Product Rave! Powdered Peanut Butter

Okay, I know it sounds weird, but this stuff is probably the best food innovation I've seen in quite some time. It's exactly what it sounds like.. powdered peanut butter. You mix the powder with just a little bit of water and it makes a paste that is similar in consistency to peanut butter. It's a little thicker and not as oily, but it is perfectly spreadable and has all the flavor of regular peanut butter. Now here's the kicker.... it's only 53 calories per serving!! In case you weren't aware, regular peanut butter has 180 calories per serving. A serving, by the way, is 2 tablespoons. It's not really that much. Oh, and while the powdered peanut butter has one EIGHTH of the fat of its conventional counterpart (1.87g vs. 16g), it manages to keep almost all of the protein (5.65g compared to 7g for regular peanut butter).

If you ate a peanut butter sandwich every day and switched from regular pb to the powdered kind, you would lose about a pound a month, or 14 lbs in a year, without changing anything else! Or, you could look at it a different way... and eat an extra 130 calories each time you make the substitution. So, for example, instead of having just a pb&j, you could have a pb&j AND

a 6oz. Yoplait light yogurt

a very large apple

a 100-calorie pack of your choice

1/2 cup light ice cream

a chocolate truffle

a glass of 1% milk

2 cups of baby carrots

a small bag of baked Lays potato chips

a single-serving box of Frosted Flakes

2 fat free fudgsicles

2 apple cinnamon rice cakes

OR

5 more tablespoons of powdered pb!

The possibilities are endless! You can order this little miracle here. They also have a chocolate flavored version that I haven't tried, but I can just imagine how yummy it is.

"I hope you weren't planning on eating that"

My poor husband has become so accustomed to my playing food police that his response to this question as we drive home from Thanksgiving dinner with a car full of leftovers is, "No, of course not!"

I was referring to the tupperware containers full of turkey and sweet potatoes that my mother-in-law (MIL) gave us to take home. Why wouldn't I allow my husband to eat any of it?? Because I want him to live to see Christmas! I've come to realize that I may be the only person in the world who knows how to properly handle, cook, and store food that is safe to consume. Or at least I'm the only person in the Doughty family who does. My MIL thinks it's perfectly okay to cook a meal, then leave the food out on the counter, on top of the stove, on the table- basically wherever the temperature is conducive to bacterial growth- for the duration of the day and/or night so that it is readily accessible for whoever is daring (and foolish) enough to eat it.

This particular Thanksgiving meal was served sometime before 5pm (this is when we arrived and the food was already out). It was not packed up until we left around 9:00. And even then, it wasn't put in the fridge, but on the front porch, where presumably temperatures are fridge-like. There are two problems with this approach: #1, food should only be kept at room temperature for 2 hours and certainly no longer than 4 hours. After 4 hours, it should be discarded. #2, the temperature on the front porch was not necessarily below 40 degrees, the temperature at which bacterial growth is sufficiently slowed. Even if it was below 40 at 9pm that night, it definitely wasn't the next day when the sun came up and heated the many-windowed porch like a greenhouse. But that didn't stop anyone from eating leftovers for the next 3 days!

You can imagine my reaction when we went back there Sunday night and MIL asked, "You guys want leftovers?!!" Oh, and cooked poultry should only be kept for 1-2 days, so that's STRIKE THREE!

While I target my MIL, I know that she is far from alone in her risky food storage practices. I don't know how many times I've heard someone say, "If it smells fine, go ahead and eat it." Or, "you'd know if it was bad." This is, quite simply, ridiculous! You would absolutely NOT know if a food was bad just by looking at it or smelling it. In fact, the bacteria that make food smell and taste bad typically would not make you sick. It's the bacteria that don't have an effect on the food's physical qualities that you need to worry about.

So for those of you who are similarly uninformed, here are some great resources to help you stay safe and healthy this holiday season:

Food Safety Tips for Healthy Holidays

Food Safety FAQs

Kitchen Companion - Very thorough! With charts and stuff!

This might make some people angry...

But after reading this article on MSN, I was reminded about a controversial topic that has become highly relevant in recent years, as more women are getting college educations and starting careers before settling down, getting married, and starting a family.

