March 31, 2008
"Corn prices have skyrocketed in recent years, helped by the burgeoning ethanol industry, which turns the crop into fuel, and rising world-wide demand for food. The higher prices have hurt poultry, beef and pork companies, who use corn to feed their animals."
Here's a thought -- how about feeding these animals the foods they are meant to eat?
In the case of cows, not only is a corn diet detrimental to their digestive systems, it also results in meat higher in saturated fat and omega-6 fatty acids than that of cows subsisting exclusively on a grass diet.
The repercussions also affect our wallets.
"Corn already is trading near its record-high price of $5.70 a bushel, more than double the price of two years ago."
Meat and dairy prices will continue to rise.
Additionally, since a large portion of this country's food supply is based around corn oil and corn-based syrups, expect bread and convenience snacks to also take a hit.
For more information on this very complex topic, I direct you to a highly informative 2002 interview with corn guru Michael Pollan.
Vitamin C? Check.
Four teaspoons of sugar? Check.
A third of a day's maximum sodium recommendation? Check.
(Insert sound of record coming to a screeching halt here).
Tomato-based pasta sauces are, in theory, nutritionally superior to cream-based ones.
Unfortunately, many popular brands provide as much sugar as half a can of Coke -- and as much salt as four strips of bacon -- in a mere half cup serving.
Some of the worst offenders are listed below (remember, these values are for just a half cup)!
Ragu Old World Style Marinara Sauce: 780 milligrams of sodium
Ragu Old World Style Traditional sauce: 780 milligrams of sodium
Prego "With meat" Sauce: 12 grams (1 tablespoon) of added sugar
Ragu Chunky Garden Style sauce: 13 grams (1 tablespoon) of added sugar
Prego Traditional Sauce: 15 grams (1.3 tablespoons) of added sugar
Did I mention they all contain high fructose corn syrup?
To make sure your healthy pasta dishes aren't tainted by sauces, take a look at the label.
Choose ones offering no more than 4 grams of sugar and 350 milligrams of sodium per half cup serving.
Some recommendations? Colavita, Rao's, and Muir Glen Organic.
Are 800 calorie diets really that bad?
I was told that if you eat below 600 calories, your body goes into starvation mode.
But if you stay from 600-1000, then you're guaranteed weight loss?
I just want to figure out what I'm doing wrong and fix it.
I recall you saying that's the wrong way to go but then why do so many dietitians and weight management centers recommend this ?
-- Janie (last name unknown)
I want to point out that this should always be looked at as a work in progress, and a process that isn't consistently moving in one direction.
Low calorie diets (those going below the minimum daily recommended intake of 1,200 calories) are a terrible idea.
I take issue with the entire concept of a "diet."
If you go on one, you will inevitably go off it. And then what?
Most likely, old habits return -- along with the weight you initially set out to lose.
What I recommend is a metamorphosis towards improved dietary patterns and relationships with food.
An emotional setback or particularly stressful time, for instance, might have you reverting to old dietary patterns or seeking out high-calorie, sugar-laden comfort foods.
Not surprisingly, in a society where we are basically told that if we do not get what we want in 7 days or less we might as well resign ourselves to the fact that we are failures, this thinking doesn't exactly dominate the mainstream media.
Instead, people are told that in order to lose weight, they must:
Believe that food does not make them fat (The Secret)
Not eat brown rice and chicken in the same meal (Suzanne Somers)
Get a colonic every 2 days (Kevin Trudeau)
Drink a hideous mix of maple syrup, lemon juice, and cayenne pepper (Hollywood fast).
And so on and so forth.
If any dietitian, weight center, or book recommends that you eat less than 1,200 calories a day, RUN – do not walk – away.
Going below this figure poses several problems.
From a weight loss perspective, metabolism slows down (especially since the thyroid gland slows down production of thyroxine, a hormone that plays a major role in metabolism), lean mass is lost, and muscle tissue is broken down in order to create glucose.
So, when you return to your normal caloric intake, you will undoubtedly gain weight because your body is no longer as efficient at burning calories.
Going below 1,200 calories is also problematic from a health perspective.
With such low caloric intakes, it is extremely difficult to obtain necessary nutrients from food, including fiber, calcium, iron, and potassium.
Sure, there are always supplements, but healthy compounds like polyphenols, lignans, and certain antioxidants are exclusively found in foods, not pills.
What always strikes me as odd is that many times I see people who normally consume 2,500 calories start a 1,200 calorie diet overnight.
If that person were to simply slash 500 calories each day, they can enjoy 2,000 calories on a daily basis and kick-start weight loss.
You mention not knowing "what you are doing wrong."
I am assuming you are having a difficult time losing weight.
I do not know your individual circumstances, but by reducing your caloric intake (say, by 300 calories each day) and increasing your physical activity, you should begin seeing slow, steady results.
If this is not the case, I recommend having your thyroid checked by an endocrinologist.
March 30, 2008
I have messed up my BMR with my undereating and am in almost malnourished state.
I want to increase my BMR and lose some fat.
From what I understand, maintenance and weight loss is figuring out the equation between calories intake and daily activity.
I just want to know how to estimate a calorie range I should go for and amount of exercise I need to do daily.
I am small - medium frame woman, 130 pounds, and 5' 4", with almost no muscle tone.
-- Mandy (last name unknown)
You claim to have messed up your basal metabolic rate due to undereating to the point where you are in a “malnourished state”, yet are looking to lose fat?
In any case, to answer your question – yes, weight loss and maintenance comes down to figuring out the net result of calories in (food) minus calories out (metabolism).
Our basal metabolic rate -- the amount of calories we burn off simply by existing -- is ultimately determined by a variety of factors, among them age, genetics, physical activity, dietary paterns, body composition, and hormonal activity.
This last point is especially important. Thyroxin, produced by the thyroid gland, plays a crucial role in metabolism.
In hypothyroidism, very little thyroxin in produced, and BMR is significantly lowered.
If you are cutting calories appropriately and upping physical activity for several weeks and see absolutely no changes, pay a visit to an endocrinologist and have your thyroid gland checked.
Thyroid issues apart, many people appear to forget that some of these factors change with time, age being the most obvious.
This is one reason why, as people age, they find that weight “creeps up on them.”
