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

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?"

Shame On You/Say What?: Intruder Alert!

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.

Say What?: I Think I May Be Speechless!

Let's wrap up this three-day weekend with a chuckle and a big "Huh????".

I think you'll get a kick out of this; I sure did!

There is a man by the name of Wiley Brooks who runs the Breatharian Institute of America.

In case you are not familiar with the concept, breatharians do not believe foods and liquids are necessary for human survival.

They -- the handful of them that exist around the world -- claim to simply live off of air and sunlight.

I know. Just stick with me for a minute-- this gets really good, I promise.

For the mere cost of $10,000,000 (yes, all those zeros belong there), Mr. Brooks will take you on a five-day spiritual journey to Southern Utah and teach you the secrets to living the rest of your life without a bite of food or drop of liquids.

According to Mr. Brooks, this not only makes you healty and strong -- it also heightens your productivity. In his mind, the more you eat, the more you sleep (as a result of being breatharian, he claims to sleep just one hour a day and never feel tired.)

There is also some overly vague and convoluted promise of leaving the third dimension behind and entering a fifth one.

The kicker? Prior to taking on your breatharian lifestyle, Mr. Brooks needs you to meditate and subsist on nothing but McDonald's Quarter Pounders and Diet Coke (something about these foods having the perfect harmonic convergence)!

If you're in need of some laughter, you can view his overly detailed instructions here.

Believe it or not, Mr. Wiley had his share of followers in the 1980s.

Oh, and this is his retort to skeptics: "if food is good for you, why does the body excrete it?"

Say What?: JELL-O With Antioxidants

Behold JELL-O's latest creation: sugar-free, vitamin fortified gelatin snack packs.

Relying on trendy fruit flavors (raspberry-goji berry and strawberry-acai berry), this new product contains 10% of the Recommended Dietary Allowance of two antioxidants: vitamin A and vitamin E.

Since these two vitamins are simply tacked on (and not naturally contained in an ingredient), you might as well be eating regular JELL-O and chasing it down with a multivitamin.

More importantly, vitamin A and vitamin E are fat-soluble, meaning they need to be consumed with some fat in order to be absorbed in the small intestine.

Their presence in a fat-free product like Jell-O completely boggles my mind.

Say What?: Sweet (In)justice

Although Top Chef is one of my favorite competition-based reality shows, the two previous seasons have led to blog postings in which I express my frustration at the contestants' and producers' misunderstanding of basic nutrition concepts.

This current season is no exception.

This week's "quickfire challenge" -- a 45 minute challenge that grants the winning contestant immunity at the episode's elimination ceremony -- consisted of making a sugar-free dessert.

Before introducing the challenge, host Padma Lakshmi showed the contestants a cart loaded with the various sugars found in the Top Chef pantry -- white, raw, confectioners', brown, etc. -- which she wheeled out of the kitchen once the challenge began.

"This will be interesting to watch!" I thought.

Well, the first red flag went up when the concept of sugar-free desserts was referenced in the context of producing healthy, low-calorie options.

Really? Because, often times, sugar-free varieties of cakes and pies use higher quantities of fat -- mainly saturated -- to make up for lost texture and taste.

Consequently, it is not at all odd to find that a slice of sugar-free cake has just as many calories -- if not more! -- as the traditional version.

Although "sugar-free" can sometimes be healthier and lower-calorie (i.e.: quick-cooking plain oatmeal is a healthier, lower-calorie alternative to pre-sweetened varieties,) you should never automatically make that connection in your head.

Then, once the challenge was underway, I saw contestants using honey and agave. Oy.

Apparently in Top Chef land, the word "sugar" is taken very literally -- it only refers to a granulated sweetener that comes in large bags.

Honey and agave are forms of sugar.

Yes, it usually takes less agave to match the same level of sweetness of a certain amount of sugar, but a dessert made with agave or honey is NOT sugar-free!

One contestant even used a chocolate coin in her dish. I immediately thought she would be disqualified, since any chocolate product contains sugar. Alas, the judging panel didn't seem to have a problem with that.

Top Chef execs: how about consulting with a Registered Dietitian when creating rules for nutrition-related challenges?

FNCE 2008/Say What?: The Sweet Stuff Hits A Sour Note

In a perfect example of "reaching," The Sugar Association's booth at the 2008 American Dietetic Association Food & Nutrition Conference and Expo offered a variety of pamphlets, including one titled "Sugar's Healing Powers."

