Survey Results: Make Room For Spongebob

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.

Numbers Game: Answer

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.

In The News: Vitamin Water Called To The Mat

Less than two hours ago, Reuters reported that The Center for Science in the Public Interest "filed a class action lawsuit against Coca-Cola Co, accusing the company of making deceptive health claims about its Vitamin Water beverages."

Can't say I disagree.

It is precisely Vitamin Water's cutesy and health-oriented advertising that has resulted in "I don't drink soda" types buying into what is, essentially, vitamin-fortified sugar water.

For more information on this beverage, please read this "You Ask/I Answer" post from August of 2007.

Coca Cola, meanwhile, is dismissing this as an attention-seeking move by CSPI, claiming their nutrition facts label tells an accurate tale.

Okay, but that is not what CSPI is challenging.

Rather, it is "the company's claims [that] the drinks reduce the risk of chronic disease and eye disease, promote healthy joints and support immune function" that are being called out as deceptive.

There is also the issue of the particular names attributed to each flavor (including "defense", "energy", and "rescue").

Obviously, Vitamin Water depends on those healthy-sounding terms for sales.

Otherwise, their fruit punch flavor would simply be named "fruit punch" rather than "revive."

I strongly support more regulation surrounding health claims on these types of products. What are your thoughts?

You Ask, I Answer: Stoneground Wheat

I have seen a few breads labeled as "100% stoneground wheat."

Does that have any nutritional implications?

Is it similar to a whole wheat bread?

-- Mariana (last name withheld)
(city withheld), NJ

The literal way to produce stoneground flour is to grind it solely in stone mills (rather than conventional roller mills.)

Most conventional breads sold at supermarkets (which I assume are the ones you are asking about), however, use the term as a healthy-sounding catchphrase in an attempt to confuse consumers who are looking for healthier breads.

The main problem here is that the Food & Drug Administration has not drafted a legal definition of "stoneground." It can basically mean whatever food companies want it to mean!

This is very much akin to the lack of definition of the term “natural ingredients,” which permitted 7-Up to launch a “made with all natural ingredients” campaign a few years back.

Most major bread companies can get away with labeling their breads as “stone ground” if the flour has gone through a stone mill just one time.

This is all irelevant, though. White flour has the same nutritional profile regardless of the type of mill it is processed in.

The most important thing to look for when purchasing bread is that the first ingredient is a WHOLE flour.

Any word other than whole -- such as "stoneground", "unbleached", or "enriched" -- means the main ingredient is white flour with virtually no fiber.

Shame On You: The Results Are In

I am sure you have all been on pins and needles awaiting the results of Burger King's Whopper Virgins experiment. Or not.

Well, the wait is over!

And wouldn't you know it -- the majority of those "weird third world villagers who have never heard of a burger" prefer the Whopper to rival McDonald's Big Mac.

Wondering how the burgers stayed hot and palatable in desolate areas of the world, far from any Burger King?

Turns out the "expedition team" shuttled villagers to the closest city and had them bite into their first Whopper -- in front of a video camera no less -- in some sort of warehouse.

Supposedly, said warehouse had both a Burger King and McDonald's nearby, ensuring that both chains' offerings would be in a participant's mouth no more than 15 minutes after being purchased by the expedition team.

All this trouble to find out which corn-fed beef patty topped with high-fructose corn syrup ketchup and a single pathetic wilted leaf of lettuce is the more superior one? I don't get it.

Burger King chronicles their worldwide journey in this 7 minute, 8 second "cinematic piece".

Apart from seeing images of these "researchers" in remote third world areas (including scenes where they cook Burger King hamburgers for a small village in a portable broiler displaying the fast food chain's logo), we get to hear choice quotes like:

"[Some of these people] didn't even know how to pick [a hamburger] up."

Oh, wow! How backwards! And the majority of Americans don't know how to hold chopsticks properly. Your point?

The team is incredulous when a man practically missing all his teeth chooses to tear off a part of his burger rather than bite into it.

So incredulous, actually, that they instruct him to take a bite.

I cringed.