The 2,500 calories once needed to maintain weight can be too many -- and cause weight gain -- ten years later.
This is where knowing TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) also comes in handy.
TDEE lets you know how many calories you approximately burn each day on top of what your body uses up as a result of standard bodily processes.
So how do you determine all these numbers?
First, calculate your BMR.
You can easily find that out by plugging some basic numbers into Discovery Health’s BMR Calculator.
If you want to get slightly more technical, you can also use the Mifflin-St Jeor formula, developed in 1990, which goes something like this:
Male BMR = 10* (weight in kg) + 6.25* (height in cm) - 5* (Age)+ 5
Female BMR = 10* (weight in kg)+ 6.25* (height in cm) - 5* (Age) -161
NOTE: To convert pounds to kilograms, divide by 2.2 To convert inches to centimeters, multiply times 2.54.
Prior to this, the Harris-Benedict formula (created in 1919) was used. While useful, Mifflin-St.Jeor results in more accurate numbers.
Ok, now: to calculate TDEE multiply your BMR by:
1.2 if you perform little to no physical activity
1.38 if you perform light physical activity a few times a week
1.55 if you perform moderate physical activity at least 3 times a week
1.725 if you perform intense physical activity on a daily basis
1.9 if you perform intense physical activity several times a day or have a very physically demanding job.
Whatever number you get is how many calories you need to maintain your desired body weight.
If you wish to lose -- or gain -- weight, simply subtract – or add – fifteen percent to that figure.
By consuming fifteen percent less calories and increasing your physical activity, you will certainly shed weight.
The fact that you mention having “no muscle tone” is significant, since increasing lean muscle mass is a sure-fire way to speed up metabolism.
This is why weight-bearing exercises are highly recommended -- they help with bone density and metabolism.
Alas, weight loss comes back to the tried and true advice of “eat less, move more.”
March 29, 2008
"Mr. Weis, an exercise enthusiast, has shocked more than a few people with talk of mandatory fitness tests and maximum body-fat allowances (only after a year’s physical education and with exceptions, of course)."
There is even talk of installing kitchens in station houses, so as to lower officers' reliance on doughnuts, pizza, hot dogs, and fries.
I think that without proper nutrition education, though, installing a kitchen is virtually useless.
An officer may not frequent fast food restaurants, but could very well still eat just as poorly (think Hungry Man frozen dinners, frozen pizzas, and Ramen noodles).
I support Mr. Weis' intentions, but focusing solely on exercise -- and apparently leaving nutrition out of the equation -- leaves a vital piece out of this puzzle.
My advice? Add on a few free of charge mandatory nutrition 101 sessions for the squad.
March 28, 2008
(Note: A healthy BMI ranges from 18.5 to 25. 'Overweight' is characterized as 25 - 30, and obese is marked by a BMI of 30 or more).
As I have mentioned in the past, BMI (essentially a weight: height ratio) is not the most accurate measurement of weight status when dealing with individuals.
One limitation to this formula is that it does not differentiate between muscle and fat.
Therefore, a bodybuilder will misleadingly have a BMI in the "obese" category.
When looking at large populations, though, I find BMI to be an accurate barometer, particularly when we are talking about the average adult in this country being on the verge of clinical obesity.
It is also worth pointing out that there is a clear upward trend.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the average adult in the United States had a BMI of 25 in 1960.
I very, very highly doubt that the latest figure of 29 is due to more muscle mass, especially since this perfectly corelates to the increasing amount of calories consumed per capita in the past forty years.
March 27, 2008
A young smiling girl is shown front and center, and Kraft acknowledges that, quelle surprise, “children who eat their lunch do better in school”.
I truly don’t understand how Oscar Mayer Lunchables fit into this wholesome “we have your child’s best interests at heart” theme, though.
For example, the Ultimate Nachos (bundled with a Capri Sun drink and some cookies) contain:
8 grams saturated fat (40 percent of a day’s maximum)
1290 sodium (that’s half a day’s worth!)
2 grams of fiber.
The turkey and American cheese cracker stackers, also bundled with a
6 grams of saturated fat (30 percent of a day’s maximum)
770 milligrams of sodium
0 grams of fiber
The crackers, apart from being made entirely of refined carbohydrates, contain partially hydrogenated oils and high fructose corn syrup.
Then there’s the deep dish extra-cheesy pizza pack. It comes with crispy M&M’s and a Capri Sun drink (sounds so healthy, doesn’t it?) and provides:
9 grams of saturated fat (45 percent of a day’s maximum)
1,240 milligrams of sodium
4 grams of fiber
61 grams (15 teaspoons) of added sugar.
That is on par with wolfing down a Big Mac and medium soda at McDonald’s.
It's one thing to have these products on the shelf along with cookies and potato chips, where they are surrounded by other nutritionally empty foods.
It's shameful, though, to sell these products and stand behind a message of nutrition, healthy eating, and child welfare.
I took this photo at supermarket chain Disco because, if anything, it shows that marketing to children -- and their parents -- is a global phenomenon.
The box you see on your right is for Nesquik cereal -- in essence, chocolate flavored corn puffs.
But wait, what does that huge sign at the bottom say? Translated to English:
"All Nestlé breakfast cereals now made with whole grains."
Note the "made with" whole grains (although whole wheat flour and oats are included, so is standard white flour).
Sugar is the second ingredient, by the way.
The nutrition label reveals that a 1-ounce (1 cup) serving provides:
1.1 gram of fat
200 milligrams of sodium
1.5 grams of fiber
10.5 grams (2.5 teaspoons) of sugar
3 grams of protein
Is it absolute junk food? I wouldn't be so harsh.
What is very frustrating, though, is that the big hoopla about whole grains is nothing but a desperate marketing strategy aimed at parents.
You would think a food so boastful of its whole grain content would at least offer 3 grams of fiber per serving.
To put this into context, a cup of this cereal contains as much fiber as a mere half banana or half an orange.
By the way, the standard calculation for children's fiber needs is: child's age plus five.
So, a 10 year needs approximately 15 grams of fiber a day.
Starting the morning off with a cup of Nesquik cereal and half a cup of milk (regardless of its fat content) represents a mere ten percent of that child's daily requirement!
