You Ask, I Answer: "50 Worst Foods" List

What do you think about this list of 50 foods with almost zero nutritional value linked to on Serious Eats' Twitter page?

-- Kristin (last name withheld)
(Location withheld)

I have many, many problems with it.

Not only does it not present particularly new information, it is also poorly written and makes a significant number of inaccurate statements and sweeping generalizations.

For example:

"Potato Chips are fried and packed with tons of preservatives to keep them fresh for months."

Not quite. Many potato chips are made up of simply potatoes, oil, and salt (salt being the preservative!).

Therefore, it is absolutely inaccurate to say they are packed with "tons" of preservatives.

Additionally, while potato chips do not offer as much nutrition as a baked potato with its skin on, your typical serving does contain as much potassium as a medium banana.

This list also claims that pasta has "zero nutritional value".

Not so! Non-whole grain pasta may not be very high in fiber, but it still contains protein as well as some B vitamins and iron (as a result of enrichment.)

It is ridiculous to claim that a food with that sort of nutritional profile has "almost zero" nutritional value.

Then there's this odd inclusion:

"Fried seafood like shrimp, clams, and lobster contain high trans fat. They also contain mercury and possibly parasites."

Awkward phrasing aside, this is plain wrong.

Trans fat is only an issue if those foods are fried in an oil high in trans fats. As far as mercury is concerned, it is the large predatory fish that are a concern, not bottom-of-the-sea dwellers.

And as far as parasites are concerned -- that may be an issue from a food safety perspective depending on how these foods are eaten (although who eats raw lobster??), but that has nothing to do with the nutritional quality of a food.

How about this vague tidbit:

"Breakfast or cereal bars are low in fat but high in sugar. They offer very little in vitamins, minerals, and fiber."

This greatly varies on the brand. Many cereal bars offer 4 or 5 grams of fiber, little added sugar, and a handful of vitamins and minerals.

Another example that left me scratching my head:

"Oreo Cookies contain about 60% of fat and extremely high in Tran's [sic] fat. The filling packs on an additional 160 calories per cookie."

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong!

First of all, a single Oreo cookie contains 53 calories. The "Double Stuf" variety adds up to 70 calories per cookie. Hence, this notion that the filling alone contains 160 calories is absolutely off-base.

It is also inaccurate to claim that Oreos are "extremely high in trans fats."

Although partially hydrogenated oil is included on the ingredient list, the food label lists 0 grams per serving. This means that, at most, Oreos contain 0.4 grams of trans fat per serving (for all we know, it could be 0.09 grams).

I do not consider that to be "extremely high."

I could go on and on. Alas, I can't fathom why a website like Serious Eats would find that list worthy of linking to.

You Ask, I Answer: Wheatgrass

I really liked your video on supplements. So many of them are just empty hype. I completely agree with you.

What are your thoughts on wheatgrass? One of my cousins swears by it.

He says it's the easiest way to get a bunch of vitamins and minerals.

-- Name withheld
New York, NY

Wheatgrass juice, the end result of pulping the young shoots of sprouted wheatberries, sure sounds like a magic green potion.

Depending on who you listen to, it clears acne, helps detoxify the colon, has "living enzymes" (ugh!), and even cures cancer and heart disease.

Before I go on, allow me to say "shame on you!" to anyone who advertises a food, beverage, or supplement as a cure for any disease, much less cancer.

It's absolutely despicable to toy with people's emotions and hopes like that.

Anyhow, I'm sure someone, somewhere, also claims wheatgrass gives you a foot massage after a long day at the office.

Wheatgrass advocates point out its high chlorophyll content as a major "plus" in the nutrition department.

Since chlorophyll resembles hemoglobin, so the wheatgrass PR goes, this juice is a great way to "rebalance the blood."

I have no clue what rebalancing the blood means, or why we even need that, but chlorophyll has absolutely no effect on human health. If we were plants, a nice chlorophyll shake would certainly work wonders!

Chlorophyll may share some molecular similarities with hemoglobin (a protein in red blood cells that transports oxygen from the lungs to other tissues), but it does NOT transform into it, nor does it have any effect -- positve or negative -- on our blood.

And the ridiculous claim keep on coming, folks!

"Wheatgrass has what is called the grass-juice factor, which has been shown to keep herbivorous animals alive indefinitely."

The grass-juice factor? What PR intern came up with that "catch phrase"?

And as for keeping herbivorous animals alive indefinitely -- can someone tell me where I can find one of these timeless creatures subsisting on grass juice?

"Wheatgrass juice is great for constipation and keeping the bowels open. It is high in magnesium."

Apart from the fact that keeping the bowels open doesn't sound very pleasant, wheatgrass is not high in magnesium. It contains absolutely negligible amounts.

If you seek magnesium, reach for nuts, seeds, fish, and whole grains.

The only nutrients wheatgrass offers are protein (at a practically nonexistent 0.5 grams for a 1 ounce serving), some vitamin C (7% of the Daily Value in a 1 ounce shot), and iron (10% in that same shot).

