Quick & Healthy Recipes: Easy Peezy (Healthy!) Sweet "Cream"

Now that high temperatures are finally back in the Northern hemisphere, the cold breakfasts that seemed so miserable a few months back are suddenly the perfect way to start the day.

I don't know about you, but I LOVE a bowl of fresh fruit and whipped cream. It makes for a great dessert, but it's certainly not the healthiest way to start your day.

Alas, here is my couldn't-be-any-easier recipe for a healthier cream that adds body, creaminess, and flavor to whatever you pair it with!

YIELDS: 1.5 cups

INGREDIENTS:

1 cup raw cashews
1 cup cold water
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
1 teaspoon coconut extract

DIRECTIONS:

Combine all ingredients in food processor and mix until a smooth consistency is reached.

For best flavor and texture, refrigerate for at least 4 hours before consuming.

This tastes absolutely wonderful mixed with a cold bowl of fresh fruit!

NUTRITION INFORMATION (per 1/4 cup serving):

141 calories
6 grams fat
1 gram saturated fat
30 milligrams sodium
1.4 grams sugar (naturally occurring)
4.6 grams protein

Excellent Source of: copper, magnesium, manganese
Good Source of: potassium, zinc

Numbers Game: Unlocking the Secret

A reduced-fat Oreo cookie contains _______ fewer calories than a regular Oreo cookie.

a) 3
b) 12
c) 26
d) 51

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

Three Useless "Facts"

Bite-sized nutrition trivia is not limited to Registered Dietitian Jeopardy!

Magazines of all sorts (ranging from Us Weekly to Details to Forbes) occasionally pepper sidebars or "Did You Know...?" features with short bursts of "diet-friendly" tips.

Television shows, e-mail chain letters, news broadcasts, and even advertising campaigns often rely on nutrition "facts" to captivate their audiences.

Alas, here are three often-mentioned facts I consider useless, irrelevant, and better off erased from the collective consciousness.

"If you put a nail in a glass of Coke for four days, it dissolves because of all the acids!"

The "logic" here is that if Coke can corrode metal, just imagine what it does to our stomachs!

Although all soda is nutrition-void sugar water (and the phosphoric acid in it can contribute to osteoporosis in individuals with insufficient calcium intake), it is not corroding our gastrointestinal system -- particularly when you keep in mind that stomach acids are more acidic than anything in Coke.

If you put a nail in a glass of our stomach acids, that sucker would probably disintegrate in just TWO days.

Initially shocking fact? Check.
Completely irrelevant? Check.
Absolutely useless? Double check

"I lost weight by cooking with olive oil instead of butter and choosing healthy fats, like avocado."

It seems like every other "celebrity who lost weight shares diet secrets!" (it seems to me that celebrity magazine editors think the only two secrets are to eat lots of fish and hire a personal trainer) article I read contains this quote.

Yes, olive oil and avocados are heart-healthy fats that, if consumed regularly, can benefit cardiovascular health. However, all fats -- regardless of how heart-healthy -- contain nine calories per gram.

I suppose I can somehow "vouch" for the avocado reasoning since they offer a good deal of fiber (thereby contributing to quicker satiety).

However, a tablespoon of butter contains approximately twenty fewer calories than a tablespoon of olive oil.

From a weight loss standpoint, replacing two tablespoons of butter with two tablespoons of olive oil in a dish serves no purpose.

"Twinkies are so processed they have a shelf life of 20 years!"

You need the exclamation mark at the end of that one for complete pearl-clutching effect.

Twinkies are by no means a health food, but they will not outlast a nuclear explosion (that honor only belongs to cockroaches and Cher).

While Twinkies have a longer shelf life than many other mass-produced baked goods (mainly thanks to their dairy-free ingredient list), expect them to start spoiling after a month.

PS: although foods with long shelf lives are usually highly processed and offer plenty of sodium, sugar, trans fats, and/or artificial preservatives, they do not take that same amount of time to be digested.

The Most Useless Part of a Food Label

Although food labels provide a significant amount of information that can help us compare the nutrient composition of different products, there is one part of these labels I pay absolutely no attention to -- and I suggest you do the same.

The "waste of space" culprit? "Calories from fat."

Not only is that figure useless, it also ends up confusing most consumers.