I am not calling for parents to ban these kinds of cereals from their cupboards.
I do, however, want them to recognize these as sweet treats, NOT healthy sources of fiber.
March 26, 2008
The two women, interested in shaping up and getting healthier, agreed to four months of personal training, home delivered meals, and diary entries to later be published in the fashionista's Bible.
After sixteen weeks of training six days a week and consuming approximately 1,300 calories a day, Kate lost thirty pounds; her sister, twenty.
Needless to say, controversy has erupted.
"They are perpetuating unrealistic body images," some claim.
Others think Vogue is sending out the wrong message that in order to be succesful, one must be thin.
Now look, I am by no means a fashion guru and am often horrified at the gaunt, clearly underweight bodies that march down runways at fashion shows.
In this case, though, I don't see what the problem is.
It is worth noting that in one of her diaries, Kate writes:
"Funnily enough, just before we received the call from Vogue about this story, Laura and I went to see our doctor for a physical.
Our mother was worried about out workload and lack of exercise; we wanted to be healthier and balance our stress levels."
These were not size 4 models dining on coffee and cigarrettes being told they were "too fat" to walk down a runway (you can see a photo of Kate and Laura prior to their makeover by clicking on their names at the start of this post).
The Mullavys were also never given the message that if they "wanted to make it" as designers, then they better lose weight.
They are already accomplished and successful.
The magazine featured their work -- and complimented their designs -- several times before this weight loss article was conceived.
Their present weight is a healthy one -- they are not emaciated or displaying unhealthy bodies.
I also appreciated that their plan consisted of pre-set meals (to ensure that they were nutritionally balanced, rather than just letting the two women figure out how to eat correctly on a 1,300 calorie diet) and implemented exercise under the supervision of a trained professional.
Another interesting tidbit from their diary entries:
"“We’ll have wine when we feel like it and cheat on holidays.”
In short, these are two adult women who chose to participate in something they saw as a way to improve their health.
In the same way that someone has the right to feel completely content and self-assured with fifteen extra pounds on them, it is also reasonable to expect that there are overweight people who truly want to improve their health and, why not, look better too.
This was not a challenge the sisters had to complete successfully in order to launch their clothing line.
At no point do the Mullavys mention doing this to "look hot", land significant others, or fit into a dream bikini. And, they currently report feeling healthier and more energetic than before.
I realize they went on a strict eating plan and exercise regimen, but they were not taking diet pills, cutting out food groups, or doing senseless things like subsisting on liquids concoctions made of cayenne pepper, lemon juice, and honey for a week (I'm looking at you, Beyoncé).
The New York Times article quotes Dr. Cynthia Bulik, eating disorders professor at The University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, who makes a very good point:
"“I saw more of an emphasis on healthy eating and healthy fitness than an order, ‘You’ve got to lose weight."
I do, however, absolutely side with the feminist-thinking folks at Radar magazine, who can't help but wonder that if Vogue editors are so concerned about people's health, why don't they ask a dietitian to have a chat with fashion guru Andre Leon Talley?
What are your thoughts?
March 25, 2008
As ridiculous as that may sound, Jennifer’s comments on breastfeeding left me even more puzzled:
“My mom didn’t breast feed and I think that was the thing for me. You read and figure out what’s the best thing for them.”
“My mom didn’t breast feed and I think that was the thing for me. You read and figure out what’s the best thing for them.”
Can a baby be healthy and grow adequately without breastfeeding? Absolutely. I certainly do not side with breastfeeding fanatics who equate bottle feeding with bad parenting or negligence.
I also understand that not every woman can -- or wants -- to breastfeed. Women have every right to choose, and I find it obnoxious when people criticize this very personal choice
What I have a problem with is Jennifer Lopez's notion that she chose bottle feeding based on "what is best for her babies." While bottle feeding is certainly not detrimental to a growing baby, it is inaccurate to claim it is identical to breastfeeding.
Some studies have concluded that breastfed babies have stronger immune systems, decreased risks of developing ear infections and diarrhea, lower infant mortality rates, enhanced neurological development, better oral health (due to a different suckling motion than drinking from a bottle).
Breast milk is not only tailored to fully meet a baby’s nutritional needs for the first six months, it also contains naturally tranquilizing hormones.
Some studies are less enthusiastic about health benefits from breastfeeding, but that does not take away that breastmilk is always clean and at the right temperature.
They recommend it as the sole source of food for the first six months of a baby’s life, and as a complementary source from six to twelve months of age.
They are not alone.
The World Health Organization, UNICEF, and The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are just some of the organizations that hold the same position.
Formula is okay, but undoubtedly second best.
Part of the problem is that most hospitals in the
Many do not have lactation specialists on staff, and they immediately bombard mothers with baskets of formula.
Once a woman feeds her baby formula, it is very hard to get her to commence breastfeeding.
Breastfeeding is a technique and skill that needs to be learned. It is not innate.
This is why it is crucial to have trained specialists on staff who can teach new mothers the right positions for breastfeeding and how to handle common problems like mastitis (inflammation of the breast) and sore nipples.
In 1991, WHO and UNICEF launched the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative.
The ten steps hospitals must follow to be an official baby-friendly one can be viewed here.
Here’s a shockingly low figure – of the 5,810 hospitals in the
The full list can be viewed here. I was very shocked to discover that
Another huge barrier to low breastfeeding rates in the country? The ridiculous and undeserved taboo!
Last April, ABC News reported that an astounding 57 percent of people in this country believe women do not have a right to breastfeed in public.
What is so wrong about a woman feeding her baby in a natural and healthy way?
Has our culture’s common practice of hypersexualizing women’s bodies completely screwed with our heads?
Here’s an even more astounding figure – 72 percent of people surveyed believe it is “inappropriate” to show a woman nursing on television!
Here’s an even more astounding figure – 72 percent of people surveyed believe it is “inappropriate” to show a woman nursing on television!
So Jerry Springer (well, now his former security chief Steve Wilkos, who took over the show) can show people verbally and physically attacking each other before noon, and it's considered perfectly okay to see someone get shot or stabbed on primetime television, but people choose to tear their hair in some ridiculous "moral" outrage over something as harmless as breastfeeding?
Color me confused -- and pretty disgusted.