I have absolutely no ideae where some of these wheatgrass companies get their statistics about their product offering vitamins A, B2 (riboflavin), C, D, and K, along with potassium and calcium.

"Wheatgrass helps the body rid itself of toxins."

No. The liver and kidneys take care of that.

Simply put, there is nothing about wheatgrass that can't be found in other fruits and vegetables.

While there is no harm in having it, perceiving it as some kind of miracle beverage is completely inaccurate.

Spinach, broccoli, Swiss chard, and Granny Smith apples are much more nutritious green foods. In fact, the actual wheatberries are much more nutritious than the shoots.

Remember, no one food or beverage meets all nutrition requirements or holds the powerful secret to longevity and agelessness.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is a big old fraud.

You "Ask", I Answer: Fruit

I don't think eliminating (or limiting significantly) fruit from one's diet is such a terrible idea, IF fruits are replaced by vegetables.

When comparing nutritional data for 100g of broccoli to 100g of apple, for example, broccoli clearly wins out.

Broccoli has a bit less calories(18 cals less per 100g), less sugar (8g less) and significantly more of every vitamin and mineral than an apple.

Analyzing 100g of sweet red pepper yields similar advantages over the apple.

Sure, there are other fruits out there, but this brief comparison shows that by replacing fruits with veggies, one would not miss out on vitamins/minerals, would cut down on calories a bit, and would most likely feel fuller per gram consumed.

As far as phytochemicals are concerned, veggies have plenty to offer. When I make a salad, I usually make sure it's as colorful as possible - greens (lettuce, spinach), tomatoes (red), bell peppers (red/yellow/orange/green), garlic, etc., so as to include a variety of phytonutrients.

I wouldn't swear off fruit for the rest of my life, but I can see how a dieter would feel she's getting more bang for her calories out of veggies vs. fruits, especially on a 1200 calorie diet.

Just my two cents.

-- Anna
Via the blog

The problem with the comparison like the one you make above (between apples and broccoli) is that it has very little, if any, significance.

Okay, so roughly three ounces of apples contain 18 less calories than roughly three ounces of broccoli. What is someone supposed to do with that information? Pack broccoli in their bag instead of an apple for an afternoon snack?

The sugar you mention is insignificant, since the apple contains fiber which helps stabilize blood glucose and insulin levels.

Besides, other comparisons would "show" that fruits are "better" than vegetables.

An ounce of raspberries, for instance, contains 15 calories and 1.8 grams of fiber. An ounce of sweet potato, meanwhile, provides 26 calories and 0.9 grams of fiber.

And if you compare 100 grams of bananas with 100 grams of raw cucumber, you'll find that the bananas offer more vitamin C, fiber, vitamin B6, folate, manganese, potassium, and magnesium and only 70 more calories.

That doesn't make raspberries "better" than sweet potatoes, or bananas worth eating and cucumbers "useless."

All fruits and vegetables (yes, that includes potatoes!) are healthy. Shunning particular ones under the guise of "more nutrition" is very silly. There is definitely room for fruit in all diets.

By the way, Britney Spears mentions shunning fruit, but in the same statement says she eats avocados. Back to Nutrition 101 for her!

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.

You Ask, I Answer: B Vitamins & Mental Health

What do you think about those TrueHope EMPower vitamins that make all kinds of claims about aiding mental health?

I know B-complexes aid mental functioning, but is all of that really even bioavailable?

-- Anonymous
Via the blog

What do I think? I think it is an extremely disturbing -- and dangerous -- product.

TrueHope advertises itself as “bringing hope, healing, and health through the research, development, and promotion of high effective nutritional supplements designed to correct mood disorders and other nutrient-depleted conditions.”

In essence, they claim that mental conditions caused by chemical imbalances (such as bipolar disorder and depression) can be cured by popping what is, in essence, a daily multivitamin.

This claim is based on "evidence" from very shoddy trials.

In fact, there are a grand total of three, none of which are randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials (check out this Wikipedia link for "clinical trial 101" reading.)

Anyhow, their "mood-corrective" formula contains very high (sometimes above the upper tolerable intake) doses of a multitude of vitamins and minerals, plus a handful of other ingredients like grape seed extract and methionine.

One particularly disturbing included ingredient is vanadium, a trace mineral that people with bipolar disorder have been shown to actually have high levels of.

I am at a complete loss as to why this is present in EMPower.

Although it is true that the B vitamins play a role in mental function, that is very different from mood disorders.

The idea that B vitamins help with bipolar disorder is equivalent to someone claiming that since Vitamin C supports immune system function, megadoses could be effective in curing someone of AIDS.

If anyone ever attempts to tell you they can correct a mental disorder caused by a chemical imbalance through vitamins and minerals, be sure to run in the opposite direction and stay far, far away.

By the way, this product has been extremely controversial in its native Canada, where psychiatry and mental health organizations have warned patients of the dangers of relying on a combination of vitamins and minerals to control their mood disorders.

