You Ask, I Answer: Dyes/Farmed Salmon

Are the synthetic dyes [fed to farmed salmon] harmful?

I googled astaxanthin and found a website talking about how it's an antioxidant and prevents cancer and is necessary for the healthy growth of the farmed salmon.

Surely that can't be true.

-- Kristin
Via the blog

That is technically true, but there is more to this story.

While both astaxanthin and canthaxanthin are deemed safe by the Food & Drug Administration (although people trust that organization to varying degrees), certain concentrations of canthaxanthin have been associated with eye defects.

Interestingly, different countries have different ideas of how many parts per million of that synthetic dye are "safe."

That being said, the vast majority of salmon farmed in the United States and Europe is only fed astaxanthin.

In other parts of the world, though, farmed salmon is only fed canthaxanthin (it is the cheaper of the two dyes.)

I still would not be too worried. You would need to be eating a LOT of salmon dyed with canthaxanthin to be affected.

What all of this ties into, though, is another controversial topic – COOL (Country of Origin Labeling.)

Although it is required for all fish sold in the United States, I have seen it very sparingly in supermarkets.

As far as I am concerned, the core issue surrounding these food dyes isn't so much possible health repercussions, but rather truthful advertising to consumers.

If farmed salmon were to either remain gray or be dyed another color (say, white), then consumers would immediately know they are not purchasing a wild variety, and there would be no room for mislabeling (remember this infamous study by Marian Burros of The New York Times?).

Since farmed salmon is nutritionally inferior to its wild counterpart (more saturated fat, higher Omega 6 fatty acid content, lower Omega 3 fatty acid content), people should not be left in the dark.

This is not to say farmed salmon should completed avoided or viewed in the same light as deep fried fish nuggets, but consumers have a right to know exactly what they are putting on their plates.

Twisted Logic

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

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

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

Case in point: yogurt pretzels.

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

110 calories
0 grams of saturated fat
0.5 grams of sugar

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

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

130 calories
4.5 grams of saturated fat
13 grams of sugar

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some more food for thought?

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

You Ask, I Answer: Food Dyes

I was trying to think of things that are artificially dyed red and salmon came to mind.

Farmed salmon would be gray without the dye they are fed because they don't eat their natural ocean diet of krill.

I know some other meats are dyed red to make them look more appetizing to people.

What are these dyes made of?

-- Kristin
Via the blog

For the most part, farmed salmon are simply fed synthetic versions of two pigments of the carotenoid family -- astaxanthin and canthaxanthin.

Wild salmon take in the naturally occuring versions of these carotenoids by virtue of their aquatic diet.

Farmed salmon -- subsisting mainly on grains and corn -- need these dyes added to their feed so they can have a pleasing rosy color.

This is mostly done for aesthetic purposes.

Would you be interested in taking home a filet of salmon that was completely gray? No, you wouldn't. And salmon farming companies know this very well.

Numbers Game: Answer

Cosi patrons, take note.

Opting to have your salad of choice dressed with the house vinaigrette tacks on 357 calories.

This partially explains why people sometimes express confusion when, despite substituting many of their regular foods with salad, weight loss does not occur.

It is even more difficult to gauge how many calories you get from salad dressing at salad bars, where you use enormous ladles to dress your individual concoction (one full ladle can contain up to 600 calories of some dressings!)

If you opt to have full-fat dressings, ask for them on the side, and aim to use no more than half of the amount you are provided.

This is not to say that fat-free dressings can be poured liberally.

Most dressings lacking fat provide flavor by throwing in higher amounts of sugar, thereby still containing a good number of calories.

I suggest using a small amount of full-fat dressing and mixing it with other low-calorie ingredients (think balsamic vinegar or fresh squeezed lemon juice.)

You Ask, I Answer: Omega-3 Fortified Eggs

What is the process exactly in adding Omega-3 to eggs?

How is this done?

I know the eggs are "fortified" but what does this mean?

-- Lori (last name unknown)
Via the blog

Before I get to your actual question, this is a good time to point out the difference between fortification and enrichment.

When enriching a food or ingredient (for instance, white flour,) food manufacturers are adding back nutrients that were already present in that food or ingredient prior to processing.

Fortification, meanwhile, entails the addition of one or more nutrients that are not inherently part of that food or ingredient.

Similarly, adding higher quantities of a nutrient than what is naturally present in a food or ingredient also falls under the "fortification" umbrella.

As far as Omega-3 fortified eggs, it is very simply done by adding food sources of Omega-3 to chicken feed -- usually fish oils or flax.

Food For Thought -- Literally!

Kellogg's has just launched Live Bright -- a "brain health bar."

What leads them to make this claim? The inclusion -- through fortification, of course -- of 100 milligrams of DocosaHexaenoic Acid (DHA, the same Omega-3 fatty acid found in fatty fish like salmon, tuna, and sardines.)

This is a perfect example of nutrient isolation gone awry.

Does DHA play a role in cognitive health? It very much appears that way.

Then again, so do vitamin C, vitamin E, folate, zinc, iron, and a variety of polyphenols and antioxidants.

In other words -- orange juice companies and blueberry farmers could, I suppose, also make brain health claims.

As could the most sugary of cereals, for that matter, as long as it is fortified with the above mentioned nutrients.

These types of health claims end up having very little meaning because they make up only portion of the total puzzle.

While DHA can help with cognitive health, so does maintaining a healthy weight, keeping blood pressure at desired levels, and limiting saturated fat intake (neuroscience research studies have shown a link between high saturated fat intake and a decline in cognitive function over time.)

Including one of these bars in a diet generally low in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains -- and high in saturated fat and sodium -- isn't going to be much help.

If you're going to reach for a DHA fortified food, I would rather you pick up DHA fortified eggs, which contain a superior nutritional profile to what is, essentially, a candy bar.