If anything, breastfeeding needs to stop being relegated to the "naughty" corner. It needs to be talked about, discussed, and out in the open.
March 24, 2008
"I pee a lot," she comments.
That's an understatement!
The "drink lots of water for your skin" myth is just as prevalent as the "drink eight glasses of water every day" one.
For some reason, celebrity and beauty magazines fully embrace it.
I suppose it provides Hollywood's glitterati a "beauty tip" to always fall back on when the question comes up.
Because, really, saying "kickass genes, expensive chemical peels, killer airbrushing, and a stylist at my beckon call" wouldn't sit well with readers.
Anyhow, allow me to explain why chugging water all day will not do much for your skin.
Hydration levels of our skin are largely determined by the sebaceous glands, located on the dermis (the layer of skin right underneath the one visible to the eye).
These glands are responsible for producing sebum, an oily, waxy-ish substance that helps protect water in our skin from evaporating.
Not surprisingly, insufficient natural lubrication is one of the main causes of dry skin.
External factors -- harsh temperatures, air conditioning, heat (especially in winter months when we are cooped up indoors), exposure to the sun, showering too often, and soaps made with strong chemicals -- decrease sebum production, as does aging.
From a nutritional standpoint, significant deficiencies in Vitamin A are associated with dry skin.
Drinking excessive amounts of water, however, is useless, as it will not penetrate the epidermis (the topmost layer of the skin), which is in need of excess hydration.
Let me be clear here. Getting enough hydration is definitely important, but this can be from variety of fluids as well as water naturally found in foods.
There is no need to chug down three extra liters of water every day.
The best thing you can do for you skin is apply moisturizer on a daily basis, especially right after a shower (this helps lock in moisture).
During winter months, humidifiers are also helpful in preventing overly dry indoor environment.
Although a great beverage -- and essential nutrient -- water is not a drinkable skin miracle potion.
On March 20,"the top court upheld, at least for the time being, a ban on a corn variety produced by the American seed company Monsanto."
Said variety is genetically modified, leading to fears by environmentalists and farmers that "the corn, which confers resistance to pests, could pollute other crops and pose a threat to the environment and human health."
One prominent threat is gene transfer, also known as outcrossing.
This entails genetically modified seeds "cross-breeding" with non-genetically-modified crops as a result of something as simple as pollen spreading due to wind or animals.
Apart from the impact this has on the stability of flora in any given environment, unfortunate financial repercussions are felt by farmers.
There are cases of farmers in Canada being sued by -- and losing to -- Monsanto after the company's patented genetically modified rapeseed seeds blew over onto their property.
The most famous case -- Monsanto Canada v. Schmeiser -- is excellently summarized by Wikipedia.
Remember, Monsanto is the same agricultural biotechnology company that produces recombivant bovine growth hormone.
Europe is generally less tolerant of genetically modified foods than the United States. In fact, milk containing rBGH is banned in the Old Continent.
Let's finish off this post with some humor.
Here is a funny -- but true! -- tidbit from 2000 about a Monsanto cafeteria in British Columbia proudly advertising the absence of genetically modified soy and corn in their food.
In case the resolution isn't clear enough, the sign up top reads "Productos Celíacos" ("Products for Celiacs").
Like many other conventional supermarkets in the city, they delineate approximately half an aisle exclusively to gluten-free products, enabling consumers living with celiac disease to have a much easier shopping experience.
In Argentina, the province of Buenos Aires analyzes products and stamps a gluten-free seal on them if they fall below 1 parts per million of gliadin (a protein in gluten).
Following this inspection, the Argentine Celiac Association reviews laboratory results from the Ministry of Health and must give its approval before a product can officially be sold as "gluten free."
It's not just supermarkets that provide gluten information.
Persicco, a renowned gelateria with various branches in Buenos Aires, places a gluten-free icon next to the flavors that are celiac-friendly.
Although the United States offers thousands of gluten-free products to the approximately three million people diagnosed with celiac disease (as of 2007, the market was valued at $700 million!), these are mostly available exclusively online or specific health food stores.
I have not, at least in New York City, seen standard supermarkets devote as much as one shelf to gluten-free products.
Part of the problem, I think, is the lack of regulation. Although you may see "gluten free" advertised on many products, no official standards for this claim have been set.
Last January, the Food and Drug Administration attempted to tackle this problem.
"Currently, there is no Federal regulation that defines the term “gluten-free” used in the labeling of foods.
Based upon comments FDA received during its public meeting on “gluten-free” food labeling held in August 2005 and other information available to the Agency, there is no universal understanding among U.S. food manufacturers or consumers about the meaning of a food labeled as “gluten-free.”
You can view the PDF file of the full (and by full I mean "very long") gluten-free labeling proposal here.
The 90-day comment period concluded last April, but I haven't heard anything since.
I do believe, though, that the original plan was to have something sorted out no later than December of this year.
I'm interested in hearing from readers who are gluten intolerant.
Do you find it difficult to know what products to buy and stay away from due to a lack of federal standards?
I’d be very interested to hear what you think about their claims.
Is it all a crock or might they truly be onto something?
-- Kevin L. Mickle
Las Cruces, NM
PS: Over the last 2 1⁄2 months, I’ve lost over 15 lbs fat, 4.5% body fat, 3” off my waist, and gained about 6 lbs muscle (a guess) all from daily exercise and eating right.
A good portion of “eating right” comes from following your recommendations. Thank you again!
First of all -- congratulations on achieving your health and nutrition goals.
I know it takes a lot of effort, commitment, and hard work -- especially achieving it in a healthy way.
Onto your question.
Wow, what a bizarre -- and funny -- product.
Erdinger's "lively, tasty, healthy fitness drink" is a 125 calorie alcohol-free beer that “contains all B-group vitamins and offers high levels of potassium, magnesium, phosphorus” along with all nine essential amino acids and soluble fiber.
The manufacturer is very skimpy on details.
The only numbers the website mentions are the 2 grams of protein and 25 percent of the daily folic acid requirement.in each half liter bottle.
The fiber claim strikes me as particularly odd for two reasons. Firstly, I doubt the fiber content in this beverage is high; wheat beers -- regardless of their alcohol content -- are not good sources.
Besides, whatever amount is present is most definitely not in the form soluble fiber. Remember, wheat fiber is exclusively insoluble.