The only thing "calories from fat" tells you is how many of a given product's total calories per serving come from fat. Why does that matter?

This, by the way, is no secret formula. You can determine that yourself simply by multiplying the fat grams on a food label by 9 (remember, there are 9 calories in one gram of fat).

Similarly, to estimate the amount of calories from protein, multiply the grams of protein in a serving of a given product by 4.

My main issue with "calories from fat" is that it is clearly a remnant from the early 1990s "low-fat" craze.

Allow me to illustrate the inefficacy of "calories from fat."

A two-tablespoon serving of peanut butter, for example, contains 200 calories, of which 140 are from fat.

A bag of Skittles from a vending machine packs in 250 calories, of which 22.5 are from fat.

Do you see, then, how "calories from fat" is absolutely meaningless?

I say it's time to revise the food label. Drop 'calories from fat', differentiate between naturally-occurring and "added" sugars, and substitute Vitamin A (a mandatory micronutrient on food labels practically no one is deficient in) with a nutrient people should be more aware of, like potassium.

You Ask, I Answer: Breast Milk

My doctor recommended I consume more fatty foods in order to thicken my breast milk.

What foods do you recommend I eat?

-- (Name withheld)
New York, NY

Oh, dear.

If I were a betting man, I would bet your doctor never took a single pediatric nutrition class.

That's the only way I can rationalize such inaccurate -- and untrue! -- advice.

Eating fatty foods will not result in thicker breast milk.

Depending on what sorts of fats you eat, the the fatty acid composition of your milk (ie: more monounsaturated and less polyunsaturated) may vary, but not its total fat content or texture.

Fat content of breast milk usually relates to the amount of breast milk containted in the breast.

A full breast contains a lower percentage of fat than one running empty (which is why babies should be fed from one breast until it it is fully empty, as this guarantees they are taking in the thicker, fattier hindmilk, which is released at the end of a feeding.)

In any case, the only reason I can even conceive of your doctor recommending thicker breast milk is because your baby may have reflux.

Assuming that is an official diagnosis from a pediatric gastroenterologist, you have two options: express breastmilk and mix it with a thickener or purchase pre-thickened formula.

You Ask, I Answer: Reduced Fat Milk

I'm REALLY confused.

I know that "reduced fat" milk is a newer term for what used to be called "2 percent" milk, but why was it called 2 percent?

I can't figure it out! If you look at the nutrition label on a carton of "reduced fat" milk, it says that one cup has 123 calories and 5 grams of fat, which equals 8 percent of the Daily Value of fat.

So how did they ever get the "2 percent" figure?

-- Helen Berry
Seattle, WA

Your question perfectly demonstrates some of the reasoning behind the 1998 milk name-change -- most people had no clue what "two percent" meant!

Or, if they did, they were incorrect (i.e.: thinking each cup of "two percent" milk only contained "two percent" of the daily value of fat.)

Alas, the two percent figure is the product of dividing the grams of fat per serving by the total grams of everything (the rest of what is in milk, including protein, carbohydrates, and water) in that same serving.

Using real numbers, you simply divide the 5 grams of total fat in one cup of reduced-fat milk by the 244 grams of everything that make up that cup of reduced-fat milk and you get the magical 2 percent figure.

A useless figure, as far as I'm concerned. Daily Values are far more informative -- and important.

You Ask, I Answer: Protein Bars

I eat Zone Perfect Dark Chocolate nutrition bars, mainly for the protein intake but also because compared to most other Zone bars, they seemed to be less plentiful in sugar content and higher in protein.

However, I am now wondering if these are not the best option for me? I eat one about an hour prior to walking/running.

Sometimes I follow up my walks/runs with some light weights, so I feel like I need the protein more on those days.

Are there other nutrition bars that I should be eating for protein instead?

-- Annemarie F.
(location withheld)

I would much rather you choose a different pre-workout snack, for a variety of reasons.

A Zone bar is basically a candy bar with a little extra protein as well and a variety of vitamins and minerals tacked on so it can be advertised as containing "19 vitamins and minerals."

In theory, the same could be said for Doritos if Frito Lay decided to fortify their nacho cheese flavored chips.

I much prefer you get nutrients from foods that naturally contain them.

Keep in mind, too, that a single dark chocolate Zone bar has as much sugar as three Oreo cookies.

