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.

You Ask, I Answer: Skinny Bitch

What do you think of the book Skinny Bitch?

-- Jamie Pierce
Salt Lake City, UT

Skinny Bitch advertises itself as "a no-nonsense tough-love guide for savvy girls who want to stop eating crap and start looking fabulous!"

While I do give the book credit for rightfully criticizing the treatment of farm animals and dedicating a Marion Nestle-inspired chapter to the politics behind the approval process of artificial sweeteners and other substances, I summarize it as "an often inaccurate, wannabe-"shocking" nutrition book that sometimes spouts crap and is under the impression that insulting the reader is fabulous!"

Skinny Bitch claims to "finally tell you the truth about what you're feeding yourself."

However, despite its "hip" title and grrrrl-power writing style that launched it to the top of the New York Times bestseller list, it is riddled with faulty facts, hyperbolic pronouncements, and silly suggestions.

One of the authors is a former agent for Ford Models. First red flag.

Why do people who have never studied nutrition science consider themselves authorities? Would you trust a dentist who never studied dentistry? Would you trust a surgeon who never set foot in medical school? I certainly wouldn't. So why take nutrition advice from someone who hasn't dedicated time to studying it -- especially someone who works in an industry obsessed with unhealthy body shapes?

Author number two is a former model who holds a Masters degree in Holistic Nutrition from Clayton College of Natural Health. Not surprisingly, the quality and reputation of this institution are highly questioned.

There's two red flags before you even open the book.

In any case, Skinny Bitch makes the argument that the only way to be healthy is by becoming a vegan who shuns alcohol, white flour, and caffeine.

The authors repeat this over and over and particularly enjoy cursing at the reader for ever thinking they could be healthy by including any sort of meat or dairy product in their diet.

Even more disturbingly, they prey on readers' body image fears by making the case that not only does any amount of meat and dairy make you sick, it also makes you -- gasp! -- fat.

Allow me to share some passages that resulted in an "ugh!" and an eyeroll from me.

* "Soda's high level of phosphorus can increase calcium loss from the body, as can its sodium and caffeine."

While phosphoric acid in soda has indeed been linked with leached calcium from bones, it is only an issue for individuals who are not getting sufficient amounts of calcium in their diets.

Have these two ever bothered to look at the nutrition facts on a can of soda, though? Soda is very low in sodium.

A can of Coca Cola, for example, contains 35 milligrams (that's 1.4% of the suggested daily maximum intake). Ironically, the frozen vegan burger products the authors endorse contain as much as 500 milligrams of sodium per serving!

As for the caffeine-calcium link -- that's also weak, at best.

* The authors make several references to drinking 8 glasses of water a day. As I have explained in the past, this recommendation stems from a huge misunderstanding by the mainstream media.

* "One study even links caffeine to an increased susceptibility to diabetes."

Bad science alert!

Had the authors bothered to thoroughly research the literature on caffeine and diabetes, they would have discovered that caffeine consumption is linked to a lower risk of diabetes among healthy individuals. The studies they refer to are ones suggesting that people who already have diabetes may benefit from cutting back on caffeine in order to improve their blood sugar levels.

* "Acidic foods cause your body to produce fat cells..."

They apparently believe in one of the biggest -- and off-base -- nutrition myths. Lentils, blueberries, and chickpeas, for example, are categorized as "acidic foods." They now make you fat? Wow, and to think silly uninformed me considered them healthy all this time!

* "When we eat fruit with other foods... it rots and ferments in our stomach."

Not surprisingly, that ludicrous statement is not attributed to any source. Right, because it's science fiction!

* "We have food rotting, decomposing, and fermenting in our intestinal tracts and colons, hence the need for colonics."

Did the author with the Masters degree ever take a human physiology course? Clearly not! Otherwise, she would know that nothing can cling to the colon and "rot away" since the cells that line that organ slough off several times a day.

* "You don't see many tigers getting colonics, do you?"

No. Fortunately for them, rip-off artists don't exist in their species.