In The News: An Odd Solution

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that skyrocketing obesity and diabetes rates in India are leaving citizens looking for healthier alternatives to mithai -- "sweet, fudgy goodies rich with cardamom, pistachio and saffron... eagerly eaten, given as gifts, [or] offered to the gods]" during annual Diwali celebrations.

Partially due to an improved economy, many Hindus are opting to replace the sugary treats with clothes, electronics, and jewelry.

Two interesting points stand out here.

Number one: sales of sugar-free mithai are improving.

Number two: the government has taken action by releasing "millions of tons of sugar into the markets... in a bid to drive down prices."

As you may imagine, both of these developments leave me shaking my head.

First of all, sugar-free varieties of candies are not necessarily lower in calories.

The overwhelming majority of sugar-free candies contain higher amounts of fat than their standard counterparts, often times resulting in mere 10 or 20 calorie differences.

Remember, whereas sugar adds 4 calories per gram, fat contribues 9 calories per gram.

Of course, the average consumer is not aware of this, and often finds themselves thinking they can eat more simply because sugar is absent. Not quite.

And lastly, why on Earth is the government's solution providing more sugar at lower prices?

If a large percentage of the country is concerned about obesity and diabetes, cheapening sugary food is not the optimal solution!

Why not look into long-term policy that can begin to address some of the population's needs (for instance, calorie labeling)?

You Ask, I Answer: Nut Butters

I am allergic to peanuts, so peanut butter is out of the question for me.

Of all the other nut butters, which is the most nutritious?

-- Danielle Spolner
San Francisco, CA

All nut butters share similar nutritional profiles.

Peanut, almond, cashew, sunflower seed, and soynut butters all offer protein, healthy fats, and between 175 and 200 calories in a 2 tablespoon serving.

One big plus about almond, cashew, and sunflower seed butters is that they are only available in natural form (meaning they exclusively made of crushed nuts and, in some cases, salt), whereas some brands of peanut and soy butters add partially hydrogenated oils (trans fats) and sugar.

That said, there are a few differences worth pointing out.

Almond butter is the most caloric, but it also offers the highest amount of monounsaturated (heart healthy) fat, vitamin E, and manganese. Of all the nut butters, it has the lowest protein content (4 grams per serving.)

Cashew butter offers the same amount of calories as peanut butter but offers the least amount of vitamin E per serving (2 percent of the Daily Value.)

Sunflowerseed butter is very similar to peanut butter, but offers half the monounsaturated fats.

Soy butter is the highest in protein and lowest in calories. It also, however, provides the lowest value of monounsaturated fats.

Since the differences are quite minimal, I suggest you simply pick the one you enjoy most.

Numbers Game: Dress of Excess

Cosi patrons, take note.

Opting to have your salad of choice dressed with the house vinagreitte tacks on _______ calories.

a) 196
b) 238
c) 310
d) 357

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

You Ask, I Answer: Protein/Abs

One of my friends wants to lose some excess weight from his stomach and have visible abs, so last week he started eating pretty much nothing but lean protein, protein shakes, and steamed vegetables.

He doesn't work out or eat any kind of carbs (apart from the steamed vegetables.)

He says he is already seeing results.

What do you think?

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

I think your friend is absolutely misguided and approaching the situation with very little thought.

While it is true that abs "are made in the kitchen" (meaning that your diet must be very carefully managed, since visible abs are the result of low body fat, rather than endless crunches), eating nothing but protein and steamed vegetables is not the answer.

I don't know what your friend's diet was like prior to this, but it is very likely he will lose weight with this particular way of eating, as I am sure his total daily caloric intake has decreased.

Remember, though, that low-carb diets get rid of water weight in the first few days, which is what I think he refers to when he claims he is "already seeing results."

The fact that he does not work out is a significant problem.

Building muscle tone helps speed up metabolism, thereby facilitating weight loss while maintaining muscle mass (this way, you are losing mostly fat.)

These kind of ultra low-carb diets are also impossible to sustain for more than a few weeks.

If your friend wants to have visible abs, he has to keep a few things in mind:

1) Genetics play a role. Some people have an easier time achieving a six pack, while others can "only" show off a "four-pack" with that same amount of effort.

2) We all have abs. They are invisible, though, when they are hidden by a layer of fat. If you'd like to proudly display them, you must get your body fat down to approximately 6 or 7 percent. That absolutely requires vigorous physical activity several times a week.

3) In order to engage in vigorous physical activity several times a week, he certainky needs to take in more carbs than he is now. Otherwise, he will not have sufficient endurance, and his body will start breaking down muscle to provide him with sufficient energy!

His goal should be to increase physical activity, eat as few processed foods as possible, and maintain a pre-determined caloric range.

Otherwise, I see him lasting two more weeks and then simply going to the other extreme -- declaring this "too difficult" and "not worth it."

Numbers Game: Answer

At McDonald's, an order of small fries and a small soda contains 420 fewer calories than a large order of those same two items.

The purpose of this particular "numbers game" was to show that no matter where you eat, you always have the ability to make better choices.

Many times, when people go to fast food restaurants (especially if it's by choice), they resign themselves to large portions and high calorie amounts, thinking "hey, it's not supposed to be healthy."

Similarly, a lot of people balk at the idea of calorie information being posted at fast food restaurants, claiming people don't go to a burger and fries joint to eat healthy.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean these customers aren't interested in knowing how they can integrate a food they enjoy into a healthier way of eating.

The example provided in this answer is proof that a craving for fries and a soda doesn't necessarily have to add 810 calories to your day (large fries clock in at 500 calories, while a large soda contributes 310 calories.)

You Ask, I Answer: Alpha Tocopherols

I have seen alpha tocopherols on a lot of ingredient lists, especially for packaged products.

What are they, and what purpose do they serve?

-- Andrea Chalen
(city withheld), SC

Alpha Tocopherols are a completely harmless form of Vitamin E.

They are mainly added to human and pet foods to delay spoilage and prevent alterations in taste (that's why "for freshness" is usually added after alpha tocopherols on an ingredient list.)

