As I trust most of you know, My Cousin Vinny is a terrific movie.If you havent seen it, I certainly recommend it.The characters are indelible; the dialogue is terrific; the courtroom tension and the comedic absurdity, both dosed perfectly; and in the end, the good guyswell, I dont want to spoil it.

For todays purposes, my interest is limited to this scene that takes place in a jail cell, as Vinny explains to his cousin/client, the defendant, how compelling the prosecution case can seem and yet be wrong.Of course, they both know the prosecution is wrong- as does the audience- because the defendant is innocent.

I thought of this not long after seeing a video of a recent talk at the Zurich Heart House, sent to me by a colleague, in which a prominent cardiology researcher- known mostly for studies of pharmacotherapy- contends that meat is protective against heart disease, fish is neutral, and vegetables useless.You can look into the researchers platform here, but I cant seem to share the YouTube video.It is no longer accessible, which seems to suggest that somebody other than me found more than a bit amiss with it.

Before debunking this obvious nonsense, lets revisit with Vinny.The prosecution in that trial was wrong, but not unreasonable; incorrect, but not insincere.I am inclined to say the same of Dr. Yusuf, whose overall body of work I very much appreciate.However, in the no-longer-accessible-video, he starts out by noting that he is not expert in nutrition.Thats an odd beginning for a rant against just about every contention predicated on the weight of scientific evidence, and common sense in that very field.It would be as if the attorneys opposing Vinny started out declaring no actual expertise in criminal law.

But leaving out the oddity of self-disqualification, Dr. Yusufs argument that carbohydrate causes heart disease, fat is protective, vegetables are of no help, fish is neutral, and meat is beneficial - is very much like the prosecution case as Vinny characterizes it.Convincing, through legerdemain- but unequivocally wrong.

The irony is that Dr. Yusufs own published work, and his own published assertions about trial design, contribute mightily to the rebuttal.

The study discussed at the Zurich Heart House by Dr. Yusuf last week- the INTERHEART Study- does, indeed, involve some 150,000 people from 17 countries.But, it is a case-control study.

I suspect most people celebrating the talks invitation to consume more pepperoni dont know what that implies, but as someone who has authored textbooks on the matter, I do.This is one of the weakest forms of epidemiologic research, prone to many interpretation errors, subject to many forms of bias, useful for generating but not testing hypotheses, and utterly useless for establishing cause-and-effect.This is fact, acknowledged by all who are trained in epidemiology.More interesting, it is a position Dr. Yusuf has himself advanced, arguing the need for large, simple randomized trials to avoid just such pitfalls.

Of course, there are large, randomized trials showing what dietary patterns defend against heart disease and death- again and again- and they refute the position taken by Dr. Yusuf in his very odd, recent talk.Predictably, perhaps, he made no mention of them.

But that is far from the most damning argument in Dr. Yusufs own body of work against the errant conclusions in the Zurich talk.Consider, for instance, this paper of his about the INTERHEART Study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2014.The abstract states the case in language perfectly clear to scientist and non-scientist alike: cardiac risk factors were more abundant in affluent countries, but cardiac events and death were more common in poor countries.Dr. Yusuf even tells us why that is likely to be the case: better, more routine pharmacotherapy (the main focus of his career), and revascularization (angioplasty and coronary bypass), in the affluent countries.

The logical fallacy in Dr. Yusufs recent conclusions- among them, that meat is protective against heart disease and vegetables are not- is not only flagrant, but flawed at a level that would earn demerits in epidemiology 101.I say this reluctantly, and with genuine surprise that a scholar would so misconstrue even his own work, which has shown just the opposite about both heart disease, and stroke.

Poor countries traditionally eat little meat, and have a very high intake of carbohydrate.In some cases, they have a high intake of fat, too, but from plant sources rather than animal; this is true, for instance, in rural Greece and other Mediterranean populations.In almost no instance do they have a high intake of saturated fat.We know, because its on prominent display, that when countries with traditionally high-plant, high-carbohydrate, low-saturated-fat and low animal food diets switch to the more affluent pattern of eating more meat, their rates of obesity and chronic disease rise.This is perfectly clear in both India and China.In this matter, too, Dr. Yusufs own prolific work inveighs against his recent ruminations.