* "Your body can't handle animal fat, so it settles like lumpy shit all over your ass, thighs, sides, arms and stomach."

I'll let that ridiculous quote speak for itself. Is this what holistic nutritonists are being taught? Sigh...

* "If you want to get skinny, you've got to be a vegetarian."

Before I comment, let me remind you that I am a pescatarian who follows a strictly vegetarian diet 90% of the time. I am by no means a meat enthusiast, nor do I have stock in the beef industry.

That said, the idea that vegetarian = skinny is ludicrous. After all, vegetarians can eat ice cream, cakes, cookies, muffins, pizza, french fries. They can consume more calories than they need and, consequently, gain weight.

Once again, I can't help but wonder: THIS is the nonsense that passes for a #1 New York Times bestseller these days?

* "Dairy products produce mucus."

Another myth these authors clearly didn't research.

* "[Dairy products] are the perfect thing to eat if you want to be sick and have a diseased body."

As much as I dislike the narrow-minded notions that dairy products are the only way to get calcium and absolutely necessary for human health, I am also irritated by the frantic and inaccurate warnings that dairy products are equivalent to chugging Draino.

* "Consuming high amounts of dairy blocks iron absorption, contributing to iron deficiency."

Ugh. The same can be said about phytates in whole grains. In fact, the extremists folks at the Weston A. Price Organization make that very argument -- which, like this one, has very little relevance.

There is severely faulty logic at work here. Yes, calcium inhibits iron absorption, but this applies to all sources of calcium (i.e.: broccoli, bok choy, mustard greens, and tempeh) -- not just dairy.

* "Eggs are high in saturated fat."

Absolutely untrue. One egg contains approximately 1.5 grams of saturated fat -- that's 0.4 fewer grams than a tablespoon of olive oil!

* "You will pee in your pants when you see how much weight you lose from giving up dairy."

If you give up any food and don't replace the calories with something else, you will obviously lose weight. If, however, you replace the 91 calories in a cup of skim milk with 91 calories from soymilk, don't count on any changes.

* "Do you really believe milk can be made fat-free? Get your had out of your ass. Milk = fat. Butter = fat. Cheese = fat. People who think these products can be low fat or fat free = fucking morons."

The f-word! How "edgy"!

First of all, there is no such thing as low-fat or fat-free butter, so that particular example makes no sense.

Additionally, skim milk is not a mythical food item that only exists in supermarkets operated by unicorns and mermaids. So, yes, milk CAN be made fat-free.

* After pages upon pages of criticizing processed foods and sugar, the authors go on to recommend a variety of frozen vegetarian burgers, soy ice creams, and tofu hot dogs. HUH? Frozen vegetarian foods, like other frozen items, are high in sodium. Vegan hamburgers are processed food. Soy ice creams, like dairy-based ones, contain added sugars.

* From the FYI chapter: "Donate blood. You can save a life and lose weight at the same time."

I think that was when my eyebrows hit the ceiling.

Alas, I could go on (trust me, I could!), but I think you get the point.

To "make up" for their verbal abuse at the reader, the authors conclude the book with positive-thinking mantras lifted right out of The Secret ("every day in every way my stomach is getting flatter") and a clearly-tacked-on-by-a-public-relations-friendly-editor reminder that, despite the title of the book, unrealistically thin illustrations on the front and back cover, and constant references to weight, "they couldn't care less about being skinny."

You Ask, I Answer: Eating at Night

Why did you say [in your Michelle Obama post] that the principle of not eating late [at night] is hogwash?

Doesn't the digestive system interfere with sleep if it is still working full-time at bedtime?

-- Elsa (last name unknown)
Via the blog

The recommendation of not going to bed with a full stomach makes sense if you are talking about acid reflux or heartburn.

Finishing up a large dinner and falling asleep on the couch half an hour later can be problematic since acidic gastric compounds from the stomach can enter the esophagus and cause symptoms that disrupt sleep.