It has also been alleged that these pills "were supposedly designed to stop pigs from chewing each other's tails."

You Ask, I Answer: Calcium Supplements

I take a pill that [contains] 600 mg Calcium and 400 IU vitamin D.

I'm a 26 year old female. Is this a good decision?

-- Anonymous
Via the blog

If you find that your diet does not provide sufficient calcium, then supplementing it is certainly a good decision.

Having Vitamin D in the same pill as calcium is particularly smart, as this helps facilitate absorption.

However, 600 milligrams is too much for the body to absorb at once. I recommend a supplement containing no more than 500 milligrams.

Also, be sure to check your supplement’s bottle for the amount of “elemental calcium” – this tells you how much of the calcium in the supplement is “up for grabs.”

Some not-so-trustworthy companies advertise themselves as offering large amounts, but read the fine print and you'll see that each pill doesn't offer that much absorbable calcium.

Survey Results: Multivitamins

The latest Small Bites survey found that 45% of respondents pop a multivitamin every day, while 31% feel no need to supplement their diet with an "all in one" pill.

An additional 17% reported taking multivitamins not on a daily basis, and 5% are only concerned with getting specific vitamins and minerals in pill form.

Although vitamin supplementation has its place (i.e.: Vitamin D for almost everyone, several key nutrients for the elderly and people on very low calorie diets, Vitamin B-12 for some vegans, folate for women planning to get pregnant, etc.) it can also lull many people into a fall sense of security.

I recall a conversation with someone who told me he didn't feel the need to eat fruits or vegetables since she was getting every single vitamin and mineral in pill form every day.

Not quite. Many people forget that:

1) No multivitamin offers 100% of every nutrient. Calcium, for instance, takes up a lot of space, so any pill offering an entire day's worth (1,000 milligrams) would be too big. Besides, the body can only assimilate 500 milligrams of calcium at one given time, so a single dose of 1,000 milligrams is ineffective.

2) Since multivitamins fall into the "supplement" category, they are not regulated by the Food & Drug Administration. In other words, the label may say 100% of 23 vitamins and minerals, but no entity is making sure such a statement is accurate.

3) Multivitamins do not offer the hundreds of phytonutrients found in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. These phytonutrients play important roles in health promotion and help certain vitamins and minerals operate efficiently in the body. Oranges, for instance, aren't just about Vitamin C; they also provide flavonoids that help with blood sugar and cholesterol regulation.

4) Intake does not equal absorption. Synthetic forms of vitamins and minerals are less bioavailable than their naturally occurring brothers and sisters. According to estimates, absorption of most nutrients in multivitamins does not go above the 50% mark.

5) More is not always better. Some multivitamins contain excessive amounts of Vitamin E, which have been show to cause more harm than good.

6) Nutrition and health go beyond simply getting enough vitamins and minerals. Calories, added sugars, saturated and trans fats, and fiber are just as worthy of attention. Getting a day's worth of a handful of vitamins and minerals isn't that spectacular if you aren't consuming enough fiber and eating an overabundance of calories.

I don't think standard multivitamins as insurance for a balanced and adequate diet are cause for alarm, but anybody looking to get optimal nutrition should really look to food first (Vitamin D is the only nutrient I think everybody should be supplementing in their diet).

You Ask, I Answer: Saturated Fat

So is 30 to 35 percent total fat from calories a moderate-fat diet and above 35 percent a high-fat diet?

How much fat, as a percentage of total calories, do you think is safe to consume?

What do you see as the safe upper limit for total fat intake?

How much saturated fat can one consume with out risking clogged arteries?

-- David Brown
Kalispell, MT

Since we are talking about ranges, there is room for fluidity.

Here is how I break it down.

Anything below 15 percent of total calories from fat falls under the “very low fat” category.

I classify the range between 15 and 30 percent of total calories from fat as "low-fat" (with, say, 16 percent being closer to “very low in fat” and 29 being very close to “moderate”).

The 30 – 40 range is "moderate", and anything above 40 is "high".

What makes your question much more complex, though, is that fat is by no means a simple nutrient.

I can not simply throw out a figure and say, “Consume 35 percent of calories from fat” without giving additional detail.

For example, make most of those fats mono and polyunsaturated, aim for an Omega-6 to Omega-3 ratio no higher than 5:1, and avoid artificial trans fats (some animal meats naturally contain trans fats, which I am not worried about).

If someone's “35 percent of total calories from fat” is mainly comprised of trans fats, I would certainly not describe it as healthy intake.

That same percentage consisting of mainly mono and polyunsaturated fats, however, would get two thumbs up.

This shouldn't come as a big shock to regular readers of this blog.

Besides, does anybody seriously think four strips of bacon or a quarter cup of half and half are healthier than a grilled wild salmon steak or half an avocado?

As for your safe upper limit question: you won't find a technical "Upper Limit" (how much of a nutrient it takes to have detrimental, rather than beneficial, health effects) for saturated fat.