Much like ascorbic acid (the fancy name for vitamin C), alpha tocopherols are a food additive you shouldn't be concerned about.

In The News: Missing In Action

Ronald McDonald has some 'splaining to do.

His fast-food chain has been "awarded" the most violations for not posting calorie information on various of their New York City stores' menu boards.

In total, 682 violations have been handed out since April.

"About 300 citations were issued during the first six weeks the rules took effect, which was considered a grace period, and did not carry fines. Since then, 388 violations were issued that carry fines between $200 and $2,000 each," reports Crain's New York Business.

McDonald's has acquired 103 violations, Dunkin' Donuts is not far behind with 89, and local fried chicken chain Crown Fried Chicken rounds out the Top 3 with 39 violations to its name.

"Some citations were given for non-compliance and others punished restaurants for not posting information the way the regulations require. For instance, a few restaurants were fined for putting the information in the wrong place or using lettering that was too small."

I notice the linked news article displays a sole comment from someone named "Joe" who claims calorie labeling is "nannying" and "a violation of... life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness."

Considering the amount of people I have heard voice a similar statement, Joe is joking.

For the life of me, though, I have no clue what civil liberties are violated by asking restaurants to post calorie content information.

I also fail to see how such a request can be considered "nannying."

Nobody is being forbidden from buying an 1,100 calorie milkshake. It isn't taxed more heavily than a less caloric option. There isn't a limit on how many times you can order it, or at what time of day.

So where, exactly, is the "you can't tell me what to eat!" defensiveness coming from?

Man, Oh Man...

Have you heard of Taco Bell's Big Bell Box value meal?

According to the nationwide chain, it's "the meal that's made for men"!

Gender roles defined by fast food companies. How... evolved.

Anyhow, for as little as $4.99 (or as much as $5.99, depending where you live), hungry men all over the United States can feast on a volcano taco, a burrito supreme, a crunch wrap supreme, a side order of cinnamon twists, and a large drink.

Or, if you want to talk numbers:

1,670 calories
19 grams of saturated fat (suggested daily maximum*: 20 grams)
2.5 grams of trans fat (no suggested daily maximum, guidelines call for 0 grams)
3,470 milligrams of sodium (suggested daily maximum: 2,400 milligrams)

* = for a 2,000 calorie diet

Calorically speaking, this is equal to THREE Big Macs!

You know, this could very well be the nutrition version of Pandora's box...

You Ask, I Answer: Fish Oil Supplements/Metal Toxicity Cleansings

Yesterday I attended a talk given by an "applied clinical nutritionist" who works at a local pharmacy.

She really advocated the use of supplements for everyone (probably because the pharmacy she works at generates a lot of revenue through the sale of herbs/supplements and homeopathic remedies).

She recommended taking fish oil instead of flax because she said that flax requires an extra step to be processed by the body.

She said that some people's bodies aren't able to perform this extra step and you would never know one way or another, so she just prefers to stick with fish oil.

Since you often recommend flax, what are your thoughts?

She also talked about "cleansing" (the colon in particular).

Her recommendation wasn't about losing weight, but rather to flush out toxins, no matter how healthy your diet.

She said this is needed to flush out "toxins" that accumulate in our bodies from pesticides in food, air pollution, etc.

The cleanse involves eating certain kinds of foods (she wasn't specific) and taking some sort of supplements that help flush your colon, like magnesium (I think).

All of this sounded sort of unnecessary to me.

Is there any evidence that this type of cleanse is beneficial for people whose diets are already consist of nutritious, whole foods?

-- Kristin (last name withheld)
Austin, TX

Before I begin, let me thank Kristin for following up her question with an e-mail revealing the results of her own investigative research.

Turns out that acquiring the "applied clinical nutritionist" title is a simple task.

"It's a self paced certificate program through the Texas Chiropractic College. To earn the certificate, you must be a health care professional, or the staff or student of a health care professional (I suppose you could be a dental receptionist). You have to attend 7 seminars (100 hrs), take a test and pay $1400. In return, you get a shiny wall plaque," writes Kristin.

Sigh. Of course.

This is precisely why I strongly (I'm talking "The Incredible Hulk" strong) believe the American Dietetic Association needs to launch a multimillion dollar campaign raising awareness of what makes Registered Dietitians different from all these other empty titles.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of individuals in charge of booking and hiring speakers for wellness events, health fairs, and media outlets have absolutely no clue what the difference is between a Registered Dietitian, a "naturopath," or an applied clinical nutritionist.

Anyhow, time to answer Kristin's question.

As far as the fish vs. flax issue, I agree with the speaker... to a point.

It is true that the Omega-3 fats found in flaxseed (ALA) need to be converted by the body to DPA and EHA.

It is also accurate to say that the majority of people do not convert ALA efficiently.

A significant factor inhibiting conversion is that Omega 6 fatty acids compete with Omega 3 fatty acids for the same desaturase (conversion) enzymes.

Keeping in mind that our current food supply contributes an abundance of Omega 6, you can see why ALA --> DHA/EPA conversion isn't happening as optimally as we would expect.

That being said, I still recommend ground flax simply because most people don't consume much of ANY Omega-3's.

Simply put, ground flaxseeds are an effortless way to add some Omega 3's to a variety of foods (not everyone likes fish or wants to eat it.)

I also hope that the speaker's recommendation of taking fish oil supplements was mainly targeted at people who do not consume fish.

I would much rather you get your DHA and EPA from actual food (i.e.: tuna, salmon, sardines) first, and consider supplements a "second best" choice.

Furthermore, I hope she stressed that non-DHA/EPA sources of Omega-3's offer a wide array of nutrients.

Ditching walnuts and flaxseed and instead swallowing a spoonful of fish oil every morning isn't necessarily a smart swap.