I was referring, though, to the common myth that not eating after a certain hour (usually 7 PM) leads to weight loss, as if there were a "magical" caloric bewitching hour.

Eating after 7 PM will only result in weight gain if whatever you consume puts you over your caloric needs. A piece of fruit or a cup of low-fat yogurt are no more fattening at 10 PM than they are at 2 PM.

What gets left out of these inane "weight loss rules" is that, very simply, the more hours you are awake, the more calories you are likely to consume. Hitting the sack an hour and a half after dinner doesn't leave as much room for hunger as staying up for another four hours.

You Ask, I Answer: Swimming & Digestion

Since I know you like to tackle myths, I have one I'm curious about.

Should you really wait an hour after eating a meal before you go swimming to prevent cramps?

-- Heidi Conprisi
New York, NY

Ah, one of those old wives' tales that will not go away.

Every Summer I still come across news articles warning beachgoers and pool enthusiasts to avoid the water for at least an hour after enjoying their lunch.

Let's lay this one to rest with some Human Physiology 101.

After a meal, blood is mainly "dispatched" to the digestive area to aid in nutrient absorption.

The "don't swim within an hour after eating a meal" assumes that getting in the water while this is happening leads to cramping.

Not quite. If you are simply immersing yourself in the ocean or engaging in some light swimming in the pool, your body can most certainly handle digestion all while providing blood to the muscles.

Unless you are planning on starting a 10 mile swim as you swallow your last morsel of lunch, there is absolutely no need for concern.

The only thing you may experience if you push yourself too hard -- as with any vigorous physical activity performed minutes after eating -- is an unpleasant queasy feeling.

You Ask, I Answer: Oxygenated Water

My local health food store now has a pretty big display case for a brand of oxygenated water.

It's supposed to have 25 times more oxygen than regular water and help with energy levels, cellular health, and endurance.

One of the company's pamphlets also said that since a lot of bacteria and pathogens are anaerobic, having lots of oxygen in your blood would prevent you from getting sick.

This was all new to me, I had never heard any of it before.

What do you think?

-- Jessica Deanly
New York, NY

What do I think? I think it is absolutely astounding -- and disturbing -- to see the amount of nutrition-related quackery out there.

The concept of oxygenated water -- and its supposed health benefits -- is absolutely ludicrous.

Taking in more oxygen in water accomplishes nothing other than provide expensive burps.

The only way oxygen gets into our bloodstream is through the lungs.

Oxygenated water, on the other hand, ends up in the small intestine, an organ that does not absorb oxygen -- much less carry it to the blood.

Besides, even if a company managed to inject lots of free-floating oxygen into their water, all of it would escape the second you unscrewed the cap!

In 2003, the Journal of the American Medical Association addressed this issue and summed up the research showing that all claims regarding oxygenated water are completely unsubstantiated.

Please do not spend your hard-earned money on this.

You Ask, I Answer: Sugar Addiction

Is it true that sugar is addicting?

For example, if I am at a party and there is a whole box of [Dunkin' Donuts] munchkins it is very hard for me to only have one!

-- Laura Bulner
Miami, FL

That is one very popular myth.

Sucrose (table sugar, and what most people refer to when they say "sugar") is simply not an addictive substance.

When singled out and studied as an individual component, it has not been shown to induce physical or psychological addiction.

I do not believe any foods in and of themselves are addictive.

I think too many people jump to that conclusion by not recognizing the strong emotions that are behind many people's food choices.

The fact that someone may binge on Oreo cookies when feeling intense loneliness, sadness, or anxiety does not mean those cookies are addictive.

What it DOES point to is an addictive personality that, for whatever reason, uses food as an emotional release.

I also find that foods that get blamed as being addictive are ones that many people often severely restrict. Not surprisingly, these extreme positions then lead to overconsumption of the "forbidden" food, be it chocolate or fries.

What I always find semi-comical is that people are quick to attribute addictive qualities solely to high-calorie, sugar-laden foods, as if to make themselves appear helpless.