The article discussed a new study which found that a lot of women aren't aware of the risks of delaying motherhood. I have always found the science behind procreation fascinating. I love learning about the many ways that a child's health can be affected by the decisions his or her parents make from before conception through the gestational period and early infancy. So this is of some interest to me.

One finding of this study that was eye-opening to me was this:

"'Only 53 percent of women with fertility problems knew that the chances of conceiving via IVF decline between the ages of 30 and 40. What's more, 85 percent of them thought that fertility treatment can "overcome the effect of age.'

In reality, the researchers note, only 25 percent to 30 percent of women in their 20s and 30s give birth after IVF treatment. Among women older than 40, the success rate is closer to 10 percent."

While I never thought the availability of IVF should be a reason to put off having kids, I admit I did think it was more effective than that.

Other risks that women in the study didn't always know about: the risk of gestational diabetes increases with maternal age, as does the chance of twins, and the need for a cesarean section.

This isn't the first time I've heard that the outcomes aren't optimal for mother or child when pregnancy happens later in life (age 35+). Incidence of Down's syndrome increases with maternal age, as does the risk of placenta previa, miscarriage, pre-term delivery, and stillbirth. Another recent study found that babies born to young mothers lived longer than babies born to older mothers. The evidence seems to be stacked against delaying pregnancy much past age 30.

What the MSN article emphasizes is that women need to be informed of these risks. But I think I know why doctors may be reluctant to bring it up. I've noticed that a lot of women get really upset when people start talking about these risks. They take it personally. They undoubtedly are thinking "How dare you pressure me into having kids before I'm ready? How dare you tell me what to do with my body? I shouldn't be looked down upon for trying to better myself by going to school and having a career and being self-sufficient. This is the 21st century! Women shouldn't be forced into traditional wife and mother roles. We don't have to choose between a fulfilling career and raising a family! We can have both! If that means waiting until our late 30s or early 40s to have children, then so be it. You have no right to judge."

I certainly understand this sentiment. I myself am pursuing post-baccalaureate degrees and plan on doing meaningful work in my field of employment. I do believe women should do whatever it is they want to do with their lives and not feel constrained by traditional views of what a woman's role is. But I also believe that we need to be realistic. We may be able to reverse millenia of discrimination against women, but we can't change biology. Not yet, anyway. Now I'm not saying that if you don't get pregnant before age 35, you should just forget about ever having kids. But, if you are in a position where the decision is yours to start now or wait... I think that the scientific evidence and advice of the medical community should at least be seriously considered.

Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Lunch Blog Review: Battle of the Bentos

The reason I haven't gotten around to posting lately is that I've become consumed by my thesis. I am actually writing this post in between stuffing consent forms into 1500 or so envelopes that need to get mailed tomorrow.

My thesis research is going to be a comparison of the nutrient content of school-bought lunches and lunches brought from home by high school students. Unfortunately, any time you study minors, you need parental consent... hence the endless envelope-stuffing. At any rate, because of this project, I have been thinking a lot about what kids eat for lunch.

There are a number of blogs out there started by moms who chronicle the meticulously prepared, visually appealing, and sometimes nutritious lunches they send their children to school with every day. While many of these bloggers are quite concerned with ensuring that the lunches they make are healthful, not all of them are quite so virtuous. So, I thought I'd critique a couple of them here today.

Don't try this at home: What's for lunch at our house

Grade: C

This mom makes a good effort, but these lunches are far from optimal. Sure, there's always a fruit and/or vegetable, but they're the same ones over and over and there are usually much less of them than there are of other less-healthful things. The lunches "at our house" are consistently high in refined carbohydrates and saturated fat, with nary a healthy fat or whole grain in sight.

For example, this lunch contained a mini quiche (so, saturated fat and a little protein), goldfish pretzels (refined carbs), panda cookies (more refined carbs and sugar), grapes (looks like there are about 6 of them, cut in half) and a fruit jelly (more sugar). No healthy fats, no whole grains, no vegetables, and just a little bit of fruit.

