Tak nak makan nasi la, nak diet...

gambar nasi yang cam best... huhu

When common people talked about dieting (the lay-man's term for weight management), one of the most common advise that they will give you is to avoid rice and substitute rice with other carbohydrate such as noodles or bread...  

Although many have given testimonials that this practice works, the question remains, is there any scientific evidence to back up this claim? 

During our clinical nutrition attachment to KK Beserah, this topic was raised and the answer provided by the dietitian was that there is no point in replacing rice with bread if you end up eating more bread to satisfy your hunger... 

There is some merit to this answer, this dietitian emphasize more on the portion of the food compared to the type of carbohydrates... This is because it is a well known fact that, there are many of us whose hunger cannot be satisfied with certain carbohydrates... For example, you might often hear something like "Eh, roti je ke, mana kenyang...". 

But still she did not answer the question...

I have read another article in newspaper which divides rice into white rice and brown rice... The article continue to bash white rice as the source of all evil (obesity etc) while promoting brown rice as the better alternative... In the end, it concludes that eating rice is the healthier option due to proteins present in rice etc but suggested people to take brown rice instead of white rice... From my opinion, this article do not give any credit to other carbohydrates, it only present one-sided arguments on rice only...

Then, there is a pamphlet on Glucerna SR formula which I read while doing community pharmacy attachment last semester... It compares different carbohydrates based on their glycemic index... Let me quote some info on glycemic index before I go on any further...     

     The glycemic index (GI) is a ranking of carbohydrates on a scale from 0 to 100 according to the extent to which they raise blood sugar levels after eating. 

     Foods with a high GI are those which are rapidly digested and absorbed and result in marked fluctuations in blood sugar levels. Low-GI foods, by virtue of their slow digestion and absorption, produce gradual rises in blood sugar and insulin levels, and have proven benefits for health. 

     Low GI diets have been shown to improve both glucose and lipid levels in people with diabetes (type 1 and type 2). They have benefits for weight control because they help control appetite and delay hunger. Low GI diets also reduce insulin levels and insulin resistance.

Now, back to the argument rice versus other carbohydrates...  The pamphlet showed that rice have a high glycemic index value compared to noodles, brown rice and some other carbohydrates... Thus, eating rice would cause the blood glucose to spike, make you feel hungry earlier and all the other disadvantages of eating high glycemic index food... 

People who want to lose weight should avoid high glycemic food and substitute them with lower glycemic index food...

Neway, I don't have that pamphlet with me anymore, that is why I stop short of providing any values of glycemic index in the paragraph above... Maybe I'll stop by at the pharmacy to take another pamphlet (someday in the distant future)...

There are a lot more reference on glycemic index of food in the internet but most of them usually contain western food (pasta) instead of Malaysian food (such as noodles etc), thus making comparison can be a bit difficult... 

Furthermore, glycemic index apply to all carbohydrates,  even food with simple sugar like glucose, thus it kinda make the list of glycemic index values into a very long list containing every fruits and products like honey, which actually defeats the purpose of having that index because the long complicated list makes it harder for common people to assess their food themselves...

Conclusion:
Yes, substituting white rice for other low glycemic index food such as brown rice, noodles and whole wheat bread is good for health, especially for those who are trying to lose weight... However, in addition to choosing the better source of carbohydrate, the meal portion should also be followed....  

-end of post-

Ps: I still eat rice.. and also other carbohydrates... Hehe

Banana Boat Lotion

This is what you will get if you google "banana boat lotion"...

This is one of the assignment in Dosage Design 2 that I have been assigned to... Since I had spent quite an effort to find the details of this product, might as well I posted it here for reference... Now if anyone (customers, patients etc) asked you about sunscreen lotion, you can refer to my blog and enlighten them.... Hehe  

Banana Boat lotion is designed to be waterproof and provide protection from the sun's UVA and UVB rays. The product comes in SPF (Sun Protection Factor) 15, 30, 85 and 100. The difference between these formulations is the amount of the active ingredients the product contains. The manufacturers claim this product is non-greasy and sweat-resistant. Banana Boat lotion contains 31 ingredients.