What I COMPLETELY disagree with her on (and why I doubt she is an RD) is her colon cleanse recommendation. Ugh. Ugh. UGH!

It is unnecessary and not particularly healthy.

If people want to "flush out" their colons, all they need to do is consume more insoluble fiber and liquids. Plain and simple.

Not to mention, I would love to ask this woman how exactly toxins accumulate in a body with a regularly functioning liver and kidneys.

There is no evidence whatsoever supporting the belief that we need to cleanse ourselves of toxins.

What I find most illogical is that people who furiously support colon cleanses are self-proclaimed "health experts," who apparently fail to realize that colon cleansing eliminates all the HEALTHY bacteria in the human gut and can cause electrolyte imbalances!

If you'll excuse me, I now need to go center myself.

Stop the Proteinsanity!

Think food manufacturers had run out of places to add soy protein? Guess again!

Say hello to Kosmo Protein Coffee, "a specialty [performance] coffee with 4 grams of plant-based soy protein per serving to keep your muscles strong."

Did I mention it was created by a Registered Dietitian??

I am amazed at how strongly the "you need tons of protein every day!" marketing has stuck, even half a decade after the low carb 2.0 craze.

I simply don't get what audience this product is aimed at. Protein-obsessed bodybuilders? Atkins addicts?

If you want an extra 4 grams of protein with your coffee, simply add half a cup of soy or dairy milk to it.

Or, accompany it with a toasted slice of whole grain bread (for an EXTRA four grams, spread 1 tablespoon of peanut butter on it).

Although protein is an essential nutrient, the average person in the United States is getting more than they need.

Besides, extra protein doesn't necessarily mean extra healthy. It simply tacks on a few extra calories.

Numbers Game: Go Small, Lose Big

There you are, driving down the highway.

You zoom by one McDonald's, two McDonald's, three McDonald's. ENOUGH! The craving for fries and a Coke can no longer be silenced.

You pull up to the drive-thru window.

You're not that hungry, but you figure, if you're going to have fries, you might as well go all out and get the large size, right?

Well, consider the following:

Satisfy your craving with a small order of fries and a small soda (rather than large fries and a large soda) and save _______ calories.

a) 198
b) 275
c) 362
d) 420

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

You Ask, I Answer/In The News: Vitamin D requirements

I read today that the recommended amount of vitamin D has doubled due to a new study.

I thought most people get enough of it.

How much vitamin D do we get from dairy as compared to being out in the sun?

--Hemi
Via the blog

The issue of Vitamin D requirements being too low has been a hot topic in the nutrition field for years.

According to current recommendations, children and adults up to the age of 50 should get at least 200 International Units, adults 50 to 71 years of age should aim for 400 IUs, and anyone above the age of 71 should be taking in 600.

The new guidelines you are referring to bump up the 200 IUs figure to 400 IUs.

Even so, many researchers think everyone should aim for 1,000 IUs a day!

The best source of Vitamin D is the sun, but this can get complicated.

After all, we get this vitamin from exposure to UVB rays, which are not as powerful in winter months and have a harder time getting through on cloud-covered days.

Additionally, the massive use of moisturizers and creams that block out UVB rays prevents many people from absorbing a good deal of "solar powered" vitamin D.

Some fortified foods (i.e.: cereals, soy milks, and dairy milk) provide vitamin D, while others (tuna, salmon, and... ugh, cod liver oil) do so naturally.

Despite this, it can be very difficult to meet the Vitamin D recommended intakes without some sort of supplementation.

For example, a cup of fortified dairy milk provides a quarter of a day's worth of Vitamin D (using 400 IUs as the goal).

Not bad, but unless you're planning on downing four glasses of milk a day, you will come up short.

Keep in mind, too, that many dairy products (like yogurt, cottage cheese, and ice cream) are NOT fortified with vitamin D.

Going back to the sun, the general recommendation is that 30 minutes of exposure to sunlight twice a week provides sufficient levels vitamin D.

Interestingly, research studies earlier this year concluded that individuals living in countries near the equator tend to have higher vitamin D levels than their counterparts to the North and South.

You Ask, I Answer: Quinoa Cookies

This weekend at a health food store I saw that a company called Andean Dreams sells quinoa cookies!

I have tried quinoa in the past and think it's bland.

If I was to snack on just one of these cookies a day (only 140 calories), would it count as a serving of quinoa?

-- Natalie (last name withheld)
Hackensack, NJ

That would certainly be convenient, wouldn't it?

I'm going to have to burst your bubble and tell you that no, two of these cookies don't come close to a serving of actual quinoa.

Let me explain why.

First up, the ingredient list:

"Organic Royal Quinoa flour, tapioca flour, rice flour, non-hydrogenated palm fruit oil, sugar cane juice, brown sugar, Quinoa pop grains, sodium bicarbonate (baking soda), orange peel."

Although quinoa flour is a whole grain (offering approximately 4 grams of fiber per quarter cup), these cookies contain a mix of quinoa, tapioca, and rice flour.

Thus, they are technically "cookies made with quinoa flour" rather than "quinoa cookies," but that's marketing for you!

Notice, too, that there are two ingredients contributing sugar (sugar cane juice and brown sugar.)

Now, let's look at the nutrition facts.

Two cookies contain less than a gram of fiber, and a mere gram of protein.

Again, this is inferior to eating half a cup (one serving) of pure quinoa, which adds up to 3 grams of fiber and 7 grams of protein.

Seeking healthy ingredients in otherwise nutritionally empty foods is exactly what many food companies want you to do.

I, however, would like you to enjoy a cookie because of its flavor, rather than a healthy ingredient that, as a result of either being heavily processed or mixed with refined grains and sugars, ends up contributing very little to the product's nutritional profile.

If you find quinoa bland, try topping it with sautéed vegetables or adding chopped walnuts and raisins to it.

If you find it bland after implementing those ideas, then just enjoy other whole grains.

Although quinoa offers plenty of nutrition, so do many other foods.

Numbers Game: Answer

A cookies & ice cream milkshake from the California-based fast food chain Fatburger contains 1,180 calories and 26.5 teaspoons of added sugar.

For those of you keeping track, that's 32 more calories than eight cans of Coke and as much sugar as one and a half pints of Ben & Jerry's vanilla ice cream.

What I find most frustrating -- and annoying -- is that Fatburger only offers this beverage in a 16 oz serving.

As we know from Brian Wansink's research, most people ordering this will indeed drink the entire thing, even if by the twelfth ounce they feel full.

Why not make this size the "large" and also offer 8 and 12 ounce varieties?

Were that the case, a "small" would pack in a more reasonable, although still significant, 590 calories.

I suppose they need to live up to the chain's name...

Survey Results: Seasons of Change

The latest Small Bites survey asked visitors if they tend to put on weight in the winter (or during colder months.)

60% of respondents clicked "yes," while the remaining 40% answered "no."

If you find that weight management is more challenging in the winter months, you are not imagining things!

Many people who do not enjoy the gym environment take advantage of the outdoors for physical activity in the Summer months, whether it be jogging, swimming, walking, or rollerblading.

Once winter comes along, though, these activities are often completely stopped.

Meanwhile, caloric intake remains steady. The end result? Not surprisingly, a few extra pounds.

One of the best strategies (other than moving down to Venezuela during cold months) is to attempt to develop long-term habits, rather than short-term solutions.

Strictly cutting calories and denying yourself your favorite junky foods for two months in order to look good in a swimsuit may be effective, but once beach season is over, you're back to old habits -- and your old figure.

Rather than compartmentalizing your eating plan by season, make it a point to keep similar eating habits throughout the year.

After all, going through overly regimented dietary patterns makes it that much more likely that you will eventually "give in" and binge.

If "weather appropriate" substitutions must take place, always keep your goals in mind.

For example, starting off dinner with a cool and crisp side salad may work in the sweltering August heat, but not when it's 25 degrees out.

Soup can be an excellent replacement, as long as you choose wisely.

Avoid cream-based concoctions -- as well as watery ones!

While a cream-centered soup can pack a significant amount of calories, I find watery broths to be useless, as they are are rarely filling and do not offer much nutrition.

Instead, opt for bean soups. Half a cup of black bean or lentil soup is low in calories and high in fiber, helping you feel fuller faster.

You "Ask", I Answer: Modified Corn Starch/Constipation

My dietitian at the gym said that modified corn starch is not good because it is a strong "binding" agent and can cause constipation.

Cheerios [have] modified corn starch as [the second] ingredient.

[The dietitian said this] has an impact on toddlers- many of [whom] eat a lot of cheerios cereal.

And, a lot have constipation problems.

-- Anonymous
Via the blog

I have no idea what your dietitian is referring to. Seems to me there is some flawed logic going on.

Although there are several factors that can cause constipation, a significant one is a lack of insoluble fiber in the diet.

Cheerios -- and any oat-based product, for that matter -- largely contain soluble fiber.

Remember, soluble fiber is the one that helps lower LDL ("bad") cholesterol AND achieve a longer-lasting feeling of satiety.

Insoluble fiber, meanwhile, helps keep things moving through the digestive tract.

If someone is constipated, you would never suggest they consume soluble fiber, which slows down gastric emptying.

The lack of insoluble fiber (NOT the presence of modified corn starch) is why Cheerios can exacerbate (notice I am not using the word "cause") constipation.

I want to stress that foods do not cause constipation in and of themselves. Rather, it is a lack of insoluble fiber in the overall diet that does.

Eggs, for instance, are a popular binding agent that contain no fiber.

That doesn't mean, however, that they "cause constipation."

As long as your diet is rich in insoluble fiber, the addition of eggs will not cancel out fiber's digestive system benefits.

You Ask, I Answer: Tilapia

I understand the importance of eating fish that have good levels of Omega 3's for heart health.

I always read about salmon, tuna, and sardines, but not about other fish.

I like to eat tilapia. Is it a good source of Omega 3's?

-- Melissa Oswald
Buffalo, NY

Tilapia isn't generally a fish I recommend to people looking to improve heart health through higher intakes of Omega-3 fatty acids.

It's not that tilapia is inherently unhealthy. My recommendation simply comes back to the issue of fish farming.

You see, it's very rare to find wild tilapia, so you can bet that whether you're buying it at the supermarket or ordering it off the menu at a restaurant, you are getting a farmed version.

That's NOT good news. Rather than consuming their regular aquatic diet, these fish are being fed cheap, dependable corn.

This ultimately results in negative health consequences for consumers.

Earlier this year, a study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association found that the average Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio in a 3.5 ounce portion of farmed tilapia was a disconcerting 11:1 (wild salmon, meanwhile provides a 1:1 ratio.)

As I have explained in previous posts, dietary Omega 6:Omega 3 ratio plays a significant role in heart health (Cliff's Notes version: too much Omega-6 and not enough Omega-3 promotes inflammation, thereby increasing the risk of a number of diseases).

This is probably why you don't ever see tilapia mentioned in articles on heart-healthy fish.

Numbers Game: If The Name Fits...

A cookies & ice cream milkshake from the California-based fast food chain Fatburger contains ________ calories and __________ teaspoons of added sugar.

a) 967/19
b) 1,014/29
c) 1,308/21
d) 1,180/26.5

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

You Ask, I Answer: Raw Diets & Calories

I've heard that part of the reason raw foods seem to aid so much in weight loss is because they take more energy to digest.

[Meaning], a raw carrot will, in the end, give you less caloric energy than a cooked carrot because it takes more energy expenditure to chew/breakdown/digest when raw?

Is this legit or bogus?

-- Lizzy
Via the blog

Yet another bogus claim from raw food enthusiasts.

It's not that raw foods in and of themselves aid in weight loss, but that by opting for a raw lifestyle, you are cutting out a significant number of foods, thereby reducing your total caloric intake.