True poverty has its own serious drawbacks, of course, from general deprivation and stress, to prevalent substance abuse, nutrient deficiencies, and poor medical care.The main reason people do or dont develop coronary arteries plugged up with plaque happens mostly at home, and is all about lifestyle; but the main reason they do or don't have a MI or die of one happens mostly in hospitals, and is all about modern medical care.The very weak, case-control data recently tortured by Dr. Yusuf almost certainly mean that rates of death from heart disease are lower where meat intake is higher because those are the very places where more affluent populations get state-of-the-art cardiac care.

Or, if you prefer the sound bite version: eat your fatty meat, skip the vegetables, and you can stick around anyway thanks not to good health, but the technical skills of your cardiothoracic surgeon.

To see the truth about the prosecutions case, Vinny says you must turn it around, and look at it another way; he compares the geometry of a card to a brick to make his case.If we apply that basic logic here, we might ask: well, what happens within a given population, where access to medical care is the same, when diet is changed?We have the answer.Randomized trials including the Lyons Diet Heart Study, Predimed, and others have shown, over a span of years and in multiple countries, that shifts to more plant foods, unsaturated oils, and less meat reduce heart disease, other chronic disease, and rates of premature death from all causes.

In My Cousin Vinny, the prosecution was not insincere- but they were most assuredly incorrect.Just like them, Dr. Yusuf may have shown views of an argument that looked convincing to the gullible, but that prove to be nothing more than a house of cards.

Senior Medical Advisor, Verywell.com

See the rest here:
My Cousin Vinny's Diet - Huffington Post

A study published by the Korean society of Clinical nutrition, has discussed the findings of an experiment done at a Korean Middle school. In this experiment, 40 subjects (26 students and14 teachers) switched from their normal diets to a vegetarian diet, for a period of 12 weeks. Participants had to answer a questionnaire and do a blood analysis before and after the experiment

After 12 weeks on a completely vegetarian these were results:

1) BMI (body mass index) was reduced. So all participants lost weight 2) TC (Total colestherol ) was reduced in both groups 3) LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholestherol ) or bad cholesterol were reduced 4) Serum calcium and Vitamin B12 was increased in the students and teachers 5) Teachers reported to be less stressed 6) The number of participants facing functional constipation decreased

These results are just a confirmation of a previous study that proved, through a randomized controlled trial of 41 subjects, that increasing the intake of whole grains, fruits and vegetables have an the anti-oxidative effect on the body, which is promoted by a large amount of vitamins that protect cells from the oxidation-induced damage. So, a more vegetarian focused diet may also work as a preventative measure and treatment of various chronic diseases including obesity, diabetes, constipation, and cancer.

The International Journal of Medical Sciences has published review-summary of two in vitro studies performed on the anti- colorectal cancer properties of flavonoids, the polyphenolic compounds found in various fruits and vegetables known to possess antioxidant activities. The most common foods flavonoids are found in are: grapefruits, oranges, tomatoes, blueberries, almonds, pears, strawberries, watermelon and others

In what way do Flavonoids work in the body ?

1) Interfere in the pathway of the most important signaling pathways involved in the diagnosis of colon rectal cancer. 2) Affect one or more of these pathways, resulting in the inhibition of CRC.

In yet another study it was reported Vegetarian and vegan diets increase beneficial plant foods and plant constituents, eliminate the intake of red and processed meat, and aid in achieving and maintaining a healthy weight. The direct and indirect evidence taken together suggests that vegetarian diets are a useful strategy for reducing risk of cancer.

According to Colorectal Cancer statistics, this type of cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. So, researches that involve no invasive ways to treat and prevent millions of people developing cancer and other chronic illnesses related to diet are extremely important

See the original post:
12 weeks in a vegetarian diet improves bowel habits, reduces stress and increases nutritional status - eMaxHealth

A 5-day fasting diet can safely reduce the risk of developing heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and several other health conditions, says a study published in Science Translational Medicine.

