In The News: Are You Calorie Blind?

This New York Times article -- centered around a French marketing expert and American attitudes towards food and nutrition -- makes the following case: health claims like "trans fat free" and "low fat" create a "health halo," providing consumers with a false sense of security, and ultimately making them more susceptible to overeating.

When random Americans in a nutritionally conscious Brooklyn neighborhood were asked to estimate the number of calories in an Applebee's meal, they overshot by an average of 100 calories.

Good news so far.

However, when that meal included two crackers labeled "trans fat free," those additional 100 calories went seemingly unnoticed!

Furthermore, the total caloric count of that meal received lower estimates than that of the cracker-less photograph.

Meanwhile, "[foreign tourists in Times Square] correctly estimated that the meal with crackers had more calories than the meal without crackers."

Sounds simple (more food = more calories), but this French professor of marketing contends that health halos can blind us from seeing the larger picture.

The theory is that foreigners, most of whom stem from countries where nutrition and weight loss mainly concerns calories (rather than specific nutrients), are not deceived by what Marion Nestle calls "calorie distractors."

What is a calorie distractor, you ask?

Any kind of claim that makes you forget the total caloric impact of what you are eating (i.e.: tortilla chips containing a mere sprinkle of flaxseed and soy protein, or Gummi candies with as much ALA Omega-3 as four walnuts.)

The article also mentions a most fascinating experiment conducted by this French researcher and Brian Wansink last year.

"After giving people a chance to order either a Big Mac or a 12-inch Italian sandwich from Subway, the people ordering the subway sandwich [which has more caloric than a Big Mac] were more likely to add a large nondiet soda and cookies to the order, end[ing] up with meals averaging 56 percent more calories than the meals ordered from McDonald’s."

This article cements a lot of the concepts commonly discussed in this blog. Let's recap:

1. Forget about "good" and "bad" foods. Instead, focus on the big picture. A donut and coffee breakfast is not worth fretting about if it only happens once a week.

2. Above all, think calories. Whole wheat pasta covered in 500-calorie Alfredo sauce is not a healthier choice than that same amount of "white" pasta accompanied by 100 calories of marinara sauce.

3. Don't be fooled by claims of "a day's worth of vitamins" or "x milligrams of Omega 3" on boxes of high-calorie, sugar and sodium laden junk foods. You might as well down a Centrum pill in between bites of a King Size Snickers bar.

Remember -- the less processed your diet, the less you have to worry about scavenging the supermarket aisles for sugar-free, vitamin fortified, and low sugar Frankenfoods.

In The News: The Case for Calories (Part Two!)

Calories sure are a hot commodity this week.

Marion Nestle's new question and answer column in The San Francisco Chronicle even identifies them as "the most pressing nutrition issue today."

As she so simply puts it, "Eat too many calories for the number you use, and on come the pounds. Food tempts us everywhere, even in places like business supply stores, bookstores and libraries. It comes in larger and larger portions. And we are expected to snack all day long. "

Clearly, policy makers also agree.

After all, fast food chain menus in New York City are displaying calories, not carbohydrate or fat grams.

You Ask, I Answer: Book Recommendations

Is there a current diet/cookbook you can recommend for health and weight loss?

-- Greg (last name withheld)
(City withheld), IA

I don’t like the term “diet book,” so let’s make this a list of cookbooks and "health books", shall we?

Books that teach actual nutrition principles and lifelong healthy eating patterns are more useful than the latest diet fad telling you to clear your cupboards of anything with sugar and spend the first two weeks on “phase/wave” one, where you basically spend 14 days craving all the foods you are now FORBIDDEN to even have a single bite of.

Anyhow, What To Eat by Marion Nestle is a great book for anyone looking to delve deeper into the food industry and how marketing and advertisement play a huge role in what we are eating.

Don't be confused by the title -- this book does not tell you what to eat to lose weight. However, it helps you separate marketing hype from reality, a very useful skill to have when navigating the extensive supermarket aisles.

Lisa Young’s The Portion Teller is a fascinating read. Not only does it highlight the increasing “portion distortion” epidemic that has increased caloric intake over the past few decades, it also communicates a pleasant message. If you’re looking to lose weight, don’t think so much about WHAT you’re eating, but how much of it!

