Administrative Announcements: Oxygen Magazine

Please pick up the April 2007 issue of Robert Kennedy's Oxygen Women's Fitness and turn to page 106 to read an article I wrote (and meal plan I created) on healthy weight-loss for various short and long-term goals.

The magazine did an amazing job of recreating my recipes and photographing them!

You can find Oxygen at Barnes & Noble Booksellers and other bookstores in the "Women's Interest" section.

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!

Numbers Game: Answer

Which of these functional food categories saw a 243 percent increase in new products last year?

Answer: Cardiovascular Health

Mintel, a consumer, media, and market research group, released some interesting sales figures earlier this week.

2007 saw the release of 558 new functional food products, of which 148 where related to cardiovascular health.

In turn, cardiovascular health saw the largest increase (in 2006, 43 new food items were released).

Keep in mind that functional foods -- processed foods with added nutrients for health benefits, such as Corazonas tortilla chips made with oat bran -- are not necessarily the most nutritious choice.

For instance, I recently saw potato chips cooked in avocado oil at a local grocery store.

They were, of course, advertised as "heart healthy."

True, avocado oil is better than butter or lard, but these are still potato chips.

The fact that they are fried in avocado oil does not make them as nutritious as eating an actual avocado.

Food companies love functional foods, though.

Sprinkle some vitamins on a gummy bear and suddenly parents start seeing it as a decent snack, rather than sugary candy -- even if you jack up the price!

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.

In The News: Caloric Controversy

Back in January I posted about the New York City Board of Health's motion forcing chain restaurants to display caloric information in a conspicuous fashion (i.e.: on the menu, rather than the double cheeseburger wrapper you don't see until AFTER you have paid for your order).

Then, on February 4, I referred you to a link on Marion Nestle's blog where she notified us that the National Restaurant Association was preparing to fire back with litigation claiming such a rule was unnecessary, unfounded, and detrimental to consumers.

Now, The New York Times is providing details on the affidavit submitted to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

And, oh, what interesting details they are!

To begin with, the document is penned by Dr. David B. Allison.

Allison is not a high-profile corporate lawyer.

Oh no. Far from it. He's a professor of nutrition at the University of Alabama -- and the incoming president of the Obesity Society!

That's right. A man at the helm of an organization whose vision is to "be the leader in understanding, preventing and treating obesity and in improving the lives of those affected" is against calorie labeling and representing McDonald's, Burger King, and other fast food restaurants.

His arguments against the Board of Health's motion?

"Dr. Allison argues that the new rules could backfire — whether by adding to the forbidden-fruit allure of high-calorie foods or by sending patrons away hungry enough that they will later gorge themselves even more."

Sending away hungry patrons? Posting caloric information on a board is very different from armed guards threatening people with machine guns if they dare step inside a McDonald's.

The goal is simply to provide consumers with information allowing them to make healthier choices.

I should point out that I have given talks and workshops in the past where I actually show people how they can go to McDonald's for a meal and choose appropriately.

I do not recommend McDonald's be a daily staple, but I recognize that once in a while, whether out of personal preference or other reasons (i.e.: you're on the road, starving, pressed for time, and your only option is fast food), people will be looking up at a fast food menu deciding what to order.

Although it may be "so obvious" to some, many people aren't aware that a Big Mac with large fries and a large Coke is a very different meal from a regular hamburger with small fries and a bottle of water.

In fact, there is roughly a 900 calorie difference between those two options!

In any case, Allison supports his theory that calorie labeling will drive away hungry patrons who will ultimately end up gorging by "citing research showing that birds put on weight when food is scarce."

Too bad food scarcity is completely irrelevant in this discussion.

Consumers are not told to either order a 1,400 calorie meal or go home empty-handed. They can go ahead and order that 1,400 calorie meal, but now they'll KNOW it is a 1,400 calorie meal.

Allison proudly claims that he utilizes scientific evidence in his affidavit to prove his point.

Specifically, he "cites a study that found that dieters who were distracted while eating and presented with information that food was high in calories were more likely to overeat."

I love how people throw around the term "scientific evidence" as if that automatically means what they are about to say is a universal truth.

The study he points at mentions dieters being distracted while eating. How, exactly, would calorie labeling distract people as they eat? The information only comes to play while they are ordering.

A Board of Health representative will not be sitting across from them as they bite into their Big Mac notifying them of how many calories they just paid for.

Luckily, the Obesity Society is not standing behind Allison.

"The obesity group released a statement on Tuesday supporting calorie labeling on menus. “The Obesity Society believes that more information on the caloric content of restaurant servings, not less, is in the interests of consumers,” said the statement by the society, which is based in Silver Spring, Md."

I am surprised the Obesity Society is still permitting Dr. Allison to come in as president.

Isn't his support of the National Restaurant Association akin to the head of the National Rifle Association supporting strict gun control laws?

In The News: Lower Your Cholesterol... and Brain Function?

Interesting tidbit over at Tara Parker-Pope's health blog on the New York Times website.

On February 13 she referred to a Wall Street Journal article about the effect of statins (cholesterol-lowing drugs, such as Lipitor) on brain function.

Turns out these medications cross the blood-brain barrier, thereby affecting the central nervous system.

There are even documented instances of people on statins testing positive for pre-Alzheimer's and then "miraculously recovering" once they stop consuming the drug.

This is one of the many reasons why I strongly advocate people resort to diet and physical activity first to lower their total -- AND LDL ("bad") -- cholesterol.

Not only are they effective methods; they also deliver other benefits (i.e.: nutrients) helpful with other conditions and disease risks.

Of course, the select group of people who genetically produce high cholesterol need to be on statins (diet plays a very little role in determining their lipid profile), but there's too many people who directly contribute to their hypercholesteremia by eating poorly.

In The News: Valentine's Day/Small Bites

Last Friday, Terri Coles of Reuters.com interviewed me for a special Valentine's Day article on the health benefits of common romantic staples like chocolate and wine.

We also talked about healthy foods often dismissed as "empty calories."

She did a wonderful job with the piece, which came out earler this afternoon. Read it here!

Pocket Full of Junk

This weekend I saw an advertisement for Hot Pockets Calzone, the company's "heartiest sandwich yet."

"This is more of what you're hungry for," it exclaimed.

So I went ahead and investigated just what Hot Pockets offers and, if anything, my hunger immediately disappeared.

Per the box for the four meat and four cheese calzone, one filled pastry pocket is enclosed.

It is illustrated as two halves on the box, so we can truly appreciated the myriad of melted processed cheeses oozing out.

Oh, but there's another crafty reason for that illustration.

Although you are buying one calzone, the nutrition information on the back defines one serving as HALF a calzone.

Do they truly expect someone to heat one of these up and eat the other half another day?

This is the kind of food that becomes a horribly textured mess after sitting out for too long. Imagine it undergoing reheating?

In any case, all the nutrition values on the back need to be multiplied by two.

Alas, here is what you get when you eat "two halves" of this "hearty" new sandwich (which, mind you, is advertised mainly as a snack, rather than a meal):

600 calories
26 grams of fat
10 grams of saturated fat (half a day's worth)
1500 milligrams of sodium (two third of a day's worth)
A pathetic four grams of fiber (pathetic for a 600-calorie food)
26 grams of sugar (assuming ten or so are naturally occurring in the cheese, that's still a tablespoon of added sugar!)

Numbers Game: Functional Boom

Which of these functional food categories saw a 243 percent increase in new products last year?

(NOTE: a functional food is one with added benefits. For example, Vitamin Water, which is basically sugar water with vitamins and minerals tacked on).

a) Bone and joint health
b) Gastrointestinal health
c) Memory boosters
d) Cardiovascular health

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

You Ask, I Answer: Splenda

[I just read your posting on sorbitol and am wondering:] what about Splenda?

I have about a tablespoon (not full) a day with coffee.

Is it just better to have sugar and forget about it?

-- Anonymous
Via the blog

Splenda -- the brand name for sucralose -- was first launched during the peak of the Atkins revival in 2004.

Originally appearing in low-carb sweet treats like granola bars and ice cream, it was launched in supermarkets across the country for at-home beverage sweetening and baking.

So, how safe is it?

Well, on the one hand, the Food & Drug Administration has approved it as a GRAS (generally regarded as safe) food additive.

As I mentioned in a December 2007 posting about fat-replacer Olestra, though, the FDA seal of approval isn't always the most reassuring.

All we know for sure at this point is that Splenda doesn't appear to cause immediate harm.

Since it is a relatively new mass-consumed alternative sweetener, there are no long-term studies indicating what happens if it is consumed every day for 20 years.

There isn't even a study detailing the effects of regular Splenda consumption over a FIVE year period.

Interestingly enough, the Japanese Food Sanitation Council reported that some sucralose is actually absorbed by the body and hones in on the liver and kidneys. Consequently, they theorize that regular intake of Splenda could result in the enlargement of these organs.

My strategy with sucralose is to tread cautiously.

Having three cups of coffee with two packs of Splenda in each day in, day out is not the smartest of choices.

However, having two teaspoons with your morning coffee each day -- and no additional amounts in other foods -- doesn't strike me as particularly alarming.

Keep in mind that obesity rates and ridiculously high sugar intakes in the United States are not coming from people stirring a teaspoon of sugar in their latte every morning.

Rather, they are the result of the cookies, brownies, cakes, pies, flavored lattes, and monstruous ice cream sundaes that are constantly available to us.

Your overall goal should be decrease your sugar consumption to roughly 30 - 40 grams a day (one pack of sugar contains four), not to replace high sugar intake with high artificial sweetener consumption.

Simply Said: Expeller-Pressed Oil

Pick up a random box of whole grain crackers at a health food store and you’re bound to see “expeller pressed oil” as one of the ingredients.

What is it, exactly ? Is it lower in calories? Is it a healthier fat?

An oil is considered expeller-pressed when it is extracted from its source – a seed or nut – solely through a crushing mechanism (using a device similar to what is pictured on the right).

Consider it a less-processed end product.

Standard oils (i.e: the oil used for Doritos) are extracted chemically with the aid of hexane, a petrochemical also used as a paint diluent and solvent.

Hexane was actually classified as a Hazardous Air Pollutant in 1993 by the Environmental Protection Agency, and can lead to serious health complications if inhaled.

There are currently studies being done on hexane consumption in the diet, mainly to determine if any links can be made between its consumption and higher risks of cancer.

What is known is that the release of hexane into the atmosphere by conventional oil processing methods ultimately creates greenhouse gases.

From a nutrition standpoint, though, expeller pressed oil is still a fat clocking in at nine calories per gram.

Quick and Healthy Recipe: Oat Bran Pancakes

I received this recipe in my e-mail today from the American Institute for Cancer Research.

It sounds delicious -- and has a nice nutritional profile to boot -- so I figured I would post it here for all of you to make at home and enjoy!

INGREDIENTS

1/2 cup flour
1/2 cup oat bran
1 Tbsp. sugar
1/4 tsp. baking soda
1/8 tsp. salt
3/4 cup plus
2 Tbsp. nonfat buttermilk
1 egg
1 Tbsp. canola oil
1 cup fresh blueberries
1 medium banana, thinly sliced
Powdered sugar, as garnish
Fresh mint sprigs, as garnish

STEPS

In a medium bowl, combine the flour, oat bran, sugar, baking soda and salt.

In another bowl, whisk together the buttermilk, egg and oil until well combined. Pour this mixture into the dry ingredients. Mix with a fork until they are just combined. The batter should have the thickness of yogurt.

Spray a griddle or large, nonstick skillet very lightly with cooking spray and place it over medium heat.

When it is hot, ladle about 1/4 cup of the batter into the pan, spreading it to make a 5 inch pancake.

Cook until small holes appear and the bottom of the pancake is brown, about 2 minutes.

Carefully flip and cook until the pancake is brown on the second side.

Place the finished pancakes on a baking sheet (without overlapping) and set in a warm oven while the rest of the pancakes are cooked.

To serve, top with the fruit and a dusting of powdered sugar. Garnish with a mint sprig, if desired.

Makes 3 servings (2 pancakes each).

Per serving: 300 calories, 8 g total fat (1 g saturated fat), 56 g carbohydrate, 10 g protein, 5 g dietary fiber, 260 mg sodium

Numbers Game: Answer

Since 1982, the standard size of a hamburger in Canada has increased 112 percent. Pasta servings have expanded by 480 percent.

(Source: Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion)

Wow.

That certainly helps explain rising obesity rates in Canada.

In 1978, 14 percent of the Canadian adult population was obese. In 2004? 23 percent.