As far as pre-workout foods go, they should be high in carbohydrates and low in protein and fat. Hence, a Zone protein bar isn't the best choice.

The key is to choose high-quality carbohydrates. Refined varieties that offer little nutrition (pretzels, Skittles, animal crackers, etc.) are not the best options.

However, something like an apple, a tangerine, a handful of baby carrots, some plain oatmeal prepared with water, or a toasted slice of 100% whole grain bread are good snacks to eat 45 - 60 minutes before exercising.

Even if you do some weight training, protein is a nutrient that better suited after exercise, not directly before.

Ideally, a post-exercise food should contain a combination of protein, carbohydrates, and fats.

Some examples here would be two or three celery stalks with a tablespoon of your favorite nut butter or one low-fat mozarella string cheese accompanied by a handful of grapes.

The important thing is to always keep caloric intake in mind.

Too many times I see people doing light exercise (i.e: walking at a fast pace on a treadmill for twenty minutes) and erroneously thinking that has to be followed up by a high-calorie protein shake that doesn't accomplish much (other than tack on a few hundred calories).

When it comes to optimal nutrition, think "real food" first.

As far as I'm concerned, Zone bars belong in the "sweet treat" category.

New Year, Tastier You!

Last February, a Canadian reader alerted me to YouBar, a small California-based company created by a mother-son duo that allows customers to create their own nutrition bars from a variety of healthy and organic ingredients ranging from almond butter to dates to ginger, cacao nibs, and oat bran.

I liked the idea enough to blog about it, but never tasted a creation. Until now.

Wow!

One suggested bar (these are mainly offered for first-time customers who may not be fully ready to experiment) named "Great Date With Chocolate" beautifully blends four simple ingredients -- dates, whey protein, honey, and cocoa -- in a 1.8 ounce bar that delivers:

140 calories
1.5 grams of fat
15 milligrams of sodium (that's 0.6 percent of the recommended daily limit)
4 grams of fiber
8 grams of protein

The Breakfast Bar, meanwhile, arrives at an almost identical nutritional profile by mixing dates, egg white protein, honey, coca, coffee crystals, and cinnamon. Deliciously decadent!

If you are feeling creative, head on over to YouBar's website and begin crafting your own delicacy (which you even get to name!).

Give yourself plenty of time, though, as the options are endless. Before you even think about choosing ingredients, decide just how big of a bar you want (the small weighs 1.25 ounces, while a large delivers almost two ounces.)

My favorite part of the process? Once you start mixing and matching ingredients, a nutrition facts label appears on the screen, reflecting your personal bar's nutrition information. No surprises here!

Even the pickiest of creators should be satisfied thanks to the "special requests" option, which enables you to specify preferences like "I want ginger and cinnamon, but could you make it mostly ginger and just a pinch of cinnamon?"

If bars aren't your thing, YouBar also now offers customized protein shakes.

I am not at all surprised at their success and wish them the absolute best as they continue to provide healthy snacking -- and the freedom to choose!

Leaving Out Vital Information

Vending and food service company Next Generation has introduced Vitalities, a sticker-based initiative which "provides customers the ability to make selection based on healthy snack and beverage alternatives, while still having the flexibility to select name brand product options."

In essence, products that meet certain health criteria -- created with the help of a Registered Dietitian -- get a sticker next to their item code.

On the food side, the following categories are offered: lower in fat, lower in sugar, lower in carbs, and "higher energy."

Why are they leaving out the most important concept-- CALORIE information?

Consider the following. To qualify as "low in sugar", a product must meet one of the following criteria:

* Sugar Free
* No Sugar Added
* Contains less than 4 grams of sugar

These divisions are very helpful for snack companies because they don't evaluate their products from a whole nutrition profile.

Per the above mentioned standards, something like Sugar-Free Reese's Peanut Butter Cups would receive a "low in sugar" sticker (and therefore seem like a healthy choice) despite offering 6 grams of saturated fat (30% of a day's worth) in one 180-calorie serving.

Similarly, a bag of Skittles can receive a healthy-sounding "low-fat sticker", all while offering 250 calories and 12 teaspoons of sugar!

I am also perplexed by the "lower in carbs" sticker. Unless someone has diabetes, there is no reason to believe that low carb figures by default indicate a healthier choice.

