Small Bites

ATTENTION: SMALL BITES HAS MOVED!

2009-04-29T08:01:00.005-04:00

The new Small Bites is here!

CLICK HERE to be redirected to Small Bites 2.0 -- with a new look, its very own logo, and part of my new website, andybellatti.com .

Starting today, all future postings will be on the new Small Bites.

Every single post since Small Bites' inception in April of 2007 can also be found there, so go ahead and update your bookmarks and links.

This version of the blog will only stay up for redirecting purposes.

I look forward to seeing you on the new site!

PS: If you e-mailed me in the past week, you now know why you haven't heard from me yet! Going through my backlog of e-mails is at the top of my "to do" list now.

"Shop The Perimeter of the Supermarket"? I Don't Think So!

2009-04-28T00:55:00.004-04:00

Earlier today at my dentist's office, I flipped through a fitness and nutrition magazine and spotted the ever-prevalent food shopping tip -- "stick to the perimeter of the store; that's where the healthiest items are."

Alright, time out. I disagree.

While the perimeters of most supermarkets offer fresh and frozen produce as well as lean protein (ranging from chicken breasts to tofu to shrimp), there are plenty of healthy options waiting smack in the middle of all those aisles!

Branding aisle shelves as "evil" is overly simplistic -- and inaccurate. After all, that is where you would find these nutrition all-stars:

* Canned beans
* Lentils
* Nuts and seeds
* Nut and seed butters
* Olive oil
* Plain instant oatmeal
* Quinoa
* Brown rice
* Whole grain pastas
* Spices (a great way to reduce sodium in your cooking!)
* Canned tuna and canned salmon

So go ahead, check out what's on sale in aisle four. Just be sure to glance over the nutrition facts -- and take a peek at the ingredient list!

Quick & Healthy Recipes: Easy Peezy (Healthy!) Sweet "Cream"

2009-04-27T20:58:00.004-04:00

Now that high temperatures are finally back in the Northern hemisphere, the cold breakfasts that seemed so miserable a few months back are suddenly the perfect way to start the day.

I don't know about you, but I LOVE a bowl of fresh fruit and whipped cream. It makes for a great dessert, but it's certainly not the healthiest way to start your day.

Alas, here is my couldn't-be-any-easier recipe for a healthier cream that adds body, creaminess, and flavor to whatever you pair it with!

YIELDS: 1.5 cups

INGREDIENTS:

1 cup raw cashews
1 cup cold water
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
1 teaspoon coconut extract

DIRECTIONS:

Combine all ingredients in food processor and mix until a smooth consistency is reached.

For best flavor and texture, refrigerate for at least 4 hours before consuming.

This tastes absolutely wonderful mixed with a cold bowl of fresh fruit!

NUTRITION INFORMATION (per 1/4 cup serving):

141 calories
6 grams fat
1 gram saturated fat
30 milligrams sodium
1.4 grams sugar (naturally occurring)
4.6 grams protein

Excellent Source of: copper, magnesium, manganese
Good Source of: potassium, zinc

Speaking With...: Brian Wansink

2009-04-26T19:25:00.010-04:00

This past Friday, Cornell University John Dyson Professor of Consumer Behavior and director of the Cornell Food and Brand Laboratory Dr. Brian Wansink stopped by New York University after being tapped as the second featured speaker of a new lecture series on nutrition and chronic disease.

Taking off from his bestseller Mindless Eating, his talk was appropriately titled, "How To Turn Mindless Eating Into Healthy Eating."

With those prevously mentioned credentials, you might picture a stiff, "all business" type who solves complex equations in his head while half-listening to you.

Dr. Wansink, however, is reminiscent of the cool high school math teacher who wanted you to learn -- and have fun while doing so. His research explanations are peppered with personal anecdotes, comedy, and facial expressions that sometimes rival those of Jim Carrey.

A few hours before his afternoon presentation, I sat down with Dr. Wansink for a one-on-one interview.

If you are unfamiliar with Dr. Wansink's work, please click here to familiarize yourself with his research before reading the interview.

I get such a kick out of all your publicity shots for Mindless Eating [NOTE: see accompanying picture]. They're great! Have they all been photographers' ideas?

Ha! Thanks. Yeah, I've had some really creative photographers who set up these elaborate shoots. Some of those popcorn shots literally took twelve hours, from setup to cleanup. There was a LOT of popcorn all over the floor at the end that had to be cleaned up (laughs).

So, I recently read that all of this research started as a result of you wanting people in the United States to eat more vegetables.

That's right.

How did you go from that to your current line of research?

Yeah, before I started my dissertation [in the late 80s], I wanted to know: "why do you finish your vegetables sometimes and other times you leave them on your plate?". "Why are you hungry for them one night and not the next?" That then evolved into the idea of environmental factors that affect our overall eating patterns. It's a lot more complex than people think because so many of our eating behaviors are automatic. This is all about getting below that surface. One of my first research studies had to do with family serving behavior. We had people come in, eat, and then answer questions about what they ate.

Then, we showed them video footage of their meal. It is amazing how many people flat out deny, or are not aware of, their eating behavior. You'll say to someone, "you had three servings of peas." They'll tell you, "No, I only had one!" You feel like saying, "Well, unless you have an evil twin..."

It's not until you show them the videotape that they change their mind. I once had a woman cry when she saw herself eating on camera! My research considers three angles. Not only what people are eating and how much of it, but also with what frequency.

How did all that research turn into Mindless Eating?

In 2004, I was in France and thought to myself, "I'd like to write a book, but I don't know if I want it to be academic or pop."

That year, Bonnie Liebman of the Center for Science in the Public Interest interviewed me for their Nutrition Action newsletter, and suddenly a lot of requests for book deal started coming in. Most of them were e-mails and, I don't know, nothing really stood out. Then I got a letter -- an actual letter! -- from Bantam Dell Books. One of the things I liked about them is that, as they told me, they are in the business of creating "real books that people read."

Interesting you say that, because I think that's definitely one of the factors behind the popularity of Mindless Eating. It is relatable for and interesting to the average consumer.

So at this point, it's been a few years since the book came out. I was wondering about recent developments. For example, have you conducted any research on the effects of calorie postings in fast food restaurants?

Oh yeah, I was involved in a VERY well-done study with Carnegie Mellon in regards to calorie labeling. We looked at McDonald's, Subway, and Starbucks in terms of what consumers were buying before and after calories went up. And, you know what? The results were indeterminant. They were all over the board. Some people consumed fewer calories, others didn't. I would actually be suspicious of anyone who told you they have seen a dramatic effect as a result of calorie labeling.

That strikes me as really odd. What are your theories regarding the results of that study?

There's a few things to consider. First of all, when it comes to weight loss, a lot of people think: Yeah, I wouldn't mind losing ten pounds, but I don't want to change a thing." Then there's reactance, which is a psychological term. It's basically resistance. Reactance is at play when you're in your car and the person behind you honks so you pull away more slowly than you would otherwise.

(Laughs) Or when you know someone at a restaurant is waiting for your table, so you sit there and take a little longer.

Yeah. So I think, in a way, some people are seeing these calories and thinking, "Oh yeah? Well, you're not going to tell ME what to eat!" Something similar happened in a study I did with Cornell. So, Cornell has a huge dining hall that services about 1100 people at one time. I wanted to see what effect going tray-less would have. I thought it would have two positive effects -- it would result in reduced waste and reduced calories.

The idea being that people couldn't pile everything on at once but instead had to get up from their table each time they wanted more food?

Yeah, exactly. Well, the results came in, and that night there was roughly 30 percent MORE plate waste! I think it comes back to that idea of reactance, where people saw this and thought, "Fine, I won't use a tray, but I'm not going to eat less." But that's not to say that I think calorie labeling isn't useful. Let me tell you something. The other day I went to Sbarro and saw that the slice of pizza I wanted was 787 calories. Aaaaaaaah!! So I think these calorie postings are going to serve as incentives for these food companies to say, "Alright, wait a minute, I want to turn that 787 into 690." I think it's going to nudge companies to drop the numbers, and that's what will, in turn, affect consumers.

Speaking of consumers, you recently finished your one-year post with the United States Department of Agriculture’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion working on the Dietary Gudelines. How did that go?

Oh, it was great! I thought I was on a mission from God! My last day was January 20, when the new president took office. I was literally sending e-mails at 11:59 PM on January 19. I was still e-mailing at 12:05 AM on January 20, and I remember thinking "Wow, they didn't shut off my inbox!" Then I got up to grab something to eat, and about ten minutes later I came back and I no longer had access.

Any sneak peeks as to possible changes we may expect in the next round of Dietary Guidelines?

I was involved with the selection of the 13 Dietary Guidelines committee members, and 11 of them have a behavioral focus. They operate where the rubber meets the road. That's important, because they take pages upon pages of data and transform it into information for the masses that can be summarized in just a few sentences.

So to wrap up, I'm interested in hearing about research you are in the process of conducting now.

Oh yeah, sure. Well, we're looking at what happens to people's eating behaviors when they sit next to someone who has a much higher BMI than they do. We are also doing a study where we have someone wearing a fat suit and going through one side of a buffet very slowly, serving themselves a lot of food. Everyone on the other side of the salad bar takes a much lower amount of food compared to when that person is going through the salad bar without the fat suit on. It's the whole concept of mimicking the attractive person. It's terrible, because weight is the last acceptable prejudice in our society and it can really be crippling to a person's self-esteem.

Lately, the concept of "nature vs. nurture" has become central to the issue of childhood obesity. Do you have any thoughts on that from a behavioral standpoint?

Well, we conducted a study with 4 year olds. We gave all the kids a questionnaire to take home. The point of the questionnaire was to determine to what extent parents forced their kids to eat everything that was on their plate. Of course, we disguised those questions among lots of filler like "what is your favorite TV show?"

"What color are your curtains?", etc.

(Laughs) Exactly. So the parents, on a scale of one to nine, had to rate just how heavily they enforced "the clean plate club" at home. So, you know, nine was "my kids HAVE to finish everything on their plate or there is some kind of consequence" and one was "Ah, if they eat, they eat. If they don't, they don't." We discovered that the children whose parents insisted they finish everything on their plate served themselves approximately 40 percent more cereal in our study.

Wow! And based on what you talk about in Mindless Eating... the idea that, once food is in front of us, it is very easy to eat it all, that's a significant finding.

Yeah, the thinking is that children who are forced to clean their plate feel like the have no control when it comes to food, so they find ways to reassert their control and independence.

Well, it looks like we've actually gone over time, but this has been fascinating. It's been a pleasure speaking with you. Thank you!

Oh, absolutely. Thank you and best of luck with everything.

Many thanks to Dr. Wansink for his time!

Coming Attractions

2009-04-26T02:34:00.006-04:00

Over the past ten days I have had the pleasure of watching two upcoming, vastly different food and nutrition documentaries.

First up? Food, Inc -- an incredibly engrossing and harrowing look at the state of farming and food processing in the United States from the people who brought you An Inconvenient Truth.

To become familiar with the subject matter before its June release date, visit The Meatrix, where all the grizzly details of meat production are explained.

I also recommend checking this link to see if Food, Inc. will be screened at a film festival near you before its limited big-screen debut later this Summer.

This is a MUST-SEE for anyone interested in farm policy, agricultural subsidies, agro-business, and the current state of the United States' food chain. You might want to bring some anxiety medication with you.

On a more lighthearted note, this past Thursday I had the pleasure of watching upcoming kid-friendly documentary What's On Your Plate?, "[which] follows two eleven-year-old African-American [New York City] kids as they explore their place in the food chain [and] talk to each other, food activists, farmers, new friends, storekeepers, their families, and the viewer, in their quest to understand what’s on all of our plates."

While certainly softer (and much easier for children to grasp) than Food, Inc., What's On Your Plate? showcases issues of local agriculture, school nutrition, and big business with very little preaching or finger wagging.

PS: I predict an Oscar nomination for Food, Inc.

Takeaways from Brian Wansink

2009-04-25T22:02:00.000-04:00

I am in the process of transcribing the enthralling interview I conducted with Mindless Eating author Brian Wansink this past Friday morning.

In the meantime, I want to share a little bit of what Dr. Wansink presented later in the afternoon when he addressed 150 New York University students and faculty members about details of his research.

His talk, titled "How To Turn Mindless Eating Into Healthy Eating," encouraged professionals in the nutrition field to shake up the traditional research model that commences in isolation in a laboratory and instead begin by thinking about human application first (rather than leaving it for last).

It is precisely this alternative research model that led Dr. Wansink to become a pioneer in the science of consumer behavior as it relates to diet and nutrition.

One of the most important phenomena he encountered during his research was the ripple effect one small change can have on individuals.

In one recent study, Dr. Wansink and his team recruited individuals to take on one small nutrition-related change -- such as eating on smaller plates or not eating in front of the television -- for 90 days.

While collecting data, Dr. Wansink observed that the vast majority of these people (roughly 70 percent) were losing weight in increasing amounts each month. Weight loss was not occurring at a steady rate, but actually doubling -- and even quadrupling -- in many instances.

What was happening? Was the "small plate" group shrinking plate size even more? No -- they simply began to implement more changes when they saw how painless their first behavioral modification was!

A month into eating from smaller plates (and, therefore, almost mindlessly consuming less food), most of that cohort noticed the accompanying weight loss and thought, "Hey, this is painless! I'll keep doing this AND cut down my soda consumption."

As a result, Dr. Wansink has seen many individuals lose up to thirty pounds in the course of one year without ever feeling like they had "started a diet" or "sacrificed everything."

Stop by tomorrow to read my full interview with Dr. Wansink!

Say What?: Pasta... in a Bread Bowl?

2009-04-24T23:09:00.005-04:00

Behold the latest creation from Domino's Pizza -- penne pasta entrees... served in a bread bowl!

As a matter of fact, the chain claims their "pasta is so good, you'll devour the bowl."

Not too surprisingly, calorie information is yet to be posted, and the four calls I made to their corporate headquarters proved unsuccessful.

It doesn't take many brain cells, though, to figure out that items like chicken carbonara, Italian sausage marinara, chicken alfredo, pasta primavera, and three cheese mac-n-cheese nestled inside a thick round piece of bread is far from a "light" option.

I'm willing to bet we are dealing with 4-figure calorie values. As soon as the reveal occurs, I will post it on Small Bites.

In the meantime, I'll meditate and see if I can come up with the answer to: "What higher-up at Domino's passionately believes Americans are clamoring for pasta in a bread bowl?"

Numbers Game: Unlocking the Secret

2009-04-23T22:51:00.003-04:00

A reduced-fat Oreo cookie contains _______ fewer calories than a regular Oreo cookie.

a) 3
b) 12
c) 26
d) 51

Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Tuesday for the answer.

Administrative Announcement: Taking Your Questions!

2009-04-22T11:59:00.005-04:00

This Friday, Mindless Eating author (and professor of consumer nehavior at Cornell University) Brian Wansink will be visiting New York University -- and I have the opportunity to sit down with him, one-on-one, for thirty minutes!

This time around, I want to give you the chance to submit your questions for this upcoming "Speaking With..." segment.

Leave your questions for Brian in the "comments" section and come back next week to read a transcript of our interview!

As a reminder, "Wansink's award-winning academic research on food psychology and behavior change has been published in the world's top marketing, medical, and nutrition journals. It contributed to the introduction of smaller "100 calorie" packages (to prevent overeating), the use of taller glasses in some bars (to prevent the overpouring of alcohol), and the use of elaborate names and mouth-watering descriptions on some chain restaurant menus (to improve enjoyment of the food). "

You Ask, I Answer: Breakfast

2009-04-21T10:28:00.006-04:00

In Gwyneth Paltrow's new site she gives nutrition advice.

She recently said that a person should try to go 12 hours between finishing dinner and beginning breakfast.

She states that breakfast should be a "break from the fast" (12+ hours) to allow the system to rest and detoxify.

What do you think of this concept?

-- Sarah (last name unknown)
Via the blog

Gwyneth didn't have much nutritional credibility with me earlier this year when she blogged about the health miracles of detoxing. Let's find out if she has redeemed herself with her latest batch of advice.

No need for a drumroll -- the answer is NO, she has not redeemed herself.

The number of hours that pass between your last bite of food prior to hitting the sack and waking up the next morning are irrelevant.

There is nothing magical about twelve hours. Eating breakfast nine hours after finishing dinner has no negative effects on health or digestion.