However, the 10 percent figure (which, as I will explain a little later in more detail, basically recommends that people consume no more than 10 percent of total calories from saturated fat) serves as an Upper Limit.

Thereby, intakes of, say, 40 percent have not shown to be beneficial to health.

One main problem with mainstream talk about nutrition is that it oversimplifies nutrients, especially fats and carbohydrates.

After all, a carb is not a carb is not a carb. Oatmeal, bananas, and baked potatoes are very different from donuts and Jolly Ranchers.

The first three provide fiber, vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals. The last two are virtually empty calories.

This is why I strongly oppose blanket statements like, "carbs are bad." Really?

You mean to tell me that fruits, vegetables, and whole grains are no different than a cupcake?

It is also important to place nutrients in the right context.

Sports nutritionists and exercise physiologists agree, based on evidence-based research, that easily digestible carbohydrates that would normally not be outright recommended as highly nutritious (ie: white rice) can serve an important purpose after a strenuous workout.

Forego carbs after a very intense, long workout and glycogen stores are not fully restored. This is problematic, as it may result in the breakdown of muscle.

As for how much saturated fat someone can consume without risking clogged arteries, you have to, once again, frame it in the appropriate context.

I stand by the “make no more than ten percent of your total calories saturated fat” rule, but keep in mind this is over a period of time.

Let’s assume you eat 2,500 calories a day.

Ten percent of 2500 calories = 250 calories.

Divide 250 calories by 9 (the amount of calories per gram of fat) and you get 27.7.

So, you should get no more than 28 grams of saturated fat a day.

Does this mean that downing 40 grams at a birthday dinner is going to send you into coronary hell? Not at all.

What matters, as I always like to mention, are general patterns.

If you generally stay within that 10 percent figure, your risk is lowered.

If, however, the norm is 30 percent (in this case, 83 grams of saturated fat a day) for five, ten, or fifteen years, you will very likely run into problems.

You Ask, I Answer: Fasts/"Detox" Cleanses

I’m getting into a rather heated argument here at work with my coworker who swears by Stanley Burrough's Master Cleanse.

He says it provides mental clarity and gets him "back on track" whilst cleaning out his system.

Admittedly, I've tried it before and went off after the 5th day due to headaches, extreme bitchiness, etc, etc. I also felt like my tooth enamel was being eroded due to all the citric acid.

I've read your blog entry on the topic, and was hoping you could go into more detail regarding liquid cleanses/fasts.

When are they healthy? When are they not?

Does cayenne pepper actually bind to the toxins/whatnot in your intestines and do anything beneficial?

Does the master cleanse actually make your body go into a starvation mode? What are the side effects of this?

Why is this "cleanse" still such a hot topic?! Why hasn’t it successfully been filed under crap to never try?

Are there any REAL physiological benefits?? What about juice fasts??

-- Brooke Green
Brooklyn, NY

Great questions! Let’s take them one at a time.

Fasts – of any kind – are not healthy in general.

This is especially true if they fall below 1,200 calories, are all liquid, restrict you to a handful of foods or only one food group, or simply do not enable you to get enough nutrients.

There is no logical reason, from a health standpoint, to go on a fast of any kind.

Even if someone were on a steady diet of Doritos, ice cream, and soda for months and suddenly wanted to “start fresh”, all they would have to do is replace those foods with healthier ones.

There is no need to stop eating or have only liquids in order to “cleanse” the body.

When you consider that these fasts are deficient in practically every nutrient, it is ironic that it is often “health conscious” people who go on them.

Cayenne pepper does not “bind” to toxins or perform any sort of miracle. If anyone tells you otherwise, direct them to the nearest bank so they can deposit a big, fat reality check.

I suspect your co-worker isn't experiencing the benefits of a "cleanse," but rather the power of the placebo effect.

We already have built-in “detoxing” organs, the kidneys and liver. If it weren’t for them, we wouldn’t urinate (one significant way in which we excrete, among other things, toxins).

If you want to keep things moving through the digestive system and take away some stress from those organs, getting sufficient insoluble fiber and hydration are two important steps you can take.

Many cleanses – including the Master Cleanse – cause your body to go into starvation mode.

When you are on these "plans", the majority of weight lost comes from water and muscle (so yes, you lose weight, but it is not permanent; even worse, your metabolism slows down, thereby slowing down your body's calorie-burning rate.)

The Master Cleanse always pops up as a "trendy" diet because people are thrilled with the idea of a quick fix. Also, scare tactics work.

Many cleanse companies tell stories of “years of fecal matter” being stuck to your intestinal walls. Get rid of these, they say, and lose ten pounds in just days!

Creative, but untrue.

However, these “facts” often fester in people's minds, enticing them to fork over money for these silly “fixes.”

Juice fasts are just as unhealthy and useless. You are talking about no protein, no fat, no calcium, no zinc, etc.

Remember, the different “food groups” offer specific nutrients. Fruits contain many vitamins, but they lack protein, heart-healthy fats, calcium, iron, etc, etc.