That's a 64 percent increase, simultaneous with the above-mentioned exploding portions.

In The News: The "C" Word

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With Sweetness Comes Pain

If you are an avid chewer of sugarfree gum like myself, take a moment to read this post.

As some of you may already know, the overwhelming majority of sugarfree products – from coffee syrups to gum to yogurt – contain a sugar alcohol and natural laxative known as sorbitol.

Sorbitol in and of itself is not worrisome, but, when consumed in large amounts, it can do quite a number on your digestive system.

A stick or two of sugarfree gum a day is no cause for concern, but I am increasingly seeing people consume a variety of sugarfree products throughout the day, thereby obtaining a significant amount of sorbitol from their diet.

Research over the past twenty years has repeatedly shown that even just ten grams of sorbitol a day can have detrimental effects on our stomachs and intestinal tracts.

To put this into an easy-to-relate context: one stick of sugarfree gum contains one gram, sugarfree candies provide between two and three grams a piece, and a large coffee with sugarfree syrup can contain up to eight grams!

Of particular note is a small, but still significant, 1985 study published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology which concluded that approximately one third of adults suffer from sorbitol intolerance, further exacerbating symptoms.

What exactly happens?

As a calorie-free sweetener, sorbitol is undigested.

It consequently sits in our small intestine, where bacteria eat it up, producing hydrogen gas in the process. That hydrogen gas causes flatulence, stomach aches, and significant bloating.

When consumed in very large amounts, diarrhea is a common side effect.

Keep in mind that some of these symptoms often do not appear until hours after consumption. And although chewing gum is not swallowed, the sorbitol is certainly ingested.

Sugarfree is not a green light for unlimited consumption. Not only can you end up consuming too much sorbitol; these products still have calories!

In The News: Maniacal Monarch

The New York Times' Andrew Martin penned a fascinating piece on the inner workings of the Burger King machine.

If we let figures do the talking, they tell us that the suits at BK are doing something right when it comes to finances and popularity among their target demographic.

"The company has recorded 16 consecutive quarters of growth in same-store sales — those open at least a year, a common industry measure. And in the last quarter... Burger King posted a remarkably strong 4.5 percent gain in same-store sales, even as McDonald’s and its other competitors showed recent signs of weakening amid a souring economy."

Their stock has crept up 32 percent over the past twelve months, too.

Too bad their practices are nothing to write home about.

Case in point? "When McDonald’s... agreed to pay farm workers in Florida a penny more per pound to pick tomatoes, Burger King dug in its heels and refused," Martin reveals.

Lovely.

Meanwhile, The Portion Teller Plan author -- and New York University adjunct faculty member -- Dr. Lisa Young points out some of their nutritionally hideous items.

"'BK is pretty shameless with regards to portions,” Lisa Young, a dietitian in New York who has tracked the increase in portion sizes at fast-food restaurants, wrote in an e-mail message. “Bigger than McDonald's... The Quad [Stacker hamburger] has 1,000 calories, no veggies allowed!”

As Dr. Young explained in a self-penned article for MSNBC.com last October, "Hardee’s, Burger King and Wendy's all have introduced 1,000-calorie-plus sandwiches stuffed with 12 ounces of beef — the amount of meat recommended for two days for most adults" over the past few years.

Martin explains that McDonald's ended up bearing the majority of the brunt after fast-food documentary Supersize Me unveiled the murky world of fast food. Burger King continued selling monstrously large items with little criticism or media scrutiny.

And who can forget this heinous 2006 television commercial for their Texas Double Whopper?

A Doctor's Delicious Orders

Dr. Andrew Weil is a renowned name in the field of nutrition who focuses on integrative nutrition (mainly the idea that food's healing properties are a more effective option than that of most over the counter medications) and its role in overall wellness.

Yesterday I was at Whole Foods browsing the food bar section and after picking out my usual (Clif Nectar chocolate walnut bars, Lara key lime pie bars, Pure chocolate brownie bars), I spotted a new product -- Nature Path's Dr. Weil's pure fruit and nut bars.

The banana manna flavor caught my eye. Three ingredients (organic dates, organic dried bananas, and organic almonds), 180 calories, four grams of fiber, sodium-free, no added sugars of any kind, six grams of heart-healthy fats, and ten percent of the daily potassium recommendation!

There are four other flavors, including pistachio-nut and chocolate-coconut.

By the way, chocolate-flavored fruit and nut bars are a great way to indulge a chocolate craving.

They contain pure cocoa, which is naturally sugar-free and provides an intense taste comparable to that of conventional dark chocolate.

I always make sure to have some in my office desk drawer and my backpack.

You Ask, I Answer: Water/Weight Loss

Is it true that drinking lots of water is a healthy way to lose weight? I read that if you drink water when you are hungry you can fool your body into thinking it's full.

-- Lydia T.
San Antonio, TX

As refreshing and hydrating as H2O is, it is not a fat-melter or metabolism booster.

While there are instances in which thirst is confused with hunger, thereby resulting in the consumption of extraneous calories, the actual feeling of hunger is a survival mechanism.

Your body is demanding calories, vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients.

Trying to fool it by chugging liters of water is not the answer.

You'll simply end up making more trips to the bathroom and the hunger pains will only get worse.

If you are hungry in between meals, the best thing to do is to have low-calorie nutritious snacks such as fresh fruit, a half cup of cut up vegetables (i.e.: carrots and celery) with a tablespoon of two or hummus, a few whole grain crackers with salsa, a fruit and nut bar (like Lara, Clif Nectar, or Pure), or a small handful of raw nuts.

This way you respond adequately to your body's needs without excessive calories, added sugars, or unhealthy fats.

The one way in which water can play an important role in weight loss is if it substitutes for other beverages.

For instance, someone with a three-cans-of-soda-a-day habit can knock off hundreds of calories a day by replacing two (or all three!) cans with water (or any other calorie-free beverage, really).

While diet soda is calorie-free, remember that the phosphoric acid (present in regular and diet sodas) can be detrimental for bone health. I certainly wouldn't recommend someone chug three cans of Diet Coke a day.

Numbers Game: Up, Up, and Away!

Since 1982, the standard size of a hamburger in Canada has increased ______ percent. Pasta servings have expanded by _________ percent.

(Source: Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion)

a) 85, 198
b) 56, 278
c) 112, 480
d) 105, 374

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

Say What?: Lip Service

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

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

Nope.

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

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

Let me give you some background first.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big whoop.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you think Diet Pepsi Max will sink or float?

In The News: A Diabetes Dilemma?

Oh boy.

The New York Times is reporting on a diabetes study that has been abruptly halted due to a much-higher than expected participant death rate among those most carefully controlling their blood sugar levels.

The "major federal study... found that lowering blood sugar actually increased... risk of death," the article explains.

"The findings inject an element of uncertainty into what has been dogma -- that the lower the blood sugar the better and that lowering blood sugar levels to normal saves lives," it continues.

This is a perfect example of a study finding being misconstrued.

Let's consider a few facts.

The average participant was 62 years old, had been living with diabetes for approximately 10 years, and also had other conditions, like high cholesterol and high blood pressure.

Patients were randomly assigned one of three treatments -- controlling blood sugar, controlling cholesterol, and controlling blood pressure.

The group strictly controlling only blood sugar had a higher death rate. The cause behind most of them? Heart disease.

It annoys me that this could be erroneously interpreted, wrongly accusing blood sugar monitoring of increasing one's risk of dying of heart disease.

It is clear that when it comes to diabetes, blood glucose levels must be carefully monitored and tracked.

It is by no means unsafe; in fact, consistent, strict monitoring is encouraged.

I spoke with New York University clinical nutrition assistant professor Lisa Sasson about this study.

She agrees that the study might be misconstrued and people living with diabetes might wrongly start questioning the importance of controlling their blood sugar.

In reality, they should be considering the bigger picture of the study and its subjects.

"If these people were strictly controlling only their blood sugar, it is very likely that to compensate for certain foods they were restricting, they were consuming calories from salty or fatty foods that exacerbated the other conditions," she says.

Sasson thinks the issue isn't that controlling blood sugar leads to death, but rather that concentrating on only one of many health conditions is too narrow of a focus.

Sasson expressed some frustration with the state of research. "I wish that the bulk of research would focus more on prevention. With a lot of these conditions -- diabetes, cancer, heart disease -- the key is prevention. Once you have them, it's a real problem."

Numbers Game: Answer

A "country fried steak & eggs classic combo platter" at International House of Pancakes provides 1,535 calories, 102 grams of fat, 162 percent of a day's worth of saturated fat, and 123 percent of a day's worth of sodium.

This dish is not advertised as shareable.

Other options don't fare much better.

The omelette feast platter, while clocking in at a less astounding 800 calories, contains 95 percent of the daily saturated fat recommended limit and 40% of a day's worth of sodium.

The "fruity country griddle cakes"? 945 calories, a day's worth of saturated fat, and 81 percent of the daily sodium limit.

The healthy sounding harvest grain and nut pancake combination platter (two bacon strips accompanying these pancakes IHOP describes as made with "hearty grains and wholesome oats")? 1,030 calories, 120 percent of a day's worth of saturated fat, and 86 percent of the daily sodium limit.

These horrifying figures aren't limited to breakfast options.

A seemingly inoffensive Southwestern chicken fajita with tortilla salad adds up to 1,090 calories, 85 grams of fat, a day's worth of saturated fat, and more than half of the daily sodium limit.

And, by the way, shame on IHop for failing to provide nutrition information on their website. These monstrosities should not slip under the radar.

PS: That lovely concoction accompanying this post is IHop's big steak omelette.

You Ask, I Answer: Fruit & Vegetable Ripeness/Vitamin & Mineral Content

Does the nutrition of a fruit or vegetable depend on how ripe it is?

-- Claire Snyder
Tampa, FL

An apparently simple question with a semi-complex answer.

Technically, yes.

Some fruits and vegetables offer different nutrition profiles depending on what stage of ripeness they are at.

Take tomatoes.

Sun-ripened vine tomatoes, for example, are ideal because they produce plenty of antioxidants and polyphenols while fully ripening, thanks to the sun's rays.

Conventional tomatoes, however, are picked when they are still green. Days later, they arrive at your supermarket.

In between being picked and going up for sale, they (as well as avocados, pineapples, and apples, among other fruits) are sprayed with ethylene, a plant hormone that speeds up the ripening process.

It's not so much that ethylene is harmful as much as this artificial ripening process does not allow the fruit to provide as much nutrition as it could.

Some of the chemical processes that occur as a result of exposure to ultraviolet light do not take place. In turn, some enzymes are not present in that tomato.

By the way, this is why often times a great-looking tomato is tasteless. Some of the enzymes a tomato produces as a result of exposure to the sun greatly affect its taste!

This is one big reason why buying local and sesonal produce is recommended.

Not only is it an easier load on the environment, it also increases your chances of buying produce that has been ripened by nature, in turn providing more nutrition.

This is not to say conventional tomatoes are "unhealthy" or "bad for you." However, you are definitely sacrificing some nutrition for convenience.

Assuming you are eating naturally ripened food, though, once it's okay for consumption (its texture and taste are palatable), its nutritional profile stays the same for a few days.

Tuesday's ripened banana will offer the same amount of potassium, Vitamin C, and Vitamin B6 on Thursday.

Before any glycemic index fans jump down my throat: yes, the glycemic index of that banana increases slightly as it ripens, but not significantly.

Say What?: (Purposefully) Smelly Shoes

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

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

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

Blegh!

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

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

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

Numbers Game: International House of Horro.... Er, Pancakes

A "country fried steak & eggs classic combo platter" at International House of Pancakes provides ________ calories, ________ grams of fat, ___________ percent of a day's worth of saturated fat, and __________ percent of a day's worth of sodium.

a) 1,535/105/162 %/123%
b) 1,021/90/127%/82%
c) 1,904/126/250%/198%
d) 1,368/101/104%/156%

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

In The News: Deworming Treats

This is certainly a new level of functional foods -- a deworming snack!

Kraft Foods -- owned by Altria -- has been in secret talks with food chemistry company TyraTech to incorporate deworming components into a snack food to be launched in rural regions of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where millions of young children suffer from intestinal parasitic infections (the stomach-turning picture at the right serves as a visual aide).

" The pesticides, explained R. Douglas Armstrong, chief executive of TyraTech, are derived from plant oils," reads the New York Times article.

For now, the technology is still at a pretty early stage. For instance, there's the issue of how to incorporate it into food without tainting flavors.