Let's assume you had a late snack at 11:30 PM and went to bed an hour later, at 12:30 AM. Eight hours later (at 8:30 AM) you wake up. I find it absolutely ridiculous to expect you to wait three hours to eat breakfast!

If anything, by the time you have your first morsel of food, you'll be so famished you'll overeat.

I would much rather you focus on what you're eating for breakfast. Waiting twelve hours to load up on a breakfast low in fiber and nutrients but high in added sugars and calories makes no sense.

My other concern with this "health halo" surrounding fasting and spending hours without eating is that it is a half step away from glorifying anorexia nervosa.

Where did celebrities get the idea that an Oscar and a health credential are the same thing?

Different Day, Same Cow?

2009-04-20T23:50:00.006-04:00

Would you ever eat the meat -- or drink the milk -- of a cloned cow?

Heck, why am I even asking? You really have no choice!

One of George W. Bush's last decisions as Commander-in-Chief included quietly passing legislation allowing the meat and milk of cloned animals to be sold to consumers without being labeled as such.

The Food and Drug Association's argument is that since food from cloned cattle is no less healthy than that of "conventional" cattle, there is no need to differentiate between the two.

In fact, some documentation quotes scientists as saying cloned meat can actually be better, since it often results in tender, juicier steaks (right, I am sure this was the driving force behind animal cloning).

The main line of reasoning behind cloning is to provide more food to the American public.

Really? The food industry is already supplying an average of 3,900 calories per person -- almost double the requirement for most people. Do we really need more food? And if we do, why is red meat the chosen one?

The chances of you having consumed food from a cloned animal is low, as the number of them is currently too low to enter the food supply.

However, don't expect any special announcements once this happens.

Industry response to concerns from consumers? "If you don't feel comfortable eating food from a cloned animal, buy organic."

Thoughts?

Numbers Game: Answer

2009-04-19T21:00:00.000-04:00

In the United States, a McDonald's Big Mac and order of large fries adds up to 1,040 calories. In the United Kingdom, those same two items add up to 950 calories.

You would think all McDonald's items would be standardized, no matter what corner of the world you were ordering them in.

Not so.

Why the caloric difference? Simple -- a container of large fries is slightly smaller, as are the beef patties.

Mind you, McDonald's USA only recently lowered the calories in their large fries from 550 to 500. Two years ago, this combo would have added up to 1,090 on this side of the Atlantic.

You Ask, I Answer: Depression & Vitamin D

2009-04-18T22:09:00.003-04:00

I just got my blood labs done to test for vitamin D deficiency.

My doctor said that my recent depression symptoms and joint pain could be resulting from that.

I knew about rickets and vitamin D deficiency in children, but what is this chronic pain/fatigue/depression stuff in adults?

How does vitamin D deficiency play a role in that?

-- Christine (last name unknown)
Via the blog

Thanks to more funding -- which means more research -- we are finally getting a glimpse at all of Vitamin D's important functions.

Many people don't realize that the term "vitamin" isn't even 100 years old (that anniversary will occur in 2012).

Vitamin D, meanwhile, wasn't discovered until 1922.

In any case, recent research on vitamin D status, depression, and joint pain appears promising (more studies are needed before any of this can be established as fact, though).

As far as depression is concerned, this is the reasoning:

* Blood samples of individuals experiencing clinical depression show lower levels of
25-hydroxyvitamin D (the active form of vitamin D measured in blood).

* The brain contains vitamin D receptors, which vitamin D uses in the synthesis of vital peptides and compounds.

* Recent studies on individuals suffering from Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) concluded that those who supplemented 600 International Units of vitamin D reported feeling better more quickly than those who did not supplement. It is worth noting that neither group used special UV lamps for the study.

This is not to say that vitamin D "cures" depression. The current line of thinking is that low vitamin D status can exacerbate some types of depression, and that correcting this inadequacy may be one factor than can help speed up recovery.

As for the second half of your question -- since Vitamin D is tightly linked with calcium and phosphorus in bone metabolism, it only makes sense that inadequate levels could have an effect on joints.

The latest studies theorize that deficiencies of vitamin D make it more difficult for the body to repair cartilage and joint damage from arthritis.

I completely side with scientists and researchers who recommend daily supplementation of 2,000 International Units of vitamin D for the following groups of people:

* Dark-skinned individuals
* Adults over the age of 65
* Anyone living north of Atlanta (from October to April)
* Anyone with limited sun exposure

Misnomer

2009-04-17T10:39:00.006-04:00

Pistachio-almond is one of Baskin Robbin's classic 31 flavors.

Upon closer inspection, two oddities emerge.

First, the product's official description is: "a nutty combination of pistachio-flavored ice cream and roasted almonds."

That's right, the nut pieces you see are almonds, not pistachios.

Then there's the ingredient list, from which pistachios are entirely missing:

"Cream, nonfat milk, almonds, sugar, corn syrup, natural & artificial flavor, blue 1, yellow 5, cellulose gum, mono and diglycerides, guar gum, carrageenan, polysorbate 80."

It's not just ice cream chains pulling this trick.

I recently stopped by a well-known New York City vegan restaurant and ordered a delicious-sounding spinach-almond-banana-soy milk smoothie to go.

As I watched the smoothie man concoct my beverage, I was slightly crushed to see it didn't contain actual almonds, but rather a few drops of almond extract.

I think I now understand how Milli Vanilli fans felt when the lip-syncing scandal broke...

Administrative Announcements: Small Bites Turns Two!

2009-04-17T00:03:00.001-04:00

Today is Small Bites' second birthday!

I want to say THANK YOU to everyone who has ever visited this blog, recommended it to a friend, left a comment, submitted a question, forwarded a nutrition news item my way, voted in a survey, and generally supported this ongoing project.

Here's some fun trivia. In the past two years:

1,148 posts have been uploaded
343 reader questions have been answered
Readers in 91 different countries have visited

WOW! Here's a toast to further growth in the coming years.

PS: Expect BIG news the last week of April. There has been quite a bit happening behind the scenes...

In The News: "For The First Time"??!!

2009-04-17T00:01:00.001-04:00

Encouraging -- yet disturbing -- news courtesy of The Washington Post: "The Environmental Protection Agency for the first time will require pesticide manufacturers to test 67 chemicals contained in their products to determine whether they disrupt the endocrine system, which regulates animals' and humans' growth, metabolism and reproduction, the agency said yesterday."

Two thoughts immediately came to mind.

First? "Victory!"

Second? "For the first time?? What have they been waiting for??"

Well, I suppose the article gives some indication of what they might have been waiting for -- science-fiction turned reality.

After all, "researchers have raised concerns that chemicals released into the environment interfere with animals' hormone systems, citing problems such as male fish in the Potomac River that are bearing eggs."

That's what I call a substantial "oops!".

Oh, there's even more jaw-dropping material.

"Pesticide industry officials said they had anticipated the move, which was set into motion in 1996 by the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act, and they planned to cooperate on the matter."

Well, gee, pesticide industry officials. I certainly hope that after 13 years of contemplation you are willing to cooperate with the matter.

How, exactly, did it take over a decade for this act to take effect?

This is certainly one to watch. Testing is set to begin this summer, and results are expected by 2011.

Three Useless "Facts"

2009-04-16T00:10:00.005-04:00

Bite-sized nutrition trivia is not limited to Registered Dietitian Jeopardy!

Magazines of all sorts (ranging from Us Weekly to Details to Forbes) occasionally pepper sidebars or "Did You Know...?" features with short bursts of "diet-friendly" tips.

Television shows, e-mail chain letters, news broadcasts, and even advertising campaigns often rely on nutrition "facts" to captivate their audiences.

Alas, here are three often-mentioned facts I consider useless, irrelevant, and better off erased from the collective consciousness.

"If you put a nail in a glass of Coke for four days, it dissolves because of all the acids!"

The "logic" here is that if Coke can corrode metal, just imagine what it does to our stomachs!

Although all soda is nutrition-void sugar water (and the phosphoric acid in it can contribute to osteoporosis in individuals with insufficient calcium intake), it is not corroding our gastrointestinal system -- particularly when you keep in mind that stomach acids are more acidic than anything in Coke.

If you put a nail in a glass of our stomach acids, that sucker would probably disintegrate in just TWO days.

Initially shocking fact? Check.
Completely irrelevant? Check.
Absolutely useless? Double check

"I lost weight by cooking with olive oil instead of butter and choosing healthy fats, like avocado."

It seems like every other "celebrity who lost weight shares diet secrets!" (it seems to me that celebrity magazine editors think the only two secrets are to eat lots of fish and hire a personal trainer) article I read contains this quote.

Yes, olive oil and avocados are heart-healthy fats that, if consumed regularly, can benefit cardiovascular health. However, all fats -- regardless of how heart-healthy -- contain nine calories per gram.

I suppose I can somehow "vouch" for the avocado reasoning since they offer a good deal of fiber (thereby contributing to quicker satiety).

However, a tablespoon of butter contains approximately twenty fewer calories than a tablespoon of olive oil.

From a weight loss standpoint, replacing two tablespoons of butter with two tablespoons of olive oil in a dish serves no purpose.

"Twinkies are so processed they have a shelf life of 20 years!"

You need the exclamation mark at the end of that one for complete pearl-clutching effect.

Twinkies are by no means a health food, but they will not outlast a nuclear explosion (that honor only belongs to cockroaches and Cher).

While Twinkies have a longer shelf life than many other mass-produced baked goods (mainly thanks to their dairy-free ingredient list), expect them to start spoiling after a month.

PS: although foods with long shelf lives are usually highly processed and offer plenty of sodium, sugar, trans fats, and/or artificial preservatives, they do not take that same amount of time to be digested.

Numbers Game: McCounting

2009-04-15T09:49:00.004-04:00

In the United States, a McDonald's Big Mac and order of large fries adds up to 1,040 calories. In the United Kingdom, those same two items add up to __________ calories.

a) 1,125
b) 950
c) 800
d) 1,040

Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Sunday for the answer.

In The News: Game On!

2009-04-14T09:44:00.005-04:00

Today's Los Angeles Times reports on the subtle nutritional shift occurring at Dodger Stadium and other massive ballparks across the country -- healthier food!

Although 1,000-calorie nacho plates and 300-calorie cups of beer are still present, they are now joined by "wholesome new neighbors: curried chicken salad made with low-fat mayonnaise, turkey sandwiches on whole wheat, and fruit and yogurt parfaits."

And, oh, be still my heart. Not only will fresh fruit skewers soon be available, but "for the first time, a registered dietitian, also part of the Kaiser link-up, had a hand in fine-tuning the items."

This nutritional "aha" moment isn't just limited to the City of Angels.

"This year, the [San Diego] Padres are expanding their FriarFit program... which includes $1.50 healthful menu items for kids such as whole wheat animal cookies, a fruit cup, and 1% milk, plus a FriarFit cart offering fruit salad, sushi, veggie burgers and dogs, and a mandarin salad. This food, too, was created with the help of a nutritionist, from UC San Diego."

Now it's time for zoos and amusement parks to step up to the plate. Keep the curly fries, cheeseburgers, and jumbo hot dogs on the menu if you want, but also offer options for health-conscious patrons.

Survey Results: Make Room For Spongebob

2009-04-13T11:19:00.004-04:00

The latest Small Bites survey asked visitors if they supported the use of popular cartoon characters to advertise fruit and vegetable products like "baby carrots" and frozen spinach to children.

Sixty-three percent of respondents supported that form of advertising, eight percent did not, and the remaining twenty-seven percent did not have a strong opinion either way.

I strongly favor that sort of advertising.

Many nutrition advocates do not, claiming it confuses children to see Spongebob on baby carrots as well as a box of sugary fruit snacks.

My main concern with that argument is that it attempts to view the world through the eyes of a child who has the marketing awareness of an adult.

Six-year-olds are not aware of nutrition. They don't understand the difference in nutrients between a fruit snack and a real fruit. Seeing their favorite cartoon character on different products doesn't confuse them -- it simply draws their eyes and attention to them!

In my opinion, too many nutrition advocates make the crucial mistake of forgetting that they, too, can implement the same tactics used by food companies.

Getting children interested in eating healthier food by simply branding it with cartoon characters is certainly far from utopian, but it's a significant step forward we need to pursue.

You Ask, I Answer: Exercise

2009-04-12T19:08:00.004-04:00

Is exercise enough?

I know plenty of long distance runners that subsist on ice cream and candy bars, even well into their middle-age, and have perfect health.

Can exercise overcome poor dietary choices? If so, to what degree?

-- Corey Clark
(Location withheld)

Exercise in itself is NOT enough.

Sure, exercise can help with cardiovascular heath, respiratory health, and musculoskeletal maintenance, but you also need proper nutrition to keep all systems running properly.

Exercise does not provide Omega-3 fatty acids, fiber, monounsaturated fats, or phytonutrients.

How do you know these long-distance runners who subsist on junk are in perfect health? Have you seen their blood labs?

Just because someone is thin and has a six pack does not necessarily mean they are in perfect health. They could have high blood pressure, low bone density, and low intakes of most vitamins and minerals.

Eating Out? Don't Wrap It Up!

2009-04-11T22:58:00.006-04:00

Wraps and sandwich bread happily co-exist in many food establishments across the United States.

I, however, consider them two very different creatures.

If you're eating out and in the mood for a handful of ingredients contained within a bread product, you are better off selecting sliced bread (preferably 100% whole grain).

Although you can find healthy -- and calorically-reasonable -- wraps at your local supermarket, you need to tread more carefully with restaurants.

Many establishments use wraps that double the calories -- and sodium -- found in two slices of bread.

Additionally, since large wraps offer more surface area in which to spread condiments, dressings, and sauces, caloric values are often driven up further.

PS: At Chipotle and Qdoba, ask for your burrito in a bowl (rather than a tortilla) and instantly save 290 (Chipotle) or 330 (Qdoba) calories!

Numbers Game: Answer

2009-04-10T19:01:00.004-04:00

When comparing an Au Bon Pain double chocolate chunk muffin with a large order of McDonald's french fries, the muffin provides 70 MORE calories (570 calories vs. the large fries' 500 calories).

That's not all, folks.

This muffin also provides double the saturated fat of those large fries -- and 100 MORE milligrams of sodium!

Oh, and then there are those 11 teaspoons of added sugar.

These gigantic muffins truly irritate me because they suck away all the enjoyment from savoring a chocolatey baked good.

Why can't these simply be half the size (and calories)? A 285 calorie muffin sounds more reasonable -- and easier to justify as an occasional treat.

And anyone who says "just don't eat the whole thing!" needs to go up to their bedroom and read Brian Wansink's amazing book, Mindless Eating.

You Ask, I Answer:BHT/BHA

2009-04-09T23:59:00.007-04:00

I bought some gum today and the last items on the ingredient list are "BHT and BHA to preserve freshness."

Do you have any idea what that is? It sounds freaky and "chemical"-y.

-- Lori Echter
[Location withheld]

Chewing gum ingredient lists -- especially those of sugarfree gums -- are always fascinating. Artificial sweeteners and dyes abound! But, hey, at least they whiten your teeth, right?

Since BHT and BHA are antioxidants (they prevent the oxidation of oils and fats), their presence increases the shelf life of gum and many other packaged foods.

Yes, gum contains oils (in the form of glycerol, which impart a waxy texture).

You are correct when you say that these two ingredients sound "chemical"-y. They ARE chemicals. BHT stands for butylated hydroxytoluene, while BHA is an acronym for butylated hydroxyanisole.

Although the United States considers them safe to include in food processing, the European Union has banned BHA from all cosmetic products. BHT, meanwhile, is banned from the British food supply amidst reports of its carcinogenic risks and harmful renal effects.

A significant problem here is not so much that the miniscule amounts of BHA or BHT in food are deadly, but rather that because so many people eat heavily processed diets, the amounts of BHA and BHT being consumed worry some researchers.

For what it's worth, the Food & Drug Administration claims to be conducting "further research" on BHT (they have been saying this for at least a decade).

Whenever possible, I suggest you purchase products that use natural antioxidants to preserve freshness (i.e. tocopherols, also known as vitamin E).

You Ask, I Answer: Coconuts/Coconut Oil

2009-04-09T20:30:00.000-04:00

I have a question about coconut oil and lauric acid.

[A] co-worker was doing some research online, and found out that coconut oil is supposedly antimicrobial.

The main fatty acid is lauric acid, which supposedly helps boost metabolism by activating the thyroid.

Is there any truth to those statements?