"You can not get an entirely pure taste from a group of Americans because they have been exposed to so much advertising."

Partially true, but this isn't only a problem in the United States. Fast food and soft drink advertising crosses borders and makes it to some very remote areas.

Have these people never heard of blind tastings? Simply blindfold your subjects (right here in the USA!), ask them to take a bite of Burger 1, a bite of Burger 2, and tell you which one tastes best to them.

And for all his "marketing virginity" talk, isn't "rewarding" those who selected the Whopper as their favorite of the two burgers with their very own Burger King cookout a form of advertising?

I am still waiting for the press release informing everyone this is a spoof along the lines of Waiting for Guffman or This Is Spinal Tap.

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.

Numbers Game: Answer

According to the latest Federal Trade Commission figures, food and beverage companies spent a total of $ 492 million in 2006 to advertise soda to children between the ages of 2 and 17.

That is a higher advertising budget than Apple Computers'!

Candy and gum advertising in 2006, you ask? Oh, in the $500 - $550 million range.

Meanwhile, the Five A Day campaign, which promoted eating five servings of vegetables on a daily basis, spent slightly less than $10 million in advertising the year before.

We are all susceptible to marketing, especially children. If something looks "cool," they will want it.

Yes, that even applies to healthy foods. Remember the Dancing Raisins from the 1980s?

I sure do -- it seemed every commercial break from Captain Planet had those raisins in it! If you have no idea what I'm talking about, I have provided an image with this post.

The clay-animated spots clearly worked. The California Raisin Board credits that campaign for increasing raisin sales by ten percent.

Numbers Game: Drinking Money

According to the latest Federal Trade Commission figures, food and beverage companies spent a total of $ ______ million in 2006 advertising soda to children between the ages of 2 and 17.

a) 298
b) 492
c) 364
d) 601

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

Twisted Logic

For many people, "yogurt" equals "health food."

Although there are cases where this is far from true (i.e.: flavored yogurts that, despite already being sweetened with two tablespoons of added sugar, provide crushed Oreos or tiny M&M's to be added as toppings), plain yogurt is a wonderful source of calcium, protein, and -- in most cases -- probiotic bacteria.

It is no surprise that food companies are always eager to add a pinch of a healthy (or at least healthy sounding) ingredient to their own proucts in hopes of attracting the eyes -- and wallets -- of health-conscious consumers.

Case in point: yogurt pretzels.

Let's begin by keeping in mind that an ounce of regular pretzels adds up to:

110 calories
0 grams of saturated fat
0.5 grams of sugar

Now, consider the nutrition values -- and ingredients -- offered by the yogurt-covered variety.

A 1-ounce serving of Flipz (a prototypical brand of yogurt pretzels) contains:

130 calories
4.5 grams of saturated fat
13 grams of sugar

Although the caloric difference is minimal, we are talking about 20% of a day's worth of saturated fat and a tablespoon of added sugar.

And if you think the yogurt provides calcium, think again.

A serving of Flipz only offers two percent of the calcium daily value -- only as much as one and a half tablespoons of actual yogurt.

It all makes sense when you look at the ingredient list and see that the first ingredient in these pretzels is "yogurt coating," which is mainly made up of sugar and palm kernel oil -- a saturated fat.

Alas, yogurt pretzels undoubtedly fall into the "sweet treat" category.

Consider this: eight Nabisco Nilla Wafers (that's considered one serving) contain only 10 more calories than a serving of yogurt pretzels, as well as a third of the saturated fat and a few less grams of sugar.

Some more food for thought?

Four Nilla Wafers accompanied by a cup of skim milk provide just 40 more calories than a serving of yogurt pretzels, but also half the added sugar, one tenth of the saturated fat, and a third of the calcium daily value.

Also Going Bananas? Teddy Grahams!

I suppose bananas are having "the best week ever."

A few hours after posting about the inane "morning banana diet" that has taken grip of Japanese dieters, I was browsing the aisles of a local supermarket when I came across... banana Teddy Grahams (so new they aren't even mentioned on the Teddy Graham website!).