Additionally, high intakes of fructose -- the natural sugar in fruit -- are linked with intestinal distress in many people. NOT fun.

With that said, I fully and wholeheartedly recommend the Andy Bellatti cleanse.

No pills, no powders, no counting carbs. Simply purge all ridiculous and unhealthy weight-loss tactics out of your mind. It's a very refreshing experience!

Survey Results: Nutrition Labels, Part Deux

The latest Small Bites survey asked readers what values they paid most attention to when reading food labels.

The most important figure on a label relates to calories per serving -- at least that's how seventy-five percent of respondents voted.

The ingredients list (32%), fiber content (30%), and serving size (29%) also received a good deal of votes.

While saturated fat was considered important by 23% of readers, total fat content received a significant 40% of votes.

I'm not too sure why this is the case.

Fat content in and of itself doesn't tell us much about the food that we can't already gauge by taking a look at calories per serving (since fat contributes 9 calories per gram, foods with higher fat contents provide more calories than lower-fat ones).

If you only look at total fat values, wonderfully healthy foods like guacamole or walnuts appear no different than brownies or ice cream sandwiches.

When it comes to fat content, saturated fat (and trans fat, although once food companies were mandated to display trans fat figures on their products they miraculously found new trans-fat-free formulas for their products) is the value to keep your eye on.

Remember, high intakes of saturated fat are linked to higher risks of heart disease and a decrease in HDL (or "good") cholesterol.

Guacamole, though, is mostly composed of monounsaturated fats (the kind that help lower LDL -- or "bad" -- cholesterol).

This is why fat content -- without a more specific breakdown -- isn't an appropriate factor to base food purchases on (unless, as previously mentioned, you are trying to gauge calories).

I was surprised to see that vitamin and mineral values are largely considered irrelevant. Only 5 percent of respondents consider vitamin content to be important, and a measly 4 percent feel that way about mineral figures.

A huge thank you to those of you who took a minute to participate!

Please leave comments and thoughts on the results in the "comments" section.

Smart Supplementation

Although getting nutrients from foods is optimal, there are times and situations in which supplementation is recommended.

Supplementation goes far beyond chewing or swallowing a pill upon waking up or before going to bed, though.

Take calcium, for example.

The best supplemental calcium is in the form of calcium citrate.

Taking a calcium supplement containing more than 500 milligrams? You're doing yourself a disservice.

Although the daily value for the majority of the population is set at 1,000 milligrams, our bodies can assimilate no more than half of that at one time.

If you are supplementing calcium, it is a smart move to consume it in 300 or 400 milligram quantities two or three times a day than to down a supplement containing more than 500 milligrams in one sitting.

It's also highly recommended you take your calcium supplement with a meal, as this reduces transit time, thereby resulting in more efficient absorption.

You Ask, I Answer: Sports & Fitness Beer (!)

I’ve stumbled onto a Bavarian non-alcoholic beer that the brewer calls “The Sports and Fitness Drink “

I’d be very interested to hear what you think about their claims.

Is it all a crock or might they truly be onto something?

-- Kevin L. Mickle
Las Cruces, NM

PS: Over the last 2 1⁄2 months, I’ve lost over 15 lbs fat, 4.5% body fat, 3” off my waist, and gained about 6 lbs muscle (a guess) all from daily exercise and eating right.

A good portion of “eating right” comes from following your recommendations. Thank you again!

First of all -- congratulations on achieving your health and nutrition goals.

I know it takes a lot of effort, commitment, and hard work -- especially achieving it in a healthy way.

Onto your question.

Wow, what a bizarre -- and funny -- product.

Erdinger's "lively, tasty, healthy fitness drink" is a 125 calorie alcohol-free beer that “contains all B-group vitamins and offers high levels of potassium, magnesium, phosphorus” along with all nine essential amino acids and soluble fiber.

Hmmmm...

The manufacturer is very skimpy on details.

The only numbers the website mentions are the 2 grams of protein and 25 percent of the daily folic acid requirement.in each half liter bottle.

The fiber claim strikes me as particularly odd for two reasons. Firstly, I doubt the fiber content in this beverage is high; wheat beers -- regardless of their alcohol content -- are not good sources.

Besides, whatever amount is present is most definitely not in the form soluble fiber. Remember, wheat fiber is exclusively insoluble.

Lastly, fiber is not something that needs to be replenished after strenuous exercise. It is irrelevant to muscle recovery.

Verdict? This drink has nothing to do with sports or fitness.

It’s just a regular non-alcoholic beer with a few vitamins and minerals sprinkled on top for gimmick purposes.

Feel free to drink it with a meal if you enjoy the taste and can afford the calories, but consider it just another alcohol-free beer.

In The News: The "C" Word

The glycemic index is fortunately starting to take a backseat in the realm of weight loss.

The potato board is, of course, gleefully promoting the findings of a recent study published in the September 2007 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concluded what dietitians have been saying for decades: when it comes to losing weight, it is calories -- not the glycemic index of foods -- that ultimately makes the difference.

