In The News: More Is Not Better

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: Pickling

I know most pickles have a high sodium content, but I'm wondering if the vinegar and processing destroys the nutrients in the veggies.

I know cucumbers don't have a whole lot going for them, but pickled green beans are yummy.

Do they have the same nutrients as unpickled green beans?

-- Jennifer Armstrong
Via the blog

This question doesn't have a clear cut answer.

Although storing vegetables in a jar of vinegar results in some nutrient losses, the amount actually lost is dependent on how long the vegetables sit in the pickling solution for.

The first nutrients to go are the water-soluble vitamins (vitamin C and the B complex).

However, unless these green beans are sitting in the solution for months, you are still getting a percentage of those vitamins.

The fat soluble vitamins (in green beans' case, K and A) remain untouched, as do the present minerals (phosphorus, potassium, manganese) and fiber.

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."

Numbers Game: A Sweet Deal

One medium sweet potato offers ______ percent of the daily vitamin C requirement and ___ percent of the daily vitamin A requirement.

a) 25, 110
b) 72, 204
c) 37, 438
d) 20, 98

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

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: Vitamin K

What does Vitamin K do? What foods is it in?

-- Name Withheld
Brooklyn, NY

You kind of have to feel sorry for Vitamin K. It appears to be the least popular vitamin, and many people don't even appear interested in getting to know it better.

If Vitamin D is the life of the party, Vitamin K is standing by the punchbowl, futilely attempting to make small talk with other guests.

I would definitely suggest being familiar with it, though, since this nutrient plays a very important role in blood clotting and bone density.

You may wonder why its blood clotting properties are perceived as beneficial, particularly when one of the outed benefits of Omega-3 fatty acids is their blood thinning properties.

We come back to the ever-present ideal of balance.

Over-thinning of the blood is problematic, as it increases the risk of internal bleeding.

Additionally, without blood clotting factors, something a small cut could result in excessive blood loss.

Vitamin K helps with bone density by regulating calcitonin, a protein that locks calcium in the bone matrix, thereby making it more difficult for cells known as osteoclasts from breaking it down.

If osteoclasts are more active than osteoblasts (which help create new bone tissue), your risk of osteoporisis increases significantly.

What's interesting about this nutrient is that we get it two different ways.

K2, the more biologically active form, is synthesized by beneficial bacteria in our intestinal tract.

Since babies start off with bacteria-free intestines, they are given a Vitamin K shot within hours of being born.

The plant form -- K1 -- is found abundantly in leafy green vegetables. Although our intestinal bacteria produce some Vitamin K, we still need to get some from our diet.

A mere half cup of steamed kale, spinach, and collard greens each pack in six times the Daily Value!

A single cup of raw romaine lettuce provides three quarters of a day's worth.

Anyone who has ever been on blood-thinning medication (i.e.: warfarin, more commonly known as Coumadin) has been told to be mindful of their Vitamin K intake so as to prevent unwanted drug-nutrient interactions.

Here's why.

Warfarin, an anticoagulant, decreases clotting (this is why it is mostly prescribed to heart disease patients.)

A lot of people inaccurately think that the best thing to do when put on warfarin is completely eliminate Vitamin K from the diet.

Not so! The key is to keep vitamin K intake consistent.

Suddenly increasing Vitamin K consumption renders Coumadin ineffective, whereas decreasing it too much in a short amount of time will overly thin the blood.

Remember, too, that antibiotics kill all flora in the gut -- the negative AND positive bacteria (this includes the one that produces Vitamin K.)

Therefore, when on antibiotics, do not drastically alter your Vitamin K intake.

A clinical dietitian I know at New York City's Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital recently told a most interesting anecdote about a patient who was put on coumadin.

A dietary recall revealed that her diet was very high in Vitamin K. Not a problem, but definitely important in the scheme of things.

Soon thereafter, she fell very ill, to the point where she stopped eating. Mind you, she was still on Coumadin.

In other words, her vitamin K drastically decreased (from about 1200% of the Daily Value a day to absolutely nothing).

To counteract the illness, she was given antibiotics (remember, she is still on Coumadin).

The antiobiotics wiped out gut flora.

So, she now had a high Coumadin dose (based on her standard Vitamin K intake) but no Vitamin K from her diet OR her intestinal tract.

Not surprisingly, she bled internally and had to be rushed into surgery.

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.

Numbers Game: E-Lusive

According to the United States Department of Agriculture's Dietary Guidelines Scientific Advisory Committee, ________ percent of the United States population does not meet the daily requirement for Vitamin E.

a) 64
b) 77
c) 82
d) 93

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

(The accompanying image is for illustration purposes only. When I reveal the answer, I will let you know how to meet your needs with food).

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.