This is akin to low carb diets, where you can have all the butter and oil you want, but just not on bagels, dinner rolls, or pasta.

What are people supposed to do at a restaurant? Refuse the bread basket and instead nibble on pats of butter?

Since that's not an appetizing option, people end up eliminating bread AND butter from their restaurant meal, saving themselves as much as 300 calories!

Although many raw restaurants are able to create high-calorie dishes by creatively using nuts, seeds, coconut, and other ingredients, it is hard to produce these labor-intensive meals at home.

Try out the following experiment, if you're interested.

Plan to go raw just for one day.

Live your life as you normally would (going to work, running errands, etc.) but shun cooked foods (this includes items you may not immediately think of, such as breakfast cereals, milk, yogurt, roasted peppers, and corn chips).

You'll be surprised at just how many less calories you'll be consuming compared to your non-raw days (lunch and dinner at raw restaurants will be considered cheating).

Yes, nuts are high in calories, but you can only munch on so many before you're sick of them.

You Ask, I Answer: Isolated Fibers

I ran across a juice from Bolthouse Farms and was shocked when I saw that it packs in EIGHT grams of soluble fiber in one 8 fl oz serving!

My eyes went to the ingredient list right away to see just what, if anything, was added to get that impressive number.

What I found was dextrin, inulin, and xanthan gum all added and listed as "dietary fiber".

Are these treated by the body in the same manner as more "raw" food would be when it comes to the benefits the soluble fiber can provide?

Are they mainly tossed in to get that impressive number and in reality not as effective for the body as soluble fiber from fruits or some other "raw" source?

Other than that, what are you general thoughts on some Bolthouse Farms drinks?

I still try to grab something that doesn't have a bunch of sugar in it when I just feel like something refreshing to drink while watching a movie or something but as juice goes, does Bolthouse seem slightly above the others?

-- Andrew Carney
Richland, WA

You have to love those isolated fibers -- food manufacturers certainly do!

After all, how else would you manage to get eight grams of soluble fiber in 8 ounces of a drink that is nothing more than a medley of fiber-free, sugar-loaded juice concentrates?

Although dextrin, inulin, and xanthan gum are real fibers that exist in nature, I am not a fan of consuming nutrients in isolated form.

Food science research has demonstrated on several occassions that, for optimal performance, nutrients need to play off each other (and other phytochemicals in food.)

This is precisely one reason why clinical trials involving vitamin E supplementation show different results than those in which vitamin E is consumed in the diet from food sources.

Similarly, while oatmeal offers LDL-cholesterol lowering properties thanks to soluble fiber (in particular beta-glucan, which is not in this Bolthouse drink), it also offers manganese, selenium, and magnesium at the tune of 145 calories per cup.

The drink you are asking about, meanwhile, packs in 350 calories' worth of concentrated juices and then throws in fiber, vitamins, and minerals to provide a healthier image.

The fact that one bottle contains 15 grams of soluble fiber is also worrying, as this can result in some very painful bloating for those unaccustomed to taking in such large amounts in one sitting.

My verdict? You might as well be drinking Kool Aid, stirring in some Metamucil, and popping a Centrum.

That being said, if you enjoy the drink and can afford the calories, enjoy it... as a sweet treat.

On that note, one word of caution. When it comes to juice drinks, don't hunt around for fiber, Omega-3's, or added buzz-worthy nutrients.

How come? I find that it is usually the drinks highest in calories and sugars that tack on these nutrients in order to trick consumers into thinking they are doing their health a favor.

The best thing to look for when it comes to these beverages is a small bottle.

In The News: Is Fat Acceptance Acceptable?

Yesterday's New York Times Magazine ran a short piece on the "growing" fat-acceptance movement (although it's been around for approximately three decades and has yet to catch on, but I digress.)

"Fat-acceptance activists insist you can’t assume someone is unhealthy just because he’s fat, any more than you can assume someone is healthy just because he’s slim. "

In fact, this movement firmly believes that "it is possible to be healthy no matter how fat you are."

No matter how fat? Really?

So how do they explain, then, the countless research studies that have observed reductions in LDL ("bad") cholesterol, type 2 diabetes risk, and blood pressure in overweight and obese individuals who lose weight, even just five pounds?

Well, they point to a report published in The Archives of Internal Medicine this past August, which "reported that fully half of overweight adults and one-third of the obese had normal blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides and blood sugar — indicating a normal risk for heart disease and diabetes, conditions supposedly caused by being fat."

Too bad that study didn't examine levels of C-reactive protein, a marker of inflammation.

Remember, most diseases -- especially cardiovascular ones -- have cellular inflammation as a precursor.

And guess one of the factors that increases C-reactive protein levels? Overweight and obesity!

Additionally, one of those study's co-authors was quoted as saying that "among people of healthy weight in the study, elevated blood pressure, cholesterol and other factors were more common for people with larger waists or potbellies" and that "among overweight and obese adults, those in the “healthy” category tended to have smaller waists than those with at least two risk factors.

Need I say more?

The problem with this entire "movement" is that it attempts to kill two very different birds (social acceptance of overweight/obese physiques and the health consequences of being overweight/obese) with one stone.

It is one thing to denounce the media's obsession on borderline unhealthy bodies, but how anyone can believe weight has nothing to do with health status is beyond me.

All you have to do is speak to formerly obese people.

Ask them how they feel walking up a flight of stairs now as opposed to when they were carrying an additional 60 or 70 pounds on them.

Ask them how their lipid profiles have changed.

Ask them, very simply, if they miss carrying that excess weight.

Similarly, people who are extremely underweight (purposefully or not) are also at increased risk of mortality.

I point that out to show that nutrition and weight management are not inherently "anti fat," it's just that with the obesity rate doubling in the past 30 years in this country, it is not surprising that most public health nutrition efforts are concentrated on that particular problem.