-- Brandon
(via the blog)

Coconut is a controversial fruit. Although almost entirely made up of saturated fats, there are plenty of books and websites dedicated to its "miraculous" weight-loss and healing properties.

However, two red flags immediately go up.

Number one? Most websites that hail coconut oil as a holy food that cures you of all ills while simultaneously helping you look years younger inevitably -- and predictably -- end up hawking some sort of coconut product.

Number two? My "BS" radar always beeps loudly when one food is referred to as a "miracle" or "cure-all".

The links between coconut oil and thyroid function have never been even remotely established in any studies. I believe that "fact" stems from an article in health and diet supermarket trash tabloid Woman's World, which is as reputable as a Vegas used car salesman.

Although lauric acid is one of the "least unhealthy" saturated fats, it certainly doesn't justify including massive amounts of coconut oil in your diet.

Before I continue, let me share one of my biggest nutritional pet-peeves. I always find myself counting to ten and taking deep breaths when I hear someone say something along the lines of, "but there are tribes in Polynesia that LIVE on coconuts and their heart disease rates are really low!"

The problem with that statement is that those Polynesian tribes also have extremely different lifestyles, dietary patterns, and environmental factors affecting their health.

Extracting only the coconut eating and adapting it to a traditional United States diet does not guarantee YOUR risk of heart disease is suddenly going to match that of a random member of that Polynesian tribe.

With that out of the way, let's continue.

My verdict on coconut oil? For the time being, treat it like you would all other saturated fats. Don't shun it, but do keep it to a certain limit (if eating 2,000 calories, aim to consume no more than 20 grams of saturated fat a day).

Also, I would much rather you consume coconut meat (or shredded unsweetened coconut) rather than coconut oil, as the actual fruit provides more nutrients.

If antimicrobial properties of food are your thing, coconut oil is not the only source. Garlic, green tea, cumin, and cayenne pepper also have antimicrobial components.

Numbers Game: Compare and Contrast

2009-04-08T16:46:00.004-04:00

When comparing An Au Bon Pain double chocolate chunk muffin with a large order of McDonald's french fries, the muffin provides _____ ______ calories.

a) 70 MORE
b) 50 FEWER
c) THE SAME AMOUNT OF
d) 120 MORE

Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Friday for the answer.

The Most Useless Part of a Food Label

2009-04-08T09:47:00.005-04:00

Although food labels provide a significant amount of information that can help us compare the nutrient composition of different products, there is one part of these labels I pay absolutely no attention to -- and I suggest you do the same.

The "waste of space" culprit? "Calories from fat."

Not only is that figure useless, it also ends up confusing most consumers.

The only thing "calories from fat" tells you is how many of a given product's total calories per serving come from fat. Why does that matter?

This, by the way, is no secret formula. You can determine that yourself simply by multiplying the fat grams on a food label by 9 (remember, there are 9 calories in one gram of fat).

Similarly, to estimate the amount of calories from protein, multiply the grams of protein in a serving of a given product by 4.

My main issue with "calories from fat" is that it is clearly a remnant from the early 1990s "low-fat" craze.

Allow me to illustrate the inefficacy of "calories from fat."

A two-tablespoon serving of peanut butter, for example, contains 200 calories, of which 140 are from fat.

A bag of Skittles from a vending machine packs in 250 calories, of which 22.5 are from fat.

Do you see, then, how "calories from fat" is absolutely meaningless?

I say it's time to revise the food label. Drop 'calories from fat', differentiate between naturally-occurring and "added" sugars, and substitute Vitamin A (a mandatory micronutrient on food labels practically no one is deficient in) with a nutrient people should be more aware of, like potassium.

You Ask, I Answer: Supplements

2009-04-07T11:29:00.002-04:00

Do you object to supplementation in general via a basic multivitamin/mineral product?

I recall [reading in the Center for Science in the Public Interest's] Nutrition Action Healthletter that adult males [should] avoid iron supplementation (perhaps due to a possible link between excessive iron intake and the development of a certain type of cancer?).

Is iron something that adult males should indeed avoid in a supplement?

[Lastly,] do you see any merit to taking curcumin or cumin supplements (especially for someone with an inflammatory disease such as asthma)?

Obviously, a whole food is preferable, but I think that massive amounts of curry would need to be ingested in order to derive any possible benefits.

-- Rob White
Boston, MA

My stance on supplementation varies depending on context.

I despise the notion that as long as you take a multivitamin once a day, you don't need to worry about the nutrient composition of what you eat the rest of the day.

Multivitamins do not offer the vast amount -- literally THOUSANDS -- of healthy phytonutrients and other compounds naturally found in foods.

Additionally, absorption from multivitamins is often lower -- and less effective -- than if that same nutrient is derived from actual foods that contain those nutrients.

I do, however, fully support the supplementation of Vitamin D. Unless you live near the Equator, your body can not synthesize this nutrient from sunlight between the months of October and April.

For the record, I recommend supplementing 2,000 International Units of Vitamin D a day.

I also don't have a problem with individuals supplementing a specific vitamin or mineral that they would otherwise be deficient in (i.e.: vegans without access to fortified foods and B12).

The issue of iron supplementation and men can also apply to post-menopausal women. Since iron is very hard for the body to excrete (menstruation being the exception), supplementation in these two populations raises the risk of a condition known as iron overload.

Iron overload can cause a variety of symptoms and problems, from heart arrhythmia and hypothyroidism to impotence and arthritis.

This is why, if you examine the label on a "men's formula" multivitamin, you will find that iron is MIA.

As far as curcumin supplements in regards to asthma, it gets complicated. There is very little data on the efficacy of these supplements. Consequently, dosage values have not been clearly determined.

Additionally, certain individuals (those with weakened immune systems, diabetes, and stomach ulcers) are advised to steer clear of these supplements, as they can aggravate those conditions.

I think you are better off implenting more curry-spiced dishes into your diet. After all, populations that are believed to benefit from this spice include it in their recipes, not swallow it in pill form.

Numbers Game: Answer

2009-04-07T00:03:00.001-04:00

According to a 2007 study published in Health Economics, the percentage of high schools in the United States offering physical education on a daily basis declined from 41.6 percent in 1991 to 28.4 percent in 2003.

In that same time period -- in which massive budget cuts caused many school districts to succumb to dire economic conditions -- the number of vending machines in high schools increased by almost 100 percent.

You don't need an 'A' in algebra to figure out that is a worrisome equation.

Pistachio SOS

2009-04-06T15:26:00.006-04:00

This handy website -- courtesy of the Food & Drug Administration and California pistachio growers -- provides a list of pistachio products and brands that are safe to consume in light of last week's recall.

While you're at it, bookmark the ever-growing list of products and brands containing peanut butter that should be avoided.

I briefly corresponded with Marion Nestle late last week about the peanut butter recall, and specifically asked her when she thought it would become a thing of the past.

Citing the ingredient's long shelf life (certainly much longer than, say, beef), she predicted several more months of careful treading until supermarket shelves are in the clear.

In The News: Supplementing Their Way Through The Recession

2009-04-06T10:35:00.005-04:00

I'm slightly alarmed by this New York Times article that details the surge in supplement and multivitamin sales since last October's infamous stock market crash.

"Sales of vitamins and nutritional supplements, which have grown consistently for years, have surged in recent months. The Vitamin Shoppe has tracked a rise in new customers of about 20 percent over the last six months," the paper reports.

Facing unemployment and rising healthcare costs, some of the consumers interviewed for the piece are turning to echinacea, oregano oil capsules, and protein supplements to stay healthy.

One woman even repeats a classic myth, explaining how "energetic" and "strong" she feels as a result of taking vitamins.

Eek! I am most disturbed by the notion that people in financial hardship are throwing away their money on products that have not been shown to promote health.

The vast majority of studies on echinacea, for example, have not shown much of a benefit compared to a placebo.

Oregano oil? There have been no human studies, and at best it is touted as a way to possibly, perhaps, maybe minimize the symptoms of sinus infections.

Protein supplements, meanwhile, have absolutely nothing to do with health.

As I have said before, there is no reason why anyone consuming enough calories from many food groups should be concerned with getting more protein.

And then there's this: "Amy Breslin, who is 33 and studying to be a physician’s assistant, has pared back on fresh fruits and vegetables and stocked up instead on fish oil capsules and antioxidant supplements."

Her reasoning? Organics are expensive, so she gets a better "bang for her buck" with capsules and supplements.

I hear this line of logic many times. Here are my problems with it:

* While the lack of pesticides used in organic farming is wonderful , conventional fruits and vegetables offer plenty of nutrition. Many people erroneously think that conventional produce is akin to eating rat poison.

* Fish oil capsules and antioxidant supplements do not offer the same health benefits as eating actual fish and produce.

* Eating fruits and vegetables does not need to be expensive. Store-brand frozen fruits and vegetables are inexpensive.

Many people also forget that one of the most important things you can do for your immune system is FREE -- get 7 to 8 hours of sleep a night!

In any case, I need to send my crystal ball in for repairs. A few months ago I "predicted" to friends that The Vitamin Shoppe and/or GNC would suffer as a result of the recession.

You Ask, I Answer: Skinny Bitch

2009-04-05T00:29:00.016-04:00

What do you think of the book Skinny Bitch?

-- Jamie Pierce
Salt Lake City, UT

Skinny Bitch advertises itself as "a no-nonsense tough-love guide for savvy girls who want to stop eating crap and start looking fabulous!"

While I do give the book credit for rightfully criticizing the treatment of farm animals and dedicating a Marion Nestle-inspired chapter to the politics behind the approval process of artificial sweeteners and other substances, I summarize it as "an often inaccurate, wannabe-"shocking" nutrition book that sometimes spouts crap and is under the impression that insulting the reader is fabulous!"

Skinny Bitch claims to "finally tell you the truth about what you're feeding yourself."

However, despite its "hip" title and grrrrl-power writing style that launched it to the top of the New York Times bestseller list, it is riddled with faulty facts, hyperbolic pronouncements, and silly suggestions.

One of the authors is a former agent for Ford Models. First red flag.

Why do people who have never studied nutrition science consider themselves authorities? Would you trust a dentist who never studied dentistry? Would you trust a surgeon who never set foot in medical school? I certainly wouldn't. So why take nutrition advice from someone who hasn't dedicated time to studying it -- especially someone who works in an industry obsessed with unhealthy body shapes?

Author number two is a former model who holds a Masters degree in Holistic Nutrition from Clayton College of Natural Health. Not surprisingly, the quality and reputation of this institution are highly questioned.

There's two red flags before you even open the book.

In any case, Skinny Bitch makes the argument that the only way to be healthy is by becoming a vegan who shuns alcohol, white flour, and caffeine.

The authors repeat this over and over and particularly enjoy cursing at the reader for ever thinking they could be healthy by including any sort of meat or dairy product in their diet.

Even more disturbingly, they prey on readers' body image fears by making the case that not only does any amount of meat and dairy make you sick, it also makes you -- gasp! -- fat.

Allow me to share some passages that resulted in an "ugh!" and an eyeroll from me.

* "Soda's high level of phosphorus can increase calcium loss from the body, as can its sodium and caffeine."

While phosphoric acid in soda has indeed been linked with leached calcium from bones, it is only an issue for individuals who are not getting sufficient amounts of calcium in their diets.

Have these two ever bothered to look at the nutrition facts on a can of soda, though? Soda is very low in sodium.

A can of Coca Cola, for example, contains 35 milligrams (that's 1.4% of the suggested daily maximum intake). Ironically, the frozen vegan burger products the authors endorse contain as much as 500 milligrams of sodium per serving!

As for the caffeine-calcium link -- that's also weak, at best.

* The authors make several references to drinking 8 glasses of water a day. As I have explained in the past, this recommendation stems from a huge misunderstanding by the mainstream media.

* "One study even links caffeine to an increased susceptibility to diabetes."

Bad science alert!

Had the authors bothered to thoroughly research the literature on caffeine and diabetes, they would have discovered that caffeine consumption is linked to a lower risk of diabetes among healthy individuals. The studies they refer to are ones suggesting that people who already have diabetes may benefit from cutting back on caffeine in order to improve their blood sugar levels.

* "Acidic foods cause your body to produce fat cells..."

They apparently believe in one of the biggest -- and off-base -- nutrition myths. Lentils, blueberries, and chickpeas, for example, are categorized as "acidic foods." They now make you fat? Wow, and to think silly uninformed me considered them healthy all this time!

* "When we eat fruit with other foods... it rots and ferments in our stomach."

Not surprisingly, that ludicrous statement is not attributed to any source. Right, because it's science fiction!

* "We have food rotting, decomposing, and fermenting in our intestinal tracts and colons, hence the need for colonics."

Did the author with the Masters degree ever take a human physiology course? Clearly not! Otherwise, she would know that nothing can cling to the colon and "rot away" since the cells that line that organ slough off several times a day.

* "You don't see many tigers getting colonics, do you?"

No. Fortunately for them, rip-off artists don't exist in their species.

* "Your body can't handle animal fat, so it settles like lumpy shit all over your ass, thighs, sides, arms and stomach."

I'll let that ridiculous quote speak for itself. Is this what holistic nutritonists are being taught? Sigh...

* "If you want to get skinny, you've got to be a vegetarian."

Before I comment, let me remind you that I am a pescatarian who follows a strictly vegetarian diet 90% of the time. I am by no means a meat enthusiast, nor do I have stock in the beef industry.

That said, the idea that vegetarian = skinny is ludicrous. After all, vegetarians can eat ice cream, cakes, cookies, muffins, pizza, french fries. They can consume more calories than they need and, consequently, gain weight.

Once again, I can't help but wonder: THIS is the nonsense that passes for a #1 New York Times bestseller these days?

* "Dairy products produce mucus."

Another myth these authors clearly didn't research.

* "[Dairy products] are the perfect thing to eat if you want to be sick and have a diseased body."

As much as I dislike the narrow-minded notions that dairy products are the only way to get calcium and absolutely necessary for human health, I am also irritated by the frantic and inaccurate warnings that dairy products are equivalent to chugging Draino.

* "Consuming high amounts of dairy blocks iron absorption, contributing to iron deficiency."

Ugh. The same can be said about phytates in whole grains. In fact, the extremists folks at the Weston A. Price Organization make that very argument -- which, like this one, has very little relevance.

There is severely faulty logic at work here. Yes, calcium inhibits iron absorption, but this applies to all sources of calcium (i.e.: broccoli, bok choy, mustard greens, and tempeh) -- not just dairy.

* "Eggs are high in saturated fat."

Absolutely untrue. One egg contains approximately 1.5 grams of saturated fat -- that's 0.4 fewer grams than a tablespoon of olive oil!

* "You will pee in your pants when you see how much weight you lose from giving up dairy."

If you give up any food and don't replace the calories with something else, you will obviously lose weight. If, however, you replace the 91 calories in a cup of skim milk with 91 calories from soymilk, don't count on any changes.

* "Do you really believe milk can be made fat-free? Get your had out of your ass. Milk = fat. Butter = fat. Cheese = fat. People who think these products can be low fat or fat free = fucking morons."

The f-word! How "edgy"!

First of all, there is no such thing as low-fat or fat-free butter, so that particular example makes no sense.

Additionally, skim milk is not a mythical food item that only exists in supermarkets operated by unicorns and mermaids. So, yes, milk CAN be made fat-free.

* After pages upon pages of criticizing processed foods and sugar, the authors go on to recommend a variety of frozen vegetarian burgers, soy ice creams, and tofu hot dogs. HUH? Frozen vegetarian foods, like other frozen items, are high in sodium. Vegan hamburgers are processed food. Soy ice creams, like dairy-based ones, contain added sugars.

* From the FYI chapter: "Donate blood. You can save a life and lose weight at the same time."

I think that was when my eyebrows hit the ceiling.

Alas, I could go on (trust me, I could!), but I think you get the point.

To "make up" for their verbal abuse at the reader, the authors conclude the book with positive-thinking mantras lifted right out of The Secret ("every day in every way my stomach is getting flatter") and a clearly-tacked-on-by-a-public-relations-friendly-editor reminder that, despite the title of the book, unrealistically thin illustrations on the front and back cover, and constant references to weight, "they couldn't care less about being skinny."

You Ask, I Answer: Gummy Bear Food Label

2009-04-05T00:08:00.001-04:00

Here's a mystery for you.

I am looking at a bag of Haribo gummy bears. According to the food label, there are 3 grams of protein per serving.

How can that be? I thought candy was just sugar?