Active Ingredients

Banana Boat lotion has 5 active ingredients, all of which are sun-screening agents. The lotion contains the chemical avobenzone (1% concentration), Homosalate (10%), and oxybenzone (4%), octisalate (5%),  octocrylene (0.80%) for the SPF 30 formula

Moisturizers

Banana Boat lotion contains 4 moisturizers to help skin maintain a supple state. Water adds moisture to skin immediately and helps formulate the texture of the lotion. Stearyl alcohol , glycerin, caprylyl glycol are also moisturizing agents in the lotion.

Emulsifiers and Preservatives

Emulsifiers keep these substances from separating, while preservatives are added to the formula to prevent the possible formation of potentially harmful microorganisms.

Behenyl alcohol and cetaryl alcohol are emulsifiers that also act as emollients to keep skin from drying out.

Glyceryl stearate citrate, disodium ethylene, dicocamide PEG-15 disulfate, dimethyl capramide and cetearyl alcohol work as emulsifiers.

Lecithin, carbomer, xanthan gum, phenoxyethanol and disodium EDTA act as preservatives.

Other Ingredients

Hydrogenated Dimer Dilinoley/Dimethylcarbonate Copolymer is a chemical included in Banana Boat lotion designed to keep the product waterproof. This ingredient allows the product to stay on the skin when exposed to water, resulting in fewer applications throughout the day. 

and this is what you will get if you google "banana boat" only.... huhu

Kopi buah-buahan

It has been awhile back when i accidentally came across an advertisement for a pre-packed coffee which stated that it's pre-packed coffee product is suitable for diabetes patients because it uses "gula buah"... 

I am still not convinced that it can be consumed by diabetic patients... Thus starting my journey to read more on "gula buah"... When i googled it, I found that fructose is the most common type of sugar present in most fruits... Assuming that the company is referring to fructose, this is what i summarized from wikipedia:

  

Fructose is often recommended for diabetics because it does not trigger the production of insulin by pancreatic ß cells, probably because ß cells have low levels of GLUT-5 (Fructose-only Transporter). 

Fructose has a very low glycemic index of 19 ± 2, compared with 100 for glucose and 68 ± 5 for sucrose. Fructose is also seventy-three percent sweeter than sucrose at room temperature, so diabetics can use less of it. 

Studies show that fructose consumed before a meal may even lessen the glycemic response of the meal. Its sweetness changes at higher temperatures, so its effects in recipes are not equivalent to those of sucrose (i.e., table sugar)

However, all fruits have different contents of fructose, glucose and sucrose, some have more glucose, and some have more fructose... Here are the examples i found comparing sugar content in different fruits:

Sugar content of some common fruits (g/100g)

Fruits	Total Carbohydrates	Total Sugars	Free Fructose	Free Glucose	Sucrose
Apple	13.8	10.4	5.9	2.4	2.1
Apricot	11.1	9.2	0.9	2.4	5.9
Banana	22.8	12.2	4.9	5.0	2.4
Grapes	18.1	15.5	8.1	7.2	0.2
Peach	9.5	8.4	1.5	2.0	4.8
Pineapple	13.1	9.9	2.1	1.7	6.0
Pear	15.5	9.8	6.2	2.8	0.8

The downside is that fructose can only be metabolized in liver (compared to glucose which can be metabolized by almost all types of cells) thus causing liver stress when taken in excess... Other side effects of excess consumption of fructose are diarrhoea, metabolic syndromes, gout etc (read on your own)...

In conclusion, I have found out that fructose is suitable for diabetic patients compared to glucose, however, there are side effects when taken in excess... Therefore, the best solution is not to have diabetes... :)  

ps:This article is written in the assumption that the product I stated earlier contains fructose only... If the product contains glucose and sucrose as well, it should be avoided by diabetes patients...