I have mentioned Buff Dad on this website before (click here to read my interview with author Mike Levinson). I appreciate its "no nonsense" approach rooted in nutrition science as well as its particular tailoring to men (too many weight loss books specifically target a female demographic).

Linda Arpino, MA, RD, CDN, released a wonderful book titled Eat Fit, Be Fit: Health and Weight Management Solutions (pictured right.) It explains nutrition concepts simply yet thoroughly, and provides over 250 healthy -- and very tasty -- recipes.

I also think Eat This, Not That by the Men's Health team is a great guide to have handy when it comes to eating fast food. It can help you replace a 1,200 calorie lunch with one containing 500 fewer calories!

When One Cookie Is More Than Enough

Marion Nestle posted some eye-popping information on her superb blog today.

In today's Dining Out section, The New York Times dedicated plenty of column inches to the history of the chocolate chip cookie, and topped it off with a decadent Toll-house cookie recipe.

Dr. Nestle dissected said recipe and calculated that each cookie (5 inches in diameter, no less) adds up to 500 calories. Eek!

FYI -- you would need to eat 10 Chips Ahoy cookies to reach that caloric amount.

Dr. Nestle also shares this historical tidbit:

"If you want to understand the vast change in the food environment that has taken place in the last 30 years, take a look at an old (1964 or 1975) edition of the Joy of Cooking. Its recipe for chocolate chip cookies calls for almost exactly half the ingredients of the one in the Times but makes 45 cookies."

Unless you exercise extreme restraint and self-control, chances are that whatever cookie you grab -- regardless of size -- you will eat in its entirety.

Let's face it -- no matter what the caloric content of a baked good, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who will only eat half of it.

My rule of thumb? Any cookie half the size of a standard CD can be eaten solo. Anything larger should fall into the "share with a friend" category.

In The News: Big, Burly Vegan

The Wall Street Journal recently featured 247-pound Kansas City Chiefs football player Tony Gonzalez.

The interesting/"different" angle? Gonzalez is practically vegan (remember, this means no animal flesh and no byproducts, such as eggs, dairy, and honey).

I say "practically" because the article mentions him eating salmon and chicken once a week. Those are his only two non-vegan foods, though.

I also refer you to Marion Nestle's brief (but excellent) commentary on this article.

Over on her blog, she writes:

"Why anyone is surprised that people can do well on vegetarian and vegan diets is beyond me.

Plant foods have plenty of protein and calories if you eat enough of them.

If he is following a strict vegan diet–no animal products at all–he will need to find a source of vitamin B12 (it’s made by bacteria and incorporated into animal tissues), but supplements work just fine. I just don’t see this as any big deal.

Many different dietary patterns promote health and this one can too.

I suppose people will attribute any missed block or dropped pass to his diet, but cheeseburgers are not essential nutrients."

Numbers Game: Answer

"Nearly 70 percent of food advertising is for convenience foods, candy and snacks, alcoholic beverages, soft drinks, and desserts, whereas 2.2 percent is for fruits, vegetables, grains, or beans." (Quoted from Marion Nestle's Food Politics)

While personal choice, income, convenience, taste, and health certainly play a role in the foods we select to eat, Marion Nestle makes a very strong case for the power of marketing.

This is why many experts describe our food environment as a toxic one. Turn on the TV, walk down the street, and open most magazines and you are guaranteed to see lots of advertising for foods high in sugar, sodium, and unhealthy fats.

When was the last time you saw a billboard for pears? A television commercial for bananas?

Numbers Game: Sugary! Fatty! Processed! Buy Now!

"Nearly _____ percent of food advertising is for convenience foods, candy and snacks, alcoholic beverages, soft drinks, and desserts, whereas _____ percent is for fruits, vegetables, grains, or beans." (Quoted from Marion Nestle's Food Politics)

a) 52, 8
b) 70, 2.2
c) 65, 4.5
d) 90, 1.4

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

In The News: Small Bites

A big thank you to Vincci Tsui, Editor of Cornucopia, the Dietitians of Canada Student Network Newsletter.