And the other lunches look pretty similar. The only fruits that show up are cantaloupe and grapes (small portions usually), and the only vegetable I've seen is baby carrots (it looks like maybe 2 or 3 sticks per lunch). Meanwhile, items like mini pigs in a blanket, sausage and cheese kebabs, goldfish crackers (not the whole grain kind from what I can tell), cookies, bagels with cream cheese, and pasta salad are regularly included.

Golden Nugget: Lunch Nugget
Grade: A+

Now this lady knows what she's doing. This lunch (like many others on her blog) contains 2 different types of fruit AND two different types of vegetables. Fruits and vegetables make up the majority of this lunch. There is a treat (M&Ms), but just a small amount. The bunny is a cheese sandwich made with reduced-fat cheese and whole grain bread. Perfect!

This blogger also manages to fit in many different fruits and vegetables over the course of the week. The recipient of these beautifully prepared lunches, or "Nugget," as he is affectionately called, will reap many benefits from his mom's painstaking effforts. He is being exposed regularly to a variety of healthful foods, increasing the likelihood that he will grow up with a taste for foods that are good for him and not become a very picky eater who refuses to touch anything but chicken fingers and french fries.

I am in complete control of my own behavior... or am I?

I was reading the Yale Rudd Center blog today and read an interesting post about a new study. This study found that the amount of food that people consumed was influenced by the amount of food another person in their company consumed, but these people were completely oblivious to the impact the other person's intake had on their own intake. My comment to the post:


I think this is the core problem that public health advocates seeking to prevent obesity are facing. The U.S. is highly individualistic, and as a result individuals are assumed to have sole responsibility for their choices. This is why so many people object vehemently to proposals for changing the food environment (e.g. menu labeling laws, trans fat bans, even school food policies that limit the sale of junk food). They don't want anyone "telling them what to eat." They want to be able to choose to eat themselves to death if they want to.

What no one seems to understand is that allowing the "toxic environment" to exist unchanged is also limiting choice and controlling behavior. The ubiquity of unhealthful foods and the scarcity of healthful (and convenient) foods encourages a certain type of eating pattern, and not one that we want to encourage. This type of environment greatly limits choices for those of us who want to eat anything other than a traditional Western diet. When I go to a restaurant, I may have 3 options to choose from, whereas someone who isn't concerned with the nutritional value of their meal may have 50+. Is that fair?

Mara brings up an interesting point about people influencing others to restrict consumption. I believe there is some evidence to support that, but I think people more frequently encourage each other to eat MORE, simply because more people are eating too much than eating too little, so we are more likely to be around someone who is overeating than someone who is undereating. And for every time I've seen women competing to show restraint, there have been at least 20 times where I've seen one women egg another on to cheat on her diet or indulge in something she doesn't think she should have. "Oh go ahead! Have a cookie! Be BAD! I'll have one if you do!" Or my favorite: "Live a little!" I'd rather live long, thanks.

Mandatory Flu Vaccines for Children

The conspiracy-theory generation of parents in New Jersey are in an uproar over a new rule requiring all preschoolers to receive the flu vaccine prior to enrolling in a preschool or day care center. (Read the article here). This is just another example of baseless fear leading to irrational thinking. Really, people are far too worried about things they have nothing to worry about and not worried enough about the things that could really be harmful to children(like trans fat and violent movies).

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends annual influenza immunization for all children, both healthy and with high-risk conditions, aged 6 months through 18 years. This recommendation was based on the results of extensive research on the safety and efficacy of these vaccines in children. What are the objections of these parents based on?? Unsubstantiated rumors. Personally, I'd trust the pediatricians.

I heard one parent interviewed for a news piece on this story say something to the effect of, "What does getting my kid vaccinated have to do with anyone else's kid? It's illogical to me" (i.e. if I want to risk my child getting the flu, what business is it of yours?) Obviously, this guy thinks he knows more than all of the doctors and public health officials who promote vaccination. If it doesn't make sense to him, it mustn't make sense at all. Having taken an introductory course in epidemiolgy, I can tell you that it is perfectly logical that the decision of one parent not to vaccinate his child will affect other children. This is because when people are vaccinated, they can't get the disease, and more importantly, they can't spread the disease to others. It's called "herd immunity." Smallpox wasn't eradicated because every person in the world got the vaccine. It was eradicated because enough people got the vaccine that it simply could not pass from person to person anymore.