For those of you visiting Small Bites from outside the United States, all you need to know is that Teddy Grahams are teddy bear-shaped cookies that are a big hit with young children.

Although the actual product may be for kids, the advertising sure targets the parent/caretaker contingent.

I noticed that plastered on each of these boxes, in very large font, was the statement: "Made with real fruit!"

Oh, goodie. Real fruit! Nutrition! Vitamins! Minerals! Health!

(Insert sound of record coming to abrupt halt HERE.)

Not so fast.

Sure enough, the third ingredient -- before high fructose corn syrup, but after sugar and white flour -- was dried bananas.

"Well, they're trying to make their cookies more nutritious," some of you may think.

Except that there is absolutely no point of putting real fruit into a product that is going to undergo that much processing.

Remember, the more processed a food, the more nutrients it loses. This is why eating a baked potato with its skin provides more nutrition than a handful of Pringles.

This particular flavor of Teddy Grahamas offers 80 milligrams of potassium and almost twice that amount of sodium (food label hint: the more processed a food product, the higher the sodium and the lower the potassium.)

Keep in mind that a small (six-inch long) banana provides 362 milligrams of potassium!

In essence, these dehydrated bananas are simply there to add flavor as well as an illusion of health and the "made with real fruit" tagline.

If parents are looking to make a typically cookie-filled snack time healthier, I recommend gving a child half a serving of regular Teddy Grahams (that's approximately 10 teddies) and a small banana.

There is no reason why children should not be exposed to real pieces of fruit, especially when they have fun mushy textures.

Buyer, Beware (And Be Smart)!

The latest video on the Small Bites YouTube channel discusses four popular deceptive advertising techniques relating to nutrition:

--> "A daily dose of antioxidants."
--> "Cholesterol-free"
--> "0 grams of trans fat per serving!"
--> "Made with fruit"

Once you're familiar with these tricks, you won't be a sucker at the supermarket!

Health Store Hazards

In some situations, supplements can be helpful (i.e.: DPA and EHA Omega-3 fatty acids for pregnant women who do not eat fish; vitamin D supplements for most people in Northern climates).

However, the supplement market mostly preys on consumer fear ("There aren't enough nutrients in the food I'm eating") and ignorance ("I won't gain muscle unless I down 300 grams of protein a day.")

You certainly can't rely on "health stores" for advice!

Watch the latest video on the YouTube Small Bites channel for more information.

You Ask, I Answer: Salba

Do you know anything about Salba?

It seems to be getting quite popular (I accidentally ordered a raspberry salba square at my local coffee shop the other day), and I'm not sure whether it's a fad or not.

Is it actually a whole food or is it processed?

Where does it come from?

Is it as good as the makers of it claim?

-- Meredith (Last name unknown)
Via the blog

The folks at Core Naturals sure are working hard to hype up Salba.

No clue what I’m talking about? Let me break it down.

According to manufacturer Core Naturals, the salba seed is pretty much the greatest food ever created.

Dubbed by the company as “nature’s perfect whole food,” the press release pushes it as a one-stop shop for some of the highest quantities of fiber, calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, folate, and Omega-3 fatty acids.

Then there are statements such as this:

“Because of Salba's ability to absorb several times its weight in water, it may also help to curb hunger.”

That’s wonderful, but that’s simply what all soluble fibers do – the same ones found in oatmeal, fruits, vegetables, and nuts.

Core Naturals even make reference to one nutrition PhD at a Toronto-based university who, after conducting research, confirmed that Salba’s advertised properties truly exist.

You know something is slightly off, though, when the bragging rights about the doctor go something like this: “[He works at] the same university where in 1921, Dr. Frederic Banting discovered insulin and won the Nobel Prize for Medicine.”

Errrr.... okay?

Besides, there is something very suspect about having only one professional analyze your food. If Core Naturals is so sure that what they have is -- for all intents and purposes -- manna, why not send it out to a variety of independent food laboratories to have their goldmine validated?

Anyhow, Salba is just a white chia seed – with the exact same nutritional profile of all other chia seeds (which are usually black).

So, yes, it is an unprocessed whole food, in the same way that fruits, vegetables, nuts, and a plethora of other seeds are.

Don't get me wrong. Chia seeds have a neat nutritional profile – they are a good source of fiber, phosphorus, manganese and Alpha Linolenic Acid – but by no means is Salba a powerfood, nor does it offer the same Omega-3 profile as 28 ounces of salmon (as Core Naturals advertises.)

That is a very easy statement to debunk, by the way. Remember, salmon offers EPA and DHA, two Omega-3 fatty acids not present in seeds.

This situation with Salba and Core Naturals would be paramount to a company patenting Granny Smith Apples, calling them something different and claiming they were nutritionally superior any other apples.

Considering that Salba retails for anywhere from two to three times as much as standard chia seeds, I don’t really see a reason for purchasing it.

File it under "F" for fad. No, make that "FF" for... flimsy fad.

Advertising Gone Nuts!

A visit to my local CVS led to quite an interesting discovery -- Planters' new "NUTritious" line of products, advertised as "a distinctive line of snacking options that focus on specific wellness needs, all built with a better you in mind."

How sweet. Let's look beyond the sensitive copy, though.

Planters has always sold a variety of nuts -- good sources of fiber, heart-healthy fats, and nutrients like vitamin E, selenium, and magnesium.

So, nothing is broken and in need of getting fixed.

I was very curious to see how exactly this new line would improve over products as "non junky" as peanuts or cashews.

Let's begin.

First up -- the Heart Healthy Mix, which "may reduce the risk of heart disease."

Already my "BS" meter went off. Not only can that statement be applied to any nut product, it's also the kind of claim that is rally too vague to be of any use.

Sure, nuts may reduce the risk of heart disease assuming that they are part of a diet low in saturated and trans fats and rich in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables. And that you don't smoke. And that you're not 50 pounds overweight. I could go on...

What is so special about this product I do not know. It is simply a medley of nuts (almonds, peanuts, pecans, walnuts, etc.) just as heart-healthy as the generic CVS brand.

Next we have the South Beach Diet Recommended Mix, consisting of cashews, almonds, and macadamia nuts.

What makes these three nuts more South Beach Diet "friendly" than, say, hazelnuts and walnuts? Beats me.

The third product in the NUTrition line is the Energy Mix -- "a natural source of energy." So is Planters claiming that the other products don't provide energy?

This one includes a medley of nuts along with chocolate covered soynuts and honey roasted sesame sticks.

Seeing as how all calories are a source of "natural energy" (you could make the case that a 1,200 calorie triple milkshake is "a natural source of energy,") I have absolutely no clue what the point of this product is.

The Digestive Health Mix (I hope you are rolling your eyes along with me by this point) "keeps everything moving" by combining "pistachios, almonds, tart cranberries, crunchy granola clusters, and sweet cherries."

Fair enough -- but the fiber in any of the other mixes (or any serving of nuts, for that matter, no matter what the brand) also keeps things moving.

What is completely absurd is the presence of high fructose corn syrup. How does that fall into Planters' creating this with a better "me" in mind?

I suppose companies will always be looking for the next great way to boost sales, but whoever thought up this new Planters line is, quite frankly, a nut!

Sneaky Tricks of the Trade

It's not just celebrities who get airbrushed to look "magazine ready."

Popular foods also get plenty of help from stylists, lighting technicians, and even a little fakery to achieve a flawless image.

PBS Kids reveals how hamburgers, roasted chicken, and ice cream always manage to look so friggin' perfect in their respective advertisements.

You Ask, I Answer: Casein

What is casein, and how does it relate to nutrition?

The reason why I ask is because here in Argentina, a popular brand of milk called La Serenisima has released a new milk with extra calcium and extra casein.

What do you think?

-- Maria (last name withheld)
Buenos Aires, Argentina

Casein is the main protein in milk (80% of protein in the dairy beverage is in the form of casein; the remaining 20% consists of whey.)

The only way it relates to nutrition is that, just like all other animal proteins -- and soy -- it is complete, meaning it provides all eight essential amino acids.

Although casein is highly bioavailable (the technical term for "the body wastes very little of it,") it is beaten out by egg albumin and whey protein.

I am not sure why a company would look to create "high casein" milk, particularly since casein is by no means an essential nutrient.

It is perfectly plausible to meet all your protein and nutrient needs without ever ingesting any casein.

Perhaps "extra casein" is their snazzy terminology for "extra protein," which I still do not see the necessity for.

Milk is already a good source of protein (9 grams per 8 ounce/236 milliliter glass), and as far as I know, protein deficiency is not a health issue in Buenos Aires.

My thoughts? This is simply an inventive marketing strategy to boost milk sales.

While we're on the topic of casein, allow me to say a few more things.

Although a small percentage of the population (roughly 2 - 3 percent) is allergic to casein, that is very different from being lactose intolerant.

A casein allergy is an altered immunological response to a specific protein, whereas lactose intolerance has to do with the body's inability to break down lactose, the naturally occurring sugar in milk and other dairy products.

That said, keep in mind that casein is in a lot of non-dairy processed foods (and many cosmetic products) since it is a rather inexpensive binding agent. This is why people with casein allergis need to read food labels VERY carefully.

Survey Results: Economical Eating

The most recent Small Bites survey asked visitors to classify eating healthy on a budget as:

"Possible and easy" (27%)
"Challenging, but doable" (58%)
"Very hard" (13%)
"Impossible" (1%)

I am very happy to see that a solid 85% of voters consider it to at least be “doable.”

The truth is, healthy eating (which I defined as “balanced, nutritious, and meeting most nutrient daily values”) does not need to be a wallet-buster.

Let’s clarify a few issues.

1. Healthy eating does not need to be organic.

If you can afford organic, go for it. If your budget doesn't allow for it, that doesn't mean you can't have a perfectly healthy and balanced diet.

Whole wheat pasta will always contain at least 5 grams of fiber per serving, organic or not, and both organic and conventional peanuts are a wonderful source of heart-healthy monounsaturated fats.

Besides, as far as our bodies are concerned, there is no difference between an organic and conventional 400-calorie chocolate chip cookie.

2. Healthy eating does not need to be exotic.

Every few months some new “miracle” fruit comes along.

I am sure you are familiar with the process by now.

It is usually from another continent and, after being profiled in the mass media, is quickly turned into a juice drink packed in a beautifully shaped glass bottle (displaying a brand name with an accented vowel) that retails for a ridiculous price.

Here's the thing: ALL fruits are healthy.

Yes, some offer more nutrients than others, but there is no such thing as a fruit that is unhealthy or should be avoided.

Similarly, I don't like to label any food as a "miracle" or "superior" one.

Besides, acai berries are exotic in the United States, but as run of the mill as apples are to us in their native Brazil.

3. Nature is cheaper than major food companies.

Instead of tortilla chips with flaxseeds (which aren’t even grounded up, meaning you aren’t absorbing any lignans,) buy ground flaxseed and sprinkle it onto different foods.

A standard bag of ground flaxseed retails for $5 (almost as much as gourmet tortilla chips) and lasts for months if you only use up a tablespoon each day -- which is plenty.

Remember, what drives up food costs isn't so much nutrition as it is convenience.

A six-pack of single-serving applesauce containers may be convenient, but for that same amount of money you can buy enough apples to make five times that much applesauce.

I specifically mention apples because they can sit in a fruit bowl for days before they start to rot.

They are portable, delicious, and you don't need any utensils to eat them. Talk about convenient!

A Luna bar may be convenient, but so is packing a small Ziploc bag of peanuts and raisins to snack on later in the day (the latter is also significantly cheaper.)

4. Sometimes a big name isn't a good deal.

Many foods (canned beans, plain oatmeal, raisins, and frozen vegetables) are equally nutritious whether they are made by a generic or well-known brand.

5. Speaking of beans...

... they are a wonderful and inexpensive way to get protein and fiber.

Use them for vegetarian chilis, bean salads, or even to make your own hummus at home (it’s simple – just blend together chickpeas, tahini, olive oil, lemon juice, and salt!).