You never hear, for example, someone who loves celery and eats ten stalks every single day claim that "celery is addictive."

Besides, those who are somehow convinced that sugar is addictive only feel that way about the added sugar found in pastries, chocolate, and candies.

If this supposed addiction is as powerful as they claim, it makes you wonder why naturally sweet foods like fruits somehow don't "hit the spot."

Also, Laura, I am not sure why not being able to stop yourself at one individual piece of a particular food automatically makes it addictive, even more so in a situation where the food is in front of you for a long period of time.

The same thing you say about munchkins could be said about cheese, tortilla chips, sushi rolls, or blueberries!

You Ask, I Answer: Vitamin B17

Yesterday I attended a talk by wellness coach who talked about vitamin B17 and its cancer curing properties.

This person was saying the government knows about B17's ability to cure cancer

I had never heard of it before and thought it was all sounded a little weird.

Are you familiar with it?

-- Deborah Yee
(Location withheld)

Oh dear.

"Vitamin B17" does not exist.

This all goes back to a gentleman named Ernest Krebs Jr., who in the early 1950s claimed that a chemical compound found mainly in apricot pits (known as laetrile) could cure cancer.

Seeing a potential profitable market, Krebs later contended that laetrile was actually vitamin B17 (despite the fact that laetrile does not have the necessary qualities from a chemical or molecular standpoint to be called a vitamin).

Despite federal lawsuits contending that these claims were false, laetrile continued to be sold in some health food stores (sometimes as "Vitamin B17.")

Fast forward to the early 1970s and you have G. Edward Griffin publishing a book titled World Without Cancer in which he claimed the terminal disease is caused by a vitamin B17 deficiency.

According to Griffin, this knowledge had been kept hidden from the general public due to massive conspiracies.

Quite a silly statement, considering that the first laetrile nonsense was first made public in the 1950s.

Scientific studies on laetrile make it absolutely clear that there is not one single reason to believe it has anything to do with cancer prevention.

However, some believers of this science fiction affirm that seven apricot seeds a day "guarantee a cancer free life." An absolutely shameful and false claim.

So-called "experts" on B17 claim that Alaskan Eskimos and Pakistani Hunza communities have high intakes of this "vitamin," thereby "explaining" why there are no recorded cases of cancer among their people.

That is another blatantly false statement, as scientific literature has recorded instances of cancer cases among those groups of people.

What raises my quackery red flag even more is that a look at the supposed list of foods "high in B17" (which consists only of plant foods and includes blueberries, peaches, and pears) does not in any way resemble your standard Eskimo diet.

Your question demonstrates precisely why people should be ware of credentials like "wellness coach." That is often a self-appointed title that does not guarantee expertise on -- or even basic knowledge of -- nutrition or human health.

You Ask, I Answer: Celery & Negative Calories

Does celery really have negative calories?

Ted Allen's new show Food Detectives recently tackled this question.

They claim [it is true, since]the process of digesting the "tough to digest" fiber present in celery takes more calories than the 8 calories per stalk of celery.

-- Nicole (last name withheld)
Alberta, Canada

I disagree.

Although cellulose (the "tough to digest" fiber the show refers to) can not be broken down by humans, it does not make celery a "calorie-negative" food.

The Mayo Clinic specifically looked into this nine years ago and concluded that celery does not result in negative calorie deficit.

Simply put, its thermic effect (the amount of energy it takes for the body to digest it) does not surpass its caloric content, especially given that its thermic effect burns approximately 0.5 calories.

Even if celery was discovered to be a negative calorie food, it wouldn't be a life-changing discovery.

If each stalk resulted in a two calorie deficit, that would mean it would take 25 stalks of it (plain -- no dips allowed!) to simply burn an additional 50 calories.

Or, you could quickly slash 50 calories from your day by replacing your standard Starbucks Venti beverage with a Grande, or starting off your morning with a medium orange rather than a cup of orange juice.

You Ask, I Answer: Calcium & Weight Loss

What are your thoughts on the belief that high calcium intakes help with weight loss?