In a piece titled "Nutrition in the Blogosphere", Vincci mentions Small Bites along with a handful of other high-profile nutrition blogs, including Marion Nestle's.

Take a look at the article here.

In The News: Grain of Truth

I was just browsing through Marion Nestle's wonderful blog and came across some disheartening news.

It appears whole grain consumption is far below what it should be.

This surprises me. With so many more convenient whole grain options out there (i.e.: whole wheat pastas, whole grain English muffins, whole grain waffles, etc.) , I was under the impression more people had integrated them into their diets.

I personally love whole grains for their taste alone. I wonder if people are shunning them out of dislike, unfamiliarity ("quinoa? no clue what that is. I'll just buy white rice."), or another reason I'm failing to see.

In The News: Overweight = Healthy? (Part 2)

The controversial new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association has the blogosphere talking.

Here is Marion Nestle's brief, yet illuminatingly concise, take on the entire thing.

By the way, Marion's 2002 book Food Politics is out on paperback with a new foreword. More than ever, it is a relevant, eyebrow-raising look at the rampantly absurd state of food marketing, consumption, and confusion in the United States. Highly recommended!

Food for Thought: Will Diet For Money (Update)

Turns out the BBC article I linked to yesterday didn't tell the whole story of Italian mayor Gianluca Buonanno's health initiative of paying his overweight residents to lose weight.

One of my critiques was that this concept seemed like a cheap reality show stunt -- lose six and a half pounds in one month and you'll get $70. Where was the nutrition education, I asked? The outreach to get people to exercise?

Well, Dr. Domingo Pinero of New York University's Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health dug up some more information and was kind enough to share it with me.

Guess what? This health initiative is better than I thought!

First of all -- once these overweight patients get a note from a doctor verifying they do need to lose weight, they are provided a personalized diet, rather than left to their own accord.

And, even better -- the town offers free exercise lessons in local parks.

Interestingly, I also learned that women get the cash if the lose six and a half pounds, but men need to lose eight pounds in one month in order to "win".

That is the one part of this initiative I still have a problem with. If a man loses six pounds in 4 weeks, that should still be commended and rewarded, especially if it is the result of a personalized meal plan and regular exercise.

I say take away the cash prize and subsidize these people's initial consultations with a dietitian. As for the $15,000 budget put aside for this initiative, look into implementing nutrition education in schools. It's never too early.

Public health nutrition authorities agree.

Earlier today I e-mailed the always resourceful Marion Nestle and asked her if she knew of any thorough studies on external motivators in relation to weight loss and management.

"Mostly on social factors -- strong family and peer support. Recent studies of single interventions don't show much (how could they?) although some school interventions look promising," she replied.

Food for Thought: Nutritious Candy (Really)

Last weekend, the Institute of Food Technologists held a conference in Chicago, where a variety of new and innovative food products were unveiled for approximately 20,000 attendees.

Some of the biggest buzz comes courtesy of candy with added vitamins and minerals in it. It's set to be all the rage in 2008. Expect to see young Hollywood starlets chewing on some in the pages of Us Weekly soon.

I read about this conference over at CNN's website, where Caleb Hellerman (senior producer of CNN's Medical Unit show, for which Dr. Sanjay Gupta -- who I think CNN considers a deity -- is chief medical correspondent) opines:

"Worthless, a prominent nutrition expert told me, although he didn't want his name used. I'm not sure I agree. Of course it would be healthier to eat a complete diet, full of vegetables, but who has the time? Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, found that barely 1 percent of children and teenagers meet government guidelines for a healthy diet. Neither they nor I were surprised."

"If my kids are munching on candy anyway, is it really so bad if it's giving them their RDA at the same time? Is there a healthy food product you would like to see on the shelves?"

Oh, Caleb... where to start?

"Of course it would be healthier to eat a complete diet, full of vegetables, but who has the time?"

I wasn't aware that opening a bag of baby carrots or popping cherry tomatoes into your mouth was a time consuming activity. Regardless, if we're talking about candy (and, therefore, sweetness) why don't we talk about nature's candy -- fruit.

There is no way I am going to believe that peeling a banana, eating blueberries, or biting into an apple is something people just can't seem to find the time to do.