A group of 100 adults enlisted their participation for the study: they were divided into two groups, one having to adhere to a special, low-calorie diet that is tantamount to fasting, and the other acting as the control, sticking to their normal eating habits for a period of 3 months. The two batches were compared by a team of researchers from the USC Leonard Davis School of Gerontology.

The effects of this regimen were analysed, and the findings show a decrease in cardiovascular risk factors pertaining to blood pressure, inflammation, fasting glucose level, and levels of a hormone known as IGF-1 which affects metabolism. The fasting-mimicking diet also appears to have contributed to weight loss caused by a reduction in total body fat and trunk fat, and not in muscle mass. The risks of heart disease, diabetes, and heart disease, as well as of other age-related diseases appear to have, thus, been lowered through this diet.

The special diet, lasting for 5 days every month, was composed of food items provided by nutrition company L-Nutra. It was meant to mimic water-only fasts, and limited daily calorie intake between 750 and 1,100. The proportions of proteins, fats, and carbohydrates were precisely defined. After the three-month period, the control group switched to the special diet as well.

The researchers observed that those initially on the fasting-mimicking diet (the first group) lost around 3 kilograms, and their waistlines decreased by 2 to 5 centimetres. Their systolic blood pressure, which was within the normal range at the start of the experiment, decreased by 4.5 mmHG, while their diastolic BP dropped by 3.1 mmHg. Their IGF-1 levels went down to a range associated with a lower risk of developing cancer (21.7 ng/mL 46.2 ng/mL).

Furthermore, participants of the second group showed similar effects when they were moved to the fasting diet. These effects also did not vanish when the participants went back to their normal routine.

The researchers say that the apparent benefits of this diet were more pronounced for those who were already at risk of the diseases.

Fasting seems to be the most beneficial for patients who have the great risk factors for disease, such as those who have high blood pressure or pre-diabetes or who are obese, explains researcher Valter Longo.

While the study demonstrates that the diet in question is both effective and safe for humans, Longo adds that more studies have to be conducted, on a larger scale, to confirm the results of this study.

Read more here:
5-Day Fasting Diet Lowers Risks of Heart Disease, Cancer, & Diabetes - Island Crisis News

20 February 2017 Here are some helpful tips on how to recover from all those lovely festive treats and get back to healthy eating.

The holiday season is notorious for overindulgence. This is why the start of the new year is all about recovery and maintenance. A clever way to help to ensure you are getting all that you need is to consider including a daily multivitamin routine in addition to making good food choices and strive for that balanced diet. Try following these tips to help you be on the pathway to a healthy lifestyle.

1. Ditch the diet. Yes, thats right. Allow yourself some leeway and the odd indulgence; just aim for moderation and not stringent diets that are going to be very hard to maintain.

2. Be a food snob. Parties, work functions, dinners these are all associated with tempting but unhealthy food options. So, before you plate up, do a quick scan and go for the healthiest options. But be sure to reserve a small part of your plate for that one unhealthy temptation. That way youll be nutritionally satisfied while not feeling cheated.

3. Downsize your plate: Most restaurants offer plates and portions that are far bigger than the average person needs. But if its there, chances are youll eat it. Try to dish up on a smaller plate, and before you head back for seconds, take a few minutes to evaluate just how hungry you still are.

4. Eat first: If youre going out for the day or even heading out with friends for a braai, eat before you go. You probably wont get around to ordering your meal or enjoying the food from the braai until much later, by which time you will be ravenous and eat more than you really need.

5. Bring your own food: If youre invited to someones house for a meal, take along your own healthy dish. Not only will you know that theres at least one thing you can safely munch on, but your host might also be grateful for the contribution.

This article is provided through a sponsorship from Pfizer in the interests of continuous medical education. Notwithstanding Pfizer's sponsorship of this publication, neither Pfizer nor its subsidiary or affiliated companies shall be liable for any damages, claims, liabilities, costs or obligations arising from the misuse of the information provided in this publication.