-- Flor (last name withheld)
Buenos Aires, Argentina

Since the public loves the idea of magic bullets and fat-burning foods, the notion that a little extra calcium in the diet results in more effective weight loss really struck a nerve.

A few years ago, the dairy industry began advertising the claim that three glasses of skim or low-fat milk a day were more than just a good source of calcium -- they also helped with weight management.

Truth is -- there is no concrete science to support those statements.

The vast majority of clinical trials looking at calcium and weight loss fail to demonstrate a link between high intakes of the mineral and higher rates of weight loss.

Notice that even the "calcium helps you lose weight" campaign ultimately came down to calories. After all, consumers were encouraged to drink low-fat or skim milk, not whole.

If calcium in and of itself were a miraculous fat burner, it technically wouldn't matter if the product containing it were fat-free or not.

I encourage everyone to always be suspicious of specific foods or nutrients marketed as "fat burning," and instead keep in mind that weight management is more about general dietary patterns.

Drinking six cups of green tea a day isn't going to do much in terms of weight loss if your total caloric intake is 1,000 calories higher than it should be.

Similarly, chugging down a glass of skim milk along with a 450 calorie muffin isn't going to produce any amazing results.

You Ask, I Answer: Cucumbers

The turkey myth posting had me thinking about people putting cucumbers on their eyes because they supposedly help get rid of bags.

Is that a myth or is there an antioxidant in them that helps reduce puffiness?

-- Rachel (last name withheld)
Morristown, NJ

There's no secret compound to speak of.

Cucumbers are great at reducing puffiness simply because they maintain their cool temperature and are largely made up of water.

The mechanism that creates bags under the eyes is the same one that promotes swelling after, say, a baseball strikes you in the face.

In both cases, the best course of action is to apply some sort of cold compress to the affected area.

It helps that cucumbers hold well and, since they can be sliced into the perfect shape and size to cover our eyes, provide an aesthetic touch.

It just wouldn't look or work the same if you placed celery stalks, apple slices, or something as acidic as lemons, limes, or oranges over your eyes at the spa!

You Ask, I Answer: Tryptophan

I am writing to you so you can hopefully help me prove a point.

My cousin claims the reason why people feel tired after Thanksgiving dinner is because of the tryptophan in turkey.

I say that's a myth.

She insists it has been "scientifically proven" that tryptophan makes you sleepy.

What do you have to say?

-- Lori Narth
(Location withheld)

Ah, yes, the "turkey makes you sleepy" myth. Let's break this one down.

Tryptophan is one of twenty amino acids (and one of nine essential amino acids which we must get from food.)

Tryptophan also happens to be a pre-cursor for serotonin (a neurotransmitter) and melatonin (a hormone), which play significant roles in the regulation of sleep.

That might make you think there is a direct link between the tryptophan in your turkey dinner and your desire to nap a short while later.

Not so much.

First of all, although tryptophan is one amino acid in turkey, it is also found in other foods.

In fact, chicken breast, tuna, soybeans, and beef contain more tryptophan than turkey! Snapper, black beans, and cod are also good sources of this amino acid.

More importantly, tryptophan is one of many amino acids contained in a Thanksgiving dinner.

This means tryptophan is competing with other similar compounds for absorption by the brain. Simply put, you aren't getting enough of it to make you sleepy.

Research has shown you would have to eat a significant amount of turkey -- almost the entire bird! -- on an empty stomach to feel any sleep-inducing effects.

A much more accurate theory for the sleepiness after Thanksgiving dinner has to do with the sheer amount of food eaten.

With that much food to digest, the body sends as much blood as it can to the intestinal tract, resulting in an energy zap.

This is the main reason behind the "small meals throughout the day" recommendation -- by not overworking your digestive system at any given time, your energy level is more likely to remain steady.

Remember, too, that most Thanksgiving meals consist of white bread, mashed potatoes, and cranberry sauce.