There is more risk in not vaccinating children than there is in vaccinating them. The consequences of flu in young children range from seemingly minor annoyances such as increased doctor visits and school absenteeism to hospitalization and death. Either way, the costs in terms of money, time, and suffering are high. There is simply not sufficient justification for refusing to immunize children, even against seemingly innocuous illnesses like the flu.

The CDC has some good, credible information about vaccines here.

How to not overeat at a Chinese buffet

I came across an interesting article the other day, written by my idol, Brian Wansink and Collin Payne. Dr. Wansink is the director of the Cornell Food and Brand Lab, which conducts a number of fascinating studies on why people overeat. You may have heard of the stale popcorn study, for example.

Anyway, this article was about a study on eating behaviors of obese vs. non-obese customers at Chinese buffet restaurants. They found that patrons with high BMIs were more likely to use larger plates, and less likely to use chopsticks vs. forks or to browse the buffet before serving themseleves vs. taking food immediately. Leaner people left more food on their plates and chewed more per bite of food than heavier people.

While this was an observational, correlational study not without limitations, it couldn't hurt to try the following strategies the next time you visit a buffet:

1.) Use only small plates
2.) Browse the entire buffet and then decide which items you want to eat, rather than piling on anything that looks good as you go.
3.) Use chopsticks, even if you're not that good at it.
4.) Chew slowly

Reference: Wansink, B., Collin, P.R. (2008)Eating behavior and obesity at Chinese buffets. Obesity, 16, 1957-1960.
Photo from http://www.flickr.com/photos/samsmith/

Why I will not give out Halloween candy

As the shelves of drug stores and supermarkets are being stocked with bright orange-colored bags of sugary treats, I'm starting to think that Halloween has us all tricked. Despite the preponderonce of junk food that kids have available to them on a daily basis, this innocent-sounding holiday has everyone rushing out to buy even more junk with which to fill trick-or-treaters' ever-expanding bellies.

Obesity rates in children have tripled in the last three decades, and now over 30% of children and adolescents are overweight (also called "at risk" for overweight, but I don't accept this term. A child who is "at risk" for overweight at age 17 would be considered overweight at 18, with the same BMI). Kids are surrounded by opportunities to eat large portions of high-fat, high-sugar, high-calorie foods of low nutritional value all.the.time. Do they really need another excuse to eat candy??? Let alone superfluous quantities of candy that will undoubtedly keep their sweet tooths satisfied and rotting for months to come.

Maybe giving out candy on Halloween was defensible when candy was a special treat that kids only got to have once in a while. But these days, kids can get candy at the movie theater, at the corner store after school, at the vending machine IN school, at birthday parties, at home, at the checkout line in the grocery store, and virtually any other place where kids are found. And when they're not eating candy, they may as well be. Pop tarts, donuts, or Count Chocula are breakfast staples and Hostess cupcakes are commonly found in lunchboxes. Sorry, but I don't see a good reason for doling out even more sweets to this generation of children, tradition or not.

Now I'm not a complete Halloween humbug. I think it's a fun holiday, but candy need not be an integral part of the celebration. This year, I'll be giving out toys from the party store's goodie-bag aisle. You might be thinking, Kids don't want toys! You may as well be giving out toothbrushes! Well, here's the evidence:

"Halloween: Trick, treat, or toy. This study investigated whether children would choose toys over candy when offered both on Halloween. Seven households gave 284 trick-or-treaters, ages 3 to 14, a choice between comparably sized toys and candies. Both boys and girls in the group were just as likely to choose toys as candy. The implication of this study is that nutrition professionals should encourage adults to create holiday traditions that do not rely on unhealthy foods. Schwartz, M.B., Chen, E.Y., & Brownell, K.D. (2003). Trick, treat, or toy: Children as likely to choose toys as candy on Halloween. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 35, 207-209." - From the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity