Speaking With...: Lisa Sasson

Lisa Sasson has been a clinical assistant professor at New York University’s Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health for 15 years, and has almost twenty years’ experience counseling clients in New York City with their weight management goals.

She is also co-director of NYU's Food, Nutrition and Culture summer study abroad program in Florence, Italy. It's only appropriate, then, that one of her specialties is The Mediterranean Diet.

Her knowledge of nutrition and outspoken, affable personality led to appearances on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and A& E as well as a one-on-one nutrition counseling session with supermodel Claudia Schiffer in 2004.

Ms. Sasson is currently Nickelodeon’s nutrition consultant and has been featured in The New York Times, Reader’s Digest, Self, Time, Fitness, and was Allure Magazine’s nutrition makeover coach in 2005 and 2006.

I sat down with Ms. Sasson and picked her brain regarding the latest fad diets. The result was a candid and insightful chat.

Small Bites: How have diet fads evolved over the past few decades?

Lisa Sasson: Nutrition reminds me of fashion. If you wait long enough, a certain diet will be in vogue again.

For instance, when you look back 25 years ago, you see low-carb, high protein diets like Atkins and Scarsdale being advocated. These exact same diets resurfaced in 2003.

Then, in the 90’s, diets were advocating counting grams of fat and eliminating it from your diet. In turn, people ate lots of carbs.

Well, carbs, like all nutrients, have calories. Fat-free does not mean calorie-free.

So, people ate lots of carbs and gained a lot of weight.

SB: What themes do the most recent diet books have in common?

LS: The glycemic index is back, and so is this idea of “good” versus “bad” carbs. Whole grains are also a focus of the newest diet books.

Luckily, fat is becoming a component of most weight loss diets. Instead of calling for its elimination, the current books suggest eating healthy fats like olive oil, salmon, avocados, and nuts, which is a good push.

SB: What’s your take on “good” versus “bad” carbs?

LS: The problem I have with it is that there is no good scientific research demonstrating the importance of the glycemic index and “good” or “bad” carbs. So many factors affect the glycemic index of a food as it is. For example, the glycemic index of a potato varies depending on what you ate before, what you are eating with it, and how you prepare it.

People take it out of context. A lot of these books focus on it because it’s a catch. It makes people think, “Oh! If I eat this I am going to lose weight.” It is a great way to draw someone into believing your book is special.

SB: Which would you say is the best of the current diets?

LS: Walter Willett’s book (Eat, Drink, and Weigh Less: A Flexible and Delicious Way to Shrink Your Waist Without Going Hungry) is one of the better ones.

I liked it because he has a realistic approach. I wish he wasn’t so fixated on whole grains and the glycemic index, but he allows other carbs that may not be whole grains or “good” in the glycemic index to be incorporated.

He also recommends healthy fats, and the meals featured in the book are simple to prepare.

I liked Bob Greene’s book (The Best Life Diet) in the sense that it is done in increments and he goes into the psychological implications behind weight management.

He also stresses the importance of exercise and being more physically active.

You can’t talk about weight loss and not mention being more physically active. Not necessarily lifting weights, but just moving more. That’s the key to a healthy lifestyle.

Exercising allows you to eat more, utilize glucose better, have more muscle mass and lose weight more quickly.

SB: Are there any new diet books you aren’t too fond of?

LS: Yes, The Sonoma Diet! The woman who wrote it, Connie Guttersen, is a registered dietitian. She should be ashamed! Do you know what her first “rule” is? “Throw out anything in your house that has white flour or sugar in it”!

I mean, she takes pride in the fact that her diet mimics the Mediterranean Diet and then has the audacity to say, “Never eat pasta.”

And then she has all these phases, or “waves”, as she refers to them. The first wave is VERY restricted. There is a whole list of foods you can’t have. You can only have certain veggies, certain nuts, and certain grains.

There are also all these recipes that are so complicated. I was leafing through it and thinking, “Is someone really going to get home after a busy day and make these dishes?”

The author also makes some outrageous statements. For example, she says you can’t eat fruit during phase one because of “the carbs”.

That’s ridiculous because fruits are chock full of nutrients and fiber. Besides, they are delicious and sweet. There is absolutely no reason why people should not be allowed to eat fruit.

Should you have limits? Of course. But to restrict a natural food makes no sense. I can’t accept that anything as natural as fruit should be eliminated from a diet.

For someone to say, “I can’t eat an apple, I’m on a diet,” is just laughable.

Oh, and throughout the whole diet you can only have Barilla Plus multigrain pasta, but not regular pasta. What bothers me is that Italians aren’t eating whole grain pasta.

What matters more is what they’re putting on their pasta.

SB: What do you mean?

LS: In Italy, pasta has very little sauce on it. It’s eaten with beans and lots of vegetables, and it’s usually a side dish, not a huge meal. It is not a huge portion.

SB: What would you say to someone who critiques nutritionists as being too objective when analyzing diets? It’s easy to look at the science, but what about the personal experience?

LS: Funny you should ask that. I was looking at all these diets and thought to myself, “What does it feel like to go on these diets?” I wanted to really experience it “from the other side”, so to speak, so I decided to go on South Beach for 2 weeks. I followed it very strictly.

The good thing was that while I was on it, I had very little freedom, so I was not tempted to just pick or snack mindlessly.

So, it was easy in the sense that there wasn’t much choice. I was so hungry that whatever I ate, I enjoyed.

The bad thing is that, while dieting, I continued living my normal life. It was very difficult to exercise during these two weeks. Yoga was particularly taxing.

I was so low on carbs that I was glycogen-deprived, and glycogen is the main source of fuel. I felt light-headed, had terrible headaches, and was very moody.

It was also hard for me to look forward to the social aspect of a meal. The joy and pleasure of food was taken out.

After five days I couldn’t look at another egg because every morning I had one for breakfast. I also found it frustrating that I couldn’t just have a glass of wine with dinner.

SB: So, psychologically, it was difficult.

LS: Yeah, and what I hate about all these diet books is that none acknowledge that losing weight is not always easy.

They talk about how delicious their recipes are and all the variety they offer and how you wake up and get to eat delicious things like ricotta cheese with Sweet and Low and Cocoa powder, which, ugh, I don’t know how anyone can find that tasty. It's disgusting.