"Researchers from Harvard and the State University of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil who worked independently from any food industry sponsors, sought to determine if a low GI diet would be more effective than a high GI diet for long-term weight loss in 203 overweight and obese women.

Both diets included a mild energy restriction (i.e., 100-300 fewer calories per day) and had similar macronutrient distributions (i.e., carbohydrate, protein and fat); all that distinguished the two diets were the GIs of the foods.

The high GI diet contained a hefty dose of... commonly identified high GI foods (e.g., [potatoes], bananas, watermelon, rice and white bread) while the low GI diet contained large amounts of beans and other low GI foods (e.g., apples, pears, oats, and sweet potatoes).

At the end of the 18-month period both groups had lost weight and there were no significant differences in weight loss between the two groups."

Some people might think, "So if it's all about calories, why do you and other nutritionists always talk about how important is to eat whole grains, vegetables, fruits, and legumes? Why not just tell people to eat whatever they want as long as they are reducing calories?"

Simple -- nutrition isn't just about weight loss.

Eating healthy is about feeding our bodies adequate amounts of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients.

Someone consuming 2,000 calories a day would certainly lose weight eating 1,500 calories' worth of ice cream, soda, and Doritos.

However, they would be deficient in a plethora of vitamins and minerals, as well as fiber, Omega-3 fatty acids, and high-quality protein.

The advantage of low-glycemic foods, though, is that, for the most part, they help stabilize our blood sugar and energy levels.

They also tend to satiate us faster than foods with higher numbers, thereby making it easier to consume less calories.

The one instance in which the glycemic index plays a major role is when planning the diet of someone living with diabetes, as keeping accurate track of blood sugar levels is key for successful maintenance.

It's a shame to eliminate nutritious and delicious foods like potatoes, bananas, and watermelon out of your diet only because of their ranking in the glycemic index.

You Ask, I Answer: Jelly

Nutritionally speaking, what is the "best" jelly to pair with my natural peanut butter?

I buy Smucker's "Simply Fruit" blackberry because it seems to have less sugar and a reasonable amount of calories (40 per Tbsp.).

Are all jellies considered discretionary calories, though?

-- Ali (last name unknown)
Via the blog

Great question!

Jellies indeed fall into the discretionary "fats, sugars, and condiments" category.

Scary condiment sidenote -- current government guidelines make it perfectly legitimate for a school to claim the ketchup it serves with its fries as the "vegetable of the day".

Now that we're all done cringing and looking repulsed, let's return to Ali's question.

If you go by MyPyramid, jelly falls in the narrow tip at the top reserved for foods that are nutritionally insignificant.

It makes sense. After all, jelly is basically sugar.

It is not a source of fiber, vitamins, or minerals (unless these are added synthetically), so it does not compare to the members of the "fruit" group.

Additionally, the standard amount of jelly people eat in a day (a tablespoon or two) isn't enough to contribute much to the diet.

This is not to say all jellies are the same.

Avoid ones with high fructose corn syrup.

Instead, reach for low-sugar varieties.

I'm not a big fan of the Smuckers Simply Fruit line of products because I find their name to be misleading.

One would think a jar of Simply Fruit apricot jelly contains nothing but mashed apricots, for example.

Not so. This line is made from a combination of fruit syrups and lemon juice concentrates.

I would instead recommend their low-sugar varieties that clock in at 25 calories and a mere 5 grams of sugar per tablespoon (that's roughly as much sugar as a small pack of sugar at a coffeeshop).

Sugar-free jellies are also an option, but there's something about the thought of fruit and Splenda getting intimate with each other that gives me the willies.

I personally do not like jelly, so from a taste standpoint, I am going on assumptions and not actual experiences.

To make your sandwich even healthier, drop the "J" and add another "B" -- tried and true sliced bananas!

Say What?: Russian Air Force Diet

Just when I thought I knew most of the crazy fad diets out there, I stumble across a week-long one awkwardly named The Russian Air Force Diet.

The good news? You can condiment your meals with unlimited amounts of ketchup, mustard, soy sauce, vinegar, salt, pepper, Worcestershire sauce, and herbs

The completely bad -- and ludicrous -- news? The only things you can have for breakfast throughout these seven days are black coffee and a slice of toast (or two soda crackers).

Lunch can only consist of a small serving of protein (think a can of tuna, two scrambled eggs, or a small chicken breast), and dinner is restricted to a slightly larger protein serving and a salad.

I'm not quite sure if this is a diet or a sociopolitical experiment.