Readers are advised to consult their health care practitioner for specific information on personal health matters as this is not the intention or purpose of the publication. Specific medical advice or recommendations on the clinical management of patients will not be provided by Pfizer. In this regard Pfizer does not support the use of products for off label indications, nor dosing which falls outside the approved label recommendations and readers must refer to the Package Insert of any product for full prescribing guidelines.

More:
5 ways to ensure you stick to your healthy eating plan - Health24

Following a diet that mimics fasting may reduce risk factors for disease in generally healthy people, according to a small study.

Dr. Min Wei of UCLA's Longevity Institute and colleagues tested the effects of the fasting-mimicking diet on various risk factors for diabetes, heart disease, cancer or other conditions.

The diet (FMD; brand name ProLon) is low in calories, sugars and protein but high in unsaturated fats. Forty-eight study participants ate normally for three months while 52 ate FMD for five days each month and ate normally the rest of the time. After three months, the groups switched regimens. Although all participants were considered healthy, some had high blood pressure, low levels of "good" cholesterol, and other risk factors.

A total of 71 people completed the study, which was published in Science Translational Medicine. Body mass index, blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol improved with FMD, but mainly for those who were already at risk. Side effects were mild, including fatigue, weakness and headaches.

Wei and Dr. Valter Longo of the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview published in the journal that while "the great majority" of participants had one or more risk factors for diseases such as diabetes, heart disease or cancer, "FDA trials will be necessary to demonstrate whether periodic FMD is effective in disease prevention and treatment."

Dr. Joseph Antoun, CEO of L-Nutra, Inc., which produces FMD, told Reuters Health by email that FMD "is intended for use by individuals who want to optimize their health and wellbeing, by overweight or obese individuals who want to manage their weight in an easy and healthy way, and by people who have abnormal levels of biomarkers for aging and age-related conditions."

That said, Antoun acknowledged that if you have common conditions associated with overweight and obesity such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer, you should not use FMD without a doctor's approval.

The product also should not be used by children under 18 or pregnant or nursing women. And it's not for you if you have certain metabolic diseases, liver or kidney disorders that may be affected by the very low glucose and protein content of the diet, or if you have nut or soy allergies. What's more, it "should never be combined with glucose-lowering drugs, such as metformin or insulin," according to Antoun.

Registered dietitian Ashlea Braun of the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus pointed out that researchers compared the fasting-mimicking diet to participants' usual diet. "Therefore, we don't yet know how this diet stands up against long-standing approaches already shown to be beneficial, such as the Mediterranean or DASH Diet."

"It's not clear if (FMD) enables individuals to consistently meet all micronutrient requirements," she told Reuters Health by email. "It's also not known how this type of restrictive diet affects muscle mass in the long term, and what impact this has on various indicators of health."

"Although there is some evidence showing these type of restrictive diets can help 'jump start' people considering lifestyle changes, more research is definitely needed before this is recommended for individuals," Braun concluded.

Read more:
'Fasting-mimicking' diet said to reduce risk factors for aging - Fox News

Men's Health

'I Made 3 Changes To My Diet, and Finally Got a Six Pack' Men's Health Carl Parnell remembers being a picky eater at 7 years oldso much so, that his parents just fed him whatever he wanted. While he's been involved with soccer most of his life, the 37-year-old UK native was always a chubby child, even through his ...

Here is the original post:
'I Made 3 Changes To My Diet, and Finally Got a Six Pack' - Men's Health

We do not always need a definitive RCT to know what we know; and I make a living running such trials. Suppose you wanted to know with something nearing certainty what specific dietary pattern was best for human health. How would you proceed?

First, you would need to define best in an operational (i.e., measurable) way. Does best mean lowers LDL in the short term, or does it mean raises HDL, or both? Does it mean it lowers inflammatory markers, or insulin, or blood glucose, or blood pressure? Does it mean all of these, or does it mean something else? Is the short term one month, or three, or a year?