And, again, none of these books mention fatigue or boredom. They dismiss it. All they talk about is how you’re going to lose all this weight in two weeks, and how you have so much choice, and how with each phase you can eat more. Please. I wanted to search the index for “headaches” and “moodiness” to make sure I wasn’t going crazy.

SB: What about food shopping?

LS: Oh, God! I would go to the supermarket and put all these artificial food products into my cart. I had diet gellatin, diet popsicles, diet ice cream, and all these products with fifty ingredients.

Diet Jello became my best friend because I would make 2 boxes a day and make it when I was hungry. I would eat eggs, diet Jello, sugar-free pops, sugar free this, sugar free that. Meanwhile, I’m thinking, “This is expensive and I can’t have fresh fruits in my cart!”

SB: What are some common pitfalls dieters make?

LS: Setting unrealistic expectations. Rather than think of this as a change of their lifestyle, people just think of it as “I need to lose 40 pounds by my birthday.”

Healthy eating goes hand in hand with living healthfully. So, apart from eating well, people should exercise and sleep enough. All these things affect your eating habits.

Don’t look at weight loss as “I need to eat more blueberries and less salmon” or some mathematical equation.

Also, learn to listen to your body. It lets you know when you are hungry, full, or satisfied. A lot of times people can’t differentiate between hunger and boredom. You shouldn’t feel stuffed after you eat.

Also, it’s a good idea to eat BEFORE you feel famished. This will reduce your chances of overeating or choosing unhealthy foods to immediately curb hunger.

SB: How should people who want to lose weight prepare themselves psychologically?

LS: First of all, have realistic expectations. Healthy weight loss is approximately 1 pound a week. So, for twenty pounds, you are looking at four to five months.

The key is to think of this as lifestyle changes. You want to lose this weight forever, not just so you can show off your body at the beach and then not worry about it because in the winter you hide under baggy sweaters and jackets.

When you lose weight quickly and go on these ridiculous restricted diets, you slowly start breaking the rules and then ease into your normal eating habits. So, what you need to change is your eating habits, and that’s going to take time.

When you make long term commitment, you will forever have a healthier relationship with food. Weight loss will not be at the forefront, it’s going to be changing the way you eat. Eating healthfully, physical activity.

It doesn’t – and shouldn’t -- mean you can’t have desserts two times a week or pepperoni pizza a few times a month. The idea is that these foods should play less of a role. Healthy eating is not about one meal or one food, it’s about dietary patterns.

People don’t succeed on overly restrictive diets because they focus on specific nutrients instead of changing their lifestyle. People get stuck on eating less of this, more of that, and it becomes difficult to sustain socially, culturally, physically, and emotionally.

SB: Say someone is reading this and wants to start losing weight today. What would you recommend as a good starting point?

LS: The first thing I tell my clients is to get rid of liquid calories. Liquids do not satiate the way food does, so it ultimately leaves room to consume more calories.

Also, these can easily be substituted with lower calorie healthy beverages. So I would begin by replacing sodas, juices, high fat milk, beer, alcoholic beverages, cocktails, and sugary iced teas with flavored sparkling water, diluted juices, unsweetened teas, and low or non-fat milk.

Then, each day try to do more physical movement than what you currently do. It can just be an extra ten minutes of walking every day. Then, two or three weeks later, add ten more minutes. Build it up slowly.

Don’t focus on how little you are doing. Whatever you do -- even if it’s a five minute jog -- is positive.

People just see the long-term goal and lose sight of the small steps in between. They say, “I can’t get to the gym tonight. I might as well eat a whole pizza.” Well, if you can’t go to the gym, walk for 10 or 15 minutes in your neighborhood.

Also, pay attention to what you feel when you eat. Before you put something in your mouth, ask yourself, “am I hungry? Or bored?” Rate your hunger. When you feel satisfied, try to stop.

Don’t buy things that make you feel vulnerable. If potato chips are irresistible, don’t have them in your house. If you have to buy them for other family members, put them somewhere out of your way so you have some time to think before reaching for them.

Focus on fresh fruits and vegetables. Don’t get hung up on this fruit, this vegetable. If you eat close to nature, if you are eating less processed food, you are already doing a really good job. Don’t think about eliminating plums and then eating watermelon only after the third week. Fruit is healthy!

SB: How can people spot a well-rounded “diet” book versus one that is unrealistic to follow?

LS: I don’t like books that tell you, “throw out everything that has white flour or sugar! Don’t eat these foods for six weeks!” It’s so ridiculous. Telling someone to ban 30 different foods does not mean they will stick to it or lose weight.

Also, these super strict rules are unnecessary. You don’t have to subsist on whole grain pasta or brown rice to lose weight. It’s OK to eat normal pasta as long as it is cooked healthily and you aren’t having three cups of it for dinner.

If you don’t like whole grain pasta, it’s OK. It’s not the magic weight loss solution. If you’re drowing your pasta in alfredo sauce, it doesn’t matter if it’s whole grain or not.

I like books that talk about making healthy changes rather than eliminate foods.

I like books that aren’t about just seeing the top of the mountain, but rather about the steps you need to take to get there. Looking at that tall mountain can seem overwhelming and defeating. People should be encouraged to concentrate on small, continuous steps. That’s a much healthier, more realistic approach.

I also think a good plan incorporates cultural sensitivity. Not everyone drinks milk, so to tell people to get calcium from dairy, that’s very shallow. Some cultures don’t drink milk and their calcium intake is just fine.

Thanks again to Lisa Sasson for a fun and thorough interview!

Over the next few weeks, Ms. Sasson will be analyzing some of today's hottest diets. Come back to find out which ones make the honor roll and which make the hall of shame.

In The News: Sure, Blame Mom

According to this article, women who consume junk food while pregnant may be putting their babies at risk for craving overly sweet and salty snacks as children!

Well, at least that's what researchers in Great Britain's Royal Veterinary College are guessing might occur based on a study they performed on... rats.

Turns out the pregnant rats who had the least healthy diet gave birth to little ones who craved junky snacks.

There is one major flaw with this study, though. Unlike the rats in this study, human babies are not given free reign to eat whatever they please.

Human mothers are instructed to start their babies off with certain foods and slowly introduce new ones with time, not leave a box of Dunkin' Donuts on the counter and see if two-month-old Jessica reaches for them.

If anything, what truly determines the possible pattern of a child's dietary habits as they grow older is what they are fed at home. A toddler living in a household stocked with TV dinners and Doritos bags has no interest in vegetables because he has no idea how they taste.

Similarly, a first grader's daily fruit intake should not be a Fruit Roll-Up. Of course children should have and enjoy treats, but these formative years are key for introducing them to new foods, flavors, and textures.

Our experiences with food as children have far-reaching consequences, well into our adult lives. Look at your own dietary habits and preferences. Can't many of them be traced back to family traditions and tastes?

In any case, pregnancy is a time when rare cravings can occur, and I would hate for a first-time expecting mother to think her midnight vanilla ice cream and pickle snack is dooming her future child's health.

Once children can be fed a variety of foods, though, mothers should not be discouraged by an initial dislike. It often takes eight or nine tries of a new food (i.e.: broccoli) before a child truly accepts it.

For the record, nutrition authorities aren't putting their eggs into this basket.

For instance, "Dr. Atul Signham, from the Institute of Child Health in London, said he was slightly skeptical about the likely scale of "fetal programming" in a child's diet until it could be proved in human studies."

Cheers!

Food for Thought: Will Diet For Money

I found this article from BBC News to be rather interesting.

The mayor of Varallo Sesia -- a small town in Northern Italy -- is offering his overweight citizens (they need a doctor's note identifying them as such) $70 if they lose six and a half pounds in one month.

Those who can keep the weight off for an additional five months will receive $140.

The purpose behind this? Motivation, the mayor says.

He even has the Italian Health Minister's support, commending him for starting an initiative other towns should follow.

I'm not so sure.

Motivation is key, no doubt, but it needs to be self-produced.

An overweight person can read every magazine article under the sun about weight control, watch endless reruns of The Biggest Loser and be told by countless doctors that their weight puts them at risk for a myriad of health complications, but until they are ready to manage their weight, they'll very likely go on two or three-week-long diets that are quickly abandoned.

I'm glad the mayor wants to do something about his overweight residents (he himself is one, and is dieting, although not expecting to pick up any cash prizes for doing so), but why not attempt to offer some nutrition education in schools, or subsidize fruits and vegetables? Even better -- how about subsidizing visits to nutritionists?

Whenever I hear of bets or contests concerning weight loss, I fear people will do anything to "win", whether it's consuming very few calories, eliminating necessary food groups, or even developing binging-purging behaviors.

I also don't like having a specific number attached to this goal. What if someone loses five and a half pounds? Should this effort not be recognized?

Making any sort of concerted effort towards a healthier lifestyle should be commended, and it should be taken into account that some people might take it off slowly. After all, shedding three and a half pounds a month for six months adds up to twenty-one pounds -- no small feat!

I see this as a case of good intentions with less than favorable execution.

The Mighty (Fish) Egg

It's easy to cast caviar (fish eggs) aside as little black pellets for the elite, but a tablespoon of this delicacy is no nutritional joke.

Just one tablespoon of caviar provides:

40 calories
4 grams protein
53% Vitamin B12 requirements
11% daily recommendation of iron
9% Vitamin D requirements

And, if that wasn't enough -- a whole gram of Omega-3 fatty acids (50% of the daily recommended amount)!

The only downside comes for sodium-sensitive folks, as one mere tablespoon contains 240 milligrams of sodium (approximately 20% of the maximum sodium limit for people on low-sodium diets).

Next time you're feeling fancy (or see these aquatic eggs on top of a sushi roll), gobble up some caviar. It does a body good.

Numbers Game: Sayonara, Healthy Eating

A standard shrimp tempura roll provides ___________ calories.

a) 290
b) 360
c) 485
d) 550

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

Shame On You: Kevin Trudeau (Part 6)

Now that Kevin Trudeau has shared some of his "earth-shattering" secrets for warding off sickness with us, let's take a peek at chapter eight, titled "How to Lose Weight Effortlessly and Keep It Off".

This was one I was anxiously awaiting and simultaneously afraid to read.

Trudeau begins this chapter by setting up an all-too familiar tale. Once an overweight child, he was always conscious of his weight.

He claims to have done everything under the Sun to lose weight through adulthood (even "exercising as much as five hours a day," which sounds more like hyperbolic prose than reality), but it wasn't until he "went abroad" that he found the answer.

"While living abroad, I ate everything I wanted, yet began to lose weight without trying," he confides.

While it is true that obesity in the United States is reaching unbelievable proportions, the rest of the world isn't immune. For instance, 12% of French adults are obese and 40% are overweight, while half of Great Britain's adult population is overweight.

Truth is, downing croissants and hot cocoa for an entire month will add on pounds, whether you're doing it in Seattle or the Alps.

Over the next few weeks I'll analyze some of the "secrets" Trudeau claims are 100% guaranteed to help you lose weight.

Hopefully, with each passing week you share my disbelief that this man has sold five million copies of Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About.

"Do not eat after six p.m."

One of the most aggravating nutrition myths. For some reason, Oprah loves to dispense this "tip" to her viewers anytime she discusses weight loss.

The fact of the matter is, calories do not care when you eat them. A 600 calorie ice cream sundae will provide 600 calories whether you have it for breakfast or at 10 PM.

Trudeau claims, "... the good news is you can virtually eat like a pig all day long. And if you stop eating after 6 p.m., you will still lose weight."

Really? I dare anyone who normally eats 2,000 calories to consume 3,500 calories between 9 AM and 6 PM and drop half a pound.

Not to mention, why is 6 PM the "magic number"? Why not 7? Or 8? Or 10? Beats me! Trudeau appears to have picked this number out of thin air. There is absolutely no research proving that eating carelessly all day and abstaining from food starting at 6 PM results in weight loss.

Not eating after 6 PM might be plausible if you go to bed at 7:30, but if you don't hit the sack until 11 PM or midnight, going to bed on an empty stomach does not make you thinner.

Trudeau should be emphasizing healthy habits, not telling people to down as many calories as they want while the sun is up with the ridiculous claim that as long as they keep their mouths shut after 6 PM they'll lose weight.

The only thing this 6 PM rule is likely to do is decrease your total caloric intake each day, resulting in weight loss. People fall prey to unhealthy snacking late at night, so cutting that out (along with the extra calories) will obviously result in some weight being shedded.

"Do a colon cleanse."

I went over this in a previous post -- but allow me to repeat. This results in immediate water weight loss, but you will not burn fat or truly lose weight by flushing out your colon.

"Eat organic grapefruits all day."

Uhhh. OK. The reasoning behind this? "There is an enzyme in grapefruit that burns fat. Eating grapefruits all day, as many as you desire, will speed the fat burning process."

People are too quick to select an isolated enzyme that shows promise in a controlled lab setting and attribute it to a food. Yes, true, there is an enzyme in grapefruits that speeds up the fat burning process, but not enough to help anyone lose weight just by having some grapefruit slices.

Remember, grapefruits still have calories. So if you are eating 8 grapefruits a day (which I guess is allowed according to Trudeau since he's encouraging people to eat them "all day long"), that's 640 calories added to your day.

There is no food that, when eaten, results in negative total calories. None.

Also, what kind of nutrition advice is it to tell someone to eat a food "all day" in unlimited quantities?

"Absolutely no aspartame or artificial sweeteners."

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I wouldn't tell someone currently not consuming artificial sweeteners to start, but an occassional diet Coke or sugar free popsicle will not kill anyone.

Regardless, this is more of a wellness/health debate, not a weight loss one. Aspartame does not contribute calories. Having it does not contribute to weight gain.

As I have mentioned before, though, the problem with artificial sweeteners is that they are often found in foods that are nutritionally empty and offer nothing in terms of vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients, and antioxidants.

"No fast food or chain restaurants."

Well, depends on what you're eating -- and how much! As Dr. Lisa Young recently told us, portion sizes in fast food restaurants have been exploding. So, yes, it is easy to consume half (or more!) a day's worth of calories in one sitting when an order of large fries is as large as a toddler's head.

However, according to Trudeau, the problem isn't the food itself, but rather the hidden dangers found in food produced by chain restaurants.

"You can actually eat French fries and cheeseburgers and lose weight, provided that the ingredients they use are all organic and contain no chemical additives," he throws out with quite a bit of chutzpah.

This is another huge myth. Organic food (while lacking pesticides and being environmentally friendly) is not less caloric or fattening than the same conventional product. Organic butter has as many calories per teaspoon as non-organic butter, and an organic hamburger bun is still lacking the fiber in a Wonder Bread hamburger bun.

Trudeau contends that fast food restaurants are placing addictive chemicals into their food that keep us coming for more, which in my opinion is a provocative, yet feeble, conspiracy theory.

I always find it funny that a food is only considered "addictive" when it is unhealthy.

For instance, someone eating nine grapefruits a day (which Trudeau appears to be so fond of) might be considered a "health nut". No one would ever dream of pointing the finger at the grapefruit and accusing it of being a dirty, rotten fruit that drives people to addiction.

However, change that grapefruit for a Dorito and suddenly Frito-Lay is suspected of throwing in a pinch of crack in their nacho cheese flavoring.

If hamburgers and fries are a daily staple for you -- whethey they are organic or not -- you've got your weight loss goal cut out for you.

Next week -- more of Trudeau's "secrets" (and my eye rolls).

Press Pause

Dear readers,

Small Bites will be taking a short four-day vacation starting today.

Posting will resume Tuesday night. You can expect the sixth Small Bites newsletter in your inboxes this coming Wednesday or Thursday.

As always, thank you for your interest and support.

See you next week!

You Ask, I Answer: Fiber

Can you get too much fiber in a day? I ask because I usually add fibrous brans (both oat and wheat bran) in my food, and some days I end up with 60 or 70 grams of fiber. Is this healthy?
-- Anonymous (per the writer's request)

Fiber is a very important nutrient that, unfortunately, many people in the United States are severely lacking in their diets.

Soluble fiber -- the type found in oatmeal -- is a great cholesterol reducer and satiey contributor, while insoluble fiber -- contained in whole wheat products -- helps eliminate toxins out of our body quicky and softens stools.

Fruits, vegetables, and legumes contain both soluble and insoluble fiber.

The problems associated with diets low in fiber are well documented, but is there such a thing as too much fiber? There can be.

If you're consuming 2,000 calories a day, you should aim for approximately 35 grams of fiber a day. Eating 1,500 calories? 25 grams should be your goal.

There are some things to keep in mind when it comes to fiber consumption.

First of all, if you are experiencing gastrointestinal distress (i.e.: bloating, diarrhea, or stomach pains) when consuming high amounts, your body is indicating you've passed its fiber threshold.

People who normally do not consume a lot of fiber need to increase their intake slowly (and make sure to stay hydrated while doing so), to not suffer from these symptoms. Going from 10 to 30 grams a day over a 24 hour period is not something your stomach will appreciate.

The biggest concern accompanying a high fiber intake (particularly insoluble fiber) is intereference with the absorption of certain vitamins (A, D, E, and K) and minerals (zinc, magnesium, iron and calcium).

Large amounts of insoluble fiber flush vitamins and minerals out of our system before they've truly had a chance to be fully absorbed by the body.

I would try to aim for no more than 50 grams of fiber a day. Although this might seem like a very high figure to some, many vegetarians often have a hard time not surpassing their fiber requirement, especially those who substitute meats with nuts, seeds, and legumes.

If you are consistently eating more than 50 grams a day, I would recommend getting some bloodwork done and seeing if there are any vitamins or mineral deficiencies worth looking into.

For more information on fiber, be sure to check out the first issue of the Small Bites newsletter!

Speaking With...: Lisa Young

Dr. Lisa R. Young, RD, CDN, is a world renowned portion size expert.

After graduating with a bachelor’s degree in Economics and Health Care Administration from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, she received her doctorate and master’s degrees in nutrition from New York University, where she has served as adjunct professor for 15 years.