Soda 911

After much buzz, Pepsi has finally launched Tava, its new "vitamin enhanced" calorie and caffeine-free sparkling beverage drink, largely aimed at the female 35 - 49 demographic.

A lot of money and effort has been dedicated to Tava.

It's no surprise. Over the past two years, soda sales have been slipping.

Consumers are instead reaching for just as sugary, but healthier sounding beverages like Vitamin Water or artifically sweetened drinks in fancy glass bottles containing trendy fruits like pomegranate and acai.

Not surprisingly, soda companies are fighting back, no-holds-barred style.

The New York Times recently profiled Tava's alternative marketing strategy -- bypassing traditional media and instead focusing on online advertising and music and art festivals in certain states (among them Colorado, New York, Washington, Florida, and Utah).

Pepsi definitely spent a lot of time -- and money -- dressing up what is basically flavored sparkling water and aspartame with with lots of pretty accesories.

First we have the vitamin factor, clearly thrown in to compete with Diet Coke Plus.

Tava offers 10 percent of the daily requirement of Vitamins E, B2 (riboflavin), B6 (pyridoxine), and a trace mineral known as chromium.

What's the chromium fortification all about? Personally, I think it's just part of the "exotification" of Tava.

Don't get me wrong; chromium is an important mineral. It teams up with insulin to help cells take up glucose and thereby maintain blood sugar levels.

Some recent research also suggests possible links between chromium and heart health.

The good news is that chromium is easily available from whole grains, vegetables, raisins, legumes, nuts, chicken, seafood, and dairy.

Since it is found in many foods and a trace mineral, chromium deficiency is extremely rare.

It is mainly seen in hospital patients on tube feedings, pregnant women, and people whose diets are very high in processed foods.

People eating a variety of foods do not need further supplementation.

Then there's the three flavors.

We're treated to "exotic" names like Mediterranean Fiesta (black cherry citrus), Brazilian Samba (passion fruit lime), and Tahitian Tamure (tropical berry).

In an attempt to class up the joint, Tava's website offers "suggested food pairings" for all its drinks.

For instance, if you're sipping on Mediterranean Fiesta, you're suggested to do so while nibbling on dark chocolate truffles or BBQ spare ribs.

But wait, there's more! Tava comes with a grassroots focus as well.

The website features emerging artists and musicians, and displays "inspirational" messages reminiscent of those often seen on Senior yearbook pages like, "sometimes it's okay to think inside the box, " "set your mind to shuffle," and "what if what if didn't exist?"

Oh, and if you're wondering what Tava means, the Frequently Asked Questions page proclaims that the name was created to "evoke feelings of possibility and discovery."

Do you think Tava will be a hit in Pepsi's roster or a beverage bomb like their Crystal and Blue varieties?

Wolf In Sheep's Clothing: Fruit Cereals & Snacks

Relying on conventional cereals and snacks to provide fruit to your diet? I'm afraid you might dealing with a case of mistaken identity.

Consider Kellogg's Berry Krispies -- a fruity spin on traditional Rice Krispies.

The packaging shows the three Rice Krispies cartoon characters juggling a variety of berries.

A large strawberry, blueberry, and blackberry are also prominently featured on the front of the box.

A glance at the ingredient list unveils a mystery, though -- where is the fruit?

"Rice, sugar, high fructose corn syrup, salt, natural and artificial berry flavor, malt flavoring, red #40, ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), iron, niacinamide, blue #1, pyridoxine hydrochloride (vitamin B6), riboflavin, thiamin hydrochloride, vitamin A palmitate, folic acid, vitamin B12, vitamin D."

So, in reality, you have artifically colored rice puffs with berry flavor sprinkled on them.

No berries -- or parts of any -- are included in this product.

Not surprisingly, a cup of Berry Krispies provides 0 grams of fiber.

General Mills' Berry Berry Kix doesn't fare much better.

The letter "i" in Kix is dotted with three different berries, and the package boasts: "No Artificial Preservatives! No Artificial Flavors!"

Be still, my heart.

Let's take a look at the ingredient list:

"Whole grain corn, sugar, corn meal, whole grain oats, corn starch, modified corn starch, canola oil, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup" along with food coloring, natural flavors, and a handful of vitamins and minerals.

In total? A measly gram of fiber per serving.

Combined with the feeble gram of protein and gram and a half of fat, this is one breakfast that will barely satiate you (and start your day off with quite a large load of Omega-6 fatty acids!)

Welch's fruit snacks advertise their "100% of the Vitamin C Daily Value per Serving" status on the product's packaging in all capital, colorful letters.

A wavy green banner reads: "Excellent Source of Vitamins A & E" If that wasn't enough, they are also "made with REAL FRUIT."

Who needs a banana or apple when you have these fruit snacks, right? Not quite.