In conclusion...

Junk food is very financially accessible, but so are many nutritious foods.

PS: I'm interested in reading YOUR tips for eating healthy when money is tight. Post away!

"G" -- It Was About Time!

Earlier this year, Kentucky Fried Chicken launched a new grilled (well, technically roasted) chicken menu option in six cities -- Indianapolis, Colorado Springs, San Diego, Oklahoma City, Jacksonville, and Austin.

I was taken aback the initial resistance expressed by many KFC customers in the blogosphere. Several scoffed, others already declared it a flop.

Ridiculous accusations of "food policing" came up, specifically paranoid delusions that people no longer had the freedom to eat friend chicken if they pleased.

Me? I think it's a great idea. All I can say is, "what took so long?"

Besides, no one is taking away a fried option, so the outcry over a grilled variety has no validity in my mind.

Rumors have circulated that KFC executives are crossing their fingers harder than ever with this new initiative since previous attemps to offer non-fried alternatives didn't fare so well.

An article in The Huffington Post earlier this year mentioned that "in the early 1990s, the chain introduced a rotisserie-style chicken, but it was doomed after a couple of years by equipment problems and long cook times. A tender roast product followed, but it lasted only a couple of years."

This explains the obnoxious reassurance by KFC that they are still going to be launching new fried chicken products as well. Oh, well, let me sigh in relief then.

As much as KFC talks about taking nutrition and health seriously, I don't appreciate their almost apologetic stance to their consumer base.

Anyhow, in comparison with the traditional fried product, a grilled 5.7 ounce KFC chicken breast contains half the sodium (although a still hefty 600 milligrams), half the calories (180, rather than 360), and 60% less fat (9 grams, as opposed to 21).

KGC is supposed to be available nationwide next year.

There better be the same multimillion dollar advertising campaign for this as there has recently been for the "extra crispy" (read: extra breaded, extra fried, and extra caloric) chipotle chicken.

After all, sales of grilled chicken in Colorado Springs took a tumble when television commercials were pulled.

Any readers in any of the six "test" cities tried KFC's grilled chicken? If so, what did you think?

More Numbers, More Problems

As if selecting healthy options at the supermarket didn't already involve sufficient figures and calculations, a curveball has been thrown into the mix -- "grams of whole grains".

When this trend first started in early 2007, I inwardly cringed and hoped for its quick disappearance.

Far from it -- I keep seeing it on more and more products!

It is my suspicion that with whole grains and fiber being the latest hot topics, food manufacturers hope to confuse shoppers looking to increase their fiber intake by boasting about the grams of whole grains in their foods -- two very different concepts.

So, consider this your "advertiser proof" tutorial on whole grains.

Let's start at the beginning.

More specifically, the United States Department of Agriculture food pyramid (which was reborn as MyPyramid in 2005 after Public Relations firm Porter Novellis -- which has also collaborated with McDonald's & Mars Co. -- had its way with it).

According to that food pyramid, healthy adults on a 2,000 calorie diet should consume 6 servings of grains.

The USDA defines a serving of grains as one ounce (28 grams). Remember this tidbit, it will come in handy very shortly.

MyPyramid distinctly calls for half of those 6 grain servings to be whole (i.e: oatmeal, brown rice, whole wheat cous cous, barley, etc.), rather than enriched (i.e.: white bread, white rice, etc.)

Strangely, the recommendation isn't "three or more," but simply "three."

This is where it all starts to get confusing.

If one ounce is equal to 28 grams, and we are asked to make three grain servings (AKA three ounces) whole, then it logically follows that our whole grain intake should add up to 84 grams (28 x 3).

Well, not quite.

Look up whole grain serving recommendations, and you'll see a daily suggestion of 48 grams.

Perform some simple math and you figure out that one whole grain serving is equal to 16 grams (48 grams divided by 3 servings a day = 16 grams per serving).

Wait, but isn't a one-ounce serving of grains equal to 28 grams, according to MyPyramid? So shouldn't one ounce of whole grains also be 28 grams?