Her doctorate thesis focused on the link between increased portion sizes and rising obesity rates in the United States, and eventually led to the publishing of her first book, The Portion Teller: The No-Diet Reality Guide to Eating, Cheating, and Losing Weight Permanently.

Over the past few years, Dr. Young has been featured on The Today Show, CNN, MSNBC, ABC World News Tonight, and several magazines, including O, Good Housekeeping, Forbes, Shape, Allure, Newsweek, and Elle.

Her clips, appearances, and research papers can be viewed at her website -- The Portion Teller.

I was fortunate enough to talk to her one on one about the United States’ increasing portion distortion problem.

Your research clearly demonstrates a correlation between larger portion sizes and an increase in obesity, and there are studies showing that the more food we are provided, the more we consume. Does this mean our bodies are not efficient hunger self-regulators?

Large portions have contributed to growing obesity rates because they contain more calories than small portions.

I think the problem is that because we are surrounded by large food portions at cheap prices which encourage us to “eat more,”-- whether at fast-food places, movie theaters, bakeries, delis -- we have lost our ability to regulate how hungry we are.

Unfortunately, we eat with our “eyes” and when we see big portions of food around, even if we don’t even like the taste, we tend to eat it. And then, instead of feeling “comfortably full,” we end up feeling “stuffed.”

Everyone knows a Big Mac and large fries add up to caloric overload. However, are there "healthy sounding/looking" or "harmless" foods people eat large quantities of, unaware of the high number of calories they are taking in?

The vitamin enhanced waters and the gumballs and gummy bears sold as “multivitamins” for kids!

People often like to rationalize why they eat something and when they see that they are getting a food marketed as a vitamin or enhanced with vitamins they think it is health food and they completely overlook the fact that the foods contain any calories.

I counsel clients who would never drink soda but they are big fans of vitamin enhanced waters (until, of course, I tell them to read the labels!) Another healthy sounding beverage which people think is not too caloric is the jumbo fruit smoothies. While they do contain some fruit, they are also loaded with sugar and calories.

Rule of thumb: we are better off “chewing” our calories than “slurping” them.

Are there specific places, events, or times where we are most prone to portion distortion?

Two of the biggest offenders would be the fast-food places ad the movie theaters. When McDonald’s first opened, a soda was seven ounces; today it is 32 ounces.

And a bucket of popcorn is so big these days that it is large enough to feed an entire row. Also, the large popcorn at the movie theater is a better value so consumers are encouraged to “supersize”.

Baked goods such as muffins and bagels have also blown up in size; a typical muffin at a deli is equivalent to 6-cups of cereal and a bagel is equivalent to 5 bread slices. People have no problem grabbing a muffin or bagel on their way to work but would think twice before consuming 5 slices of bread in one sitting.

Many times when people hear the words "portion control", they incorrectly envision a lunch of two lettuce leaves, three tomato slices, and one jumbo shrimp. What are some tips you would suggest for people who are looking to lose weight but need to see a lot of food on their plate?

It is okay to eat large portions of certain foods as long as these foods are healthy and not loaded with too many calories. In fact, filling up on low-calorie healthy foods often helps people stick to a weight-loss program so they don’t feel deprived.

Some examples would be to eat fresh fruit such as berries and melons which contain a high water content. Starting a meal with a healthy low-fat salad with a large assortment of veggies (watch the dressing, of course) and including cooked veggies such as broccoli and asparagus with your dinner adds volume to your food. An added bonus is that fruits and vegetables are also rich in vitamins and minerals.

Finally, a great snack for “volume lovers” is air popped popcorn.

Do you find it strange and frustrating that restaurants and fast food chains selling smaller entrees and desserts specifically label these as exclusively for "children under 12"? Why not call this part of the menu "for the portion conscious" and make it more acceptable for adults to order from it?

I do indeed. And I completely agree with you. It would be a huge step in the right direction if portion-conscious adults were able to order these foods as well.

Throughout your years of research, what are two or three statistics that still stand out as truly surprising or shocking?

I found it truly shocking just how much portions have grown. Fast-food portions are two to five times larger than they were when they were first introduced.

While I mentioned the McDonald’s soda example above, it is truly shocking that 7-Eleven markets a “Big Gulp” containing 64 oz of soda—a half gallon!—with nearly 800 calories and 50 teaspoons of sugar! The company first opened with the 16 oz size.

What is even more shocking is that cup holders found in cars have also become larger to accommodate these drinks.

Also, while a fast-food hamburger used to contain only 1.5 oz of meat, today they often contain 8 or even 12 oz of meat in one sandwich. Consider Hardee’s Monster Thickburger which contains 2/3 of a pound of meat (12 oz) along with several cheese and bacon slices, special sauce, and white bread. No wonder it contains 1400 calories.

Some of these jumbo foods contain enough calories for an entire day.

You were featured in "SuperSize Me!", which resulted in consumers becoming more aware of the outrageous sizes offered at many fast food establishments. Have there been positive changes in this realm?

With the focus on increasing obesity rates in both adults and children, we would hope that food companies would scale back on portions. However, according to my most recent research on portion sizes at large fast-food chains, published in the Journal of Public Health Policy, portions are not getting any smaller.

In fact, in many cases, they are getting bigger. Just last year, Burger King introduced BK Stacker sandwiches in four sizes: Single, Double, Triple, and Quad. The Quad size has four beef patties, weighs over 11 oz, and contains 1000 calories.

The largest fast-food companies are also involved in sleight of name. Last year, Wendy’s, for example, discontinued the terms “Biggie” and “Great Biggie” to describe its French fries and soda. However, the former “Biggie” soda is now called “Medium,” and the company introduced a new larger size called “Large.”

While McDonald’s discontinued the “Supersize” soda in 2004, it is now marketing a new soda called “Hugo,” the exact same volume and calorie content as the discontinued “Supersize.” And, unfortunately, we eat more when large portions end up on our plates.

Dr. Young is a top of the line, sought-after private practitioner in New York City who is “available for individual counseling sessions on a wide variety of nutrition-related issues including obesity and weight control, disease prevention, wellness, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, osteoporosis, eating disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, pregnancy, lactation, menopause, and vegetarianism.”