Nuclear energy…. The greener choice…

If you read my profile, you’d notice d that one of the core issues that I am interested in is the environmental issues, which is a complex issue which is very much related with other issues such as energy and economy.

Carbon dioxide emission leads to irreversible green house effect which destroys the Earth as a whole.Thus, these emissions must be controlled, and minimized in order to preserve the environment. Coal and hydrocarbon are the most polluted energy sources as they emit massive amount of carbon dioxide.

Nuclear energy (in this article referring to fission reactors, not fusion reactors) on the other hand is much more environment-friendly and not-to-mention costs much less economically. 

Environment friendly is due to the fact that it did not emit CO2 and only a small amount fission material (eg. Uranium) is needed to produce a very large amount of energy. The waste product of nuclear material is still emitting radiation, but can be processed to be used as radiopharmaceuticals for example. However, managing a nuclear plant must be done with extra care to prevent nuclear-waste spill which can leads to unwanted health-deteriorating radiation emission.

Economic-wise, as only a small amount of fission material is needed to generate a very large amount of energy, the cost to generate energy would be minimized and we would then enjoy lower tariff for electricity. Currently, the energy in Malaysia is very much dependent on oil, natural gas and coal, and the ever-increasing price of these hydrocarbons makes the cost of generating energy to be increasing higher and higher, leading to increasing electricity tariff as time goes by. I once read that Malaysia only needed ONE large (standard size) nuclear reactor to fulfill the energy needs of the people, compared to maybe 50 of coal and hydrocarbon generators in use now.

However, I think that Malaysia would not opted for the large reactors but maybe build smaller nuclear reactor models such as being used in South Korea. Maybe, instead of having one high radiation area, it is a good option to have more areas but emitting much less radiation.

On the downside:

The Malaysian environmentalists uses the age-old mantra of nuclear reactor emit radiation and possibility of nuclear disaster. I do not agree with their weak arguements. Malaysian environmentalists, unlike international environmentalists (like me) do not think of the situation as a whole. They are not thinking of about the economic sense, the technological points, the very unhealthy addiction to hydrocarbons, the condition that one day the hydrocarbons would be depleted and the green house effect. Malaysian environmentalist only care about the radiation around the area where the nuclear reactor will be built. Where are they when the world is discussing the climate change topic in Copenhagen (if I am not mistaken in copenhagen), they should at least have made a strong media statement to lobby the government to present with a strong green solution.

Some writers present the point that nuclear disaster is possible in Malaysia (although unheard of in the present time) because of the lack of maintenance culture in Malaysia. This itself is not a strong point to be discussed, I don’t care, hire a foreign company to run it if you want to make sure it is safe. 

Neway, for those people out there who do not know yet that Malaysia has already have a small nuclear reactor in Agensi Nuklear Malaysia for about 20 years and I would say that it is managed just well by the Malaysians.

Some Pakatan Rakyat leaders (Lim Guan Eng and Khalid) have argued that we do not need the nuclear reactor because our energy reserve is very high (about 40%) when it should be much lower. Energy reserve is the energy which is generated but not used (quite a waste kan). They also argued that the Bakun Hydroelectric Dam would be operational soon (dunno when) but would solve the energy problem in the near future. 

I agree with them, BUT the nuclear energy takes about 10 to 15 years to be developed and we must not delay, we must start now because this is for the future not for now. We cannot just wake up one day and want a nuclear energy, this needs time. Yes, certain measures must be pushed forward to solve the energy crisis now but we are not discussing this in this article, we are discussing on the future energy needs of Malaysia.

The conclusion:

Nuclear energy is a clean source of energy and it is safe (provided that the management is according to international standards). The nuclear initiatives must start now as it would take years before the energy can be harvested. I think that nuclear is not be the only solution, but it would be the centerpiece of the solution to the energy and environment problems. Nuclear energy complemented with other renewable energy sources such as solar power and wind power may provide a clean energy for the Malaysians in the future. I hope the present Malaysian government will not flip-flop on this issue.

Go Green…