-- Marilyn (last name withheld)
New York, NY

I sought out a bag of these gummy bears and immediately looked at the ingredient list: "corn syrup, sugar, gelatin, dextrose, citric acid, starch, artificial and natural flavors, fractionated coconut oil, carnauba wax, beeswax coating, artificial colors: Yellow 5, Red 10, Blue 1."

The answer to your question comes courtesy of the third ingredient -- gelatin.

Remember, gelatin is made from the jelly-like protein substance that remains after dissolving animal tendons, ligaments, skin, and bones in boiling water. Consequently, gelatin is approximately 85% protein.

All gelatin is animal-derived. "Vegetarian candies", meanwhile, use plant-based thickeners.

Numbers Game: Fleeting Fitness

2009-04-04T12:06:00.001-04:00

According to a 2007 study published in Health Economics, the percentage of high schools in the United States offering physical education on a daily basis declined from 41.6 percent in 1991 to __________ percent in 2003.

a) 34.9
b) 38.2
c) 28.4
d) 30.7

Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Tuesday for the answer.

So Much for Moderation

2009-04-03T12:34:00.006-04:00

I don't know what the weather is like in your corner of the world right now, but New York City's is currently grey and rainy.

Alas, here is a perfect website for such a day -- This Is Why You're Fat.

Crass name aside, it's a grotesquely fascinating photo gallery of real, gasp-worthy, "you've GOT to be kidding me!" dishes (many of them served at restaurants).

Take, for instance, "the Thunderdome's three stacks of bacon, sausage, elk meat, onions and cheese between tortillas all topped with sour cream, two fried eggs and scallions."

Then there's the blasphemous "Snack Pizza Bomb: pizza topped with french fries, sliced corn dogs, popcorn chicken and Doritos" pictured alongside this post.

Anyone up for figuring out calorie totals?

You Ask, I Answer: Grapes vs. Wine

2009-04-03T11:50:00.001-04:00

Out of curiosity, how many grapes would someone have to eat to equal a serving (how many ounces is that?) of wine?

Also, is grape juice just as healthy as wine?

-- Patricia (last name unknown)
Berkeley, CA

Is it only red grapes that offer health benefits?

-- "WifeMomChocoholic"
Via the blog

As I mentioned in a previous post, the same buzz-worthy components in red wine are available in red grapes. One slight exception to the rule is resveratrol, which is simply more concentrated in wine.

One reason you don't hear quite as much about white wine, by the way, is because the production process separates the grape's flesh from the skin (for red wine, the whole fruit is used).

If you want to talk numbers, your average bottle of wine is made from approximately 600 grapes.

Now, let's do some math.

A standard wine bottle contains roughly 25 ounces. According to MyPyramid guidelines, one serving of wine is equal to 5 ounces.

Therefore, one serving of wine contains 120 grapes. That helps us better understand the recommendations of drinking, rather than eating, the fruit.

That is not to say, of course, that you need to eat 120 grapes to get health benefits (FYI -- one serving of fresh grapes is made up of 15 individual pieces).

As far as grape juice is concerned -- the health benefits are not quite up to those of wine.

Remember, the vast majority of grape juices are made from concentrate (which is largely made up of the naturally-occurring sugars). Consequently, a lot of the polyphenols and antioxidants found in grape skins do not make it to the final product.

Although red wine (and, therefore, red grapes) offers a wider variety of healthful components in larger amounts, don't cast off white grapes. Even though white wine is not made from grape skins, the fruit's flesh offers a fair share of polyphenols and antioxidants.

Numbers Game: Answer

2009-04-02T00:03:00.001-04:00

A 20 ounce bottle of Snapple Mixed-Up Berry Iced Tea contains 13 teaspoons of added sugar (in the form of high fructose corn syrup).

The truly frightening part is that sugar appears before tea in the ingredient list (meaning that, by weight, there is more sugar than tea.)

The Snapple website, meanwhile, devotes an entire section to the health benefits of tea. That's akin to talking about the healthful properties of broccoli and sweet potatoes only to deep fry them in tempura batter!

Thirteen teaspoons of high fructose corn syrup in tea? They might want to rethink the "made from the best stuff on Earth" slogan.

You Ask, I Answer: Iron & Athletes

2009-04-01T01:27:00.004-04:00

I know women who menstruate need more iron than men and postmenopausal women.

What about male athletes?

I have seen some literature that suggests they need more iron [than men who are not athletes], but my coach said he has never heard of that.

-- Scott Julin
(Location unknown)

Athletes of all sexes and ages require higher iron intakes than the average population.

The term "athlete", by the way, refers to people who train for significant amounts of time at high intensity.

I am often surprised at the amount of people who jog for 20 minutes three days a week and think they suddenly have the nutrition requirements of an Olympic medalist!

The reason for this higher requirement (roughly equal to that of vegans and vegetarians)? Athletes -- especially long-distance runners -- experience microscopic intestinal bleeding as a result of their intense physical activity.

You Ask, I Answer: Popular Healthy Foods

2009-04-01T00:17:00.007-04:00

Why is it that there is much talk about eating olive oil, wine, and tomato products and not simply olives, grapes, and tomatoes?

Surely the benefits of the processed forms are even more present in the whole form of the food.

Or is that not the case?

-- Corey Clark
(Location withheld)

I love this "thinking cap turned on" question!

Here is my take on each of the pairings:

Olive oil vs. olives: Everyone cooks with some sort of fat; not everyone eats olives.

So, in order to have as many people as possible reap the benefits of olives, it makes more sense to suggest they use olive oil in their cooking/salad dressings rather than eat olives.

Also, olives have a much stronger taste than olive oil. Many people who enjoy the flavor of olive oil do not find olives palatable.

Although olives offer more vitamins and minerals than olive oil, 120 calories of olives (equal to 1 tablespoon of olive oil) offers almost half of the daily recommended limit of sodium!

Tomato products vs. whole tomatoes: Cooked tomatoes offer higher levels of lycopene than their raw counterparts.

Wine vs. grapes: This is one I never understood. Grapes offer the same healthy compounds as wine. This is why I always tell people that if they regularly eat grapes but do not drink wine, they are not missing out on any health benefits!

I personally think this comes back to the "reaching as many people as possible" goal that applies to olive oil.

You Ask, I Answer: Folate vs. Folic Acid

2009-03-31T00:42:00.008-04:00

What is the difference between folate and folic acid?

Are they two different minerals?

-- (Name withheld)
Bridgeport, CT

Actually, they are the same vitamin!

Folate is a B vitamin (known in a small handful of scientific circles as "Vitamin B9") found primarily in beans, legumes, green vegetables, fruits, and, if organ meats are your "thing", beef liver.

Folic acid, meanwhile, is the the synthetic version of folate (i.e.: the type available in supplements).

In what I consider an odd turn of events, our bodies absorb folic acid more efficiently than folate.

You Ask, I Answer: Red Mango

2009-03-31T00:05:00.007-04:00

When you blogged about Red Mango frozen yogurt, you endorsed it as a healthy treat.

I also saw that in your recent ConAgra children's frozen meal post, you commented negatively on the 18 grams of sugar it contained.

A small, original (plain) Red Mango yogurt also has 18 grams of sugar.

So now I'm slightly confused -- is Red Mango good or bad? How can 18 grams be good in one thing, bad in another?

-- Lexi (last name withheld)
New York, NY

One of my biggest grips about food labels is that they do not differentiate between naturally-occurring sugars and added sugars.

Naturally-occurring sugars are found in fruits and vegetables (in the form of fructose) as well as dairy (as lactose).

Added sugars (mostly in the form of sucrose) are added on to foods during processing.

Although naturally-occurring and added sugars offer the same number of calories (4 per gram), naturally-occurring sugars are different in the sense they "come with the package."

When you bite into an apple, you are getting sugars along with vitamins, minerals, and a wide variety of health-promoting phytonutrients (some of which we have yet to discover!).

If you eat the same amount of sugar naturally found in an apple in the form of table sugar, you are getting empty calories (they are void of vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients.)

In the case of Red Mango, the 18 grams of sugar refer to naturally-occurring AND added sugars. Approximately 10 to 12 of those grams are naturally-occurring, so you're only getting 6 to 8 grams (1.5 to 2 teaspoons) of added sugar.

By the way, I have a slight problem with Red Mango referring to their original flavor as "plain", since plain flavors of regular (non-frozen) yogurt do not have any added sugar.

In any case, this is very different from that frozen meal I posted about, which got its 18 grams of sugar from the chewy candies it offered as dessert.

Numbers Game: Would You Like Some Tea With Your Sugar?

2009-03-30T00:08:00.001-04:00

A 20 ounce bottle of Snapple Mixed-Up Berry Iced Tea contains ______ teaspoons of added sugar (in the form of high fructose corn syrup).

a) 13
b) 11.5
c) 15
d) 9

Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Thursday for the answer.

You Ask, I Answer: Egg Yolks (Part 2)

2009-03-30T00:06:00.001-04:00

How unhealthy are egg yolks?

Is it true that some people have more of a chance (due to genes) of producing more LDL cholesterol and [that] only these individuals should eat egg yolks in moderation?

-- Lori (last name unknown)
Via the blog

Egg yolks are branded with an undeserving "unhealthy" label that has proven hard to shake off.

It was formerly believed that high intakes of dietary cholesterol resulted in high blood cholesterol levels. We now know, however, that blood cholesterol levels are linked to intakes of of trans fats and most saturated fats.

It is true that some individuals have a genetic predisposition for high cholesterol. Consequently, they are recommended to limit their intake of whole eggs to three per week.

If, however, you do not fall into that category, you can safely eat one egg a day.

As far as I'm concerned, the average healthy individual should concern themselves much more with saturated fat than cholesterol.

After all, very low intakes of cholesterol simply mean your liver makes up for it by creating more.

As I pointed out during Season 4 of Bravo's reality competition show Top Chef, people often make significant nutrition mistakes when avoiding meats high in cholesterol. These meats are usually much LOWER in saturated fat and, therefore, a healthier option than varieties low in cholesterol but high in saturated fat!

Your average large egg provides 77 calories and only 1.5 grams of saturated fat. It also doesn't hurt that it's a good way to add riboflavin, B12, selenium, and biotin to your diet!

You Ask, I Answer: Food Pyramid

2009-03-29T00:03:00.006-04:00

Do corn and potatoes fall into the "grains" or "vegetable" category in the food pyramid?

-- Tom O'Farrell
Boston, MA

As far as the United States Department of Agriculture is concerned, potatoes and corn are members of the vegetable group.

Remember, the food pyramid categorizes foods by nutrient profile.

Although corn and potatoes are higher in carbohydrates than other vegetables, their vitamin, mineral, and phytonutrient content is more similar to that of vegetables than grains (we are talking about corn-on-the-cob and baked potatoes here, not Fritos and Pringles!)

I understand the USDA's decision from a simplicity standpoint, but it is not completely accurate in the case of corn, which is both a vegetable AND a grain, depending on how it is harvested.

Although most people associate corn with processed junk (where it either shows up as high fructose corn syrup or corn oil in ingredient lists), it offers a good amount of nutrition when eaten fresh (off the cob) or simply popped and sprinkled with a little salt, parmesan cheese, or nutritional yeast for flavoring.

For what it's worth, a large ear of corn contributes 127 calories -- along with vitamin C, phosphorus, manganese, potassium, and most of the B vitamins -- to your day.

In The News: Kidney Believe It?

2009-03-28T07:10:00.000-04:00

This article in The San Francisco Chronicle -- courtesy of the Associated Press -- sheds light on a disturbing trend among children: higher incidences of kidney stones.

"At Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, for example, the number of children treated for kidney stones since 2005 has climbed from about 10 a year to five patients a week now, said Dr. Pasquale Casale."

Although pediatric kidney stones are often attached to inborn metabolic defects, the majority of these new cases involve children who test negative for such disorders.

One very likely culprit? Processed diets (specifically the high levels of sodium they contribute) within the context of low fluid intake.

This demonstrates, as I have been saying for slightly over a year now, that sodium is well on its way to becoming the next "hot button" ingredient (following in the footsteps of trans fats, high fructose corn syrup, whole grains, and Omega-3 fatty acids).

Expect even more companies to offer low-sodium varieties of products -- particularly ones aimed at children.

The sugar lobbyists, I'm sure, are popping a bottle of champagne as I type these words!

Numbers Game: Answer

2009-03-27T10:55:00.006-04:00

Vegetarians and vegans should aim to consume 50 percent more zinc than their meat-eating counterparts each day.

One of the problems with the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) is that they make a few assumptions (for example, that everyone eats meat).

In all fairness, they kind of have to since these figures are meant as average daily intakes sufficient for 97% of the population.

The issue with vegetable sources of zinc, as with iron, is their low bioavailability.

Therefore, if you are over the age of 18 and do not eat meat (by "meat" I mean beef, poultry, pork, and seafood), your requirement increases from 8 milligrams a day to approximately 12 or 13.

In The News: In The Zone

2009-03-26T12:44:00.003-04:00

Today's New York Times reports the conclusion of an eight-year-long study of millions of schoolchildren completed by economists at the University of California and Columbia University: "ninth graders whose schools are within a block of a fast-food outlet are more likely to be obese than students whose schools are a quarter of a mile or more away."

This study is particularly significant since it adjusted for variables like income, education, and race, thereby making it easier to accurately pinpoint the effect of fast food restaurant proximity to weight.

More specifically, "obesity rates were 5 percent higher among the ninth graders whose schools were within one-tenth of a mile of a pizza, burger or other popular fast-food outlet, compared with students attending schools farther away from fast-food stores."

In a not-at-all surprising move, the National Restaurant Association is shrugging this off since "it did not take individual diet and exercise into account." The argument falls rather flat when you consider that the location of these fast food restaurants clearly had an effect on students' diets.

I have long been a supporter of zoning laws regarding fast food restaurants and schools, and this only strengthens my belief.

You Ask, I Answer: Egg Yolk

2009-03-26T12:27:00.005-04:00

I heard somewhere that you should keep the yolk when eating eggs as you don't absorb the protein without it.

I know the yolk has the highest concentration of protein but I always assumed that egg whites are also a source of protein, albeit less than a whole egg.

Can you clarify?

-- Lori (last name withheld)
Ottawa, Ontario

Although egg yolks contain some protein (approximately 42% of an egg's total protein content), egg whites contain more.

Additionally, whereas egg yolks are a mix of protein and fat, egg whites are almost entirely made up of protein.

You do not need to eat egg yolk in order to absorb the protein in egg whites.

That is not to say the egg yolk is useless. It's a wonderful source of folate, vitamin A, choline, and the antioxidants lutein and zeaxanthin.

You Ask, I Answer: Chunk Light Tuna

2009-03-25T12:12:00.006-04:00

I generally eat about 4 cans of chunk light tuna a week. Reasoning: Omega-3's are good and mercury is low in chunk light tuna.

However, I just read an article saying that mercury was high even in canned tuna, although previous sources have said that mercury levels in canned tuna are low enough to be safe.

The same sources state that only the larger predatory fish such as shark and albacore tuna need be avoided.

What's your take?

-- Corey Clark
[Location unknown]

Chunk light tuna contains approximately one third of the mercury found in the same amount of albacore ("white") tuna.

According to current recommendations, adults can safely eat up to three cans of chunk light tuna a week (the suggestion for albacore tuna caps off weekly consumption at one can for adults).

Don't get too comfortable, though. You still need to glance at the ingredient list since some varieties of canned light tuna contain yellowfin tuna, which contains higher amounts of mercury.

You Ask, I Answer: Eating at Night

2009-03-25T11:00:00.001-04:00

Why did you say [in your Michelle Obama post] that the principle of not eating late [at night] is hogwash?

Doesn't the digestive system interfere with sleep if it is still working full-time at bedtime?

-- Elsa (last name unknown)
Via the blog

The recommendation of not going to bed with a full stomach makes sense if you are talking about acid reflux or heartburn.

Finishing up a large dinner and falling asleep on the couch half an hour later can be problematic since acidic gastric compounds from the stomach can enter the esophagus and cause symptoms that disrupt sleep.

I was referring, though, to the common myth that not eating after a certain hour (usually 7 PM) leads to weight loss, as if there were a "magical" caloric bewitching hour.

Eating after 7 PM will only result in weight gain if whatever you consume puts you over your caloric needs. A piece of fruit or a cup of low-fat yogurt are no more fattening at 10 PM than they are at 2 PM.

What gets left out of these inane "weight loss rules" is that, very simply, the more hours you are awake, the more calories you are likely to consume. Hitting the sack an hour and a half after dinner doesn't leave as much room for hunger as staying up for another four hours.