"There is no doubt that 'sugar' tastes good and, therefore in our guilt-ridden society, it is commonly assumed that 'sugar must not be good for us," the awkwardly written information sheet begins.

"Nothing could be further from the truth -- sugar is one of Mother Nature's most miraculous creations," it continues.

The argument here is that as far back as 1700 BC, sugar has been used to treat wounds.

The document quotes three studies -- all concluding that sugar exerts antibacterial effects on wounds and promotes faster healing.

Technically true, but how is that relevant in a society where the problem is the massive amounts of sugar people are putting down their throats?

Furthermore, what is the purpose of mentioning sugar's wound healing properties in hospital settings at a nutrition conference?

In another bizarre move, The Sugar Association provided some recipes (with the comma-less grammatically incorrect title "a little sugar can make healthy nutritious foods taste better") that left me perplexed.

Here is a perfect example -- adding sugar to a breakfast shake made of orange juice concentrate, milk, and a banana. Huh??

I am by no means a "sugar is the devil" advocate, but suggesting the addition of sugar to already sweet fruits and promoting its wound healing powers to nutrition professionals seems like a misguided PR move.

Their tagline ("Make an informed choice. Choose pure natural sugar -- 15 calories per teaspoon,") also does not sit well with me.

While putting a teaspoon or three of sugar into your coffee every morning (or enjoying an ice cream cone every Saturday night) is by no means a problem, sugar is calorically identical to other caloric sweeteners.

They ALL offer 14 - 16 calories per tablespoon.

I am not exactly sure what "informed choice" consumers are making by adding two teaspoons of sugar -- rather than that same amount of honey -- to a cup of tea.

I don't even understand why The Sugar Association is present at a nutrition conference to begin with.

Say What?: Japanese Dieters Go Bananas

And you thought the Master Cleanse diet was as ridiculous as it could get?

CBS-3 in Philadelphia is reporting that Japan's "morning banana diet" fad has led to shortages of the yellow-skinned tropical fruit.

What exactly does the morning banana diet entail, you ask?

Oh, just the usual nonsense.

Apparently, you can eat whatever you want --in unlimited quantities, no less -- for lunch and dinner (although dinner should preferably be no later than 6 p.m.) as long as you consume one raw, unfrozen banana for breakfast.

That's right, feel free to wolf down cheeseburgers, fries, and milkshakes -- the bananas will magically help you lose weight!

Two other rules -- you may only drink water and exercise is completely optional!

The diet's "official website," which credits a "white-collar worked named Hitoshi Watanabe" as creating the diet, provides some laughable theories as to why this weight-loss plan "works."

My favorites?

* "Bananas contain enzymes that assist in digestion, speeding it up and thus reducing the amount of time the intestines need to work to digest food, resulting in a metabolism more suited to losing weight. These enzymes only exist if the bananas are eaten in their raw state."

Oh, look, the digestive enzyme myth again!

Humans already have necessary digestive enzymes; we do not need any from our food supply.

Additionally, speeding up digestion sounds like a dieter's nightmare, as it would mean faster gastric emptying (and thus feeling hungry more quickly!)

* "Laying off the manditory[sic] exercise and allowing afternoon sweets reduces stress, which would otherwise lead to overeating."

There's a new one! So popping bonbons at four in the afternoon creates as many "feel good" endorphins as lifting some weights or jogging?

Who knew nutrition could be so comical?

Say What?: Hospital Food SOS

Some hospital food service decisions leave me absolutely perplexed.

Allow me to explain.

I side with the belief that with some cancer patients -- who can have a tremendously difficult time working up an appetite -- it is a good idea to liberalize their diet in order to include foods they love and, therefore, will WANT to eat.

One of the many goals is getting them off tube feedings and increase their caloric intake through solid food or beverages.

But I was rather horrified to see thick pre-packaged slices of Sara Lee pound cake on some patients' trays at one New York City hospital.

What on EARTH is a medical establishment doing serving up a product with trans fats to patients whose health has already taken a turn for the worse?

I would like to think that, of all places, a hospital would specifically seek out baked goods and treats free of partially hydrogenated oils.

I am not asking for cancer patients to be denied a treat. Far from it!

If a brownie offers as much as a single minute of pleasure in what is otherwise an unpleasant stay, they should certainly be provided with one.

But the notion of feeding sick patients foods with trans fats in them leaves me very, very confused. And, frankly, very upset.

Say What?/Celebrity Diet Secrets: Teri Hatcher

One of the country's most famous desperate housewives recently shared some of the images and phrases on her "goal board" (described by Ms. Hatcher as "a collage of images of things you want to achieve in your life... all written, glued or drawn onto a big piece of paper.")

Among that inspirational collage? "Don't eat after 7 PM."

Uh oh, looks like the "calorie clock" myth is back!

Truth is, calories couldn't care less what time they are consumed.

A 600 calorie ice cream sundae will provide 600 calories whether it's gobbled down for breakfast or at 10 PM.

Let me just say that not eating after 7 PM will very likely result in some weight loss.

However, this is very simply due to a reduction in total daily caloric intake (rather than avoiding food after an arbitrary bewitching hour where calories are multiplied by twenty!)

I'm more disturbed by the notion that refusing food after 7 PM is someone's life goal.

I would have gone with "develop a healthy attitude towards food."

Represented by an illustration of someone happily savoring one (there's the key!) decadent dark chocolate truffle.

Say What?: Alkaline "Diets"

Earlier today I co-taught a nutrition workshop at New York Presbyterian Hospital's oncology unit, in which a patient inquired about cancer and alkaline diets.

Apparently, one of his family members sent him a list of foods that people living with cancer should refrain from eating because they are highly acidic and, therefore, exacerbate the condition.

Some of the foods he was "advised" not to eat? Bananas and oranges!

Alas, his question brought back memories of many inane ramblings I've listened to -- and read -- by proponents of alkaline diets.

These people -- Dr. Robert Young is particularly notorious for his book, The pH Miracle (which I absolutely refuse to provide a link to Amazon for) -- refer to themselves as "nutritionists" or "naturopaths," but have apparently never read a single page of an elementary human physiology and anatomy book.

Let's review.

The "alkaline diet" theory goes a little like this:

1. Diseases are the end result of our blood becoming more acidic (damaged cells can not survive in alkaline environments).

2. Our diet can determine if our bodies are in an 'acidic' or 'alkaline' state.

3. Eating foods that promote “alkanility” prevents certain diseases (like cancer) from ever developing.

Now let’s discuss why that’s a big steaming pile of… nonsense.

First of all, much like our body takes care of detoxifying (thanks to the liver,) we also have organs that ensure acid-base balance is taking place.

The two main players are the lungs (which pitch in by releasing carbon dioxide) and kidneys (if blood pH is not where it should be, the body will correct it by getting rid of whatever is extraneous in our urine.)

Our blood’s pH always falls in the 7.35 to 7.45 range (mainly because the body has buffer systems that work all day to make sure levels do not fall above, or below, that range).
If your pH level is below that range, something is SERIOUSLY wrong. Literally being in an "alkaline" state is life threatening, not a utopia.

Besides, eating “acidic” or “basic” foods is completely irrelevant to blood pH levels.

To make matters more confusing, “acidic” foods have nothing to do with how they taste (meaning, lemons are considered extremely basic, not extremely acidic.)

Take a look at this completely absurd list (bonus points for making sense of it!):

According to it, the following foods are “acidic” and should therefore be consumed in very minimal amounts, and possibly not at all, to ensure optimal health: corn, lentils, blueberries, oats, quinoa, egg whites, pumpkin seeds, chickpeas, walnuts, peanut butter, shrimp, salmon, tuna, olive oil, bananas, and oranges.

Wow, this is certainly news to me! So fruits, fish, beans, legumes, whole grains, vegetable oils, and nuts are the source of disease?

I’m so tired of the endless parade of quacks that somehow get paid to spew garbage in a book that somehow ends up on the bestseller list.
And I find it incredibly irritating that all this nonsense ends up confusing people even more on issues of nutrition and healthy eating.

I don't know how acid or alkaline it is, but my blood certainly boils when I hear someone tell me that "this really interesting book written by a doctor" says that fruit "A" is good for you, but fruit "B" actually "causes disease."

Publishers, take note.

Say What?: All That For A T-Shirt??

Eating contests have always fascinated me, especially the over-the-top portion sizes and nutrition figures that accompany some of these foods.

Over at Hillbilly Hot Dogs in Huttington, West Virginia, two challenges await adventurous eaters.

First, the 3.5 pound Homewrecker (pictured at right):

"The biggest, baddest of all the weenies! One full pounder of beef weenie, deep fried in pure canola oil, piled high with sauteed peppers and onions. Then covered with nacho cheese, our homemade sopicy chili sauce, jalapeños, mustard, ketchup, slaw, 'maters, lettuce, and shredded cheese. All of it, slammin' on a grilled bun."

Nutrition numbers, you ask?

My calculations total 3,100 calories, 65 grams of saturated fat (3 days' worth) and 6,380 milligrams of sodium (also 3 days' worth!)

The thing is 15 inches long and can be yours for just $14.99.

Oh, chow it down in 12 minutes or less and win... a T-shirt.

If that's too amateurish, why not attempt to scarf down a Hillbilly 5 pound burger?

We're talking about a "five pound patty topped with 12 slices of cheese, 12 slices of tomatoes, a head of lettuce, one whole onion, and a pound of pickles".

In this case, per my calculations, you're looking at 8,601 calories, 245 grams of saturated fat (TEN days' worth!), and 5,295 milligrams of sodium.

I spoke with the manager of the establishment a few minutes ago, who told me that one customer has eaten the single wide 5 pound burger in SIXTEEN MINUTES and the Homewrecker in just four!

In fact, to get a T-shirt AND their money refunded, Homewrecker contenders have to beat his 4 minute record.

Although "a lot of people" have finished the humongous hot dog in under 12 minutes, I was told "only two or three" other people have downed the single wide burger in one sitting (unlike the 16-minute maniac, they took "several hours.")

By the way, there IS a 10 pound hillbilly burger (with double the nutrition figures of the 5-pounder), but no one has ever tried to eat that in one sitting.

I wonder if you can get the Homewrecker with the chili sauce on the side?

Say What?: You Say "Wholesome," I Say "Really?"

The Slim-Fast Foods Company describes itself as being “committed to the development of wholesome and balanced nutritional products to aid in weight management and improved health.”

An interesting description, to say the least, given the ingredient list for their 120-calorie chocolate peanut nougat snack bar:

Maltitol Syrup, Milk Chocolate Flavored Coating (Sugar, Partially Hydrogenated Palm Kernel And Palm Oil, Cocoa (Processed With Alkali), Sugar, Roasted Peanuts (Peanuts, Peanut Oil), Sweetened Condensed Skim Milk (Skim Milk, Sugar), Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil (Palm Kernel And Soybean), Whey Protein Isolate, Gum Arabic, Malted Milk (Extracts Of Wheat Flour And Malt Barley, Milk, Salt, Sodium Bicarbonate), Nonfat Milk, Salt, Egg Whites, Artificial Flavor, Caramel Color, Soy Lecithin, Maltodextrin, Tbhq And Citric Acid, Vitamins And Minerals (Calcium Phosphate, Calcium Carbonate, Ferric Orthophosphate, Vitamin E Acetate, Ascorbic Acid, Vitamin E Acetate, Niacinamide, Calcium Pantothenate, Vitamin A Palmitate, Pyridoxine Hydrocholoride, Riboflavin, Thiamin Mononitrate, Folic Acid, Biotin, Cholecalciferol (Vitamin D3), Cyanocobalamin (Vitamin B12).

How a product with partially hydrogenated oils and maltitol syrup (the syrup of a sugar alcohol!) as its first ingredient can be described as 'wholesome' beats me.

You might as well eat a small chocolate bar and pop a multivitamin.

Why not have a handful (160 calories’ worth) of peanuts instead?

It's just as convenient and portable a snack as one of these bars, and doesn't contribute added sugars or partially hydrogenated oils (trans fats) to your day.

Added bonus if you choose peanuts? Heart-healthy monounsaturated fats!

By the way, the "40% less sugar" banner on the box of these bars is the result of replacing half the sugar with maltitol (the sugar alcohol most likely to cause bloating, gas, and diarrhea. Yum!)

Craving chocolate but looking to control calories? Have a 100-calorie chocolate bar, sans sugar alcohols. Savor it, enjoy it, and go about your day.

Say What?: The "Coo Coo" Diet

I am always fascinated by people who take nutrition to an extreme, ultimately putting their health at risk.

And so I present to you: fruitarians (exhibit A and exhibit B.)

That's right -- these people advocate eating nothing but fruit for optimal health.

(Insert "Twilight Zone" theme song HERE.)

It's worth pointing out that this includes "avocado, cucumbers, tomatoes, paprika, olives and squash."

Although some fruitarians start out eating nuts and seeds, the goal is to eventually cut those out as well.

Right, because nuts and seeds are behind all our health problems. UGH.

Despite clearly lacking a multitude of nutrients (Omega-3 fatty acids, zinc, calcium, and vitamin D, among others,) this movement has devout followers.

When it comes to dangerous diets such as fruitarianism, I leave political correctness at the door.

I am not going to sit here and say it's just a "different" diet that needs to be "carefully planned."

No. It's unhealthy, unbalanced, and as far as I'm concerned, an eating disorder disguised as a "natural" way to eat.

Say What?: Oh, Kevin

It's been a while since I've written about our friend Kevin Trudeau.

Earlier today I leafed through his bestseller Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About and came across a truly eyebrow-raising sentence I had previously missed but had to share here.

In his chapter titled "Reading Food Labels", Trudeau briefly discusses the nutritional impact of home cooked meals versus prepackaged food.

Rather than discuss, say, higher sodium and fat amounts in ready-to-eat or frozen meals, Trudeau judges these two on how much love they offer.

Cooked food, he claims, allows you to put love into your food, whereas major food companies sell products "where no love has been added."

Okay, I guess I can kind of follow his train of thought.

I can see how someone might feel emotionally "better" eating something they conconcted in their kitchen, being familiar with the ingredients and "enjoying the fruits of their labor," so to speak.

It was the next sentence that I had to reread three times to make sure my eyes weren't playing a belated April Fool's joke on me:

"The energy a person adds to food by preparing it himself actually causes the electrons in the food to spin in different directions, causing a much healthier product for the body."

Maybe Trudeau got bored and decided to play Mad Libs while writing his book?

That's the only explanation I have for such far-fetched, faux-scientific ("insert the world electron to make it sound intelligent") ridiculousness.

Say What?/In The News:: Stating the Obvious

I always enjoy keeping up on the latest nutrition-related research, but a University of South Florida in Tampa study reported by USA Today this morning left me scratching my head.

Not out of confusion, mind you, but because I can't believe this is supposed to be "new" or "grounbreaking" information.

The title alone already struck me as odd -- "Obesity cancels health advantage of affluent, educated."

You don't say!

The opening paragraph could have been lifted right out of The Onion:

"A good education and income helps protect people from inflammation that increases their risk of a heart attack, but the more overweight someone becomes, the less protection is gained from a comfortable life, a study suggests today."

Oh, you mean a Harvard degree and $200,000 a year alone are not enough to decrease someone's risk of developing prostate cancer or cardiovascular disease?

I assume that what the reporter is trying to communicate is that education (by the way, who is qualifying what is a "good" or "bad" education?) and income provide more opportunities for people to afford healthier lifestyles.

Mind you, this is a very U.S.-centric concept.

Travel to other parts of the world and it is often the less affluent who are in better health, in large part because they subsist on a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains, and unprocessed junk.

Besides, opportunities are merely that -- open windows. People can choose to use them or not.

I know plenty of people who graduated from Ivy League universities and currently earn six figures who don't exercise, subsist on junk food, and drink way too much alcohol.

The article got even more insulting for me:

"Looking at education alone, overweight people with and without a college education had about an equal level of harmful C-reactive protein."

What exactly is the finding here? Am I supposed to be surprised that "the educated" are negatively affected by weight gain? Last I heard, a plentiful retirement account couldn't successfully reduce high LDL levels.

And then there's this:

"The greater stress faced by poorer, less educated people may promote inflammation, says Elissa Epel, a psychologist at the University of California Medical School-San Francisco, who studies the biology of stress."

So unhealthy blood lipid profiles among less affluent individuals are being attributed to stress? High-earners also experience stress; perhaps not over the same topics, but who is to say it's not with the same degree of intensity?

And what what about the fact that lower socioeconomic neighborhoods in the United States have less access to healthy foods? Or that many of them are simply unable to afford preventive care?

"It's still a bit of a mystery" why people who are better off have better health, says Richard Schulz, an expert on how psychology and lifestyle influence health."

What, exactly, is the mystery? Money in and of itself does not buy health, but it provides more opportunities to keep it in check.

Even if many people with higher incomes eat unhealthily, they can afford treatments and medications to alleviate or eradicate certain conditions.

And while education is certainly important as it provides the necessary knowledge to make informed choices, it's obvious that once someone is 20 or 30 pounds overweight, their blood lipid profile will deteriorate, regardless of where -- or how much of -- their education was completed.

Maybe tomorrow we'll "find out" (in the name of science, of course) that severely underweight runway models are just as unhealthy as severely underweight janitors.

Say What?: Too Much of a Good Thing

As regular readers of this column know, I am a big fan of fruit and nut bars like Clif Nectar, Lara, and Pure (basically, any bar that has five or less ingredients -- usually dates, nuts, seeds, and, in some instances, cocoa powder).

Not only are these bars delicious on-the-go snacks, they also provide healthy fats, fiber, potassium, and are free of added sugar, trans fats, and sodium.

They make conventional "soy and rice crisp and 25 synthetic vitamins and minerals" snack bars taste like artificially sweetened cardboard.

One aspect I am perplexed by, though, is the nutrition components some of these bars choose to feature on their packaging.

Lara bars, for example, boast about the amount of Omega-6 essential fatty acids they contain.

Don't get me wrong; omega-6 essential fatty acids are certainly needed in the diet (remember, 'essential' means that our body is unable to produce it, so we must get it from external means).

The issue, however, is that the standard US diet is extremely high in them -- and too low in Omega-3 fatty acids.

And it just so happens that excessive intakes of Omega-6 (which is pro-inflammatory) prevent the other essential fatty acid, Omega-3, from doing its anti-inflammatory work.

This is why, when people get all excited about Omega-3's and simply start eating more flaxseed meal or salmon, they don't realize that this dietary change needs to simultaneously occur with a lower intake of Omega-6 for it to have beneficial effects.

Here's an eye-popping statistic:

It is estimated that up until the 1950s, our Omega6 - Omega 3 ratio fell in the desired 2:1 ratio.

These days? We're looking at an absurd 20:1 ratio! This is bad news not only for heart health, but also in regards to risks of certain cancers.

Omega-6 fatty acids are found in plants, nuts, and seeds (and their respective oils). No one in this country is deficient in Omega-6 fatty acids.

As the movie King Corn pointed out, the United States' high omega-6 intake is also related to the fact that the large majority of cows serving as sources of dairy and beef are fed corn, rather than grass.

Grass-fed beef contains a respectable amount of Omega-3 fatty acids.

Corn-fed beef? Not only is it high in Omega-6 and absent of Omega-3; it is also higher in saturated fat!

I e-mailed the folks over at Lara Bar several months ago, pointing out how odd it was to advertise the Omega-6 grams in their bars as a health benefit. If you feel the same way, drop them a line!

Let me again remind you that Omega-6 fats in and of themselves are not unhealthy. It is the Omega 6 : Omega 3 ratio that is problematic.

Say What?: Lip Service

I received a text message in all capitals (capped off with exclamation marks) from a friend this afternoon.

It certainly had all the makings of an emergency. Maybe a celebrity sighting?

Nope.

I was told to Google "FUZE lip gloss", a product she had just seen at Sephora, the fragrance and cosmetics powerhouse.

Following her orders, I typed those three words into the search box and proceeded to roll my eyes so strongly I was afraid they would never stay still again.

Let me give you some background first.

As some of you may know, Coca Cola sells a low-calorie juice/tea beverage named Fuze (the target is adolescent females, hence the quirkly post-modern misspelling).

The newest variety is Fuze Slenderize -- a 10-calorie drink containing "slenderizing" vitamins and minerals available in six different flavors.

All six flavors contain L-Carnitine and Super Citrimax, "metabolism boosters."

Citrimax is actually the extract of a South Asian fruit named Garcinia cambogia.

The manufacturers of Citrimax claim their product "suppresses appetite and inhibits fat production."

There is mention of clinical trials proving this, but the only research I read found no difference between subjects taking Citrimax and a placebo.

In any case, the people behind Fuze (Coca Cola!) now sell "slenderizing lip gloss."

"Infused with the health, delicious fruit flavors and appetite curbing energy boosting ingredients found in FUZE Slenderize beverages. One delicious dab on the lips will give you a taste of what all the Hollywood starlets are losing it over! Always on the lips, never on the hips!" the press kit reads.

What poor intern was given the painful task of writing THAT?

The idea is that Citrimax is absorbed via your lips, thereby curbing your appetite. Well, hey, you can't say the Fuze folks aren't creative!

Ironically, the lip gloss comes in fruity flavors like blueberry-raspberry and strawberry melon. Wouldn't the taste of candy on someone's lips make them start thinking of food and feel hungry?

A much smarter -- and efficient -- strategy to help curb mindless snacking or eating out of boredom (rather than hunger) is to pop some gum in your mouth.

It's not about plant extracts, acai berry enzymes or "slenderizing" ingredients.

Rather, the chewing action and strong minty/cinnamon/fruity taste in your mouth can help stop you from picking up that Snickers bar at the supermarket checkout counter that you only want because it's six inches away from you.

I was initially going to post this as a "Shame On You: Coca Cola," but decided against it because the only people who should be ashamed are those who open their wallets for this product thinking it is a weight-loss aid.

Say What?: It's Not Broken. Don't Fix It

It is no surprise that soda manufacturers are always looking to increase sales.

They have introduced new flavors (some, like the repulsive Pepsi Blue, landed with a resounding thud), added vitamins to beverages (Diet Coke Plus), and now the folks at Pepsi -- eager to compete against the ever growing energy drink market -- are hyping Diet Pepsi Max.

In case the multi-million dollar national campaign hasn't been implanted into your brain, Diet Pepsi Max contains ginseng and twice the caffeine of regular Diet Pepsi.

It's actually billed as an "invigorating cola."

Big whoop.

In terms of caffeine, you're talking 46 milligrams per 8 ounces, as opposed to conventional Diet Pepsi's 24 milligrams.

Let's knock down the buzz and put it in perspective: an eight ounce cup of coffee clocks in at approximately 175 milligrams.

If the whole purpose of this drink is to "boost your energy" (as the press kit claims), and caffeine content is one of its selling points, why does it contain less than the smallest size at Starbucks?

Ginseng, meanwhile, is included to "focus your mind." Have I time warped to 1999 when ginseng was the hot new herb on the market?

This concept of ginseng as a mind-sharpener is completely overhyped and appears to be mostly a placebo effect.

New York University clinical assistant professor Lisa Sasson is equally annoyed by this new drink.

"This drink is making it seem like it will give you an edge, a boost of energy, but the best way to achieve that is through adequate sleep," she says.

Sasson believes sleep is underrated. "Sleep deficit catches up. It absolutely affects health and wellness. Having diet soda with a little caffeine and ginseng doesn't make up for the fact that you only got four hours of sleep the night before."

Do you think Diet Pepsi Max will sink or float?

Say What?: (Purposefully) Smelly Shoes

After dominating the "juice" market (if your idea of juice is water, sugar, and artificial flavors), the folks at Kool Aid are setting their overly sweetened sights on... footwear?

February 1 marked the debut of Kool-Aid shoes. Thanks a lot, Reebok executives!

Not only do they come in impossibly neon bright colors -- they also "have the sweet and fruity scents of Kool-Aid built into the footwear," as Brandweek perfectly described it.

Blegh!

And this is but the mere beginning of the sucrose explosion, my friends.

There are "scent-infused" sockliners, hoodies, T-shirts, and hats hitting the market over the next few months.

Isn't this synthetically, sickeningly sweetness a form of air pollution?

Say What?: It's not April 1 Yet, Is It?

Down in Mississippi -- one of the most obese states in the country -- three members of the House of Representatives have come up with what they believe is a solution to the obesity epidemic.

W.T. Mayhall, Jr. (R), John Read (R), and Bobby Shows (D) have drafted Bill number 282.

Its proposal? Make it illegal for state-licensed restaurants to serve obese patrons.

They are under the illusion that the Department of Health would not only agree with this idea, but also provide them with specific criteria to determine who falls into the obese category.

You can view the actual bill here.

There are so many problems with this, I don't even know where to start.

From a social standpoint, this is a terrible idea. An obese person can no longer be able to go out to dinner with friends or family?

While restaurants often serve mega-size portions loaded with calories, unhealthy fats, and sodium, they are not the direct cause of obesity.

Someone can never set foot in a restaurant and easily remain obese.

Supermarkets offer a plethora of unhealthy foods (donuts, ice cream, potato chips, frozen pizzas, candy bars) anyone can purchase and have available at their homes around the clock.

Add years of physical inactivity as well as no access to nutrition education and other resources, and you have the perfect breeding ground for obesity.

Remember, too, that obesity often has a strong psychological component behind it.

Food -- and the accompanying extra weight -- serves as a type of shield, or emotional security blanket, to hide behind.

Banning obese people from restaurants is absurd and does not tackle the real issues.