If interested, you may contact her at 212-560-2565 or: lisa.young@portionteller.com

Thanks again to Dr. Young for offering her time and knowledge!

Food for Thought: Nutritious Candy (Really)

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, Caleb... where to start?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Say no more.

You "Ask", I Answer: Multivitamins

[In response to you saying that people eating balanced diets do not need to take multivitamins every day,] I think that's true--which means that there are a lot of us who had better pop that multi-vit on a regular basis.

-- Dirk Hanson
Location Unknown

Dirk, you have a point. It is estimated that approximately two thirds of adults in the United States are not meeting their recommended fruit and vegetable servings.

However, people should be working towards a long-term goal of including fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains in their diet, rather than settling for a Centrum pill accompanying a donut breakfast.

You Ask, I Answer: Multivitamins

What is your response to Dr. Willett, who suggests a multi-vitamin as an inexpensive form of insurance in his book Eat Drink & Be Healthy? My understanding is that a multi-vitamin is a good idea regardless of diet since aside from providing the daily minimum amounts of vitamins it also provides certain things like minerals which even for a smart eater can sometimes be overlooked?

-- Guy Betterbid
New York, NY

For those of you who don't know, Dr. Walter Willett is a professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition at Harvard's School of Public Health as well as Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School.

A renowned medical researcher, Dr. Willett is perhaps most famous for his revised dietary pyramid, which places exercise and weight management at the base, plant oils and whole grains on the second level, and red meat, butter, and refined grains as neighbors at the tip.

Along the side, Willett borrows from the Mediterranean food pyramid by including alcohol (in moderation) but then adds his own touch by including multi-vitamin supplements.

I'm not quite as gung-ho as Dr. Willett on the thought of people popping a Centrum once a day.

First off, there is so much fortification in today's food that getting most vitamins and minerals is not too difficult. Even the sweetest and least nutritious of children's cereals provides 100% of many of these nutrients.

On top of that, we have beverages -- such as Vitamin Water and even Diet Coke Plus -- as well as "energy bars" that also throw in a day's worth of vitamins and minerals.

It's crucial to realize that it does not take extreme amounts of food to get a daily supply of certain vitamins and minerals. As I recently posted, just half a cup of red peppers provides 100% of our vitamin C needs.

Meanwhile, half a cup of baby carrots provides 300% of our vitamin A requirements, one cup of raw spinach packs in 181% of the Vitamin K we need each day, and a sandwich made with two slices of whole wheat bread contains 60% of our daily manganese needs.

It is true that the recommended intakes for minerals like calcium, potassium, and magnesium are only achieved by having a combination of foods rich in them.

That being said, I believe it is important to recommend people get as much of their vitamins and minerals from real food as possible.

When you eat a carrot, you aren't just getting Vitamin A. You are also getting fiber, phytonutrients, carotenoids, and antioxidants that are not available in pill form.

Additionally, increasing dietary potassium often correlates with a reduction in sodium intake. That's two birds killed with one stone if vitamin and mineral consumption is first tackled via diet.

I also believe that relying on supplements tends to give people false security, thinking that popping a multi-vitamin in the morning is a free pass for going through the rest of the day without paying attention to the food they are eating.

I think it is much wiser to take a look at what vitamins and minerals one tends to be deficient in and then tackle that problem specifically (ideally by altering one's diet first).

Vitamin D is not readily available in many foods (and most people in the world do not get enough from the sun during winter months), so I do not see anything wrong with supplementation. I also think calcium supplementation is important if the diet does not provide sufficient coverage.

Additionally, people on restricted diets often need to supplement their diets appropriately (i.e.: vegans and vitamin B12).

While we're at it, I would like to clarify that vitamins do NOT provide energy. Calories provide energy. Vitamins do not contain calories.

Yes, the B vitamins are necessary for energy pathways to work properly, but they do not give a boost of energy in and of themselves.

Back to the original question: people eating balanced diets do not need to pop a multi-vitamin every day.

They are better off seeing what nutrients they are actually deficient of, see if they can get them by altering their diet, and, if that's not possible, look to supplement that specific vitamin or mineral by means of a pill.

You Ask, I Answer: Vitamin C

I know you said Vitamin C supplements don’t do much to prevent colds, but what about once you have a cold? Does taking Vitamin C help shorten the duration?

-- Angela Burgos

Grand Rapids, MI

When we tell someone we have a cold, the immediate response is usually, “take your liquids and lots of vitamin C!”

Is this fact or just a propagated myth?

Well, the latest meta-analysis (review of many existing studies) comes courtesy of Dr. Robert M Douglas of the Australian National University of Canberra’s National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, and Dr. Harri Hemila of Finland’s University of Helsinki’s Public Health Department.

Together, they reviewed 65 years’ worth of studies focusing on the relationship between vitamin C and the common cold. The conclusion? 200 milligrams of Vitamin C (approximately 300% of the daily recommended intake) did not shorten a cold when compared to a placebo.

Interestingly enough, extremely high doses of Vitamin C (8,000 milligrams) helped shorten the duration slightly.

Just how extreme is that dose? Eight thousand milligrams constitutes 11,400% of the daily recommended intake!

It’s worth noting that most vitamins and minerals have what’s called an upper tolerable intake, or a number that helps distinguish when too much can become dangerous. For Vitamin C, this is set at 2,000 milligrams.

Downing 8 grams of Vitamin C to basically make your cold last one day less is not recommended. Super dosages of Vitamin C often result in gastrointestinal distress, particularly diarrhea and nausea.

Additionally, continuous high intakes have been linked to an increased risk of developing kidney stones, since the breakdown of Vitamin C results in a waste product known as oxalate (which, when attached to calcium, forms kidney stones).

Numbers Game: Answer

Half a cup of which of the following foods provides 100% of the daily recommended intake of Vitamin C?

The answer is: red peppers.

Here is how the others' Vitamin C contributions stack up:

Half a cup of strawberries provides 81 percent.
Half a cup of tomatoes provides 39 percent.
Half a cup of watermelon provides 11 percent.

That's right. Just adding a half cup of peppers to your salad pretty much covers all your Vitamin C for the day. This is precisely why I don't think multi-vitamin supplements are necessary for people eating a balanced diet.

