaled $2.2 billion in 2009.8 Prominent forms of SNAP fraud include benefits that are exchanged for cash, embellishment on applications to receive more benefits, and disqualified retailers who continued to accept SNAP.9

The budget proposal also suggests a major structural change to the financing of SNAP. Previously, SNAP was fully funded through the federal government with the states covering the administrative costs, but the new budget proposes a state-federal partnership that will phase in and shift 25% of SNAP costs to the states by 2023.10 The presumable intent of this change in financing is to incentivize states to control costs and put more resources into helping recipients seek employment.

In a Miami Herald op-ed, Mick Mulvaney, director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget has defended the proposed budget cuts to the SNAP program as a means of making the government more efficient, decreasing the deficit, and allowing individuals to keep more money in their pockets through decreased taxation.11

In the budget proposal, the SNAP program takes the largest cut relative to other public programs. The widespread public support and historical bipartisan support of SNAP makes it hard to foresee the budget passing as proposed without a revision to this particular suggested cut to SNAP. Though the presidential budget is just a recommendation, there are senators on both sides of the aisle who have expressed the sentiment that the budget in its current form is “dead on arrival.”12 House and Senate Appropriations Committees will be considering the FY 2018 spending bills in July after the Independence Day recess so we will soon find out the depth of cuts to the SNAP program.

References

  1. The History of SNAP. SNAP to Health. https://www.snaptohealth.org/snap/the-history-of-snap/. Accessed June 26, 2017.
  2. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Participation and Costs, 1969-2016.; 2017. https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap. Accessed June 24, 2017.
  3. Chart Book: SNAP Helps Struggling Families Put Food on the Table. Washington, DC; 2017. http://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/chart-book-snap-helps-struggling-families-put-food-on-the-table#part4. Accessed June 25, 2017.
  4. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Fact Sheet on Resources, Income, and Benefits. https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fact-sheet-resources-income-and-benefits. Published 2017. Accessed June 25, 2017.
  5. Renwick T, Fox L. The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2015. Washington, DC; 2016. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-258.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2017.
  6. Hanson K. The Food Assistance National Input-Output Multiplier (FANIOM) Model and Stimulus Effects of SNAP.; 2010. https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=44749. Accessed June 25, 2017.
  7. Kull S, Ramsay C, Lewis E, Williams A. Americans on SNAP Benefits.; 2017. http://vop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/SNAP_Report.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2017.
  8. Brown K. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Payment Errors and Trafficking Have Declined, but Challenges Remain.; 2010. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-956T. Accessed June 24, 2017.
  9. What is SNAP Fraud? https://www.fns.usda.gov/fraud/what-snap-fraud. Published 2017. Accessed June 25, 2017.
  10. A New Foundation For American Greatness – Fiscal Year 2018. Washington, DC; 2017. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2017.
  11. Mulvaney M. Mulvaney: The federal budget released today puts taxpayers first. Miami Herald. http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article152074727.html. Published May 22, 2017. Accessed June 24, 2017.
  12. Gambino L. Republicans voice opposition to Trump’s budget: “Dead on arrival.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/23/republicans-opposition-trump-budget-medicaid-spending. Published May 23, 2017. Accessed June 25, 2017.