Here is a recommended menu:

Day 1

Breakfast - Coffee

Lunch - 2 eggs and 1 tomato

Dinner - 7 ounces red meat + green salad

Day 2

Breakfast - Coffee and toast or water cracker

Lunch - 7 ounces red meat + green salad

Dinner - 5 ounces of ham and 1 cup of yoghurt

Day 3

Breakfast - coffee and toast or water cracker

Lunch - Green salad and 1 tomato and 1 orange

Dinner - 3 ounces of ham, fruit salad, 2 eggs

Day 4

Breakfast - Coffee and toast or water cracker

Lunch - 5 ounces gruyer cheese, 1 egg, 1 carrot

Dinner - Fruit salad and 1 cup of yoghurt

Day 5

Breakfast - 5 ounces ham and 1 cup carrots

Lunch - 7 ounces broiled fish and 1 tomato

Dinner - 8 ounces of red meat

Day 6

Breakfast - Coffee and toast or water cracker

Lunch - 1/4 chicken based and 1 orange

Dinner - 2 eggs and 1 raw carrot

Day 7

Breakfast - Coffee and toast or water cracker

Lunch - 7 ounces red meat and 1 orange

Dinner - Anything you weant up to 500 calories

It goes without saying that this is yet another nutrient-deprived very low calorie diet.

You will shed weight due to your caloric intake plummeting to such low levels!

Apart from feeling very hungry, you will also be tired throughout the day and severely lacking fiber, vitamin E, potassium, and other vitamins and minerals.

I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable with anyone operating an airplane while on this diet.

You Ask, I Answer: Calories

If our weight is just about calories, why does it matter how much fiber we eat or whether we snack on cookies or carrots?

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

Although weight management mostly involves calories, the concept of nutrition goes way beyond that.

Weight management falls under the umbrella of nutrition because it is part of a healthy lifestyle, since overweight status is linked to higher risks of developing a variety of diseases and conditions.

The goal of nutrition is to help people make smart food choices that help contribute to a healthy state of being.

This is precisely why I have problems with very low calorie diets (such as Argentine doctor Maximo Ravenna's) -- they aren't about making smart food choices.

Instead, they rely on extremely rigid rules that make people prisoners of what is supposed to be something pleasurable -- food!

In any case, if you calculate that you need to consume 1500 calories a day for a month to lose 'x' amount of weight, you could technically eat 1500 calories of anything.

However, keep in mind that while one cup of ice cream will contribute 500 calories, you can also get that same number by eating larger amounts of lower-calorie food (or the teeny ice cream cone pictured at left).

That, really, is one of the techniques and strategies one learns as a dietitian -- how to help people achieve their weight-loss and weight-management goals without going hungry or having to only subsist on six different foods.

You are also forgetting the most important point of all -- your health!

Eating 1500 calories worth of ice cream, pizza, and French fries might fulfill your energy needs, but you would be deprived of key nutrients, negatively affecting your health.

You could eat less calories and lose weight all while consuming unhealthy trans fats and missing out on vitamins, minerals, and fiber. What's the point?

Anemia, osteoporosis, high blood pressure, and other nutrition-related conditions can affect anyone who does not keep healthy eating patterns, overweight or not.

You Ask, I Answer: Fiber

I just looked at the fiber I add to my meals and noticed it has calories. 2 tablespoons add up to 72 calories. Is that worth it?

I take it because I was told that when you eat fat with fiber, you absorb less fat.

In addition, I want additional fiber in my meals without additional calories or food. I need to reduce the size of my food intake.

-- Marta (last name withheld)
Miami, FL

It is indeed true that fiber can decrease the absorption of fat (to a certain degree) by forming viscous gels that trap fat particles in, preventing them from being stored in tissues.

There are, however, other important reasons why fiber plays a huge role in weight management.

Soluble fiber -- the only component of oat bran, and partially found in fruits, vegetables, and some whole grains -- helps slow down transit time of digested particles, thereby helping us feel satiated for long periods of time.

This is why a cup of oatmeal in the morning sprinkled with a few fruits and nuts makes you feel hungry later in the day than if you were to eat two Pop-tarts (which, despite having more calories, are completely lacking fiber).

Keep in mind that insoluble fiber -- which wheat bran is entirely made of -- has no calories.

The fiber in whole wheat bread (and the skin of fruits and vegetables) does not add calories to your day.

This is partially why I always recommend people get fiber from whole foods, as opposed to supplements (another reason being that when you eat a fruit or vegetable, you are also getting important vitamins and minerals not found in a fiber pill).

Having fiber-rich meals will help you reduce your caloric intake. A 600 calorie meal providing 15 grams of fiber will keep you fuller longer than a 900 calorie one with 6 grams of fiber.

A cup of lentil soup, for instance, provides 9 grams of fiber and 150 calories (along with 8 grams of protein, which also helps you feel full). This is a much better meal component than a 120 calorie cup of tomato bisque, which only provides 2 grams of fiber (and 2 grams of protein).

The tomato soup will leave you feeling hungry a lot faster than the lentil soup, resulting in you taking in more calories soon after.

Say What?: Fred Flintstone Wasn't a Dietitian

According to Star Magazine, American Beauty star Mena Suvari has taken to popping three Flintstone vitamins a day in order to grow her hair (sources claim she has grown tried of her short 'do).

A source claims Mena does this since zinc and biotin promote hair growth.