Per the ingredient list:

"Juice from concentrates (grape, peach, pear, and pineapple), corn syrup, sugar, modified corn starch, fruit puree (grape, apple, strawberry, and raspberry), gelatin, citric acid, lactic acid, natural and artificial flavors, coconut oil, carnauba wax, ascorbic acid (vitamin C), [beta carotene (vitamin A), palmitate (vitamin A)], alpha tocopherol acetate (vitamin E), red 40, blue 1, yellow 5 and sodium citrate."

So, essentially, sugar with added vitamins. The high levels of Vitamins A, C, and E are not the result of healthy ingredients, but fortification.

For all intents and purposes, you might as well be chasing your multivitamin with a tablespoon of sugar.

Fruit flavorings, colorings, and extracts are not substitutes for the real thing.

For the constant media hype I hear about the "difficulties of eating healthy,:" incorporating fruit into your day is actually quite easy.

Apples and bananas, for instance, are easily accessible, inexpensive, highly portable, and could not be further from the "acquired taste" category.

You do not need to consume expensive, exotic fruits from a Mongolian monk's Himalayan hut to be healthy. Just try to eat one piece of fruit, whichever one you want, every day.

In The News: D-Mistifying D

Vitamin D -- affectionately called "Sunny D', since sunlight is our primary source-- is undoubtedly the hottest nutrient these days, so it is no surprise The New York Times is dedicating more space to it today.

Not only is its importance in a variety of body functions consistently becoming more clear, traditional recommendations suggesting a daily intake of 400 International Units are being questioned.

Recent research has led dietitians to establish a much-higher 1,000 International Units as the desired daily intake.

Since Vitamin D is found very scarcely in foods (a cup of fortified milk provides 100 IU's), it is one of the few nutrients I highly recommend people who do not get enough sun (either because of winters with little hours of sunlight or because of the use of UV protection creams) supplement in pill form.

Research studies showing the benefits of sufficient Vitamin D intake is a dime a dozen:

"A Swiss study of women in their 80s found greater leg strength and half as many falls among those who took 800 I.U. of vitamin D a day for three months along with 1,200 milligrams of calcium, compared with women who took just calcium. Greater strength and better balance have been found in older people with high blood levels of vitamin D."

And then there's this one:

"Researchers at Creighton University in Omaha conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial... among 1,179 community-living, healthy postmenopausal women. They reported last year in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that over the course of four years, those taking calcium and 1,100 I.U. of vitamin D3 each day developed about 80 percent fewer cancers than those who took just calcium or a placebo."

According to current estimates, as much as 60 percent of the United States adult population is Vitamin D deficient -- and that's based on the starting-to-be-considered-low 400 IU figure!

You Ask, I Answer: Vitamin A

I know this is going to sound weird, but I kind of have an aversion when it comes to eating anything orange or red.

Even if it's supposed to be red (like a tomato), I still get freaked out.

Does this mean I'm not eating Vitamin A?

Paula (last name withheld)
St. Louis, MO

I'm sorry to hear about your aversion, especially since you're missing out on delicious foods like watermelon, strawberries, red peppers, and raspberries!

The good news is, your vitamin A intake is not affected, since green vegetables are also a good source.

Half a cup of cooked broccoli provides 24 percent of the daily requirement, a half cup of cooked peas will give you 34 percent, half a cup of cooked kale contains an excellent 177 percent, and a half cup of spinach packs a mighty 229 percent!

Dairy items also contain vitamin A, although in lower amounts.

A cup of milk fortified with vitamin A contains ten percent of the daily requirement, an ounce of mozarella cheese provides a mere three percent, and an egg contributes approximately seven percent of the daily requirement to your diet.

The most concentrated source of vitamin A is animal liver. A mere ounce (53 calories' worth) of beef liver holds 178 percent of a day's worth!

You Ask, I Answer: Carrots

How many carrots do you have to eat before your skin turns orange?

Or is this an old myth?

-- Anonymous
Via the blog

Although countless myths surround food and nutrition, it is indeed true that eating too many carrots will turn your skin temporarily yellow or orange.

Remember, betacarotene (the plant form of Vitamin A) is fat-soluble, meaning it is stored in adipose tissue (fat cells).

Our bodies can only store a given amount at a time. Unlike with a water-soluble vitamin (like C or B6) excess amounts of Vitamin A are not quickly eliminated in urine. Instead, they are contained in the body and begin to affect our pigmentation.

There is actually a term for this condition – carotenaemia.

So just how many carrots do you need to eat in order for color changes to take place.

Consider this.

The Recommended Daily Intake is set at 5,000 International Units. A cup of sliced carrots provides approximately 30,000 International Units!

This is not to say that having a cup of steamed carrots with dinner once a week is cause for concern.

However, a cup of carrots every day for several weeks will definitely result in an orange tint to your skin color.