I dont think any of these, or anything like them, really satisfies what we think we mean when we say best for health. I think the intended meaning of that is actually rather clear: the combination of longevity, and vitality. Years in life, and life in years, if you will. I think a diet is best for health and yes, I have wrestled with this very issue before if it fuels a long, robust life free of preventable chronic diseases (e.g., heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, dementia, etc.) and obesity, and endows us with the energy both mental and physical- to do all we want and aspire to do. That, I think, is a robust definition of best for health.

We are obligated to wrestle comparably with the operational definition of a specific diet. Low fat, or low carb dont mean much. A low fat diet could be rich in beans and lentils, or made up exclusively of lollipops. A low carb diet could cut out refined starch and added sugar, or exclude all fruits and vegetables. Lets not belabor this, and simply concede that the relevant test to prove that one, specific dietary prescription (e.g., the Ornish diet, or the South Beach diet, or the DASH diet, etc.) is best is to establish optimized versions of the various contenders, from vegan to Paleo, and put them up against one another directly.

Advertisement

And now our tribulations begin. As we noted at the start, our outcome is the combination of longevity and vitality. To get at longevity, we need a very long trial; in fact, our trial needs to last a lifetime. So, just to get started, we are toying with the notion of a randomized trial running for 80 to 100 years.

Since we are comparing optimal versions of diets reasonably under consideration for best diet laurels, we may anticipate that our study participants are apt to be healthier, and longer-lived in general than the population at large, consuming the lamentable typical American diet.

Thats a problem too. If our entire study sample does well, it raises the bar to show that one of our diets is truly, meaningfully better than another. The smaller the difference we are seeking, the larger the sample size we need to find it. That now means we need not only a RCT unprecedented in length, but unprecedented in size, too. We need to randomize tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands to study the effects of competing diets on vitality and longevity at a cost that is staggering to contemplate, and would certainly run into the billions of dollars.

This study has not been done. This study will not be done. But, so what?

Lets contrast our ostensible need for this RCT to how we know what we know about putting out house fires. There has never been, to the best of my knowledge, a RCT to show that water is a better choice than gasoline. Do you think we need such a trial, to establish the legitimacy of the basic theme (i.e., use water) of the right approach? Would you, and your home, be willing to participate in such a trial when you call 911 knowing you might randomly be assigned to the gasoline arm of the study?

I trust we agree that observation, experience, and sense serve to establish beyond the realm of reasonable (or, even, any) doubt that water is generally good for putting out house fires, and gasolinenot so much.

My friends diet is the same. The want of a RCT addressing this kind of water versus that does not mire us in perpetual cluelessness about the basic approach to putting out fires. Sure, we could do RCTs to add to what we know, but the want of such studies does not expunge what we already know based on empirical evidence, long experience, observation, and sense.

A diet comprised principally of minimally processed vegetables, fruits, whole grains, beans, lentils and pulses, nuts, seeds, with plain water preferentially for thirst is the best theme for human and planetary health alike, and runs commonly through all the legitimate, specific contestants, just as water is the best theme when aiming a fire hose. To conclude otherwise is to misconstrue the utility of randomized trials, succumb to their tyranny, and lose our way in a bog of tribulations.

Dr. David L. Katz, http://www.davidkatzmd.com; is founder, True Health Initiative.

Excerpt from:
Dr. David Katz, Preventative Medicine: Diet Trial Tribulations - New Haven Register

News8000.com - WKBT

Dangers Of Gluten-Free Diet 5newsonline.com HEALTHWATCH - People who eat a gluten-free diet may be at risk for increased exposure to arsenic and mercury. Scientists found that people who reported eating gluten-free foods had higher concentrations of arsenic in their urine and mercury in their ... Gluten-free diet: What's allowed, what's not?News8000.com - WKBT Toxic metal at higher concentrations in gluten-free food?Fox News The hidden health risk in gluten-free dietsWell+Good I4U News -Tech Times -LWW Journals all 45 news articles »

Here is the original post:
Dangers Of Gluten-Free Diet - 5newsonline.com

Want to be sure youre eating enough protein to maintain your muscle mass? Be careful about which sources you choose. Here are four common sources of protein that our dietitians believe will do you more harm than good:

Cleveland Clinic is a non-profit academic medical center. Advertising on our site helps support our mission. We do not endorse non-Cleveland Clinic products or services. Policy

Hot dogs, bacon, sausage and other processed meats may be your guilty pleasure. But their price tag for your health is high.