Remember, Vitamin C is a water-soluble vitamin, meaning that amounts exceeding your body's needs will be excreted in your urine. Taking massive doses of Vitamin C to ward off colds is futile.

Somestimes, though, our bodies need more Vitamin C. For example, as mentioned in this post, smokers require higher amounts of vitamin C than non-smokers.

Burn, Baby, Burn?

When it comes to weight loss, people are often desperate for an extra boost -- and marketers gladly oblige.

It seems that using caffeine as an ingredient piques dieters’ interest – and their wallets’.

So, does caffeine truly speed up weight loss?

It’s funny, really, because the majority of the research concludes the following: caffeine consumption in people who exercise regularly and follow diets that provide less calories than their regular dietary intake results in weight loss.

In essence, these people would have lost weight even without those extra two cups of coffee.

If you decrease your caloric intake and increase your physical activity over an extended period of time, you will surely lose weight.

If you happened to chew three pieces of gum every day while doing this, I’m sure some study could conclude that “chewing three pieces of gum a day while exercising regularly and eating a reduced-calorie diet results in weight loss.”

Get my point?

While it is true that caffeine often acts as an appetite suppressant, this effect usually lasts approximately 45 minutes.

The large majority of the over-the-counter “fat burning” products you see contain caffeine along with a handful of other stimulants, thus rendering them more powerful in holding off your hunger. Caffeine in and of itself is not enough.

Trying to beat a hunger pang by drinking two cups of black coffee will not trick the body into thinking it has been fed.

Additionally, most people who consume caffeine are not having it in the form of black coffee. By the time you add milk and sugar, you are ending up with more calories in your day, the exact opposite of what you want to do if you are looking to lose weight.

A lot of companies that develop weight-loss aids containing caffeine are quick to point out is “thermogenic” effects – that is, its ability to help the body burn calories while digesting and absorbing it.

And while it is true that caffeine’s thermogenic effect is higher than, say, watermelon’s, it is not high enough by any means to truly be considered a “calorie burner”.

What caffeine does accomplish as a diuretic is increasing urine volume, resulting in water loss, and thus a lower temporary weight (“weight loss”).

So, yes, if you suddenly add four or five cups of coffee to your day, it is very likely you will feel – and see yourself as – less bloated. Guess what? You are.

That being said, the moment that lost water is replenished, you’re back to your normal self.

While I’m at it, allow me to shatter a popular myth here, which I have literally had 12 people ask me about over the past few months. Eating chocolate-covered espresso beans does not result in “caloric balance”. In other words, the espresso will not burn off the calories from the chocolate.

A quarter cup of chocolate covered espresso beans is calorically equivalent to a quarter cup of plain M & M's. These are treats, not diet tricks.

Similarly, a Venti latte with whipped cream and caramel provides 600 calories – don’t count on caffeine to lower that number for you.

By all means, continue to enjoy your coffee (current recommendations are capped at three eight ounce cups… or one Starbucks Venti). Savor it, delight your nasal passages with its aroma, and pour it over ice cubes for a cool summer beverage.

When it comes to weight loss, though, you’re better off picking up a pedometer than a hot cup of Joe.

Issue 6 of Small Bites out next week

The next installment of the Small Bites newsletter will cover protein, including:

• What is protein?
• How much protein should you be getting?
• How much protein are you getting?
• What are complete and incomplete proteins?
• Should vegetarians be concerned about their protein intake?
• Are protein supplements the key to bulking up?
• ... And more!

To be included in the Small Bites newsletter mailing list, send an e-mail to: andy.bellatti@gmail.com

You Ask, I Answer: Calorie-Free Dips

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

-- Anonymous

I don't particularly have an opinion either way.

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

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

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

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

Celebrity Diet Secrets: Christie Brinkley

Anytime Hollywood gossip comes to a standstill in the dead of summer, you can always count on a feature story on celebrity beach bodies and "diet secrets."

In Christie Brinkely's case, vegetarianism is attributed to her model figure.

I couldn't think of a more vague and simultaneously shallow statement. It would be akin to saying that "milk" and "juice" are healthy beverages.

In the same way that juice can range from fresh-squeezed orange juice to watermelon Kool Aid, vegetarian diets can also run the gamut from healthy to horrid.

Vegetarianism in and of itself is not healthier than "omnivore"-ism. While it is true that a well-balanced vegetarian diet often results in higher fiber and phytonutrient intake (as well as a higher consumption of whole grains and legumes), not all vegetarian diets are well-balanced.

Consider the following two fictional vegetarian subjects.

Claire's Vegetarian Day:

BREAKFAST

2 Pop Tarts

LUNCH

1 soy burger (in a bun)
A small side of French fries
A can of Coke

SNACK

1 small bag of Doritos

DINNER (at a restaurant)

Cheese quesadilla (5 ounces)
Refried beans (1 cup)

This meat-free day adds up to:

2,166 calories
23 grams of saturated fat
19 grams of fiber (30% below her needs)
3,603 milligrams of sodium (150% of the recommended maximum).

This day is also completely devoid of fruits and vegetables (sorry, French fries don't count).

Adam's vegetarian day:

BREAKFAST

1 slice whole wheat toast
1 tablespoon peanut butter
1 glass skim milk
1 banana

LUNCH

Stirfry:

1 tablespoon olive oil
1 cups brown rice
1/4 cup peppers
1/2 cup broccoli
1/4 cup chickpeas
1/4 cup kidney beans

SNACK

1 Lara Bar

DINNER

1.5 cups whole wheat pasta
1/2 cup marinara sauce
4 soy meatballs (frozen)

This day comes out to:

1,690 calories
5 grams of saturated fat
1,650 milligrams of sodium
34.5 grams of fiber

Simply cutting out meat products does not automatically make one a healthy eater.

Although well-balanced vegetarian diets tend to include more fruits and vegetables than those of meat eaters, vegetarians are especially at risk for overdoing sodium.

Many meat alternatives are in the frozen section of the supermarket and can contain as much as 35% of one's daily sodium needs in one serving.

A breaded mock-chicken patty certainly has less saturated fat than an animal one, but it should not be seen as a health food simply because it is made with soy.