The beverage stickers are slightly better, as they are divided into these four categories: lower in fat, lower in calories (yay!), lower in caffeine, and higher in nutrients.

My concern here is the "lower in fat" label, which makes no mention of calories in its criteria:

* Less than 2.5 grams of fat per 8 ounce portion
* Skim and 1% milk
* Flavored waters
* Juices
* Energy drinks

Notice that soda can not qualify for this sticker. Fine and dandy, but sweetened flavored waters (often containing just as much sugar and as many calories as soda) can.

This initiative is a start, but I would much prefer vending machines post calorie information on items.

After all, unless people have those figures memorized, they are unable to see them until they have already made their purchase.

You Ask, I Answer: Liquid Calories

I've read that we don't really seem to feel full after drinking caloric drinks like soda, [which is why] we can easily guzzle down 600 calories of Pepsi and still feel hungry.

My question is, does this apply just as much to milk, or soymilk?

It seems like while I could guzzle down a full glass of soymilk and not feel that much more satiated, it definitely fills me up more than drinking a glass of Diet Coke.

-- Christine (Last name unknown)
Via the blog

Those studies are absolutely legitimate, but they mainly apply to empty calories like the ones found in soda and fruit drinks (in my mind, KoolAid and its imitations are basically flat soda).

Since these beverages contain nothing but sweeteners, they don't do much in the way of providing satiety. Correction -- they do absolutely NOTHING.

Keep in mind, too, that in your particular case, you are talking about diet soda, which provides zero calories.

Milk and soy milk are more nutritious beverages. They contain protein and some fat (unless you are drinking skim milk), two nutrients that play a significant role in helping us feel full.

This same concept can be applied to food. Take almonds and pretzels.

Pretzels are basically nothing but refined flour -- practically 100 percent fiberless carbohydrate.

Nuts, meanwhile, contains protein, fat, and fiber.

That is why 150 calories of almonds leave you feeling fuller than that same amount of pretzels.

Although liquid calories promote less fullness than solid food, milk and soy milk are certainly more filling than sugar water.

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: Gelato

Are gelato (pictured, right) and ice cream the same thing with a different name?

What about in terms of calories?

-- Sara Stevens
(city withheld), FL

Although gelato is quickly becoming popular in the United States, it is what many countries (such Argentina) sell in their "ice cream" parlors ("true" ice cream is only available in pints at supermarkets)!

The main differences between the two is that what is known as "ice cream" in the United States has a higher milk fat percentage and more air than gelato.

Also, gelato usually does not contain cream as an ingredient.

I am partial to gelato's soft texture and sharp flavors (the lack of air makes for a denser product), since it is what I grew up with in Argentina.

As far as calories are concerned, this is a tough call due to the multitude of ice cream and gelato flavors out there.

The differences are by no means astronomical, though -- gelato is still made with whole milk and sugar.

Rather than get hung up on numbers, though, enjoy whichever of the two you like best in a small size.

FYI: gelato is easier to keep caloric tabs on, since, apart from the occasional almond, it does not contain mix-ins like brownie bits, fudge-covered cookie pieces, or chocolate candies -- all of which can add an additional 100 or 150 calories to a scoop of ice cream!

Quick & Healthy Recipes: Avocado Smoothie

I'm fairly certain I could have an avocado once a day for the rest of my life and never tire of the delicious nutty-flavored fruit.

Some people enjoy the taste of an avocado but not the texture, so this smoothie is a great way to get a no-mush fix packed with nutrients and healthy fats!

YIELD: 1 smoothie

INGREDIENTS:

1/2 cup ice cubes
1/2 cup skim or soy milk (plain or unsweetened)
1/2 cup halved strawberries
1/2 cup blueberries
1/2 Hass avocado
1 Tablespoon wheat germ
1 Tablespoon oat bran
2 teaspoons ground flaxseed

NOTE: For a less thick smoothie, add extra milk or water, depending on your specific caloric preference.

DIRECTIONS:

Combine all ingredients in blender. Blend for 20 - 30 seconds.

NUTRITION FACTS:

381 calories
18 g fat (2 grams saturated fat)
15 grams fiber
3 grams added sugar (if made with plain soy milk)
11 grams protein

Excellent Source of: Monounsaturated fats, vitamin C, vitamin K, manganese, niacin, thiamin, riboflavin, pantothenic acid.