When A Blood Test Isn't Enough

2009-03-24T15:44:00.006-04:00

If you're looking to get a firm grasp on your iron status, a simple blood test won't do.

Standard blood tests tend to exclusively report levels of hemoglobin, which only help detect iron-deficiency anemia.

Remember: you can have iron deficiency without anemia, a condition which causes specific symptoms and certainly needs to be treated.

Keeping in mind that approximately 75 percent of the world's population is estimated to be iron deficient, it is a good idea to ask your doctor for a more accurate test.

Next time you are due for a blood test, request to have your transferrin saturation and ferritin levels tested.

Although ferritin is useful by itself, I strongly recommend you ask for both since ferritin can lead to false positives (inflammatory states affect its levels)

If these tests show you have iron deficiency, the solution is rather simple -- include more iron in your diet.

Fortunately, dietary interventions usually lead to improved iron levels in as little as three weeks.

In The News: Starstruck

2009-03-24T10:05:00.006-04:00

In an article titled "Is Gwyneth Paltrow's Food Advice Perfect for the Recession?" published in this week's New York Magazine, writer Mark Adams preposterously hails "the Goopster" (my nickname for her, don't you like it?) as some sort of nutrition visionary.

"We’ve entered a moment in which it’s perfectly acceptable to talk, if not boast, about the purity of one’s digestive functions, as Diddy did when he recently Twittered minute-by-minute details of his “spiritual” 48-hour juice fast," Adams states in his opening paragraph.

I almost threw my copy of the magazine across the room after that sentence.

If we are going to use "Diddy" -- a record label executive with more flops than I care to count and bigger delusions of grandeur than your average reality show contestant -- as a thermometer of nutrition trends and sensibility, we're in trouble.

Alas, let's continue.

Adams explains that that during the Great Depression, a man named Bernarr Macfadden launched a magazine titled Physical Culture, which published recipes along with health and fitness tips.

Adams equates this to Gwyneth Paltrow's health and wellness- oriented website, Goop.com, which is big on detoxing and cleansing (click here to read my impression of one of her recent postings).

"Macfadden’s main idea—one echoed by Gwyneth, Diddy, and anyone who has completed a Blueprint or Master cleanse—was that an empty stomach is the path to detoxification and wellness."

This notion that empty stomachs are somehow virtuous sets up a horrendously disturbing slippery slope that leads right into eating disorders.

"An empty stomach is the path to wellness" might as well be the mantra of someone living with anorexia nervosa.

Again, why are we looking to Gwyneth Paltrow and Diddy for health advice? Are people that blinded by fame that they consider celebrities to somehow know the answers to everything?

For that matter, Mr. Macfadden (who, in his defense, had some good ideas in terms of the virtues of whole grains) himself was a self-appointed nutrition expert (thus explaining his belief that 7-day fasts were healthy).

"Many more people are going to lose their health insurance before anything approaching universal coverage gets passed. Meanwhile, we might all be better off if we literally tightened our belts and followed the stars for a while instead," Adams feebly concludes.

No, Mr. Adams. We shouldn't follow the stars. We should simply use common sense. Cut back on processed junk, eat more fruits and vegetables, add whole grains to our diet, keep tabs on calories, and stop turning to celebrities for nutrition advice.

Numbers Game: Getting In Zinc

2009-03-24T00:48:00.005-04:00

Vegetarians and vegans should aim to consume _____ percent more zinc than their meat-eating counterparts each day.

a) 17
b) 25
c) 50
d) 0

Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Friday for the answer -- and some little-known facts about this mineral.

You Ask, I Answer: Protein On The Go

2009-03-23T23:39:00.003-04:00

Got an idea for a source of protein for my daughter that I can take with me out and about during the day that doesn't require refrigeration?

-- "n/a"
Via the blog

Nuts are always great; peanuts, almonds, cashews, walnuts, and pistachios are easily transportable sources of protein.

Although all nuts should be stored in the refrigerator (to slow down rancidity of fats), it is certainly okay to carry some with you throughout the day.

I am not a big fan of protein bars. The vast majority of them are loaded with added sugar and saturated fats.

In The News: Is Sugar's "Time Out" Over?

2009-03-23T11:12:00.004-04:00

The New York Times recently profiled sugar's triumphant return.

"Blamed for hyperactivity in children and studied as an addictive substance, sugar has had its share of image problems," the paper reports, "but the widespread criticism of high-fructose corn syrup has made sugar look good by comparison."

As much as the The Sugar Association loves this shift in consumers' attitudes, I am absolutely dismayed that the issue at stake is whether sugar is more nutritious than high fructose corn syrup.

A much more accurate -- and healthful -- concept would be to simply decrease the intake of added sugars, period.

I understand the political, economic, environmental, and farming business implications behind high-fructose corn syrup that make it a bigger threat than sugar, but the fact remains that eating 100 grams of added sugars each day -- whether as high fructose corn syrup or sugar -- adds up to 400 extra calories.

Dr. Robert H. Lustig of the University of California, San Francisco Children’s Hospital sums it up perfectly: “The argument about which is better for you, sucrose or HFCS, is garbage. Both are equally bad for your health.”

You Ask, I Answer: Wild Salmon

2009-03-22T22:02:00.003-04:00

If I don't eat canned salmon (which I know is usually wild and not farmed), are there any ways to help me determine if the fresh salmon I am eating is farm-raised or not?

-- Elizabeth Isaacson
Portland, OR

Although some supermarkets label their fish accordingly ("farmed" or "wild-caught"), those descriptions are not always accurate.

There are, however, certain clues you can keep in mind.

Anytime you see the term "Atlantic salmon", you are dealing with farm-raised fish. Anyone who tries to sell you Atlantic salmon as "wild-caught" is most likely lying through their teeth.

On the flip side, "Pacific salmon" encompasses a variety of species (including chinook/king, chum, coho, sockeye, and pink) that are wild-caught.

Texture can sometimes be a giveaway, too. Wild-caught salmon tends to have a thicker, meatier mouthfeel.

I don't consider price to be much of an indicator.

Although you will never see wild-caught salmon at $5 a pound, some dishonest stores will sell farm-raised salmon at $14 a pound in an attempt to make consumers think they are paying for something wild-caught.

On another disturbing note, the numbers of wild salmon are drastically reducing with each passing year. Please visit "Save Our (Wild) Salmon" for more information.

Numbers Game: Answer

2009-03-21T22:32:00.004-04:00

A single-serve 11-ounce bottle of ready-to-drink Carnation Instant Breakfast Essentials contains 5.25 teaspoons of added sugar.

I never understood Carnation Instant Breakfast's reputation as a health product. It's nothing more than fortified chocolate milk (the second ingredient is sugar).

There is absolutely no difference between starting your day with Carnation Instant Breakfast and downing a multivitamin along with a glass of Nesquik.

In fact, if your breakfast consisted of an 11 ounce glass of non-fat milk with a tablespoon of chocolate syrup, you would be consuming half the amount of sugar in a bottle of ready-to-drink Carnation Instant Breakfast.

Depending on which way the wind is blowing, Carnation Instant Breakfast and rice cakes are at the top of my "nutritionally overrated foods" list.

You Ask, I Answer: Wild Blueberries

2009-03-20T14:52:00.005-04:00

Are wild blueberries more nutritious than regular blueberries?

-- Sophia Durbitry
[Location withheld]

The main differences between wild blueberries and "regular" (planted) blueberries are their size (wild blueberries are smaller) and taste (wild blueberries are tangier and a little sweeter).

From a nutritional standpoint, there isn't a huge difference.

Wild blueberries are reported to have higher levels of antioxidants, but I wonder if that is simply because they are smaller in size (a half cup of wild blueberries contains almost twice as much individual berries as half a cup of cultivated blueberries).

Even if, ounce by ounce, the wild variety is higher in antioxidants, cultivated blueberries already contain a wide array.

Incorporating blueberries -- wild or otherwise -- into your diet is a great move. As the popular idiom suggests, "don't sweat the small stuff."

In The News: Michelle On A Mission

2009-03-19T23:28:00.007-04:00

Terrific news!

"On Friday, Michelle Obama will begin digging up a patch of White House lawn to plant a vegetable garden, the first since Eleanor Roosevelt’s victory garden in World War II," reports today's New York Times.

Alas, this is not a one-person job.

"Twenty-three fifth graders from Bancroft Elementary School in Washington will help her dig up the soil for the 1,100-square-foot plot in a spot visible to passers-by on E Street. Students from the school, which has had a garden since 2001, will also help plant, harvest and cook the vegetables, berries and herbs."

This is no small garden, either. Fifty-five vegetables will be planted, ranging from arugula to cilantro to kale and spinach; berries (and even honey!) will also have their place.

Mrs. Obama's parting words of dietary advice are music to my ears. Forget crash diets, low-carb nonsense, Master Cleanse ridiculousness, or "no food after 8 PM" hogwash.

Mrs. Obama keeps it simple: "“You can begin by eliminating processed food, trying to cook a meal a little more often, [and] trying to incorporate more fruits and vegetables."

I love the message -- eat more fruits and vegetables. Simple, concise, and relevant.

Thoughts?

Survey Results: The Farm Bill

2009-03-19T11:17:00.006-04:00

I can't say I was surprised to learn that 70 percent of Small Bites' latest poll respondents classify themselves as being "not at all" familiar with the Farm Bill and an additional 22 percent as "having heard of it, but not knowing any details."

The Farm Bill is, at its most basic, a document that dictates farm and food policy in the United States (ranging from food stamps to farm subsidies to conservation programs to the School Lunch Program).

Of course, "basic" is an understatement when you consider that the latest Farm Bill spans almost 1,500 pages and is infamously verbose and convoluted.

If you are interested in a "Farm Bill 101" lesson, I highly recommend this article.

Up for review every five years, its latest revision took place in 2008.

Although the entire Farm Bill affects food production, trade, and policy, the two most relevant sections to nutrition are title IV (Nutrition) and title X (Horticulture).

Click here to see what has changed in title IV as a result of the 2008 Farm Bill, and check out this page to see what is new in title X.

Lastly, this page succinctly highlights a variety of "good news" emerging from the 2008 Farm Bill as far as local foods and consumer benefits are concerned.

You Ask, I Answer: Caffeine & Calcium

2009-03-19T09:39:00.005-04:00

Is it true that coffee causes osteoporosis?

-- Linda (last name withheld)
New York, NY

Before I answer, allow me to get something off my chest.

Statements like "[insert name of food here] causes [insert disease/condition here]" are tremendously inaccurate.

If someone ever tells you that a food causes a particular disease, promise me your "BS" alarms will go off.

Unless you are talking about contamination issues, food as a whole does not cause disease.

Rather, it is particular components in certain foods that, when consumed often over long periods of time, can elevate one's risk of developing a certain condition.

This reminds me of absurd statements like "ice cream makes you fat."

While a 600-calorie sundae every day after dinner will surely result in weight gain, a one-scoop ice cream cone every Saturday night is no cause for concern.

"Ice cream makes you fat" wrongly categorizes 150 calories and 900 calories of the same food as nutritionally equal.

Similarly, saying that "coffee causes osteoporosis" is too broad a statement. At the very least, whoever is making such a statement should identify what specific component in coffee is believed to affect bone mass.

Which brings us to the question at hand.

Since caffeine is a diuretic that results in a higher-than-normal excretion of calcium in the urine and feces, some people jump to the conclusion that, therefore, caffeine intake is related to osteoporosis.

However, studies have demonstrated that the average cup of coffee -- 8 ounces and approximately 150 milligrams of caffeine -- increases calcium excretion by a practically insignificant 5 milligrams (remember, you should be getting 1,000 milligrams a day).

To balance this out, all you need to do is add a single teaspoon of milk to your coffee.

Keep in mind that all the studies looking at caffeine's effect on calcium levels assume people drink black coffee (an 8-ounce latte, meanwhile, contains two thirds of a cup of milk!).

Another concern with caffeine is that it inhibits intestinal absorption of calcium. While true, our bodies are smart and make up for this by increasing calcium absorption at the next meal.

Made With... Clogged Arteries in Mind?

2009-03-18T12:52:00.006-04:00

Baskin Robbins' latest offerings include "Made With..." sundaes, which add popular candies to your ice cream experience.

The "made with M&Ms" sundae, for example, consists of"three scoops of made with M&M's ice cream, layered with hot fudge and M&M's, topped with more hot fudge, marshmallow, whipped cream and more M&M's.""

Alas, this sundae is only available in one size, which adds up to:

1,090 calories
30 grams of saturated fat (approximately a day and a half's worth)
120 grams of added sugar (that's 30 teaspoons)

The "made with Snickers" sundae ("three scoops of made with Snickers ice cream, crushed Snickers pieces and caramel layers, topped with caramel, hot fudge, whipped cream and Snickers pieces", pictured at right) clocks in at:

1,000 calories
25 grams of saturated fat
93 grams of added sugar (approximately 23 teaspoons)
710 milligrams of sodium (70 more grams than a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish!)

What truly irritates me about these products is that if anyone happens to crave these sundaes, their only options are these nutritional horrors.

As we are all too aware, buying a sundae and throwing half of it out is not a reasonable expectation. Neither is having half and taking the rest home.

Why can't Baskin Robbins make this standard size a "large" and also offer a "small" sundae consisting of one scoop of ice cream and, consequently, a lot less of fudge, whipped cream, and candy pieces?

Why must an ice cream treat turn into a caloric abomination?

Food companies and fast food chains love to talk about "moderation", so how about offering it?

Numbers Game: A Few Spoonfuls of Sugar Make The Taste of Synthetic Vitamins Go Down Easier

2009-03-17T14:27:00.009-04:00

A single-serve 11-ounce bottle of ready-to-drink Carnation Instant Breakfast Essentials contains _________ teaspoons of added sugar.

a) 4.5
b) 5.25
c) 6.75
d) 3.25

Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Saturday for the answer -- and to find out why I think Carnation Instant Breakfast is terribly over hyped.

More of the Same

2009-03-17T12:05:00.009-04:00

Join me as I peruse the breakfast food aisle and analayze the newest offerings.

First up -- Kellogg's Raisin Bran Extra (traditional Kellogg's Raisin Bran with yogurt clusters, cranberries, and almonds.)

While points are scored for the exclusive use of whole wheat and presence of seven grams of fiber, not all is peachy.

The ingredient list displays sugar on six separate occasions, and a cup of this cereal contains as much sodium as two 1-ounce bags (think vending machine size) of Doritos!

Hannah Montana's gruesome invasion of pop culture now extends to cereal thanks to Kellogg's Hannah Montana cereal ("multi-grain secret star cereal with strawberry milkshake flavoring.")

The product's nutrition label, much like Miley Cyrus' vocal capability, is absolutely lackluster.

One cup offer a paltry gram of fiber, 2 grams of protein, and five times more sodium than potassium (the marker of a heavily processed food).

The ingredient list doesn't fare out much better. First up on the list? Corn meal.

Since the cereal is made from corn and oat, it is obnoxiously advertised as "multi grain" (literally meaning "more than one grain" and further proof that "multi grain" has nothing to do with fiber content!)

Let's move on to Pop Tarts' newest flavor, chocolate banana split ("white dough, banana/chocolate striped filling, white base frosting, and crunchlettes").

Just one of these toaster pastries (not exactly the most accurate serving size, especially since you get two per individual pack) clocks in at 200 calories, 200 milligrams of sodium, and 4 teaspoons of added sugar.

Despite the illustration of fresh banana slices on the packaging, bananas are missing from the ingredient list.

Underwhelming, yet not at all surprising.

Consider Me Amazed

2009-03-17T09:56:00.005-04:00

I always like to taste products tailored to people on modified diets (i.e.: people living with diabetes, celiac disease, or lactose intolerance).

While I do not have a condition that requires me to avoid specific ingredients or keep my intake of a certain nutrient below a certain amount, I strongly believe that to get a firm grasp on the nutritional lifestyle of a given condition, I have to be familiar with what is available to that population.

Whenever I have tried sugar-free varieties of popular sweets (mainly meant for people who have diabetes and not anyone looking to lose weight since these products add more fat to balance out the absence of sugar, thereby being just as caloric as regular versions), I have been disappointed.

The presence of sugar alcohols usually imparts a strange aftertaste, and one too many bites of sugar-free chocolate often result in awful gastrointestinal effects.

I will never forget an incident where a "sugar-free" muffin (chock full of maltitol) had me bent over in pain for two hours from the absolutely horrible stomach pain.