"If my kids are munching on candy anyway, is it really so bad if it's giving them their RDA at the same time?"

As much as I like to break nutrition down and make it an accessible topic for everyone, it's not fair to break it down as being just about vitamins and minerals.

Yes, vitamins and minerals are important, and we all need them. However, nutrition goes beyond that.

First of all, if we are talking about the prospect children being allowed to eat more candy because it's nutritious, we need to think about implications.

What happens when that child grows up? A young palate accustomed to high amounts of sugar will very likely continue these eating patterns well into adulthood.

And while it's fine and dandy that these Gummi Bears will contains vitamins and minerals, they are still lacking the fiber and phytonutrients present in fruit.

I am not advocating for children to have sugar banned from their diets. Part of being a kid is looking forward to an ice cream cone every Saturday night or getting to share some M&M's with a little brother or sister whenever the family goes to a movie.

However, this "nutrification" of candy is dangerous because it takes junk food away from the "occasional treat" category and places it in the "hey, why not, at least it has vitamin C" category.

Currently, if a parent is making a lunchbox for little Sarah and wants a nutritious snack, she'll pack some trail mix with raisins over a bag of Gummi Bears. It has a hint of sweetness, and, along with vitamins and minerals, offers fiber and antioxidants.

I'm afraid that vitamin-fortified candy will become acceptable as a snack at any time since it has added value.

Not to mention, if these Gummi Bears are anything like Diet Coke Plus ("Diet Coke with vitamins!") they'll contain the exact same vitamin and mineral combination that, by law, has to be present in all breads. In other words, they aren't offering anything you can't get anywhere else.

As soon as I read this story, I headed over to Marion Nestle's blog, knowing she surely had an opinion about this, which she does (and I completely agree with):

"Candy is candy. If candy is organic or is laced with vitamins or substances that promote health, at least under laboratory conditions, it still has sugary calories."

Say no more.

You Ask, I Answer: Calorie-Free Dips

What's your opinion on the Walden Farms calorie-free dips like the chocolate one?

-- Anonymous

I don't particularly have an opinion either way.

While they are calorie-free (since they are sweetened with Splenda), they are also nutrient-free.

That being said, if a small amount of Walden Farms calorie dip is what it takes for a "fruit-hater" to eat two apples a day, I don't really see the harm (although I would hope they would eventually wean themselves off the dip and learn to appreciate the naturally sweet taste of fruit).

It goes back to what Marion Nestle recently said in her interview with this blog: "I like to ask: why do all foods have to be sweet? Foods have so many marvelous flavors and textures. It’s a shame that the only thing food marketers can get anyone to buy is cloyingly sweet (or salty)."

As an occasional snack, while I myself wouldn't have it (I find the flavor too artificial), there are worse things you could choose.

Speaking With...: Marion Nestle

Considering who my first interviewee is, I could not be more thrilled to introduce the new "Speaking With..." section.

Marion Nestle, Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University's Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, is a world-renowned nutrition and food guru. If the subject is broached, you are bound to find at least one quote from her (often as the voice of reason).

Armed with an MPH in public health nutrition and a Ph.D. in molecular biology, Dr. Nestle is able to approach nutrition from a multitude of angles and consider its implications not only on human health, but also the environment and economy.

Over the past four years, she has released the following books:

Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Food and Nutrition (2003)
Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health (2003; out on paperback on October 15, 2007)
Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism (2004)
What to Eat (2006)

Earlier this year, she debuted in cyberspace with her own blog, which has been a Small Bites "recommended link" since its inception.

Dr. Nestle was also featured in Morgan Spurlock's highly acclaimed documentary SuperSize Me! (she was the one producers turned to when they needed someone to define the word "Calorie").

Now, she sits down with Small Bites for an exclusive interview.

Do you find it frustrating that simple advice like "eat more fruits and vegetables" can be twisted by food companies to sell fruit-on-the-bottom yogurt, frozen vegetables smothered in cheese sauce, and apple slices "buddied up" with small containers of caramel or chocolate for dipping?

Frustrating? No, I think it’s unimaginative.