Additionally, some more tweaking apparently needs to be done to make this chemical strong enough to eradicate worms without debilitating the host (humans).

If it works out, it's a great feat for Kraft.

It also brings about an interesting situation. When parasitic infections are a major concern, does it matter if the solution is embedded in a mostly calorically empty snack food?

Wolf In Sheep's Clothing: Multigrain Tostitos

Who doesn't love to munch on chips every now and then?

Unfortunately, most brands pack in quite a caloric punch, largely due to the oil they fry their chips in.

Food companies are aware of this undesirable trait and always looking to market a not-so-nutritious item as one that will please the health-conscious snacker.

Enter multigrain Tostitos.

On paper, the concept is eye-catching -- four whole grains in one chip!

A look at the ingredient list identifies them: whole oat flour, whole buckwheat flour, whole wheat flour, and buckwheat fiber.

So what's the problem?

These four whole grains are at the end of the list. In other words, there's not that much of them.

In fact, sugar is the third ingredient on the ingredient list, and each serving of multigran Tostitos only contains one gram of sugar.

So you can bet that any ingredient that appears after sugar barely registers.

Despite all these all-star grains, each serving musters up a mere two grams of fiber.

Additionally, the second ingredient is corn oil.

It's not a surprise, given that just one ounce of these chips contains eight grams of fat -- just as much as regular potato chips.

In fact, you would need two servings (300 calories!) to add just four grams of fiber to your diet. A half cup of raspberries offers just as much fiber in a 32 calorie package!

Do corn chips have a place in our diet? Of course -- that's what discretionary calories are for.

However, think of them and potato chips as fraternal twins -- not identical, but VERY similar.

A sprinkling of whole wheat flour does not turn them into a health food that can be enjoyed in large quantities.

In The News: It Seemed Just A Tad Too Easy, Didn't It?

Remember the recent news I shared of mandatory calorie labeling about to become a reality at chain restaurants in New York City?

Ah, those were the days. I was so optimistic and full of life.

Well, bad news -- Marion Nestle reports that the entire proposal is under litigation.

The National Restaurant Association (the other NRA) pitched a fit and will do whatever it takes to stop it from happening.

Luckily, the folks at the Center for Science in the Public Interest are ready to counter-attack.

Game on! This should be a fun one to keep an eye on.

In The News/Weekend Fun: Tear-free Onions!

Thanks to gene technology, tear-free onions will very likely be available at supermarkets around the world starting in 2017!

Frightful Fiesta

Taco Bell debuted a new advertisement for their Fiesta platters during the 2008 Superbowl.

They are clearly going for the office lunch crowd.

The commercial features two cube buddies rushing to a meeting, fiesta platters in hand, only to be stopped by three mariachis who set up a small table for them in the middle of the cube farm, urging them to slow down and enjoy their meal.

The two employees proceed to happily chow down on chicken soft tacos, seasoned rice, refried beans, chips, and salsa.

The nutrition facts, however, aren't so funky dory.

Each platter adds up to:

1,060 calories
50 grams of fat
12 grams (60 percent of a day's worth) of saturated fat
1 gram of trans fat (remember, the recommendation is set at ZERO)
An astounding 3,420 milligrams (almost a day and a half's worth!) of sodium.

The thought of someone unknowingly consuming that much sodium in one sitting truly angers me.

The one question that comes to my mind is, "why?"

Why doesn't Taco Bell offer this product with 300 less calories, half the saturated fat, and half the sodium?

Well, I suppose I DO know why. Simple economics. Cost. It's cheaper to provide inexpensive processed food than to buy, store, maintain, and sell fresher items.

Sigh....

Numbers Game: Answer

A 2007 Internet survey of 20,000 adults in the United States by the National Lipid Association found that three percent were able to identify the desired values for total cholesterol, HDL ("good") cholesterol and triglycerides.

A shockingly low figure.

I'm willing to bet that the remaining ninety-seven percent not only do not know what ideal values they should have, but are also unaware how nutrition affects those numbers!

As far as figures go, when it comes to total cholesterol, you want to be at less than 200 mg/dL.

A number between 200 and 239 is considered a moderate risk (this risk is lowered if the number is a result of low 'bad' cholesterol -- LDL -- and very high 'good' cholesterol -- HDL), and anything over 240 significantly increases your risk of developing coronary heart disease.