Back to the Times article, I can't help but roll my eyes at the mention of "a new book out this fall, Health at Every Size, by Linda Bacon, a nutritionist and physiologist at the University of California at Davis, which is less about dieting than a lifestyle change that emphasizes “intuitive eating”: listening to hunger signals, eating when you’re hungry, choosing nutritious food over junk."

What exactly is so revolutionary? The guidelines mentioned above are precisely the same ones advocated for permanent weight loss and increased health awareness by many Registered Dietitians.

In fact, if any of you have ever been to a Registered Dietitian, you know the focus is on establishing healthy dietary patterns. It's not about six packs, fitting into size 0 clothes, or looking like the cast of the new Beverly Hills 90210.

To place the nutrition field on the same level as a celebrity diets segment on The Insider is preposterous and extremely reductive.

I don't see the damage in advocating for a healthy medium, where the end goal is to not be underweight or overweight.

Numbers Game: Answer

A three ounce broiled porkchop provides 46 milligrams of sodium, whereas three ounces of ham add up to 1,117 milligrams of sodium.

(Note: Maximum sodium intake recommendations are set at no more than 2,400 milligrams a day.)

This is one of the clearest examples of the vast nutritional differences between minimally and heavily processed varieties of the same food.

Remember, the more processed a food, the higher its sodium content and the lower its potassium numbers.

It shouldn't surprise you, then, to find out that the 341 milligrams of potassium in a three ounce porkchop fall to a measly 75 milligrams in three ounces of ham.

Additionally, while this amount of broiled pork offers 45 percent of the selenium daily value and 19 percent of day's worth of zinc, the ham only provides eight percent and three percent, respectively.

You Ask, I Answer: Probiotic Cereal

I loved your video about deceptive food advertising!

So what do you think of Kashi's "Vive" cereal?

There is a banner on the box claiming it's probiotic and helps with "digestive wellness."

Is that true? If it is, how does it make it better than other cereals?

-- Joanne Castro
Santa Fe, NM

Let's first begin by talking about probiotics.

That's the name given to beneficial bacteria living in our colons that help keep harmful bacteria from multiplying and starting problems (FYI: prebiotics are compounds in food that help feed probiotics.)

We actually harbor anywhere from 370 - 450 different stands of probiotic bacteria.

Although we produce and house them, it is believed poor nutrition can significantly reduce their numbers.

Antibiotics, meanwhile, kill all bacteria -- including probiotics.

The most famous probiotic, of course, is Lactobacillus acidophilus, the probiotic contained in many yogurts.

Allow me to digress a little and say the following: heat treatment can destroy Lactobacillus Acidophilus.

So, the closest way to ensure you are getting beneficial bacteria is via a "Live and Active Cultures" statement (although this does not guarantee said cultures are starter bacteria.)

What many people don't realize is that all fermented foods -- not just yogurt -- contain probiotics, including tempeh (fermented soy), blue cheese, sauerkraut, and wine.

The largest body of research on probiotics has focused on the therapeutic effect they have on diarrhea developed as a result of taking antibiotics.

Other than that, a lot of the health-promoting properties attributed to probiotics in food are yet to be discovered, or at least confirmed by science.

Although I can understand the link between probiotics and immune health (mainly since beneficial bacteria are a good defense against harmful varieties,) claims by some supplement companies of helping lower cancer risk are, as of now, completely baseless.

One main problem with probiotic food research is that many strands are destroyed by stomach acids before they even reach the large intestine.

So, how they perform in a laboratory setting does not necessarily reflect what takes place in our bodies.

Additionally, only a handful of probiotic strands have been closely studied.

It is also worth pointing out that in order for probiotics to have any sort of impact -- assuming the strand in Vive does -- they need to be consumed on a daily basis. So, a bowl of Vive three times a week isn't really going to do much for you.

In any case, the particular probiotic present in Vive is strain LA14 of Lacto acidophilus.

Kashi's official statement is that this cereal contains 10⁹ colony forming units of said probiotic per serving of Vive.

Sounds great. But, although this strand survives the digestive process, there have not been any studies examining specific health benefits.

While it certainly won't do you any harm, no one really knows what exactly you are supposed to gain from eating Vive regularly ("aids with digestive wellness" is too broad a statement for me.)

In The News: Seeking Health? Look to the Mediterranean

The question of "ideal diets" is a hot topic in the nutrition field.

Although many dietitians agree that a Mediterranean style of eating -- " rich in vegetables, fruits, legumes, cereals [mainly whole grains], fish, olive oil and, yes, a bit of red wine with meals" -- is optimal, you are bound to run into individuals of the opinion that good health is achieved by eating liberal amounts of saturated fat and protein while shunning carbohydrates.

The British Medical Journal is helping shed light on this cloudy matter with one of the largest meta-analysis studies ever conducted, compiling "a dozen of the most methodologically sound of these observational studies, which included over 1.5 million people followed for up to eighteen years, analyzing cardiovascular consequences and some other important health outcomes."

End result? The Mediterranean diet was found to have the lowest rate of cardiovascular disease, cancer, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's.

To quote directly from the study, "greater adherence to a Mediterranean diet is associated with a significant improvement in health status, as seen by a significant reduction in overall mortality (9%), mortality from cardiovascular diseases (9%), incidence of or mortality from cancer (6%), and incidence of Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease (13%)."

Although the Mediterranean Diet is no longer an accurate name (the younger generations in these countries are eating too much processed food and too many calories, as evidenced by rising rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes), this particular way of eating does many things correctly.

Among them? Focusing on minimally processed foods high in fiber and phytonutrients, including heart-healthy fats (monounsaturated and Omega-3 polyunsaturated fats), and keeping added sugars to a minimum.

Although this is termed a "Mediterranean" diet pattern, it contains many parallels to the diet of one of the healthiest countries -- Japan.