Good Source of: Copper, folate, potassium

You Ask, I Answer: Monoglycerides & Diglycerides

What are monoglycerides and diglycerides?

I've seen them on food labels but don't know what they are or why they are in some foods.

-- Lisa (last name withheld)
Brooklyn, NY

Ah, yes. Nothing makes you want to reach for a dictionary more than reading a food label.

Monoglycerides and diglycerides are related to triglycerides (three fatty acid molecules bound to a glycerol molecule) -- the basic unit of all dietary fats.

They consist of either one or two fatty acid molecules bound to a glycerol molecule and are mainly used as emulsifiers, thickeners, and binders in a variety of different foods.

Although they can be obtained from triglycerides, they are very easy to create synthetically.

"Non-natural" peanut butters, for instance, contain mono and/or diglycerides in order to prevent the oil from separating from the more paste-like crushed peanuts.

You will also often see them present in margarines and low-fat butter replacements.

They pose no health risks -- or benefits.

You Ask, I Answer: Nighttime Snacking/Digestion

My mom believes that eating right before bed is unhealthy and causes weight gain.

I don't believe that it causes weight gain because as you stress, what matters is how many calories are consumed [in one day], not when [you eat them].

But, is [eating right before bed] unhealthy? My mom thinks [so, because she says] our digestive system needs to "sleep".

I always "need" to snack before bed (I think it's more of a psychological thing), but keep my portions in check.

She seems to think that fruit is "lighter" as opposed to bread which is "heavier" and harder on our bodies. Is it okay for me to have "heavy" foods like bread/cereal before I sleep as long as its within my caloric needs?

-- (Name Withheld)
Kaoshiung, Taiwan

One issue that can occur if you go to bed soon after eating is acid reflux, or heartburn (a condition in which stomach acid creeps up into the esophagus).

Other than that, there isn't anything inherently unhealthy about having a slice of bread or a bowl of cereal an hour or so before going to bed as long as it isn’t a caloric overload.

Heavy foods should be avoided before going to bed so as to not cause indigestion, so either fruit or cereal are smart options. I do not consider cereal or bread to be heavy, especially not if you’re just having a cup of a whole grain cereal low in added sugar.

Keep in mind that even though we go to sleep, our organs do not.

Full digestion of a meal, for instance, takes anywhere from 18 to 48 hours. So, our digestive tract works all day, every day.

In The News: A Case for Calories

Oh, what a great morning!

The weather is absolutely beautiful in New York City and I wake up to a story from Time Magazine in which Harvard School of Public Health Chair Walter Willett (pictured at left) reminds us what matters most when it comes to weight gain and weight loss -- calories!

I have never been a fan of the scapegoating targeted at specific nutrients.

I do not think eating fat causes people to become fat, nor do I think carbohydrates are sent up on an express elevator from hell.

This is why, if you are a reader of Small Bites, you know that the recipes I share are not "low fat" or "low carb."

"From many kinds of studies conducted over years, we are quite confident now that a calorie from fat will cause a similar amount of weight gain as a calorie from carbohydrate," Willett affirms.

And, no, he isn't pulling this theory out of thin air; there are plenty of studies showing that diet composition isn't as important as caloric intake in determining weight.

"The best way to get to the bottom line is to look at long-term studies where we randomize people to a high-fat/low-carb diet or to a low-fat/high-carb diet and follow them for at least a year or more.

That kind of study takes into account the possibility that one kind of diet provides more satiety; so, over the long run you would see more weight loss on that diet.

But those studies — half a dozen or more such studies have been done — show quite clearly that the percentage of calories from fat has very little effect on long-term weight loss."

What Dr. Willett does stress is that the quality of fats and carbohydrates are important (i.e.: whole grains, monounsaturated fats, and Omega-3 fatty acids are nutritionally superior to refined grains, saturated fats, and trans fats).

Let's cap this off with another great quote: "We've now looked at over 250,000 men and women for up to 30 years, and we [also] haven't seen that the percentage of calories from fat or from carbohydrates in your diet makes any difference in relation to heart attacks, various cancers, or stroke."