While true, biotin (a vitamin belonging to the B-complex) sometimes referred to as "Vitamin H" or "Vitamin B7") is water-soluble.

In other words, excesses of it are simply excreted in the urine, not held in a special “hair growth” reserve.

In the case of zinc, extra supplementation only works if your body is deficient. Otherwise, you are at risk of developing toxicity.

Apart from interfering with the metabolism of iron and copper, too much zinc (the result of consistently high doses) can also result in nausea and vomiting.

As important as vitamins and minerals are, meeting the daily requirements of each is sufficient.

Excess amounts go unused and, if taken is unusually large quantities, can cause more harm than good.

Celebrity Diet Secrets: Hillary Swank

Oy. Here we go again with ridiculous nutrition statements by celebrities. This time, it's Hillary Swank's turn to talk nonsense.

In a recent interview with W Magazine, Swank proudly boasts that she takes 45 supplements a day! That's right, in 24 hours.

"This is my Aloe C, which I dissolve in water. Here's my flax. This one's for my immune system, and this one is my BrainWave -- it's great, like if I have a lot of lines to memorize," she explains to the reporter.

All this advice comes from Dr. Oz Garcia, nutritionist to the stars, who Hillary credits with changing her life.

Before I go on to talk about Hillary's pill regimen, allow me to shed some light on Dr. Garcia.

Specializing in "progressive nutrition, life extension, and anti-aging", Dr. Garcia caters to Hollywood's A-list and has had his number of television appearances. He also oversees nutritional services for Equinox Fitness Clubs.

Between that bio and his splashy website, you might think this guy knows his stuff.

Well, as we all witnessed with the Dr. Jan Adams debacle (who, despite being a media darling and even having his own show on The Discovery Health network, turned out to lack board accreditation and had a long history of malpractice claims by several patients), not everything is as it appears.

For starters, a 1987 Time magazine article describes Dr. Garcia as a "self-taught" nutritionist. That same article states that Dr. Garcia claims he can tell someone what to eat after analyzing a strand of their hair.

As far as I know, a strand of hair does not give you the same information as a blood test. Would Dr. Garcia advocate a high-protein diet to someone simply based on a hair sample, not knowing one of their kidneys is malfunctioning (and, therefore, need to be on a low-protein diet)?

Dr. Garcia predictably hawks his own water, described as "99.9%" pure and containing "three times the electrolytes found in sports drinks".

The electrolytes in drinks like Gatorade are two minerals you all have heard of -- sodium and potassium. Since Gatorade provides approximately one percent of a day's potassium requirement, then this special water contains, at most, 3 percent of the daily requirement.

A much smarter idea would be to get this mineral in much higher quantities from food. A cup of cantaloupes provides 10 percent, as does half a cup of Swiss chard or butternut squash. Throwing in half a cup of black beans into a salad provides 9 percent.

Dr. Garcia also sells colon cleansing, fat-burning, and even anti-aging products, all in pill form.

If this is the man Hillary Swank looks up to, it's no wonder she thinks nothing of swallowing 45 pills a day.

The excess of vitamins and minerals she is consuming is simply being excreted.

Just for the record, let me note that there are no mentally-sharpening magic pills that help anyone with memory.

Lastly, why is Hillary Swank taking flax in pill form? How about just sprinkling some milled flaxseed into a smoothie, salad, soup, or cereal bowl?

The wonderfully healthy properties of flaxseed (i.e.: phytochemicals known as lignans, which have been linked to a decrease in bad cholesterol) are not replicated in a flax pill.

And then we wonder why Kevin Trudeau's books become bestsellers....

You Ask, I Answer: Acai

What do you know about the acai palm/fruit?

My light research suggests it is very healthy (i.e.: a lot of mono-unsaturated fats).

Is it just as healthy as something like walnuts or an avacodo or would you regard the acai as being uniquely healthy?

-- Guy Betterbid
New York, NY

The acaí (pronounced ah-SIGH-ee) fruit -- native to Brazil, hailed by many as a "superfood", and known within trendy circles as "the new pomegranate" -- is rich in vitamins and minerals and a great source of fiber.

It also offers a fair amount of monounsaturated fatty acids (mainly in the form of oleic acid) -- the healthy fats found predominantly in olive oil, walnuts, and avocados.

As great as the nutritional profile of acai berries is, remember that all fruits are healthy. There is no fruit equivalent to a bag of Oreos.

While the acai beats out many of its counterparts in terms of antioxidants levels (which should not be the end-all, be-all criteria for selecting any food), other fruits offer more of certain vitamins and minerals.

For instance, an orange contains more Vitamin C than an acai berry.

Is acai nutritious? Absolutely.

Is it a miracle food, as so many acai suppliers want you to believe? No.

It is important to keep supposed "miracle foods" like acai berries in the appropriate context. After all, drinking acai juice while snacking on chips defeats the purpose.

I find that it is better to focus on general eating patterns rather than getting hung up on one specific food.