Hot dogs have very little nutrition for the amount of calories youre consuming, and contain only a small amount of poor-quality protein, says Emily Bostin MS, RDN, LD. Theyre loaded with preservatives and contain mechanically separated meat (pink slime), she notes.

Adds Julia Zumpano, RD, LD, Hot dogs and other processed meats such as salami, pepperoni, and sausage generally contain less protein than a piece of fresh lean meat or fish.

Their high saturated fat and sodium content raises cholesterol and blood pressure, and encourages weight gain.

Most worrisome of all, processed meats are considered carcinogenic. Many contain nitrates or nitrites, which studies link to several cancers. Regularly eating processed meats is correlated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer.

Eating lots of red meat meaning beef, pork and lamb can be hazardous for your health.

Grain-fed red meat is the worst source of protein, due to its high saturated fat content and impact on the environment, says Kristin Kirkpatrick, MS, RD, LD.

Research links diets high in red meat to a higher risk ofheart attackandstroke. The World Health Organization has also named red meats probable carcinogens because they are associated mainly with colon cancer, but also with pancreatic, prostate and other cancers.

And since cattle consume more than 30 percent of the worlds grains, beef is not an efficient source of protein. Cattle also contribute significantly to greenhouse gases.

If you must eat red meat, do so sparingly, and choose grass-fed meats. They are lower in fat, and research shows they contain 50 percent more omega-3 fats than conventionally fed animals, she says.

Add protein powder to your smoothie every morning? Be sure to read the ingredients first. All protein powders are not created equal, says Brigid Titgemeier, MS, RDN, LD.

The protein base can be whey, casein, beef, collagen, hemp, pea or rice.

But some protein powders are also loaded with added sugar, artificial sweeteners, preservatives, etc., she says. And because they are regulated as supplements and not food, protein powders may also contain fillers, binders, colors, flavoring and preservatives.

She recommends choosing a high-quality product that is in line with your eating principals. If youre vegetarian, youll want plant-based protein. If you have a dairy intolerance or allergy, youll want to avoid whey.

As a general rule, she recommends looking for organic protein powders that have few ingredients, and no added sugars, artificial sweeteners, preservatives or fillers.

Are you a cheese lover? Relying chiefly on dairy for your protein has pitfalls. It may be wise to cut back if you want to avoid weight gain.

Most dairy products contain some animal protein: 7 grams in 1 ounce of cheddar cheese, 8 grams in 1 cup of milk, 9 to 17 grams in 8 ounces of yogurt.

But a single ounce of cheddar cheese also has 6 grams of saturated fat.

Its easy to overdo portions of this high-fat protein food, says Anna Taylor, MS, RD, LD. The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend the average diet include no more than 22 grams per day, and those fat grams add up.

Adds Alax Neiswonger, RD, LD, Excess weight increases your risk of diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, heart disease and other health problems.

Lower-fat cheese can have a place in a healthy diet when used in moderation, says Ms. Taylor. She suggests no more than 1 ounce per day.

More protein does not always provider greater benefit, notes Ms. Titgemeier. Too much protein can cause problems with dehydration and can accelerate kidney disease. And more protein may not equal more muscle when youre getting more than you need.

Avoid these unhealthy options when trying to boost protein in your diet. Instead, focus on getting the right amount of protein from the most nutritious sources.

The rest is here:
Protein: The 4 Worst Ways to Beef Up Your Diet - Health Essentials from Cleveland Clinic (blog)

Share on Google Plus Share

The study, conducted by a research group of the UPV/EHU-University of the Basque Country, has analysed the diet of Muslim individuals at the Tauste (Zaragoza) site and has determined the differences existing in diet according to sex and age. This piece of work is part of the PhD thesis being written up by the geologist Iranzu Laura Guede about diet and mobility in the medieval period in the north of the Iberian Peninsula.