This bit of "news" simply confirms what dietitians have been recommending for decades: stick to a desirable caloric range while making sure to eat your fruits and vegetables, keeping an eye on saturated and trans fat intake, choosing healthy fats, and avoiding added sugars whenever possible.

I am also of the belief that since this kind of eating pattern cuts down on empty calories, it makes sticking within a desired caloric range a little easier.

You Ask, I Answer: Vitamin B12

As a vegetarian (vegan most days) I know I have to supplement my diet with vitamin B 12.

[However,] I'm really puzzled about something.

The best sources (non-veg) of vitamin B 12 are mollusks, snapper, calf's liver, lamb, venison, etc.

If these animals are able to produce vitamin B 12 in their tissues, why aren't we?

-- Jennifer Armstrong
Saratoga Springs, NY

Wonderful question!

Vitamin B12 is created by bacteria in animals' digestive tracts -- including humans'.

However, since this occurs in our large intestine, it is past the point of absorption.

You may be wondering why Vitamin K (synthesized by bacteria in that same location) is absorbed whereas B12 is not.

Simple -- our colons contain Vitamin K receptors which aid in this absorption process (keep in mind, though, that we do not produce enough vitamin K to meet the Recommended Dietary Allowance, so we must get some from the diet.)

While we're on the subject of B12, I want to point out other important factors regarding its consumption and absorption.

First, the only known plant source of B12 is wakame, a form of kelp.

All other algae and seaweeds, which some people contend are good sources of B12, are absolutely not.

What those foods contain are B-12 analogues -- compounds that mimic B12 and compete with real B12 for absorption.

Vegans are better off supplementing B12 through fortification (best bets are many brands of soy milk and cereal) or synthetic supplementation (such as a B-12 vitamin)

It is not only vegans who need to be concerned with B12, though.

People with celiac disease need to be careful, as gluten intake damages the microvilli in their small intestines (this is important because it is precisely in the small intestine that nutrient absorption takes place.)

Similarly, individuals who undergo total gastrectomy are at high risk of developing B12 deficiencies, as they lack intrinsic factor (a glycoprotein produced by the stomach and required for B12 absorption.)

A large body of research has also established that B12 absorption capacity decreases with age, which is why many dietitians recommend that individuals over the age of 60 supplement B12.

You Ask, I Answer: Quinine/Tonic Water

The tonic water I drink says "contains quinine" across the front?

What is that? Is it some sort of health claim?

-- Amanda Navarra
(city unknown), TX

Quinine was discovered in the 17th century by Spanish conquistadores "visiting" Peru.

Although it can be created synthetically, it was originally extracted from the bark of the cinchona tree and mainly used as an anti-malarial agent.

Since the flavor was so appalling, it was added to sugar water (hence the idea of "tonic" water) for more pleasurable consumption.

In the 20th century it became a popular remedy for people experiencing leg cramps or arthritis.

However, the Food & Drug Administration banned over-the-counter sales in 1994 due to troublesome cardiac side effects.

There is nothing particularly healthy or unhealthy about it; it is not a nutrient.

The reason why tonic water lists quinine prominently is because some people are highly sensitive to it.

So, even though tonic water contains extremely low levels, the warning is there mainly as a 'cover your arse' tactic.

By the way, tonic water contains as many calories -- and just as much sugar -- as regular soda. It is not bitter seltzer water!

Quick & Healthy Recipes: Vegan Spinach-Walnut Pesto

Here is a different spin on traditional pesto I often whip up at home.

It omits cheese (you're welcome, vegan and lactose intolerant readers), replaces pinenuts with walnuts for an Omega-3 boost, and adds some spinach for extra nutrition.

YIELDS: 6 servings

INGREDIENTS

6 garlic cloves, whole
1 1/2 cups fresh basil leaves
1/2 cup spinach leaves
1/3 cup raw walnuts
1 Tablespoon freshly squeezed lemon juice
4 Tablespoons extra virgin olive oil
1/4 teaspoon salt (preferably coarse sea salt)
Pepper, to taste
1 cup water (from pasta pot)
1/4 cup nutritional yeast (optional)

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Place whole garlic cloves in food processor. Pulse until diced.
2. Place rest of ingredients (except water) in food processor.
3. Pulse; add water and pulse again.

NUTRITION INFORMATION (per serving)

220 calories
1.5 grams saturated fat
14 grams monounsaturated (heart healthy) fat
190 milligrams sodium
4.5 grams fiber
7 grams protein
350 milligrams ALA Omega-3 fatty acids

Excellent Source of: Vitamin A, Vitamin K, thiamin, niacin, riboflavin, B vitamins

Good Source of: Vitamin C, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, fiber

Although you can obviously drizzle this over some pasta (preferrably whole wheat; be sure to include roasted red peppers for a wonderful complementary taste), I also recommend using it as a topping for seitan, tofu, or grilled chicken.

In The News: October Surprise

Some very surprising -- and encouraging -- news to share today.

"Yum Brands, parent company to Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut, [A&W, and Long John Silver's, has] announced plans to begin posting product calorie information on the indoor menu boards nationwide at company-owned restaurants."

Wow!

You read correctly -- these chains are doing so completely unprompted. This is not the fast-food industry sighing, rolling its eyes, and begrudgingly "doing what it's told".

The end result of this ground-breaking announcement is that 20,000 of these chain restaurants throughout the United States will post calorie information on their menus by January of 2011.

Meanwhile, McDonald's, Wendy's, and Burger King have announced they have no intention of posting calorie information where they are not legally required to do so.

Numbers Game: Sodium Sandwich, Anyone?

A 3-ounce broiled porkchop provides _______ milligrams of sodium, whereas three ounces of ham add up to ___________ milligrams of sodium.

(Note: Maximum sodium intake recommendations are set at no more than 2,400 milligrams a day.)

a) 182/751
b) 46/1,117
c) 205/1,352
d) 98/581

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

Also Going Bananas? Teddy Grahams!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not so fast.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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