Those are precisely the kind of carbohydrates that make blood sugar levels rise and fall rather sharply, making for a more noticeable "energy crash."

It is also a known fact that meals high in carbohydrate increase insulin levels, consequently increasing the amount of serotonin produced by the body.

I also think people forget that the buildup to such events (traveling to someone's house, preparing the food, and being soecially "on") can be rather tiresome.

You Ask, I Answer: Nutrition & Fingernails

When I was in school, I always remember hearing that small white spots on your fingernails appeared because you weren't getting enough calcium and zinc.

Is there any truth to that or it is an old wive's tale?

-- Jessica Climdow
(City withheld), MN

It's an absolute myth.

White spots on fingernails form as a response to injury (i.e.: accidentally slamming your fingernail on a counter top).

It's similar to skin developing a bruise when, for instance, you bump your elbow against something.

Whereas bruises to the skin can show up within a day or two, white spots on fingernails take much longer.

Since nail growth happens so slowly, it can take as much as two or three months for a spot to form -- and vanish!

In rare occasions, these white spots can also appear if you are allergic to a certain type of nail polish.

Sometimes, too, they are caused by bacterial infections underneath the nail. This is easy to spot, though, since usually this sort of infection results in part of the nail developing a greenish tint.

FYI: the classic symptoms of calcium deficiency are muscle cramping and twitching.

If you are deficient in zinc, you would experience significant hair loss, general fatigue, bruising on your skin, and often times, a decrease in appetite.

You Ask, I Answer: Alfalfa Sprouts

Are alfalfa sprouts full of nutrients?

I was leafing through a book about juicing yesterday and the author claimed alfalfa sprouts offer more nutrients than oranges, spinach, and blueberries.

True?

-- Morgan (last name withheld)
Boston, MA

Absolutely false.

Although alfalfa sprouts contain an ample variety of nutrients, they exist in minimal -- practically non-existent -- amounts (a half cup contains roughly one to two percent of the daily value of most vitamins and minerals.)

They aren't even a good source of fiber!

The nutrient these sprouts offer the most of is Vitamin K -- and that's at a decent, but by no means amazing, 13 percent per half cup serving.

A lot of alkaline enthusiasts hail alfalfa sprouts almost as the fountain of youth, although I have no clue what that opinion could possibly be based on.

Alfalfa sprouts, much like a straight "C" student, don't stand out as particularly great or horrible. They just.... are.

You Ask, I Answer: Vinegar

Does vinegar have any positive or negative affects on the body?

--Lori (last name withheld)
Ottawa, ON

Although vinegar is a great low-calorie (roughly 14 calories per tablespoon) flavoring agent, it doesn't offer significant amounts of any nutrient.

Some fasts and detox plans claim that downing a tablespoon of apple cider vinegar before each meal helps reduce cravings and speed up fat loss.

I have absolutely no idea how they came to such a conclusion, though, given that there is nothing in the scientific literature demonstrating that vinegar has specific fat-loss properties.

There has been some preliminary research on vinegar's effect on blood sugar levels of diabetics, but nothing that would warrant the suggestion of making vinegar a daily staple.

There is no reason to avoid it, either -- there are no harmful effects from consuming it in moderate amounts (i.e.: a tablespoon in salad dressing).

That said, going overboard and drinking multiple tablespoons in an attempt to speed up the metabolism is not only futile -- it can also cause tooth enamel damage.

Shame On You: The Blueprint Cleanse

After receiving favorable publicity in Vogue, Elle, Cosmopolitan, and New York Magazine, the New York City based Blueprint Cleanse is increasing in popularity across the United States.

As you may imagine, I am not a fan.

Long story short: the founder of The Blueprint Cleanse had “a savage cold” on January 1, 2000, which she recuperated from a week later after following a seven-day juice cleanse.

Don’t most colds naturally run their course in a week? I digress.

As happy as she was to have her health back, she thought that particular cleanse was too extreme.

Well, lucky us -- this inspired her to start a nutritional cleanse company “customized to [each client’s] level of nutritional awareness and dietary history.”