Let the Gary Taubes fanclub hatemail begin...

You Ask, I Answer: Vital Cookies

I found this Canadian cookie company, and I have to say, I am completely addicted to their whole oat and cranberry cookies.

Two cookies (26 g, they're pretty small) [add up to] 120 calories, 5 g of fat (0.5 g saturated), 80 mg sodium, 17 g carbohydrates with 2 g of fiber and 2 g of protein.

Are these cookies worth how excited I am over them, or are they just as terrible as other cookies?

-- Kate Redfern
(Location Unknown)

The exciting thing here isn't so much the figures you mention in your question (yes, you could potentially do worse, but this isn't precisely a health food), but the fact that you feel satisfied eating just two 60-calorie cookies!

The problem with cookies isn't that some varieties offer 500 calories in that same size (in this case, 26 grams, which is slightly less than one ounce,) it's the fact that people have a very hard time just having one... or two... or three... or six.

I must say -- it is quite refreshing to know that a 120 calorie package of cookies is available for sale. Figures it's not a product made in the US of A.

Anytime I walk into a deli in New York City and jonesing for a cookie I am faced with frisbee sized concoctions (closer to 100 grams!) that pack 400 - 500 calories a pop.

Keep in mind, I am not disappointed that these cookies aren't offering more nutrition. Nor do I think you should be seeking out "healthier cookies."

I don't think every single morsel of food we eat needs to be rich in phytoestrogens, high in fiber, and devoid of added sugars.

If these cookies are a treat in a mostly healthy and well-rounded diet, go ahead and enjoy them!

Summer Eatin'

The latest video posted on the Small Bites YouTube channel offers tips and advice for a healthy and nutritious summer.

Is mayo a microbiological bad guy? What's a tasty and refreshing replacement for ice cream? Are you preparing your salad in such a way to ensure maximum absorption of nutrients?

Find out more in this short video, where I also introduce you to a key player of the Small Bites team!

"G" -- It Was About Time!

Earlier this year, Kentucky Fried Chicken launched a new grilled (well, technically roasted) chicken menu option in six cities -- Indianapolis, Colorado Springs, San Diego, Oklahoma City, Jacksonville, and Austin.

I was taken aback the initial resistance expressed by many KFC customers in the blogosphere. Several scoffed, others already declared it a flop.

Ridiculous accusations of "food policing" came up, specifically paranoid delusions that people no longer had the freedom to eat friend chicken if they pleased.

Me? I think it's a great idea. All I can say is, "what took so long?"

Besides, no one is taking away a fried option, so the outcry over a grilled variety has no validity in my mind.

Rumors have circulated that KFC executives are crossing their fingers harder than ever with this new initiative since previous attemps to offer non-fried alternatives didn't fare so well.

An article in The Huffington Post earlier this year mentioned that "in the early 1990s, the chain introduced a rotisserie-style chicken, but it was doomed after a couple of years by equipment problems and long cook times. A tender roast product followed, but it lasted only a couple of years."

This explains the obnoxious reassurance by KFC that they are still going to be launching new fried chicken products as well. Oh, well, let me sigh in relief then.

As much as KFC talks about taking nutrition and health seriously, I don't appreciate their almost apologetic stance to their consumer base.

Anyhow, in comparison with the traditional fried product, a grilled 5.7 ounce KFC chicken breast contains half the sodium (although a still hefty 600 milligrams), half the calories (180, rather than 360), and 60% less fat (9 grams, as opposed to 21).

KGC is supposed to be available nationwide next year.

There better be the same multimillion dollar advertising campaign for this as there has recently been for the "extra crispy" (read: extra breaded, extra fried, and extra caloric) chipotle chicken.

After all, sales of grilled chicken in Colorado Springs took a tumble when television commercials were pulled.

Any readers in any of the six "test" cities tried KFC's grilled chicken? If so, what did you think?

Numbers Game: Answer

A Dunkin' Donuts corn muffin has 220 MORE calories than one of their blueberry cake donuts.

That's right.

The corn muffin provides 510 calories, while a blueberry cake donut adds up to 290.

The muffin also has 2 more grams of fat (18 to the donut's 16) and twice the sugar (32 grams of it, compared to the 16 grams in the donut).

Remember, a muffin is essentially a slice of cake for breakfast.