Lastly, fiber is not something that needs to be replenished after strenuous exercise. It is irrelevant to muscle recovery.
Verdict? This drink has nothing to do with sports or fitness.
It’s just a regular non-alcoholic beer with a few vitamins and minerals sprinkled on top for gimmick purposes.
Feel free to drink it with a meal if you enjoy the taste and can afford the calories, but consider it just another alcohol-free beer.
Based upon the extensive and meticulously detailed evidence, I decided that avoiding sugar at all costs would provide the most benefit to my health.
I also decided to avoid products with refined grains and simple carbohydrates. This included for me bread, pasta, beer, and vegetables stripped of their nutrients (skinless mashed potatoes being a good example).
long and short of it is this: if you are a non-smoker the single-most important thing you can do for your health is: AVOID SUGAR.
Andy claims this is oversimplifying things, but Gary shows over and over in his book what a toxic substance sugar is and how the rise in obesity over the last 20 years is directly related to the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup into the American diet.
By 1999 we ate 30%more sugar than in 1983 - how could sugar NOT be causing the obesity epidemic?
I just noticed that Andy did not respond to a question posed to him about Michael Pollan, because he had not read the book.
I think in the future you should follow that rule with Gary. His book is 450 pages long - his articles and speeches are just a small summary of the vast and nuanced argument he provides in the book, so to me your responses have been inadequate and short on content.
Keep in mind that I found this blog, because I am actively seeking refutations of the science presented in Gary's book.
So far everything I have read is high on rhetoric and low on science.
-- Hugh (last name unknown)
Alright, let's take this e-mail piece by piece.
First, you are absolutely right, it is not radical of Mr. Taubes to advocate a low-carbohydrate diet.
Robert Atkins brought this idea to the masses in the early 1970s.
Millions bought the hype and ate steak, butter, and cheese to their heart's content.
That clearly didn't work, since this country's weight problem only worsened.
In 2002, low carb was back with a vengeance.
Supermarkets offered low-carb everything: ice cream, cookies, pizza, crackers, yogurt, you name it. Talk about easy and convenient!
Again, millions of people shunned rice, bread, and pasta. And obesity rates did not decrease.
So, yes, Taubes isn't exactly breaking new ground.
I think it's wonderful that you have cut down the refined carbohydrates in your diet.
If you take a look at this blog's archives, you will see that I am constantly recommending high-fiber, nutritious carbohydrates.
I constantly suggest people consume whole grains and aim for a largely unprocessed diet.
I again want to make it clear that my position is not, has never been, and never will be, "refined carbohydrates and added sugar are the best things to eat if are looking to lose weight."
My position is that if we're talking about weight management, it's ridiculously naive to leave calories out of the conversation.
Gary Taubes makes it very clear that, in his opinion, "obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating and not sedentary behavior."
As I have said in previous posts, then please show me someone who, for an entire month, consumes 1,000 extra calories a day -- without burning them off -- solely from fat and protein and does not gain a pound.
We come back to the issue of faulty logic.
The reason why low carb diets "work" is because protein and fat are very filling.
As I have said before, 500 calories of pure protein and fat will leave someone satiated for much longer than 500 calories of refined carbohydrates.
In turn, the person eating mostly protein and fat will end up consuming less total calories during the day than the person consuming the refined carbohydrates.
As far as your recommendation to avoid sugar, I'm assuming you are referring to added, and not naturally-occurring, sugars.
The issue once there is that sugar is not new. It was not launched in the early 1980s before the obesity boom.
Sugar has been around for thousands of years.
It is true that we are eating more of it.
The emphasis there is on "eating more of it" -- AKA consuming more total calories.
If sugar in and of itself, regardless of how much was consumed, is the cause of obesity, why have rates in the United States skyrocketed only over the past twenty years?
The thirty percent increase in sugar consumption you mention is significant because it points to excess CALORIES being consumed.
Keep in mind that between 1970 and 2,000, the average caloric intake for United States citizens increased by 24.5 percent (that's, on average, an excess 530 calories, per person, per day).
Pointing to one food, or ingredients, is completely irrelevant.
For example, total meat consumption per person in the United States in 2000 was 195 pounds. In the 1950s, this figure was much lower -- 130 pounds.
So, why are you singling out only an increase in sugar as the sole culprit for weight gain? People in this country are eating more of everything.
Calories have increased, and, logically, so has people's weight.
Now, if caloric intake over the past twenty years had NOT increased, and obesity rates had, then, yes, maybe this idea that calories are irrelevant would hold some weight.
By the way, Gina Kolata of The New York Times made an excellent point in her review of Good Calories, Bad Calories:
"[Gary Taubes] ignores definitive studies done in the 1950s and ’60s by Jules Hirsch of Rockefeller University and Rudolph Leibel of Columbia, which tested whether calories from different sources have different effects.
The investigators hospitalized their subjects and gave them controlled diets in which the carbohydrate content varied from zero to 85 percent, and the fat content varied inversely from 85 percent to zero. Protein was held steady at 15 percent.
They asked how many calories of what kind were needed to maintain the subjects’ weight. As it turned out, the composition of the diet made no difference.”
By the way, Mr. Taubes' talk at New York University laid out the main arguments of his book very explicitly.
His basic theory is that weight loss has nothing to do with overeating. I don't need to read his book in its entirety to counter that particular argument.
I also want to note that my post also specifically responsed to things he said during the question and answer session.
I am not assuming or guessing what his thoughts are; they were made perfectly clear in his presentation.
Is a diet high in refined carbohydrates and added sugars unhealthy? Of course it is.
But, as far as I'm concerned, telling people that calories don't matter as long as carbohydrates aren't being eaten is a giant disservice.
This week's OK! is full of nutrition-related stories. Among them? Carnie Wilson's new weight loss struggle.
To recap: at her heaviest, the former Wilson Phillips member weighed 300 pounds.
In 2000, she underwent gastric bypass surgery and slimmed down to 146 pounds.
Now, eight years later, Carnie weighs 208 pounds.
I can't say I'm surprised. Most people who undergo gastric bypass are not addressing the real issue at hand.
Controlling one's weight isn't solely about shrinking stomach capacity.