Mix that idea with a cutesy website, trendy advertising, and promises of “normalized weight” and “physical rejuvenation,” and the latest "wellness" nonsense is born.

Beginners can opt for a 3 day program, while more advanced folks looking to flush their hard-earned dollars down the toilet -- oops, I mean, the toxins out of their system -- can opt for 5, 7 or 10 day cleanses.

For $65 a day, the 6 beverages you need to drink each day are delivered to your home or office in the insulated cooler picture at top (as you may notice by looking at that photo, each juice is labeled in suggested order of consumption.)

Mind you, these are fruit and vegetable blends (as well as one cashew milk drink) that cost no more than $10 a day to make.


Despite Blueprint’s claim that this is different from other cleanses, we are dealing with the same flawed logic (except this time the intellectual excrement is covered in a glossy shimmer, kind of like an episode of MTV’s The Hills.)

A few choice examples:

“Can we please finally put to rest the myth that if you don’t eat a lot, you’ll lack energy? Unless one is undergoing a water fast, which, should only be done with a coach, energy levels will skyrocket!”

I suppose. But how about finally putting to rest these inane notions that we need to subsist on nothing but liquefied fruits and vegetables to cleanse our bodies?

While "we" are at it, can "we" please learn some basic human physiology and realize that the kidneys and pancreas already get rid of "toxins"?

Disturbingly, The Blueprint Cleanse folks claim it is absolutely possible to exercise while undergoing any of their fasts (3, 5, or 7 days.)

“The energy that is usually spent on digestion is now yours for the taking, so grab it and go for a jog! Remember- you are feeding your cells, not stuffing your belly.”

Newsflash -- solids AND liquids go through the digestive system. Just because you are drinking six juices a day does not mean your body takes a break from digestion.

According to the creators, this cleanse contains nothing but “food that's packed with enzymes [and] will allow your body to clean.”

Oh, the enzyme argument. Cute. Too bad it’s baseless.

“A three-day Cleanse helps the body rid itself of old built up matter and cleanses the blood. A five-day Cleanse starts the process of rebuilding and healing the immune system. A ten-day Cleanse will take care of problems before they arise and fight off degenerative diseases.”

I would love to know how they came to this conclusion. Not to mention, how exactly does a cleanse "take care of problems before they arise?"

Am I supposed to believe that, magically, on the tenth day, I have enough power in my immune system to prevent a scratchy throat? If so, for how long?

Wondering when you should be cleansing? Here it is from the horse's mouth:

“A good rule of thumb is whenever you experience any of the following: fatigue/general lack of energy, sleeplessness, anxiety/depression, digestive problems, at the first sign of a cold and of course, before and after holidays or any special events that lead to overindulging.”

Yes, because I am sure someone with depression is just itching to give up a hot plate of food and instead subsist on nothing but cold vegetable and fruit juices for a week.

Okay, okay, I'm being unfair. The Blueprint Cleanse allows you to cheat by sinking your teeth into.... celery sticks.

You might as well throw two ice cubes onto your plate and have yourself a party!!

Back to the suggested times of use -- I'm very weary of attempting to correct issues of fatigue and lack of energy by going on a liquid diet that barely grazes the 1,000 calorie mark.

And then there's the most extreme cleanse – “the excavation cleanse” – which does away with most fruits and instead “focuses on foods that trigger detox and elimination, such as citrus (spicy lemonade), which act as “cleaners” and green vegetable tonics which act as “healers.”

And, clearly, this cleanse goes in the "complete and utter nonsense" category.

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.

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.

Say What?: Japanese Dieters Go Bananas

And you thought the Master Cleanse diet was as ridiculous as it could get?

CBS-3 in Philadelphia is reporting that Japan's "morning banana diet" fad has led to shortages of the yellow-skinned tropical fruit.

What exactly does the morning banana diet entail, you ask?

Oh, just the usual nonsense.