If you are thinking of making the switch to vegetarianism, be sure to talk with a registered dietitian to ensure the change is beneficial, rather than a junky diet under a different name.

With Love, From Greece

Although non-fat dairy products are one good way to add calcium and protein to your diet without taking in excessive calories, I find fat-free plain yogurt to have an unappetizing watery consistency and tremendously boring flavor.

Luckily, Greek yogurt is here to save the day.

When friends often see me purchasing Greek yogurt, they ask me, "How is this different from regular yogurt?"

Here is how they compare:

FAT-FREE REGULAR YOGURT (8 OUNCES)
127 calories
13 g protein
451.7 mg calcium

FAT-FREE GREEK YOGURT (8 OUNCES)
120 calories
20 g protein
150 mg calcium

Why the significant decrease in calcium? This can best be answered by explaining Greek yogurt's texture.

What fat-free Greek yogurt offers that makes it such a spectacular product for me is its rich consistency, courtesy of having its whey (milk plasma) strained.

The lack of watery whey increases the protein content but decreases the amount of calcium in Greek yogurt. Still, eight ounces of this Mediterranean nectar provide 15% of our daily calcium needs.

I should "warn" you in advance that Greek yogurt has a strong, unmistakeable, tart taste.

I wouldn't recommend eating it on its own. But, throw in banana slices, a handful of blueberries, some uncooked ready-to-eat oatmeal, and a tablespoon of ground flaxseed and I have a feeling you'll never go back to "normal" fat-free yogurt again.

Numbers Game: C-ing Red

Half a cup of which of the following foods provides 100% of the daily recommended intake of Vitamin C?

a) Red Peppers
b) Tomatoes
c) Watermelon
d) Strawberries

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

You "Ask", I Answer: Vitamin Water/Flavored Water

While VitaminWater itself does have sugar, it doesn't have high fructose corn syrup, and the sugar it does have isn't much, compared to most soft drinks.

Additionally, Glaceau makes FruitWater, which is just flavored water without sweeteners. Talking Rain's Twist line has the same thing. Both are very tasty.

Drinking plain water really does get old after a while, and I've discovered that between these things and Pellegrino, I stay hydrated and don't reach for juice or sodas.

-- Anonymous

My main "beef" with Vitamin Water is that it is advertised as a healthy alternative to soda even though their sugar contents are almost identical.

A 12 ounce can of Coke has 40 grams (10 teaspoons, or 3 1/3 tablespoons) of sugar.

A bottle of Vitamin Water contains 20 ounces of liquid. A serving -- listed as eight ounces, per the nutrition label -- provides 50 calories and 13 grams of sugar.

Polish off the entire bottle and you've added 125 calories and 32.5 grams (8 teaspoons or 2 2/3 tablespoons) of sugar to your day.

Yes, Vitamin Water provides vitamins and minerals not present in soda, and it is also missing phosphoric acid, which decreases blood calcium levels.

So, it isn't quite soda, but I also don't see it as any sort of "answer" to the increasing nutrition problem in this country.

Although high fructose corn syrup is nowhere to be seen on the ingredient list, it still contains added -- as opposed to naturally-occurring -- sugar (which, ideally, should not surpass a daily intake of 40 grams).

Does that mean it is poison or "bad for you"? No. I've enjoyed Vitamin Water on a few occassions. However, keeping in mind that what I was doing was essentially drinking water with 8 teaspoons of sugar, I considered it a tasty sweetened beverage rather than "healthy water".

In my opinion, Vitamin Water's success can be directly attributed to its intelligent advertising campaigns. They managed to convince people that the best way to get vitamins and minerals is by drinking a sugary concoction with witty prose on its label!

Fruit Water provides half the sugar of Vitamin Water (12.5 grams for a 20 ounce bottle). I personally find it a little too artificial tasting to be enjoyable, but to each his own.

Fact of the matter is, I do agree with you that drinking only water all the time gets boring. I want to make it clear, though, that I don't expect anyone to confine their beverage preferences to plain water all the time.

I do not believe sugar is the devil's other white powder, but too many people in the United States have made sugary beverages a staple of their diets, rather than an occasional treat.

I know someone who has three Vitamin Waters a day -- one with lunch, one while/after working out, and one with dinner. That adds up to 375 calories and 96 grams of sugar!

For those who find water too plain but find beverages like Vitamin Water too sweet, I highly recommend the Hint line of flavored waters, which come in a unique line of flavors and lack calories or any kind of sweeteners.

Raising the Bar

As followers of my blog and newsletters know, I am partial to Lara and Clif Nectar bars (based on true preference, not advertising dollars or a free lifetime supply in exchange for good PR).

Apart from their rich deliciousness, I love that they are made from anywhere from two to five ingredients (all of which are real food -- no extracts, dehydrated by-products, or artificial flavors) and offer great taste in a powerful nutrition package.

Whatever vitamins and minerals they offer are naturally found in the ingredients, not synthesized in a lab and thrown on in an attempt to turn a candy bar with soy crisps into a "healthy" product.

I am happy to announce I found another food bar to add to my (and your!) list of favorites -- the Pure Bar.

That's right: a food -- not energy -- bar. After all, energy is provided by calories, so, in essence, a Three Musketeers bar could be called an "energy bar". I suppose the Mars company could even refer to M&M's as "energy pellets" if they were truly desperate.

Pure Bars are available in a variety of standout flavors, including trail mix, chocolate brownie, and apple cinnamon.

All varieties are certified organic, kosher, and vegan, and provide 200 calories, 400 mg of Omega-3 fatty acids (that's 20 percent of the daily requirement!), 5 grams of fiber, 250 milligrams of potassium, 1 gram of saturated fat, and 100% naturally occurring sugars.

As far as the ingredients: organic dates, organic walnuts, organic agave nectar, organic almonds, organic cashes, organic brown rice protein and, in the case of the chocolate brownie flavor, organic cocoa.

The fruit content is so high that one bar alone provides 1.5 servings of fruit!

Isn't that wonderfully simple?

For more information, please visit the Pure Bar website.

Speaking With...: Marion Nestle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frustrating? No, I think it’s unimaginative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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