Alas, my faith in diabetic-friendly desserts has been reawakened by So Delicious Sugar-Free ice cream bars.

These soy (yes, they are also lactose-free!) bars (available in fudge or vanilla bar varieties) are not only sugar-free, but also "artificial-sweetener free"!

Even better, they do not pump up the fat content to make up for the decrease in sugar.

A look at the ingredient list reveals: Organic soymilk, filtered water, vegetable glycerine, soybean/safflower oil, chicory root extract, cocoa (processed with alkali), gum acacia, erythritol (sugar alcohol from natural fermentation), vanilla extract, tricalcium phosphate (a natural source of calcium), guar gum, carrageenan, natural flavors.

Before having my first bite, I was skeptical. How on Earth, I thought, are they going to make ice cream taste good without any sweetness?

Well, the folks at So Delicious quickly won me over.

So much so that I recommend these 80-calorie bars to anyone looking for a low-calorie sweet treat to satisfy a chocolate craving.

In The News: More Is Not Better

2009-03-16T10:07:00.004-04:00

Today's Sydney Morning Herald briefly touches upon the problem of vitamin mega dosing among pregnant women, particularly since extremely high doses of vitamins A, D and E during pregnancy have been linked with birth defects.

Historically, the field of nutrition looked at health problems from an "undernutrition" standpoint; that is, what can happen when we don't eat enough or get a sufficient amount of nutrients?

We are now starting to see an increasing amount of studies focus on the problem of overnutrition.

Whether it's too many calories, or too much of one specific vitamin, it is important for consumers to realize that the key to health, much like Goldilocks' dilemma, lies in getting just the right amount.

Although harmless, the last wave of overconsumption I witnessed -- at least here in the United States -- was the bottled water craze. It's almost as if people forgot that their bodies had thirst mechanisms!

Drinking three liters of water a day doesn't accomplish much of anything other than more frequent trips to the bathroom.

Numbers Game: Answer

2009-03-15T01:33:00.004-04:00

A half cup of kidney beans contains 5 times more soluble fiber than a half cup of lentils.

(REMEMBER: Soluble fiber is helpful for achieving a feeling of fullness more quickly, while insoluble fiber helps speed up the transit of food in the digestive system).

A half cup of kidney beans provides 5.7 grams of fiber, of which 2.9 grams are soluble.

That same amount of lentils, meanwhile, offers a total of 7.8 grams of fiber, of which 0.6 grams are soluble.

Don't cast lentils aside, though. A mere half cup of them packs 7.2 grams of insoluble fiber -- significantly higher than kidney beans' 2.8 grams.

Although both types of fiber are beneficial and part of a healthy diet, it's wise to become familiar with foods that are good sources of each one.

Therefore, if you're looking to fill yourself up more quickly with fewer calories, add kidney beans -- rather than lentils -- to salads, wraps, and chili recipes.

When you want to speed up movement in your digestive system, though, you are certainly better off with lentil-based dishes.

You Ask, I Answer: Soda & Calcium

2009-03-14T22:09:00.003-04:00

At 24, I was recently diagnosed with osteopenia.

I know you've said that soda can cause calcium to be leached from your bones because of the phosphoric acid in it, but does this apply to all carbonated beverages?

What about sparkling water?

I want to make sure I'm getting enough calcium from my diet.

-- Sarah (last name withheld)
New York, NY

As you state, sodas can cause calcium to be leached from bones due to the presence of phosphoric acid (if this is news to you, please see this post for details).

Not all carbonated beverages contain phosphoric acid; you'll usually find that particular ingredient in cola beverages (rather than lemon-lime sodas or club sodas).

In any case, it is always wise to take a peek at the ingredient list for reassurance.

Keep in mind that phosphoric acid in soda calcium leaching is only a problem if your calcium consumption is insufficient.

Someone who meets their daily calcium requirement and drinks one can of soda a day is in a very different -- and much less worrisome -- situation from someone who only gets 40 percent of their daily calcium requirement and drinks three cans of soda on a daily basis.

In The News: Cardiovascular Precociousness

2009-03-13T16:49:00.000-04:00

Troubling news courtesy of the latest National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: "overweight children as young as age 3 can begin to show signs of cardiovascular disease risk factors."

Yikes.

The study specifically analyzed levels of HDL ("good") cholesterol and C-reactive protein (an inflammation marker that accurately predicts cardiovascular disease) in 3,098 children between the ages of 3 and 6.

Results? Low HDL and high C-reactive protein levels were found in children with high BMIs and large waist circumferences.

This is particularly disturbing since 24 percent of children in the United States between the ages of 2 and 5 are overweight, and 12 percent classify as obese.

Additionally, while it is common knowledge that heart disease is a "pediatric" disease in the sense that the damage often begins in childhood, many people don't see clinical markers until later in life. This certainly begs for a different viewpoint.

One also can't help but wonder about possible health consequences when obesity begins as early as age three.

You Ask, I Answer: Cabbage, Radishes, Calcium

2009-03-13T13:19:00.001-04:00

My family eats a ton of red cabbage.

Is this a fairly healthy, cruciferous vegetable and a good source of calcium?

What about radishes?

-- Dennise O'Grady
Bay Head, NJ

Like all other cruciferous vegetables, red cabbage offers a wonderful array of unique phytonutrients and flavonoids that have been shown to help reduce the risk of a variety of cancers, particularly colorectal and bladder).

It is not, however, a good source of calcium. Unlike some of its calcium-powerful relatives (bok choy, broccoli, kale, mustard greens, and turnip greens), its absorption rate is quite low.

Whereas slightly less than one cup of kale steamed kale provides the same amount of calcium as a half cup of milk, you need three cups of steamed cabbage to reach that same amount.

Slight aside: For maximum absorption of all nutrients and components, opt for steamed, rather than raw, cabbage.

Radishes do not particularly stand out from a nutrient composition standpoint. Although they offer almost every single vitamin and mineral, each one occurs in small amount.

Alas, nutrition isn't solely about vitamins and minerals. The antioxidants that give radishes their natural hue are very beneficial to health.

As with cabbage, radishes are not your best source of calcium. Due to their low absorptive qualities, it takes four and a half cups to match the amount of absorbable calcium in a half cup of milk.

Where Do I Begin?

2009-03-13T00:35:00.004-04:00

The folks at ConAgra appear to be quite proud of their Kid Cuisine products.

Aimed at elementary school students, these ready-to-eat lunches are -- believe it or not -- advertised as healthy items.

Let's analyze one variety. How about the Dip & Dunk Toasted Ravioli?

The initial descriptive sentence says it all: "This meal features breaded real-cheese ravioli..."

Beside the slightly disturbing fact that we have to be assured this product contains "real" cheese (as opposed to... cheez?), I find the breading of ravioli rather odd -- and unnecessary.

The nutrition label displays 9 grams of fiber (good!) and one tenth of the daily potassium requirement (not bad!), but also a third of a day's worth of sodium (yikes!) and 18 grams -- 4 and a half teaspoons' worth -- of sugar.

Oddly enough, Conagra advertises this product as containing 20 percent of MyPyramid's suggested daily servings of grains. How this is a selling point beats me; no one in this country has any problem getting their recommended servings of that food group!

The ingredient list, not surprisingly, is very long (the cheese ravioli, for instance, contain a garlic puree made with high fructose corn syrup) and includes one of my pet peeves: unnecessary sweetening.

It turns out the side of corn isn't simply corn kernels. Nope, it's corn with water and sugar.

Sugar? Added to corn?

Then there's the "fruit shaped and fruit flavored" snacks. In other words, it looks like a fruit and tastes like a fruit, but it's just sugar.

This product could easily be tweaked to provide similar flavors with a superior nutrition profile. My suggestions:

* Replace the breaded ravioli with baked, 100% whole grain cheese-and-broccoli bites.

* Offer corn kernels in their naturally sweet state.

* Replace the fruit snacks with unpeeled apple slices.

Those three changes could slash the sugar content approximately by half and lower the sodium by roughly 150 milligrams.

Things That Make You Go... "Oh No, They Didn't!"

2009-03-12T23:04:00.006-04:00

Food advertising is always.... interesting.

That's not to say it can't also be horrifying and disturbing.

Consider, for instance, this McDonald's advertisement that was prominently featured in Austrian billboard a few years ago.

Yes, this was a real advertisement!

Once your eyebrows return to their original position, feel free to post your thoughts.

You Ask, I Answer: Iron Cookware

2009-03-12T10:29:00.002-04:00

Any data out there on the amount of iron transferred into food when cooking with cast iron cook ware?

Does the act of seasoning the cast iron (coating it in oil) prevent or diminish iron's capacity to leach into food during cooking?

-- Nicole Journault
[City Unknown], Canada

One of the most thorough studies on this topic, conducted by Brittin and Nossaman, was published in 1986 in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.

The conclusion? "Acidity, moisture content, and cooking time of food significantly affected the iron content of food cooked in iron utensils."

It is a well established fact that cooking in cast iron cookware will transfer some iron into your food, especially if the food contains high amounts of vitamin C and moisture and is stirred or turned over frequently.

In terms of figures, cooking half a cup of spaghetti sauce in an iron pot for 15 minutes increases its iron content by approximately 800 percent. Foods low in moisture and vitamin C, however, increase by anywhere from 80 to 150 percent.

Keep in mind that these figures depend on how long you cook these foods for.

The "catch 22" is that iron cookware often imparts a strong metallic taste to foods -- especially those high in vitamin C and moisture cooked for long periods of time!

Three more important points:

1) Coating the cookware in oil prevents iron's leaching capacities.

2) Iron absorption gradually decreases with each passing use.

3) Since iron cookware only increases the iron content of non-heme iron, meats are unaffected.

Numbers Game: Legume Lowdown

2009-03-11T01:28:00.000-04:00

A half cup of kidney beans contains ____ times more soluble fiber than a half cup of lentils.

(REMEMBER: Soluble fiber is helpful for achieving a feeling of fullness more quickly, while insoluble fiber helps speed up the transit of food in the digestive system)

a) 2.5
b) 3
c) 4
d) 5

Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Sunday for the answer!

You Ask, I Answer: Iron Absorption

2009-03-11T00:36:00.001-04:00

I found your post about calcium absorption from different foods really interesting.

Are there other vitamins or minerals where that happens?

-- Nancy (last name withheld)
Coral Gables, FL

Yes -- let's talk about iron!

The highest iron absorption rate occurs with beef -- of which our bodies absorb approximately 20 percent.

Poultry and pork are relatively close, averaging anywhere from 15 to 18 percent absorption.

When it comes to foods like beans and spinach, though, our bodies only take up 2 percent!

Fish falls somewhere in between -- roughly eight percent of the iron in boiled fish is absorbed, but that figure is slightly increased if you're talking about canned tuna fish.

Remember -- heme iron (found in animal products) is more absorbable than non-heme iron (from plant foods).

Here is some interesting -- and little-known -- iron trivia:

The Dietary Reference Intake for iron is 8 milligrams for adult men ages 19 - 50 and 18 milligrams for adult women in that same age group, but those figures tell very little of the real story.

Truth is, we only need anywhere from 0.5 to 2 milligrams of iron a day.

However, to absorb those amounts, we need to consume anywhere from 8 to 18 milligrams of iron in our food.

Since food labels only display the total iron in a food (rather than what is actually absorbable), the Dietary Reference Intakes take this into account.

More importantly, though, those DRIs are strictly for omnivores.

Vegetarian men ages 19 to 50 should aim for 14 milligrams a day (remember, we are talking total/food label figures here), while women of that same age should be getting 33 milligrams per day!

A vegetarian diet does not in and of itself cause anemia; vegetarians simply need to eat higher amounts of non-heme iron to supply the body with sufficient quantities of this mineral.

Measure It Out

2009-03-10T19:52:00.005-04:00

One of the greater challenges of weight management is keeping accurate track of calories.

At the salad bar, you grab a container of salad dressing and sprinkle some over your dish. Doesn't look like a lot, especially in that huge bowl filled with healthy vegetables!

When you sauteé vegetables, you pour some oil into the pot for what appears to be no more than a single second.

Spreading peanut butter on your morning toast is a matter of dipping the knife in the jar and getting just enough to cover the entire slice of bread.

Raisins are good for you, so you figure two handfuls in your morning oatmeal are no big deal.

I do not expect anyone to walk around with measuring spoons and cups on them or take all enjoyment out of eating by fretting over 15 calories.

In fact, that is the LAST thing I want you to do!

However, I strongly suggest that, just for a one-week period, you familiarize yourself with measurements.

Next time you pour yourself cereal, pour it into a half cup measure first, and then into your bowl.
Become aware of what a half cup of cereal actually LOOKS like.

Serve yourself the amount you normally eat for breakfast, but keep in mind the half cup reference point -- as well as how many of those half cups make it to your bowl.

Do the same thing with your milk. You may think you're getting a good amount of calcium every morning, but if you are merely adding a quarter cup to your cereal, you're getting less than 10 percent of a day's worth.

I also recommend you have measuring spoons handy when you cook.

Before pouring oil into a pot to sauteé garlic and onions, pour the oil into a tablespoon measurement and then into the pot. Is that what you usually pour? If so, that's 120 calories.

If what you usually pour is equivalent to five tablespoons, that's 600 calories.

This is a great exercise because, in the event that you are looking to lose some weight, it pinpoints what particular foods or meals you can feasibly make some adjustments to.

Once you devote a week to this, you will have a clearer mental picture of what a tablespoon or a quarter cup of different foods look like. I'm sure you'll find this helpful down the road when it comes to accurately gauging calories as you go through your day.

Consider it a lifetime investment!

Shame On You/Say What?: Intruder Alert!

2009-03-10T01:01:00.003-04:00

A reader by the name of Rachelle recently left a comment on this blog notifying me about author John Gray's foray into nutrition.

If the name sounds familiar, it's because Mr. Gray is the author of Men Are From Mars, Women are From Venus.

Despite a lack of nutrition credentials, Mr. Gray now considers himself knowledgeable enough to dole out nutrition advice. Oh, joy.

Perhaps it is the "PhD" after his name that gave him this confidence, although that credential has been severely questioned.

In any case, Mr. Gray offers nutritional cleanses retreats (red flag, anyone?) and hawks -- are you ready for it? -- Mars & Venus shakes.

According to Mr. Gray, these shakes offer the "ideal balance of nutrients" for men and women. Don't you love vague pseudo-science catch phrases?

You do? Great, because here's another one: "the shakes are designed to assist the brain in functioning in a more balanced and harmonious manner."

Mr. Gray also claims these shakes get you to your ideal weight. If you need to lose, you will lose. If you need to gain weight, you will gain. I would love to see the randomized double-blind control trials that confirm this (because I'm so sure he conducted them.)

Despite having the exact same ingredients in different amounts, Mr. Gray claims the Mars shake produces more dopamine in the brain, while the Venus shake produces more serotonin.

Huh? Both shakes contain a protein powder. Protein-rich foods cause a surge of dopamine. So, how then, does the Venus shake differ?

If you're looking to lose weight, Mr. Gray has you covered!

All you have to do is buy his shake powder (of course!) and have it as your breakfast and dinner.

For lunch, you can eat a salad "with as many raw vegetables and avocado as you wish" as well as some form of protein, all topped with olive oil and either lemon juice or vinegar.

Although Mr. Gray claims the "effortless weight loss" (15 pounds a week, he claims!) is due to the magic ingredients in his shake, it's clear that the "magic" is simple caloric deprivation.

How can you NOT lose weight if your only solid meal of the day is a salad and your other two meals each consist of one scoop of powder and eight ounces of water?

Despite all the fantastic claims, the small print at the bottom of his website reads "John Gray's Mars & Venus LLC does NOT guarantee weight loss."

Hmmmm... interesting how he never mentions that in his breathless infomercials where he mentions how "life changing" his shakes have been!

Now we come to my favorite part -- the head-scratching nutrition-related statements:

* The weight loss cleanse prohibits the intake of any dairy, yet the shakes -- which are a significant part of the cleanse -- contain whey protein!

Newsflash, Mr. Gray, whey protein is a dairy protein!

* Mr. Gray on Omega-3's: "A couple of tablespoons of flaxseed [have as many Omega-3's] as a meal of salmon."

Firstly, how big is a "meal of salmon"?

Additionally, can you say "back to Nutrition 101 for you"? The Omega 3's in flaxseed consist of alpha linolenic acid, whereas salmon offers Docosahexaonoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA).