Apparently, you can eat whatever you want --in unlimited quantities, no less -- for lunch and dinner (although dinner should preferably be no later than 6 p.m.) as long as you consume one raw, unfrozen banana for breakfast.

That's right, feel free to wolf down cheeseburgers, fries, and milkshakes -- the bananas will magically help you lose weight!

Two other rules -- you may only drink water and exercise is completely optional!

The diet's "official website," which credits a "white-collar worked named Hitoshi Watanabe" as creating the diet, provides some laughable theories as to why this weight-loss plan "works."

My favorites?

* "Bananas contain enzymes that assist in digestion, speeding it up and thus reducing the amount of time the intestines need to work to digest food, resulting in a metabolism more suited to losing weight. These enzymes only exist if the bananas are eaten in their raw state."

Oh, look, the digestive enzyme myth again!

Humans already have necessary digestive enzymes; we do not need any from our food supply.

Additionally, speeding up digestion sounds like a dieter's nightmare, as it would mean faster gastric emptying (and thus feeling hungry more quickly!)

* "Laying off the manditory[sic] exercise and allowing afternoon sweets reduces stress, which would otherwise lead to overeating."

There's a new one! So popping bonbons at four in the afternoon creates as many "feel good" endorphins as lifting some weights or jogging?

Who knew nutrition could be so comical?

Say What?/Celebrity Diet Secrets: Teri Hatcher

One of the country's most famous desperate housewives recently shared some of the images and phrases on her "goal board" (described by Ms. Hatcher as "a collage of images of things you want to achieve in your life... all written, glued or drawn onto a big piece of paper.")

Among that inspirational collage? "Don't eat after 7 PM."

Uh oh, looks like the "calorie clock" myth is back!

Truth is, calories couldn't care less what time they are consumed.

A 600 calorie ice cream sundae will provide 600 calories whether it's gobbled down for breakfast or at 10 PM.

Let me just say that not eating after 7 PM will very likely result in some weight loss.

However, this is very simply due to a reduction in total daily caloric intake (rather than avoiding food after an arbitrary bewitching hour where calories are multiplied by twenty!)

I'm more disturbed by the notion that refusing food after 7 PM is someone's life goal.

I would have gone with "develop a healthy attitude towards food."

Represented by an illustration of someone happily savoring one (there's the key!) decadent dark chocolate truffle.

You Ask, I Answer: Food Cravings

Is it true that craving a certain food is a sign that you are low in the nutrients that food has?

-- (Name withheld)
Albany, NY

This is a much-believed myth.

Food cravings have more to do with rises and drops in specific brain chemicals (i.e.: serotonin) as well as emotional states than nutrition.

Many people find, for instance, that they are more likely to crave fatty and/or sugary foods when they are stressed, sad, anxious, or lonely.

It's also worth pointing out that most cravings are for particular tastes and textures, as opposed to specific vitamins and minerals.

A craving for ice cream, for instance, does not mean the body is in need of calcium. Nor does a craving for potato chips signify low potassium levels.

If this were the case, people would be just as likely to crave a glass of milk or some baked tofu in place of ice cream, or an avocado or bananas rather than potato chips.

I find that frequent cravings often signify eating patterns that are too strict or limited.

Liberalizing food selection usually leads to less cravings, and, consequently, less chances of losing control once that craving is fulfilled.

Another important factor worth keeping in mind with cravings is to truly identify what is being sought.

A lot of people fall into the trap of attempting to satisfy a craving by eating anything BUT the very thing they want.

If you are craving chocolate, fruit isn't going to cut it. Neither are whole wheat crackers or peanut butter. Coincidentally, sometimes the avoidal of a craving results in a higher caloric intake than the craving itself!

The key, particularly with fatty and sugary cravings, is to find a small amount that is truly satisfying.

For instance, when I crave chocolate, I have a few squares of an intensely dark chocolate that I love.

Those two squares are less than 100 calories but, thanks to the rich and decadent flavor, fulfill my craving much better than, say, 250 calories of a regular milk chocolate bar.