Yes, but the majority of grain products weighing 28 grams (1 ounce) contain a variety of ingredients; not just flour.

It turns out, in fact, that a single one-ounce grain serving packs in approximately 16 grams of flour.

So, although that entire slice of whole wheat bread clocks in at 28 grams (1 ounce), 16 of those grams are flour.

The rest? A combination of salt, sugars, water, and other miscellaneous ingredients.

Although food labels do not list grams of whole grains, you have two ways of finding this information out.

One is by claims on the packaging (such as the "Now with 5 grams of whole grains per serving!" stated on boxes of Teddy Grahams).

Usually, though, these claims are made by products that sprinkle a little whole wheat flour on top of a product that is virtually refined grains.

Considering that you need at least 48 grams a day, 5 grams is a pretty pathetic figure to bother writing about in such large font.

The other is via the Whole Grains Council stamp (pictured at top left), which specifically lists the grams of whole grains per serving in a product.

Some companies are still using old versions of the stamp, which classified foods as "good" (8 - 15 grams of whole grains per serving) or "excellent" (16 or more grams of whole grains per serving).

I love the Whole Grain Council stamp -- it really separates the real deals from the wannabes.

With it, you can spot the cereals providing almost 48 grams of whole grains in just one serving! Talk about bang for your buck.

By the way, starting this year, the Whole Grains Council is teaming up with restaurants across the country to help you spot whole grain dishes!

What about fiber? How does it tie into all this?

An item high in whole grains is high in fiber, but products high in fiber are not necessarily high in whole grains.

An Atkins chocolate peanut butter bar, for instance, contains a whopping 10 grams of fiber.

Since this is a low-carb bar, you certainly won't find whole wheat flour anywhere on the ingredient list.

So how is this value achieved? Thanks to a polysaccharide known as cellulose.

Keep in mind that while this kind of fiber helps keep things moving, there are specific substactes in whole grains that have been targeted in nutrition research as helpful in reducing the risk of several diseases.

So, how do you put all this together without going insane?

Simple. Try to consume 25 - 30 grams of fiber every day, and make sure you are including at least three servings of whole grains to your day.

You can keep it simple by thinking of each serving as a half cup of oatmeal, brown rice, whole wheat cous cous, whole wheat pasta, or one slice of a bread which has "whole [insert grain here] flour" as its first ingredient.

If you're ever lost, look for the Whole Grains Council stamp to guide you.

Whew!

Argentina: The Whole Grain Trap

Despite being on the other side of the Equator, Argentina shares some nutrition similarities with the United States.

I took this photo at supermarket chain Disco because, if anything, it shows that marketing to children -- and their parents -- is a global phenomenon.

The box you see on your right is for Nesquik cereal -- in essence, chocolate flavored corn puffs.

But wait, what does that huge sign at the bottom say? Translated to English:

"All Nestlé breakfast cereals now made with whole grains."

Note the "made with" whole grains (although whole wheat flour and oats are included, so is standard white flour).

Sugar is the second ingredient, by the way.

The nutrition label reveals that a 1-ounce (1 cup) serving provides:

114 calories
1.1 gram of fat
200 milligrams of sodium
1.5 grams of fiber
10.5 grams (2.5 teaspoons) of sugar
3 grams of protein

Is it absolute junk food? I wouldn't be so harsh.

What is very frustrating, though, is that the big hoopla about whole grains is nothing but a desperate marketing strategy aimed at parents.

You would think a food so boastful of its whole grain content would at least offer 3 grams of fiber per serving.

To put this into context, a cup of this cereal contains as much fiber as a mere half banana or half an orange.

By the way, the standard calculation for children's fiber needs is: child's age plus five.

So, a 10 year needs approximately 15 grams of fiber a day.

Starting the morning off with a cup of Nesquik cereal and half a cup of milk (regardless of its fat content) represents a mere ten percent of that child's daily requirement!

I am not calling for parents to ban these kinds of cereals from their cupboards.

I do, however, want them to recognize these as sweet treats, NOT healthy sources of fiber.