Moving on to HDL ('good cholesterol', which sucks up cholesterol in the body and transports it to the liver for processing), a value of at least 60 mg/dL is required for it to serve as a protective force against heart disease.

Anything below 40 men and 50 for women is considered low and another risk factor for coronary heart disease.

Although triglycerides are a lipid, high values are linked with excessive intake of refined carbohydrates (processed flours, sugar, etc.)

Anything below 150 mg/dL is great, while a number between 150 and 199 should raise the "Caution!" flag.

Triglyceride levels are considered high at anywhere between 200 and 499 mg/dL, and anything above 500 is cause for serious concern.

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

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

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

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

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

You can view the actual bill here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You "Ask", I Answer: Evaporated Cane Juice

Evaporated cane juice has more minerals [than sugar].

-- Anonymous
Via the blog

Wow, the evaporated cane juice lovers have been out in full force lately.

They appear to be offended by the fact that I referred to it as sugar under a fancier name.

I clarified that it undergoes less processing than sugar.

However, for all intents and purposes, from a caloric and metabolic standpoint, it is standard table sugar.

So what about the claim that evaporated cane juice has more minerals?

Let me start off by saying that one of the many reasons why high intakes of sugar are discouraged is that, in order to convert it to glucose, our bodies need B vitamins.

Since sugar is entire lacking them, our body must take B vitamins away from our cells in order to metabolize it.

Advocates of evaporated cane juice are quick to point out that their sweetener one-ups sugar since it contains vitamin B2.

Fair enough, but what they are forgetting to mention is that in order to get even a small fraction of nutrients from it, you need the equivalent of seven teaspoons -- roughly 100 calories!

Seven teaspoons provide 9% of the B2 daily requirement, 3% of our daily calcium needs, 3% of the iron recommended daily vale, and 4.5% of our manganese needs.

What's always funny to me is that all the B vitamins (apart from B12, which vegans need to specifically seek out) are very easy to get, as they are present in most foods.

Fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, dairy, meats, and fortified soy products are good sources.

Remember, too, that, by law, enriched grains must contain some of the B vitamins (including riboflavin, also known as B2). So, even something as nutritionally insignificant as Wonder Bread is a source!

Therefore, the presence of vitamin B2 does not make evaporated cane juice all that special.

A cookie, brownie, or any candy made with evaporated cane juice is not nutritious; it should be considered discretionary calories.

You could munch on a handful of cereal, eat a quarter of a banana, or have a few almonds to get that much riboflavin.

This concept that evaporated cane juice is far superior to sugar because it contains trace amounts of certain vitamins and minerals (unless consumed in large quantities) seems faulty to me.

It's equivalent to someone defending their choice to eat nothing but vegetables because lettuce contains protein.

Yes, at a mere 0.6 grams per cup. You would need six cups to get a pretty irrelevant 3.6 grams.

I have no problem with people buying or using evaporated cane juice for sweetening purposes. Basing that purchase on nutrition, however, is not accurate or informed.

You Ask, I Answer: Fit For Life/Body Cycles

A friend of mine just bought a book called Fit For Life, about healthy eating and weight loss.

She was telling me that the book talks about our bodies having three cycles.

For example, between the hours of 4 AM and noon, our bodies eliminate toxins, so the only things we should eat and drink for those eight hours are fruits and fruit juices.

Is that true?

-- Stephanie Davis
(location withheld)

I haven't read the book myself, but I don't see any reason to recommend that people only eat fruit up until noon.

Our bodies' metabolic processes operate all day long.

Our kidneys and livers are constantly eliminating toxins from our systems. They don't wait until noon to put up the "Back tomorrow morning" sign.

And, as healthy as fruits are, they don't make for a very complete breakfast.

They don't provide protein or healthy fats, for example, which help us achieve feelings of satiety.

Adding fruit to whole grains like oatmeal or even having it as a side dish to a healthy breakfast like avocado slices on whole/sprouted grain toast is a much better idea.

While having only fruit in the morning will certainly lower the typical caloric amount of most people's breakfasts, it does not ensure weight-loss success.

I could very much see someone eating only an apple and a banana for breakfast and being so ravenously hungry at lunch that they would binge-eat and consume too many calories.

I'd be interested in knowing what reasoning this book uses to defend such an absurd recommendation.