These additions are basic marketing strategies. The big profits in the food industry are in “added value,” which is what you do when you add fruit to yogurt and caramel sauce to apple slices.

Fruits and vegetables are difficult to brand--one head of cauliflower is much like another—so the profit margins are low.

I like to ask: why do all foods have to be sweet? Foods have so many marvelous flavors and textures. It’s a shame that the only thing food marketers can get anyone to buy is cloyingly sweet (or salty).

Your career has literally taken you all over the world. Apart from smaller portions, what do you think people in the United States can learn from other societies in terms of how they approach eating and nutrition?

People in many other countries have such different attitudes about food. For one thing, they don’t think all foods have to be sweet. For another, they eat way smaller portions.

The marketing of food is so much quieter—you don’t see as much advertising or absurd health claims on food packages. That is changing, of course. I am just back from Australia where I could not believe the amount of Shrek marketing. Supermarkets and McDonald’s outlets were covered with pictures of Shrek—on the junkiest foods imaginable.

Looking at obesity and smoking as public health issues, why do you think smoking has become something people increasingly look down on, whereas obesity often brings along issues of victimization, helplesness, and boundaries?

If a person lights up a cigarette at a party, his/her friends will have no qualms telling them it's gross and unhealthy, but if someone goes out to dinner with friends and orders a double cheeseburger with French fries, it's considered horribly rude and inappropriate to suggest they consider forgoing the cheese, or replacing the French fries with a baked potato.

Food isn’t tobacco. The message for tobacco is simple: don’t smoke. The public health goal is also simple: put tobacco companies out of business. I don’t know anyone who wants to put food companies out of business. Food isn’t poison. We have to eat.

The issues are what to eat and how much. There is so much evidence now that factors in the environment encourage people to eat more food, more often, in larger amounts. It isn’t enough to say that people should just exercise personal responsibility and say no to food.

We need to change the food environment to make it easier for people to eat more healthfully.

Do you think part of the health crisis in this country relates to the line between "junk food" and "health food" becoming dangerously blurred? For example, a "healthy" protein bar can deliver 100% of vitamins and minerals as well as 350 calories, 50% of one's daily saturated fat limit and 20% of the maximum sodium recommendation.

Meanwhile, sugary cereals made with whole grains have gone mainstream, sushi rolls are drowning in mayonnaise and contain deep fried fish, and flavored waters with as much sugar as a can of soda are marketed as health drinks.

We are back to marketing again. Remember: the American food supply provides 3,900 calories a day for every man, woman, and child in the country—roughly twice average need. Even people who overeat have limits on what they can take in.

So the food industry is hugely competitive. Under our investment system, it not only has to make profits; it must grow those profits every 90 days. So the food industry is basically stagnant with one exception: foods perceived as healthy.

If you can take the trans fat out of your junk food, add vitamins or antioxidants, or add a bit of whole grains, you can market it as “healthy.” Will doing this really help people improve their health? I’m skeptical.

What is your take on food addiction? Can some people truly be addicted to sugar and flour in the same way they can develop a physiological need for caffeine?

I don’t like to use the word “addiction” to refer to food. Food gives us life. We can’t live without it.

The research says that food stimulates the same pleasure centers as addictive drugs but not nearly to the same degree. And careful research on people claiming that they were addicted to chocolate, for example, could not find anything in chocolate to which anyone could be dependent.

People just love eating chocolate, which doesn’t seem like addiction to me.

Let's fast forward a year. Do you think Alli will continue to be a best-seller?

MN: I don’t have a crystal ball but my guess is that sales will decline when people discover that they don’t lose as much weight with it as they had hoped. Alli just forces people to eat less fat (because the consequences of overeating fat are unpleasant, not to say embarrassing).

But it’s easy to compensate for those calories with carbohydrates. And when it comes to body weight, it’s calories that count—no matter where they come from.

I want to once again thank Marion Nestle for granting me this interview, especially considering her busy schedule.

For the past few months (in between conferences, meetings, lectures, and book tours), she has been conducting exhaustive research for her next book -- tentatively titled What Pets Eat -- which will tackle the nutrition of our pets, mainly dogs and cats.

It promises to be revealing, myth-shattering, and another success in Dr. Nestle's career.