This study has applied techniques belonging to geology to address the unknowns that have arisen in other disciplines such as archaeology or anthropology at the archaeological site at Tauste (Zaragoza). Excavations carried out in this municipality disinterred the skeletons of 44 Muslim individuals who lived between the 8th and 10th centuries. On the basis of this discovery, a research group from the UPV/EHUs Department of Mineralogy and Petrology in the Geology Section undertook to analyse dental samples of these human remains to establish the diet of this medieval Muslim community.

The researcher Guede used the technique of laser ablation to carry out targeted analyses of the teeth. One of the features of this technique is that the sample does not need a lot of preparation and that, furthermore, it is not particularly aggressive on the fossil remains. So it allows such remains, which in archaeology are limited, to be conserved, thus preserving them for future studies.

The chemical results have uncovered the existence of considerable differences in the food of adult men compared with that of women and younger people. It has been confirmed that adult males ate more protein of animal origin than the women and younger people, whose diets were richer in pulses and vegetables.

The analyses carried out by this research group have to be anchored in the studies of historians, anthropologists and the archaeologists themselves. Numerical data on their own indicate nothing, but they are essential for supporting the hypotheses and discoveries of archaeologists and historians, stressed Dr Zuluaga, one of the supervisors of Guedes PhD thesis. That is why, even if we cannot find out exactly the origin of the animal protein through these analyses, we can assume that it came above all from sheep and goats on the basis of written texts and anthropological knowledge about medieval Muslim society.

In this respect, studies of this type provide proof that we are what we eat, according to Samuel Epstein (1951), a geologist famous for developing methods for analysing stable isotopes. What we eat goes on to form part of our bodies and provides us with very valuable information that ends up recorded in us, in this case in our teeth.

The study has focussed on the dentine as it is, according to the geologist Iranzu Guede, more suitable than dental enamel for establishing diet: the chemical composition of the dentine is gradually remodelled throughout our lives and that is why the elements that form part of our diet are recorded during the final years of peoples lives.

Besides the food issue, the research has also made other very interesting discoveries such as high lead concentrations in the dentine of four individuals. The concentration of lead is so high that it suggests that they were poisoned by this element, stressed this young researcher. The origin of this element is anthropogenic and, according to various studies, could be due to the work they did involving the handling of lead minerals, possibly in the production of glazes for ceramics.

The mystery of the woman with the earring

Among the individuals found stands out a woman who was buried with an earring. This is a very curious fact as Muslims never buried anyone with jewels or other elements belonging to their lifetimes, explained Iranzu Guede. According to the mobility studies that this PhD student is carrying out, it has been possible to confirm that this woman was born in the town of Tauste, lived outside it for a long time and then returned a few years before her death, although the reasons for her journey will always remain unknown.

This research has also been able to show that this Muslim community was a stable community since, with the exception of two foreign men and women, most of the people were born and died in Tauste.

Site with 4,500 individuals

This site was discovered as a result of work carried out on the public thoroughfare of the municipality; subsequently, the cultural association El Patiaz carried out various interventions between 2010 and 2013. The excavations were conducted under the supervision of the archaeologist Francisco Javier Gutirrez, who believes there could be up to 4,500 graves across the two hectares that may have been occupied by this necropolis. The anthropological study of the human remains discovered has been carried out by the anthropologist Miriam Pina.

At the same time, carbon 14 dating establishes that this population lived between the 8th and 10th centuries during a febrile era following the conquest by the Muslims. In fact, these pieces of research have been essential in confirming the Muslim presence in a settlement in which their existence had been unknown.

The study by Iranzu Guede is part of her PhD thesis supervised by Dr Maria Cruz Zuluaga and Dr Luis ngel Ortega and which studies the mobility and diet in different settlements during the Middle Ages in the north of the Iberian Peninsula.

Share on Google Plus Share

Original post:
Diet and mobility end up recorded in our bones and in our teeth - HeritageDaily