It is not an equal comparison!

* Mr. Gray hates soy, mainly due to its phytate content, which blocks mineral absorption.

Had he bothered to research the topic, he would have realized that although phytates interfere with the absorption of some minerals, they also offer a variety of well-documented health benefits.

Tannins in coffee and tea interfere with iron absorption, but that doesn't mean coffee and tea are "bad" beverages.

* Mr. Gray refers to a food that contains a certain amount of cholesterol as one that provides "3% of the daily requirement."

Wrong again! There is no daily requirement for cholesterol; it is not an essential nutrient. The 300 milligram figure is considered a "limit," not a requirement.

* Mr. Gray claims coconut is the only food that contains lauric acid.

Not so! Goat's milk, cow's milk, and palm kernel oil also contain the fatty acid.

These examples merely scratch the non-sense surface.

As I said in an earlier post -- enough is enough! The last thing anyone needs is more inaccurate nutrition advice from individuals who don't possess even the most basic knowledge!

This Earthling is not amused.

You Ask, I Answer: Quorn

2009-03-09T16:04:00.008-04:00

I've seen Quorn products in supermarkets for a while in the same section as frozen veggie and soy burgers.

Do you know anything about them?

-- Doris Kinley
(city withheld), ME

Quorn is a highly popular meat-free alternative in Great Britain that appears to finally be catching on with consumers on this side of the Atlantic.

The main ingredient is a fermented mycroprotein (that means it's fungus/mushroom-related) that provide tastes and textures similar to those of poultry.

Quorn products are not a vegan alternative, though, as they are also concocted with egg protein.

Like soy, this particular mycoprotein is a complete protein and a good source of polyunsaturated fat.

Quorn also happens to be a decent source of fiber, and has been shown to help lower LDL cholesterol levels in some studies.

Keep in mind, though, that your average quorn "chicken breast" contains roughly a quarter of a day's worth of sodium.

Numbers Game: Answer

2009-03-08T18:44:00.005-04:00

According to National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, 79 percent of adults living in the United States do not meet the required daily intake of magnesium.

Although these intake levels are not low enough to result in clinical deficiencies, they are worrying when you look at calcium-to-magnesium ratios in the United States.

High calcium to magnesium ratios have been linked with higher risks of colorectal cancer and, in some studies, heart disease.

This is largely due to the fact that calcium and magnesium compete for absorption (high ratios don't allow magnesium to do its job properly).

Diets with high calcium:magnesium ratio put individuals at a higher risk for oxidative damage (one of the most significant causes behind the development many diseases).

The ratio should ideally be approximately 2:1 (hence the calcium DRI of 1,000 milligrams and the magnesium DRI of 500 milligrams).

Nuts, beans, potatoes, whole grains, and spinach are the best sources of magnesium.

The Lowdown on Calcium

2009-03-07T11:22:00.005-05:00

Calcium is one of the most misunderstood nutrients.

The range of confusion varies from those who think dairy products contain the most absorbable type of this mineral to people who think spinach is a great source of calcium.

Let's clarify these points.

Are dairy products a good source of calcium? Yes. After all, eight ounces of milk provide a third of the daily value of calcium.

Are dairy products the only way to get calcium? Absolutely not.

Do dairy products provide calcium with the highest bioavailability? No.

Consider the following:

Eight ounces (one cup) of milk contain 300 milligrams of calcium.

A half cup of cooked bok choy provides 79 milligrams of calcium.

To someone unfamiliar with nutrition, the conclusion might seem obvious: "I need two cups of bok choy to get as much calcium as a cup of milk!"

Alas, nutrition science isn't always as obvious as it seems.

You actually only need one and a quarter cups of cooked bok choy to match the calcium you would get from a cup of milk since the calcium in bok choy is more absorbable than the one in dairy products.

The same thing happens with Chinese cabbage. A half cup of this cooked vegetable offers 239 milligrams of calcium, but that equals the amount of absorbable calcium in a cup of milk.

Let's now turn our attention to spinach. I am continually amazed by the amount of self-touted (though, clearly, not really) nutritione experts who list this vegetable as a good source of calcium.

A half cup of cooked spinach offers 115 milligrams of calcium. However, due to its high amount of oxalates (organic acids naturally found in spinach that inhibit calcium absorption), it takes EIGHT cups of cooked spinach to equal the amount of absorbable calcium in one cup of milk.

It just so happens that unlike spinach, the Brassica family of plants -- including broccoli, kale, bok choy, cabbage, and mustard greens) does not accumulate oxalate, thereby providing highly absorbable calcium.

I know some people like their nutrition advice in absolute form ("NEVER eat this, ALWAYS eat this), it's not my style.

My suggestions provide you with plenty of choices. If you like milk, drink it -- it provides a significant amount of calcium.

If you don't like it or don't want to include it in your diet, no need to worry about calcium as long as you include greens from the Brassica family and other non-dairy sources (tofu, tempeh, almonds, calcium-fortified alternative milks, etc.) in your diet.

When 100% Isn't Really 100%

2009-03-06T16:01:00.009-05:00

The new boxes of Total cereal proudly exclaim:

"NOW! The most calcium and Vitamin D of any leading cereal!"

(Although I couldn't find a photograph of these boxes, the slightly outdated one on the left boasts the 100% calcium claim).

A cup of this retooled version provides a day's worth of calcium (1,000 milligrams) -- too bad our bodies can only metabolize approximately 500 milligrams at a time.

In other words, that bowl of cereal actually provides, at most, half a day's worth of calcium.

Not bad by any means, but not quite what the food label says.

I am also concerned about a cereal that attempts to provide a day's worth of iron and calcium in the same serving, since high amounts of calcium (anything above 300 milligrams, per the research literature) are known to interfere with the absorption of non-heme iron.

In The News: Aisle-Worthy

2009-03-06T11:11:00.005-05:00

An interesting piece of legislature passed in my home country of Argentina yesterday.

All supermarkets in Buenos Aires are now required by law to house healthier options and diet-specific products in clearly marked aisles.

This means, for instance, that all gluten-free products must be in the same aisle (as opposed to spread out in different aisles depending on what food category they belong to.)

Additionally, product varieties that classify as "lower in fat/calories/sugar" must all be housed in one aisle. Under this new law, low-fat mayo, lower-in-sodium soups, and reduced-sugar cereals would be clustered together.

Legislators say the goal is to "facilitate consumers' search for products that meet their dietary needs."

I like this idea quite a bit.

While by no means a perfect solution (ie: how about housing 100% whole grain products? Who decides what makes a product "healthy" enough to be placed in these aisles? What if a product is lower in fat but has the same amount of -- or more -- calories?), it's a start.

I also appreciate the decision to make food shopping slightly easier -- especially for those avoiding certain ingredients due to allergies and intolerances.

You Ask, I Answer: Weston Price Organization

2009-03-05T09:51:00.007-05:00

What do you know about the Weston Price Foundation?

-- Dennise O'Grady
Bay Head, NJ

Let's start with the positive -- they advocate for small farmers, and particularly strengthening farmer-to-consumer relationships.

Other than that, I view them as an extremist group that tends to border on silliness. That's their logo, by the way, which, they explain, illustrates Western societies' narrow-mindedness towards food.

An odd choice, since the "narrow vision" includes everything from Houston to Peruvian highlands to the Caribbean. Meanwhile, a lot of the nations in the "wide" circles have just as many problems with obesity, diabetes, and junk food consumption as the United States. I don't get it.

Their core belief? Full-fat raw dairy, butter, red meat, and soaked grains are the answer to a healthy life, while plant-based diets are the root of all health problems.

I'll let their writing speak for itself.

Exhibit A:

"According to an article in the Washington Post ("Don't have a cow, Mom," October 31, 2006) vegetarianism among teenagers is increasing. Vegetarian families eat a more varied diet, we are told, which includes such yummies as rutabaga and tofu. Not to worry, Mom, says the American Dietetic Association, ". . . a well-planned all-veggie diet for children and adolescents can be nutritionally sound. . . " as long as teens consume soy beverages and cereals fortified with vitamin D and B12. The dietitians claim teens can get adequate calcium, iron, zinc and protein from vegetables, grains, fruit, and, of course, soy foods. No mention is made of vitamin A, so necessary for reproductive health, nor of the downside of all those soy foods. So, don't have a cow, Mom. Just don't expect to have any grandchildren."

Gee,I must have missed all the headlines about vegetarian women being physically incapable of having children!

I have so many problems with that paragraph I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, vegetarianism does not necessarily translate into a high consumption of soy foods.

Additionally, the term "soy foods" is too broad. Adding nutrient-packed soy foods like tempeh or tofu to a dish is very different from eating two bags of processed soy chips every day.

As for vitamin A: we know that 12 micrograms of beta-carotene equal 1 microgram of Vitamin A. We also know that women need 700 micrograms of vitamin A a day.

Let's do some math. A half cup of cooked sweet potato provides approximately 7,000 micrograms of beta carotene, which translates into roughly 580 micrograms of vitamin A (more than three quarters of a day's worth!)

If this women were to then eat some carrots, an orange, an egg, some vitamin A-fortified milk, or a grapefruit that same day, they would easily meet their vitamin A requirement. So, what is the problem?

Exhibit B:

"George Rene Francis of Sacramento, who turned 110 this year, enjoys "tons of milk, tons of eggs, lard on bread and salt pork sandwiches." He avoids visits to the doctor but smokes cigars. He credits his virility to a combination of fresh camel's milk, daily walks and plenty of meat—rabbit, lamb, chicken and wild animals, which he still hunts himself (www.telegraph.co.uk, August 24, 2007)."

This is what you call bad science. No, make that horrendous science. Using an anomaly as proof of something is ludicruous. It's akin to a tobacco company using this news item to show that, hey, smoking is harmless!

Exhibit C:

"Today's dietary gurus tell us that we must eat vegetables and fruit to obtain vitamins and minerals. Per Magnuson, an astute member from Sweden, points out that fruits and vegetables cannot compare in nutrient levels with animal foods, especially nutrient-dense animal foods like liver. Here's what we came up with as a way of assessing the nutritional value of fruits and vegetables versus meat and liver. Note that every nutrient in red meat except for vitamin C surpasses those in apples and carrots, and every nutrient-including vitamin C-in beef liver occurs in exceedingly higher levels in beef liver compared to apple and carrots."

What a riot! How can someone in the nutrition field expect to be taken seriously when they don't take into account phytonutrients (which, by mere definition, are only available in plant foods)?

Good luck getting fiber from liver, too.

I also can't comprehend how so-called "experts" don't mention that one of the causes of hypervitaminosis A (vitamin A toxicity) is frequent consumption of liver!

Exhibit D:

"According to government and media health pundits, the top best 14 foods are:

Beans
Blueberries
Broccoli
Oats
Oranges
Pumpkin
Salmon
Soy
Spinach
Tea (green or black)
Tomatoes
Turkey
Walnuts
Yogurt

This uninspiring list reflects the current establishment angels (anti-oxidants and omega-3 fatty acids) and demons (saturated fats and animal foods).

Our list of the 14 best top foods, foods that supply vital nutrients including the fat-soluble vitamins, looks like this:

Butter from grass-fed cows (preferably raw)
Oysters
Liver from grass-fed animals
Eggs from grass-fed hens
Cod liver oil
Fish eggs
Whole raw milk from grass-fed cows
Bone broth
Shrimp
Wild salmon
Whole yogurt or kefir
Beef from grass-fed steers
Sauerkraut
Organic Beets

A diet containing only these foods will confer lifelong good health; a diet containing only the foods in the first list is the fast track to nutritional deficiencies."

Except that no one is saying people should limit themselves to the first fourteen items; rather, the recommendation is to include as many of them in your diet as you can. Making an argument based on erroneous pretenses is futile.

And what is up with the feeble "uninspiring list" diss? If anything, the first list has more variety and color than Weston A Price's!

Besides, does anyone really believe that a diet rich in tea, fruits, and vegetables causes nutritional deficiencies?

And where did the list attributed to "government and media pundits" come from? That list is not nutrition dogma by any means; any dietitian will tell you that you can be perfectly healthy without ever eating a tomato or a pumpkin as long as your overall diet patterns are healthy.

Again, illogical conclusions based on bad science.

I rest my case.

UPDATE: Since this post went up, I have received many comments on other (non-related) postings from "anonymous" sources who, ever-so-coincidentally, suggest I take a look at the Weston Price Organization's website for the "truth."

Numbers Game: A New Low

2009-03-04T13:02:00.004-05:00

According to National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, ______ percent of adults living in the United States do not meet the required daily intake of magnesium.

a) 79
b) 41
c) 62
d) 58

Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Sunday for the answer -- and what it means for your health.

You Ask, I Answer: Muscle Milk

2009-03-04T12:00:00.002-05:00

There is a supplement drink called Muscle Milk that everybody at my gym (including trainers) seem to be raving about.

It contains protein of course, but focuses more on it's revolutionary fat content (which they coin as Lean Lipids).

[They claim] they help burn fats more efficiently. Being an avid reader of your site, I'm sure this is just another gimmick but is there any truth to the types of fats ingested and improving fat burning?

-- Bexx
Via the blog

Muscle Milk has been the darling of protein supplements for many years.

Can't say I'm surprised, given the aggressive marketing, the taste that closely mimics a milkshake, and the scientific-sounding hype about "fat burning", "lean muscle-promoting" properties.

Before I address my issues with the product, let me say a word about personal trainers.

I have met many personal trainers who are knowledgeable about nutrition and have studied the science appropriately, but also met a fair share who consider themselves experts simply because they subscribe to muscle magazines (most of which, by the way, take generous amounts of advertising dollars from protein-supplement manufacturers).

Before you take nutrition advice from a personal trainer, find out what their credentials are.

Onto Muscle Milk.

The claim that Muscle Milk "burns" fat rather than store it is inaccurate.

Downing three Muscle Milk shakes a day (as the company recommends) in conjunction with a sedentary lifestyle will undoubtedly result in weight gain and stored fat.

Remember: excess calories that are not burned off are stored as fat no matter what their source is.

I do not deny that liquid calories can be helpful for building mass in conjunction with weight lifting, since it is easy to add hundreds to your day with just a few gulps.

However, rather than spending money on powders filled with artificial sweeteners and various chemicals, opt for real food. Blending skim milk, peanut butter, a banana, and some ice cubes provides an appropriate balance of nutrients for a post-workout snack.

I am even more baffled by Muscle Milk's boast that it is a "low-carb" formula. If recovering from a workout is the goal, you need equal amounts of protein and carbohydrate, which is why you are better off having a glass of skim milk and a slice of whole wheat toast or fresh fruit with some cottage cheese.

Restricting carbohydrates after a workout makes no sense.

Remember, too, that muscle growth is ONLY achieved by stressing a muscle. People would benefit more from learning proper weight-lifting techniques and movements than chugging down hundreds of grams a protein per day which simply get excreted in urine.

It is products like this that inspired my recent "Enough is Enough!" posting.

People who claim to see "results" from Muscle Milk don't realize that the credit should simply be given to efficient workouts and excess calories, not "magic ingredients" in a supplement.

Administrative Announcements: Enough Is Enough

2009-03-04T00:05:00.004-05:00

There are days when I believe the field of nutrition is being taken hostage.

Whether it's the latest cleanse asking you to subsist on liquids for ten days, a self-appointed nutritionist with no academic credentials claiming his diet "cures" cancer, a physicist who misinterprets research and thinks flour is the root of all evil, an organization that suggests liver is a better way to get your nutrients than fruits and vegetables, or a washed-up celebrity gushing about the slimming miracles of coffee enemas, nonsense and quackery are everywhere.

I have spent the last three years of my life immersed in a rigorous academic program that teaches the science of nutrition.

This has included everything from food science to biochemistry to human physiology to counseling theory to research methodology and statistics.

By the time I sit down to take my Registered Dietitian exam, I will have taken 26 courses and completed 1200 hours in a clinical setting through an accredited Dietetic Internship.

That is why it absolutely sickens me to see people with no credentials waltz right in and publish books, dole out nutrition advice, and tout themselves as experts.

Over the past few weeks I have received a handful of questions from readers that upset me; questions from people who, after reading preposterous articles all over the Internet, are terribly confused.

People who think they need to take expensive supplements to "rid themselves of parasites." People who think dairy -- or dairy alternatives -- "cause cancer." People who unnecessarily restrict their diets because some Joe Schmoe with a book "says" a particular food -- even if eaten sparingly -- "causes" obesity.