Emotional eating, ingrained food patterns, and nutrition education also play a huge role in determining what, why, and how much we eat.
This is why once gastric bypass is completed, patients tend to regain weight.
Anyhow, in this interview, Carnie "vows" to shed the excess pounds she's accumulated over the past few years.
A sidebox details her new diet. The headline? "I'm not eating carbs." Sigh.
First of all, she IS eating carbs -- as she should! -- as evidenced by the fact that she consumes broccoli, asparagus, oranges, apples, and carrots.
"Carbs" are not just donuts, Wonder bread, and cookies.
In any case, Carnie goes on to say that if she "start[s] [her] morning with a piece of toast, [she's] doomed for the day. It's like, give me carbs," she explains.
And the problem with that would be, what, exactly?
If she were to start her day with whole -- or sprouted -- grain toast, accompany her lunch with a small side dish of whole wheat pasta, and then snack on a little popcorn in the afternoon, what horrible thing will befall her?
What's most interesting is that Carnie appears to blame her weight gain on carbs, yet she admits that what made her gain weight in the past was "go[ing] through McDonalds drive-throughs and hav[ing] a Big Mac, Super Size fries, a 20-piece Chicken McNuggets, a pie and a shake" for one meal.
She also points to being able to "eat a bag of M&M's in one day".
So, really -- and clearly -- the issue was excess calories, not excess carbs.
It always frustrates me to see people unnecessarily deny themselves nutritious and tasty food when they want to lose weight.
Carnie, if you're reading this, do me a favor: have some unsweetened oatmeal for breakfast, enjoy an open-faced sandwich on whole grain bread, and munch on two or three cups of air popped popcorn if your heart desires.
Just watch your calories, get plenty of fiber, cut down on added sugars, and above all, do not fear carbohydrates.
March 23, 2008
(Note: A healthy BMI ranges from 18.5 to 25. 'Overweight' is characterized as 25 - 30, and obese is marked by a BMI of 30 or more).
Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Thursday for the answer!
My observations, below:
Despite the recent influx of celebrity chefs and three star restaurants, there isn't a single high-scale, fine dining vegetarian restaurant on the entire Strip.
I'm afraid business executives and consumers are still under the inaccurate assumption that healthy dining and delicious meals are mutually exclusive.
As a result, diners who do not eat meat have to basically rely on pasta dishes. Zzzzzz....
All my restaurant experiences, while delicious, left me asking, "where's the fiber?"
Whole grains are completely absent from most menus, as are beans and legumes.
I am not asking for steakhouses to be shut down or the plethora of French restaurants to "de-fatten" their menus.
What I do want to know, though, is where are the options for healthy upscale eating?
I understand being on vacation and wanting to enjoy a rich, decadent meal, but after two or three of those, your body starts begging for some mercy.
Think everything is big in Texas? Wait until you hit the Vegas Strip!
At the Paris hotel, you can get alcoholic drinks in an Eiffel-tower shaped 32 ounce glass. Over at the Luxor, 52 ounce daiquiris are on the menu.
People do order them. I saw at least fifty people on one given night walking around the Strip with these huge drinks in hand -- most were more than halfway finished.
FYI -- a 32 ounce daiquiri contains 1,800 calories. The 52 ounce? 2,900.
And then there's the buffets. I am not a big fan of them, as I often find that quantity trumps quality.
I was up for some nutrition research, though, so off I went to The Palms for lunch one day.
Of the forty different dishes, not a single one contained a whole grain.
The salad bar's only truly nutritious offerings were chickpeas and kidney beans.
To my surprise -- and disappointment -- the salad bar did not offer carrots, bell peppers, broccoli florets, canned tuna, grilled chicken breast, avocado, sliced almonds, sunflower seeds, beets, asparagus, or anything to help diners construct a healthy and tasty salad.
It did, however, manage to provide croutons, bacon, cheese, iceberg lettuce, and pickles. Yum????
Fried foods, rich sauces, and refined carbohydrates made up the bulk of the remaining offerings. Vegetables were mostly drowned in butter or cream or covered in a deep fried shell.
Dessert consisted pies (some sugar free), cakes, brownies, and ice cream.
Fruit, you ask? There was literally one basket with three apples and two bananas.
The Venetian has a healthy restaurant (all dishes are low in saturated fat, high in fiber, high on fruit and vegetable content, and contain little or no added sugars) tucked away in its spa, meaning it is exclusively for guests of that hotel.
Why not move it to the general restaurant area and open it up to the general public?
While I'm at on the topic of hotels: why do guests have to pony up extra money -- up to $20 or $30 -- to utilize a hotel's gym?
Really. Why are people being deterred from exercising?
Anyway, a big thank you to the folks who make Lara, Clif Nectar, and Flavor & Fiber bars. My intestinal tract couldn't have made it in Vegas without you.
March 21, 2008
The next two days are dedicated to relaxing, but I will return to blogging on Sunday.
I have plenty to talk about -- interesting nutrition tales from the West, responses to some of the Gary Taubes related e-mails I have been receiving (keep them coming!), and nutrition-related photos from my hometown of Buenos Aires I took this past December (and forgot to upload to my computer).
Enjoy the weekend!
March 19, 2008
Foodies crave rich ingredients, orgasmic flavors, and lovely textures (even if they are achieved by triple deep frying).
Dietitians love food -- a good dietitian makes healthy eating flavorful, delicious, and not taste like cardboard -- but also seek out a certain nutrition balance (a sauce on the side, opting for broccoli instead of white rice to accompany a dish, etc.)
On that note, today's New York Times examines the impact of the foodie lifestyle -- particularly restaurant reviewers -- on health.
Take the case of eGullten.com founder Jason Perlow, who after years of sampling delicacies left and right without giving much thought to anything except how good they tasted, tipped the scales at 400 pounds and developed Type 2 diabetes.
Sure, an extreme situation, but it's still , pardon the pun, food for thought. And, he isn't necessary alone:
"“Most of us who are in this profession are here as an excuse to eat,” said Mimi Sheraton, the food writer and former New York Times restaurant critic who has chronicled her own battle with weight loss. Still, she said, “I’ve never seen such an outward, in-your-face celebration of eating fat.”
This is very much a "chicken or the egg" situation.
Chefs -- especially five-star celebrity ones -- continue to make fatty dishes without taken nutrition into consideration because, truth be told, they don't need to.
A restaurant reviewer could care less that an entree packs in 1,600 calories and two days' worth of saturated fat, or that the scrumptious new hot dessert in town has as much sugar as three cans of soda.
As far as a chef is concerned, if food coming out of the kitchen is well-reviewed, the job is well done.
This is why I personally don't find classical French cuisine that amazing. How hard can it be to make a delicious meal when butter, flour, and sugar are poured on liberally?
The new standard of top-notch cuisine should take nutrition into account.
This paradigm of "delicious vs. healthy" is antiquated, inaccurate, and due for a change!
Let's have dietitians infiltrate the restaurant scene.
Not to count calories or ask for a tomato-based sauce in place of a cream one, but to challenge talented chefs and say, "alright, that curry pad thai was to die for, but let's see you concoct something just as delicious that's higher in fiber, lower in fat, and has more vegetables."
The celebrity chefs sure seem to have the ego. So... come on and wow me.
So my flight to the West Coast -- for what was originally some much-needed four day R&R -- is now delayed by five hours.
Well, when life hands you a lemon airplane (apparently some cables were loose, or so the pilot said), make blog lemonade!
A view of the Jet Blue terminal food court at John F. Kennedy airport reveals:
Papaya King (hot dogs and fries)
Create Your Own Salad (the only truly healthy option)
Carmella's Kitchen (lasagna and cheese-smothered pasta, in huge portions, of course)
Sky Asian Bistro (greasy lo mein under a heat lamp)
Mex and the City (cute name, greasy food)
Boar's Head (cold cuts, cold cuts, and more cold cuts)
Cheeburger & Cheeburger (you guessed it, a burger joint)
Adding to the unappetizing factor are all the horribly eighties neon signs.
Fair enough, I could go make my own salad if I am seeking a healthier option. Except I'm not craving a salad at the moment.
At least Cibo -- a small deli, if you will -- offers fruit and nut bars, fresh fruit, sandwiches made with whole wheat bread, and a particularly tasty tray of baby carrots, celery sticks, and broccoli florets.
Not surprisingly, these nutritious vegetables are accompanied by sodium and saturated fat-laden ranch dressing.
Alas, I did some mixing and matching and bought a small container of overpriced hummus to use as dip.
That was my mid-morning snack when the delay was only two hours.
Lunch time came and, considering my options, I purchased Greek yogurt, a bowl of Cheerios (yay soluble fiber!), and a Clif Nectar bar. The cost? $12.95! Way to encourage healthy eating.
UPDATE (6:46 PM, Pacific Coast Time): The second I typed that period at the end of my last sentence, the laptop I was using turned off (turns out the jack I was plugged into at the Jet Blue terminal wasn't working).
Anyhow, after a five hour delay, I arrived at my destination.
Jet Blue thanked everyone for their patience by providing free roundtrip tickets to every passenger and extra snacks during the flight.
Sodas, cookies, biscotti, Terra chips, and cheese snack mix were happily consumed by many.
I opted for a small bag of cashews from their selection, water, and my own stash of Flavor & Fiber bars.
Alas, the lesson here is -- next time you pack for a flight, remember to bring some healthy snacks on board. The airport sure isn't looking out for you!
March 18, 2008
Consulting with medical researchers throughout the entire process -- and funded by grants from the National Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation to the tune of $750,000 -- Lee is trying to determine if fat cells can be made less efficient at storing energy.
His research and proposal are up for peer review soon; Lee eventually hopes to eventually convert his research into a non-invasive drug that can treat obesity.
So then we get to the critical thinking.
Is the desire for an "anti obesity" pill portraying us as helpless victims?
Where does personal responsibility fall in this paradigm?
Is it too shallow to think of health solely on the basis of weight?
Is being at a healthy weight sufficient? Think of someone who doesn't exceed their recommended caloric intake but subsists mainly on nutritionally void processed foods, for example.
Is there a need for an anti obesity pill?
Remember, too, that many health conditions are brought on by inadequate Omega 3:Omega 6 ratios, excess sodium, vitamin and mineral deficiencies, and high saturated fat intake.
Obesity may aggravate these factors and increase risks, but an obesity pill is by no means a miraculous cure.
But what about our nutrition portfolio?
Sally Squires tackles this issue in one of her latest Lean Plate Club articles (courtesy of The Boston Herald).
"In middle age (40 to 65), the body begins losing about 1 percent of muscle per year. Fat replaces the lost muscle. Since fat cells need fewer calories than muscle cells to survive, metabolism slowly declines."
In other words, the eating patterns that work at 25 are not as effective at 50, and certainly not appropriate at 75.
Most nutrition advice in the mainstream media generally applies to a younger population (i.e: sodium recommendations of no more than 2,400 milligrams are acceptable for a 45 year old, but too high for someone in their 70s or 80s).
Alas, Tufts University nutrition professor Alice Lichtenstein and her comrades have come up with a food pyramid exclusively for senior citizens.
I particularly enjoy the inclusion of healthy choices throughout the entire pyramid (i.e.: the dairy group specifically illustrates non and low-fat products).
Additionally, this pyramid is lifestyle-friendly -- notice the ample inclusion of frozen, pre-cut, and ready-to-eat fruits and vegetables.
"[They] have a larger shelf life, require no peeling or cutting for hands tender from arthritis, and are often more economical for those on fixed incomes." And they are just as nutritious, too!
Older adults are particularly at risk for inadequate vitamin and mineral intake (a combination of increased needs and decreased consumption), so the hoisted flag recommending B12, D, and calcium supplements is a nice -- and accurate -- touch.
Via the blog
I don't consider either "better" than other. This ultimately depends on personal preference and a few other factors.
I don’t have a problem with children drinking skim or low-fat milk, provided that they aren’t lactose intolerant, of course.
What disappoints me is that so many schools offer chocolate milk to children (and label it a "healthy" alternative simply because it contains calcium).
A single cup contains a tablespoon of added sugar. It's fine as a treat, but I don't find it to be the optimal beverage to accompany a meal on a daily basis.
Unfortunately, the majority of milk in the United States -- chocolate or not -- in the United States is produced by cows that chow on corn all day long and are injected with antibiotics and growth hormones.
Milk in and of itself is a nutritious beverage, though, providing high-quality protein, calcium, vitamin D, vitamin A, phosphorus, and potassium.
I would highly recommend opting for organic, grass-fed varieties.
Soy milk is a perfectly fine alternative.
Most varieties are fortified with vitamin D and provide a good amount of calcium, protein, and potassium.
I would be more concerned with what they're eating along with that cold glass of (dairy or soy) milk.
*UPDATE* Thank you to reader "gd" for pointing out that vanilla and chocolate flavored soy milks also contain quite a bit of added sugar.
I erroneously assumed everyone reads minds and would telepathically infer I was only referring to regular soy milk in this post.
So, if you are opting for soy milk, I suggest going for plain or unsweetened varieties.
March 17, 2008
"12 grams of protein!" the ad boasted.
The little asterisk attached to the word protein directs you to fairly tiny print explaining that 12 grams are found in two slices.
Very well, then.
So this new bread offers 110 calories, 200 milligrams of sodium, 3 grams of fiber, and 6 grams of protein per slice.
Oddly enough, Arnold's website erroneously attributes 6 grams of fiber to each slice -- oops!
I'm not sure where this "double protein" terminology is coming from, seeing as how Arnold's Health Nut whole grain bread contains 110 calories, 190 milligrams of sodium, 2 grams of fiber, and 5 grams of protein per slice.
I really wonder if there was consumer demand for a bread with an extra gram of protein, especially considering that the average adult in the United States consumes approximately 200% of his/her daily protein requirement.
No one is deficient or needs more in their diet.
I'm not necessarily dissuading anyone from picking this up at the grocery store; I just don't see a reason to.
The ingredient list reveals two interesting things: the extra protein comes from rice (not the highest quality) and high fructose corn syrup is the fourth ingredient (following whole wheat flour, water, and wheat gluten).
So here's a suggestion for the Arnold bread execs -- how about some corn syrup-free bread?
Or, if you want to do your part in helping people achieve their health goals, take a stab at a slightly higher fiber bread.
The statistics behind this are just as tragic.
According to current estimates, roughly 9 million children in the United States are clinically obese, consequently greatly increasing their risks of developing Type-2 diabetes (formerly known as 'adult onset diabetes') and accelerating the development of Type-1.
"The study found that there's only one pediatric endocrinologist for every 290 diabetic children in the United States, and the ratio of obese children to pediatric diabetes specialists is 17,000 to one."
So how do we begin treating this problem? More endocrinologists? More preventive care? Better screening? More (efficient) nutrition education?
When people talk about Americans eating more processed foods, no one seems to want to make the connection that these processed foods are entirely high-carb. (go to a vending machine or fast food restaurant and find more than 1 item that is low-carb)
So, by saying Americans should eat fewer processed foods is to argue for a lower-carb diet.
Based upon reading this book I chose to stop eating simple carbohydrates (anything with white flour and white sugar).
I replaced this with copious amounts of green vegetables, eggs, cheese, and meat. I quickly dropped 20 pounds without exercising or EVER feeling hunger or thinking about portion control.
Via the blog
Gary Taubes' controversial views help certainly get discussion going, which I am absolutely thrilled about.
Yes, there is a small area in which conventional nutrition advice and Gary Taubes' views intermingle.
That being said, I ultimately consider his conclusions to stem from faulty logic.
It is indeed true that most processed (or "junk") foods consist of nutritionally void refined carbohydrates (mainly overly processed grains and sugar).
The bottom line, though, is that these processed foods are ultimately adding extra calories to people's diets.
A lot of these same processed foods (donuts, cookies, brownies, etc.) are also high in saturated fat and sodium.
They are not pure carbohydrates. So why isn't Mr. Taubes placing the blame on those two nutrients? Why just carbohydrates?
Allow me to present an analogy.
Imagine that I decide to study the health effects of strawberries.
For ten years, I have a group of people eat two cups of strawberries every day. The control group, meanwhile, doesn't eat any strawberries.
A decade later, I analyze the results and see that the strawberry eaters clearly had higher rates of cancer than the non-strawberry eaters.
Based on those statistics alone, a researcher might conclude, "strawberries increase your risk of developing certain cancers!"
Except it's not that simple.
What if it wasn't the strawberries themselves that had harmful health effects, but the fact that these strawberries had incredibly high levels of pesticides on them?
That is how I interpret Taubes' beliefs. I feel he is coming to a conclusion without considering all the information.
Mind you, the issue here is not "refined carbohydrates are chock full of nutrition" vs. Gary Taubes.
Dietitians are not saying -- and have never recommended -- "eat as much white flour, sugar, and processed food as you want!"
Glance through my blog and you will see numerous recommendations for whole grains, vegetables, legumes, and other high-fiber foods.
I distinctly say that nutrition isn't solely about calories, but also about nutrients. I also, though, think that sugar and white flour have a place in the diet as long as they are an exception to the rule and not the bulk of anyone's eating pattern.
That being said, keep in mind that many of the foods I suggest people consume often (chickpeas, kidney beans, oatmeal) are not low-carb; Gary Taubes believes they make you fat!
I also do not agree that calling for a diet "low in processed foods" is advocating a low-carb lifestyle. Legumes, fruits, vegetables, sprouted grains, and whole grains are not considered processed foods and are certainly not low in carbohydrates.
My main concern about refined carbohydrates is that, because they are low in fiber and protein, they do not satiate as well. The result? It takes more CALORIES to make you feel full.
Eating 400 calories of white rice, soda, and white bread for lunch will leave you feeling hungry, whereas 400 calories of steak will not have you raiding the pantry for a snack an hour later.
Ultimately, though, it comes down to calories. The 400 "empty carb" calories do not satiate you, so you end up eating more (consuming more calories).
There are two particular statements Gary Taubes make that raise my blood pressure, though.
The first is including potatoes in the same category as "processed foods."
As I have explained before, when cooked a certain way (ie: baked, with the skin on), a potato is highly nutritious. It is not junk food.
Second, his belief that fiber is overhyped tremendously weakens his stance for me. How anyone can ignore the health benefits of fiber is truly beyond me.