You will often recognize these charlatans by their typical Modus Operandis: hide behind pseudo science and spew out statements that sound intelligent, but say nothing.

Is there a solution? I don't know. Quacks will always be out there, looking for the next gullible victim willing to open their wallet.

And, unfortunately, many publishers, editors, and television producers care more about a famous name than a respected and accomplished professional.

Please do not treat your health lightly. Seek out reputable sources. And always have your thinking cap turned on.

Quick & Healthy Recipes: Not-Really-Chocolate Dip

2009-03-03T15:28:00.003-05:00

This is one of my favorite desserts to make for guests.

It takes no more than five minutes to prepare, is rich in body and flavor, and makes for some surprised looks when you tell your guests the "secret" ingredient (which, believe it or not, is impossible to taste)!

I like to serve this as a dessert dip for fresh strawberries, frozen sliced bananas, and whole wheat graham crackers.

YIELDS: 1.25 cups (ten 2-tablespoon servings)

INGREDIENTS:

1 medium avocado, ripe
1/3 cup unsweetened cocoa/cacao powder
1/3 cup sweetener of choice (I prefer to use agave nectar for its subtle flavor)
1 Tablespoon vanilla extract
5 Tablespoons water

DIRECTIONS:

1. Combine all ingredients in food processor.

2. Process until mixture is smooth in texture and uniform in color.

3. Store in airtight container in refrigerator for at least 4 hours.

NUTRITION INFORMATION (per serving):

72 calories
1.1 gram saturated fat
2.5 grams fiber
5.5 grams added sugar

Enjoy!

You Ask, I Answer: Instant Tea/Coffee

2009-03-02T17:58:00.004-05:00

[Do the health benefits you mentioned about tea and coffee] apply to instant [varieties]?

-- Corey Clark
Via the blog

To a certain extent.

Freshly brewed teas and coffees have higher amount of antioxidants and polyphenols, but instant varieties still deliver their share.

Keep in mind that products like General Foods International Coffees (pictured at left) are coffee drinks mixes -- NOT instant coffees.

These products contain more sugar, hydrogenated oils, and artificial flavors than they do coffee!

You Ask, I Answer: Sugar in Yogurt

2009-03-01T11:03:00.003-05:00

My 3 year old daughter doesn't like milk, so yogurt is one of her sources of calcium.

When I buy yogurt for her, though, I don't know how to determine which brands have too much sugar.

One brand has 24 grams of sugar for 6 ounces. Is that too much?

-- Terri Korolev
San Francisco, CA

Dairy products' food labels take some extra skill to analyze since manufacturers are not asked to differentiate between naturally-occurring sugars and added sugars.

In this case, "naturally-occurring" sugars refers to lactose, the inherent sugar found in all dairy products.

Unlike added sugars' empty calories, naturally-occurring varieties co-exist with nutrients (the same can be said for fructose, which is present in fresh fruits.)

When shopping for yogurts, keep in mind that 6 ounces of yogurt contain 12 grams of naturally-occurring sugars.

This means that the yogurt you refer to contains an additional 12 grams (1 tablespoon) of added sugar.

I am of the school of thought that children and adults should get no more than 10 percent of their total daily calories from added sugars.

In the case of a 3-year old, that means no more than 30 or 35 grams of added sugar a day.

As a healthier alternative, see how she likes eating plain yogurt along with sweet fruits like bananas and pineapples.

You can even make it fun for her by storing fresh banana slices in a Ziploc bag, freezing them, and mixing them in with her yogurt.

Numbers Game: Answer

2009-02-28T23:11:00.003-05:00

92 to 98 percent of peak bone mass (the period by which all bone formation occurs) is achieved by age 20.

High peak bone density is one factor that helps decrease the risk of osteoporosis and bone fractures later in life.

This is precisely why having adequate intakes of calcium -- as well as being physically active -- during childhood and adolescence is crucial.

The more "bone healthy" the diet is during childhood and adolescence (particularly by consuming sufficient amounts of calcium, vitamin K, vitamin D, phosphorus, and magnesium), the higher peak bone mass levels are.

This is not simply a matter of having your child pop a Flintstones chewable vitamin, though. Whole foods containing these nutrients are far superior sources.

You Ask, I Answer: Soy Lecithin

2009-02-27T13:35:00.007-05:00

What exactly is soy lecithin and why is it added to foods?

Should I be concerned about it?

-- Dennise O'Grady
Bay Head, NJ

Soy lecithin is a byproduct of refined soy or sunflower oils.

It is mainly used as an emulsifier and stabilizer in foods as well as to provide better textures to powdered beverage mixes, salad dressings, and low-fat packaged foods.

You'll usually see soy lecithin at the end of ingredient lists because it is used in such miniscule amounts (usually no more than 1.3 percent of the food product's total weight.)

The Food & Drug Administration places soy lecithin in their list of Generally Recognized as Safe foods.

Interestingly, allergy information is not consistent. Since soy lecithins contain negligible amounts of soy protein, most people with soy allergies can consume them without experiencing any side effects.

There have been, however, scattered reports of allergic reactions.

Some people -- particularly vegans -- like to sprinkle soy lecithin granules over soups, salads, and cereals as a way to add choline to their diet.

Makes sense to me.

The best sources of choline are beef and egg yolks, but a single tablespoon of soy lecithin granules provides half of the daily adequate intake figure (other vegan sources, like peanut butter and cauliflower, contribute anywhere from 6 to 12 percent of adequate intake value per serving).

In The News: That's More Like It

2009-02-27T10:16:00.004-05:00

The Los Angeles Times shares encouraging news today -- "Coca-Cola Co. and joint-venture partner Nestle agreed to pay $650,000 in a settlement with 27 states over claims that Enviga green tea burns calories, resulting in weight loss."

If you are not familiar with Enviga, it is a flavored sparkling green tea in the Nestea line of products.

The claim? Drinking three cans per day helps burn anywhere from 60 to 100 calories.

Coca Cola based that claim on the presence of EGCG, an antioxidant in green tea which has been the focus of several metabolic and weight loss studies (here is my take on the research literature.)

The man behind this lawsuit is Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who added that moving forward, "any marketing of Enviga or a similar beverage that uses the terms "the calorie burner," "negative calories" or "drink negative" must clearly disclose that the product doesn't lead to weight loss without diet and exercise."

Small Bites salutes -- and thanks -- you, Mr. Blumenthal.

You Ask, I Answer: Swimming & Digestion

2009-02-26T01:13:00.001-05:00

Since I know you like to tackle myths, I have one I'm curious about.

Should you really wait an hour after eating a meal before you go swimming to prevent cramps?

-- Heidi Conprisi
New York, NY

Ah, one of those old wives' tales that will not go away.

Every Summer I still come across news articles warning beachgoers and pool enthusiasts to avoid the water for at least an hour after enjoying their lunch.

Let's lay this one to rest with some Human Physiology 101.

After a meal, blood is mainly "dispatched" to the digestive area to aid in nutrient absorption.

The "don't swim within an hour after eating a meal" assumes that getting in the water while this is happening leads to cramping.

Not quite. If you are simply immersing yourself in the ocean or engaging in some light swimming in the pool, your body can most certainly handle digestion all while providing blood to the muscles.

Unless you are planning on starting a 10 mile swim as you swallow your last morsel of lunch, there is absolutely no need for concern.

The only thing you may experience if you push yourself too hard -- as with any vigorous physical activity performed minutes after eating -- is an unpleasant queasy feeling.

In The News: Oh, Look... Calories!

2009-02-26T00:33:00.003-05:00

CNN is reporting the findings of a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine comparing the efficacy of four diets -- high-carb, low-carb, high-fat, and high-protein.

Although not based on popular diets (the high-protein diet, for instance, does not provide the same distribution of nutrients as Atkins), the four eating plans had their particular distinctions (i.e: one offered 35 percent of calories from protein, while another increased the amount to 65 percent of calories from protein).

The conclusion? "All produced weight loss and improvements in lipids [as well as] reduction in insulin. The key really is that it's calories, not the content of fat or carbohydrates -- just calories," summarizes study co-author Dr. Frank Sacks of the Harvard School of Public Health.

Or, as the study itself beautifully encapsulates it: "reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize."

No matter which of the four diets the 811 overweight participants were on, they all "had a[n average] 750-calorie reduction per day."

Not surprisingly, they all lost weight.

Note that even the higher-in-fat diets followed American Heart Association guidelines (mainly sufficient fiber intakes and limited saturated and trans fat intake).

Let this be even further proof to the "saturated fat is the healthiest fat; everyone is lying to you!" camp that diets rich in polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat do indeed lead to improved lipid profiles and weight loss.

Adding to the uniqueness of this study is that it is one of the few that tracked participants on these diets for two entire years.

How will "calories don't matter, it's all about limiting carbohydrates"enthusiasts explain yet another study showing weight loss can be accomplished while eating a substantial amount of carbohydrates?

You Ask, I Answer: Vegemite

2009-02-26T00:16:00.001-05:00

[What can you tell me about] the nutritional content of vegemite?

Is it safe to eat some every day on top of toast, or should I be worried about preservatives/salt/etc?

-- Jade Miller
(location withheld)

Vegemite is a concentrated brewer's yeast extract mixed with spices and malt extract that is quite popular in Australia and New Zealand.

The Brits have their own version known as marmite, which replaces the sweeteners with salt and also adds vegetable extract.

Among connoiseurs, the general consensus is that marmite has a strong flavor.

Anyhow, vegemite offers a mere 9 calories per teaspoon (unless you are very fond of the substance, one teaspoon is all you need to spread on your toast) along with 1 gram of protein and 1 gram of carbohydrates.

It is a very good source of niacin, riboflavin, thiamin, and folate.

There is no need to be concerned with sodium, since that one-teaspoon serving only adds 152 milligrams to your day.

As far as I'm concerned, feel free to spread the vegemite love on your toast each morning!

You Ask, I Answer: Calorie Discrepancies on Food Labels

2009-02-25T09:39:00.004-05:00

Why does the nutritional information on labels of the (seemingly) same product, but from different companies, have different data?

The one that I noticed today was when I bought Hodgson Mill's oatbran. It says 40 grams has 120 calories, but Mother's oat bran says 40g is 150 calories. Shouldn't these be the same?

They both state that the only ingredient in the box is oat bran.

Another example (that got me started on this) was canned black beans.

Again, the serving side listed on the can is always approximately the same (I've even checked the weight, not just the half cup measurement) and the calories listed can range from 90 to 130, depending on the brand.

Do you know why this is?

I understand that companies have some fudge-room for their nutritionals, but these examples seem like there shouldn't be that much of a difference.

-- Michelle Pope
(location withheld)

Ah, welcome to the twisted maze that is calorie labeling!

This is an excellent question, as it gives significant insight into labeling laws and regulations.

Come on in and sit a spell, though, because this can be initially confusing to the untrained eye.

First of all, remember that calorie figures higher than 50 can be rounded off to the nearest 10-calorie increment.

In other words, if a serving of cereal adds up to 134 calories, it can legally be displayed on the label as 130.

Similarly, a serving containing 156 calories is often shown as 160 calories for simplicity's sake.

Now we get to the more complicated issues.

Although you often see references to carbohydrates containing 4 calories per gram, they technically contain 3.6 calories per gram.

The "4 calories per gram" figure is commonly used -- and referred to everywhere, including this blog -- in order to facilitate in-your-head multiplication and estimation.

Additionally, since protein technically provides 4.2 calories per gram, the logic is that by portraying both those nutrients as containing 4 calories per gram, final estimates are very close to actual totals.

That said, some companies arrive at their calorie totals by allocating 4 calories to each gram of carbohydrate in their food, while others -- and this is completely legal, by the way -- allocate 3.6 calories per gram.

On top of that, all macronutrient figures are rounded off. In other words, a serving of food containing 29.5 grams of carbohydrates shows up as containing 30.

So, company #1 may choose to keep it simple and multiply that rounded figure (30 grams) by the rounded-up "calories per gram" figure (4 calories per gram) and come up with 120 calories.

Meanwhile, company #2 can instead opt to multiply the technical figures (29.5 grams of carbohydrate x 3.6 calories per gram) for a grand total of 106 calories!

Then we have the issue of fiber, which comes into play with both of your food examples.

If food companies choose to, they may leave out grams of carbohydrates from insoluble fibers in their final calculations.

Taking all that into consideration, you can see why the same amount of the same food does not always yield the same food label.

Oh, Dear...

2009-02-24T11:15:00.007-05:00

It is findings such as these that can lead to substantial discouragement when thinking of school nutrition.

Take a look at this week's lunch menus for a handful of Pennsylvania schools.

Although some are better than others (offering carrot sticks and slices of real fruit), the vast majority of these meals are nutritionally pitiful.

Shouldn't parents send their children off to school with the guarantee that they are being fed relatively well?

Part of the issue here is how the National School Lunch Program defines a "balanced" meal.

The basic criteria is to offer a balanced meal by including all food groups.

However, a meal consisting of chicken nuggets, french fries, peaches in canned syrup, and chocolate milk is considered "balanced" -- the breading in the chicken nuggets counts as a serving of grains, the french fries meet the vegetable requirement, and the sugary peaches are accepted as fruit.

UPDATE: Thank you to Small Bites reader Jasmine for forwarding this February 20 New York Times op-ed piece by Chez Panisse chef Alice Waters that touches on this very topic!

Numbers Game: Critical Point

2009-02-24T10:25:00.003-05:00

____ percent of peak bone mass (the period by which all bone formation occurs) is achieved by age 20.

a) 73 - 79
b) 92 - 98
c) 81 - 87
d) 100

Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Saturday for the answer (and to find out how this ties into osteoporosis and fracture risk).

Bursting The Bubble

2009-02-23T14:46:00.002-05:00

Here's a twist on labeling issues -- sparkling wines masquerading as champagne.

"In December 2006, Congress passed legislation banning the future misuse of 16 wine place names, including Champagne. While that was a step in the right direction, the legislation did not address the grandfathering of labels currently misusing Champagne’s name and that of 15 other international wine regions," the Office of Champagne explains in their official press release.

As a supporter of stricter regulations on food labeling, I empathize.

My most pressing food labeling issue? Trans fats.

Rather than allowing foods containing less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving to be advertised as "0 grams of trans fat," I propose they be labeled as "less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving" and, below that, include the following statement: "NOT a trans fat-free food."

Gets the message across more clearly, don't you think?

You Ask, I Answer: Soaking Grains & Phytate Levels

2009-02-23T14:00:00.000-05:00

I just ran across a website that advocates soaking or sprouting whole grains prior to using them to neutralize the phytic acid and make the nutrients in the grain more bioavailable.

Since the person blogging about this stuff is NOT a doctor, scientist, or nutritionist of any kind, I wanted to get a second opinion on the value of the methods described/benefits obtained, etc.

The article quotes someone by the name of Sally Fallon, who writes:

"Grains require careful preparation because they contain a number of antinutrients that can cause serious health problems. Phytic acid acid can combine with calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and especially zinc in the intestinal tract and block their absorption. This is why a diet high in improperly prepared whole grains may lead to serious mineral deficiencies and bone loss.

Other antinutrients in whole grains include enzyme inhibitors which can inhibit digestion and put stress on the pancreas; irritating tannins; complex sugars which the body cannot break down; and gluten and related hard-to-digest proteins which may cause allergies, digestive disorders and even mental illness."

Is this true or mumbo-jumbo?

-- Kristina Hartman
Concord, NC

It is true that soaking and sprouting grains greatly reduces their phytate content.

However, I don't see any reason to soak grains prior to eating them, and here is why.

Number 1: simply cooking grains reduces their phytate content to some degree.

Keep in mind, too, that when you are cooking whole grains (whether it's brown rice, whole wheat cous cous, or quinoa), they are already immersed in water.

Number 2: phytates cause mineral deficiencies only when the diet is largely made up of grains (as is the case in many third world nations.)

Eating whole grains as part of a diet that also includes fruits, vegetables, legumes, beans, meat/meat alternatives and dairy/daily alternatives is not a health concern.

Lastly, studies have shown that phytates offer some health benefits, including decreasing the risk of certain cancers (mainly colon, cervical, liver, and prostate) by slowing down and inhibiting maturation of cancer cells.

As for "complex sugars the body can not break down" and gluten causing mental illness, I have no clue how the author came to such conclusions.

Some people are allergic to gluten, but that does not make it a dangerous or unhealthy component in food for those who can eat it without experiencing symptoms.