Coercion by Big Brother or Big Business. Which do you prefer?

I can't imagine a topic more blog-worthy than this one. If you haven't heard, San Francisco has banned restaurants (like McDonald's) from offering a free toy in a kids' meal unless it meets a set of relatively low nutritional standards. Meals that include toys must contain no more than 600 calories and 35% of calories from fat. Full story on LAtimes.com. A meal with 600 calories may provide anywhere from 25%-60% of a child's total daily calorie needs, depending on age, gender, and activity level. Because the ordinance does not actually require meals with toys to contain any beneficial nutrients such as vitamins, minerals, or fiber, I would hardly consider it to be draconian.

Nevertheless, many object to the new regulation on the grounds that government is once again reaching into private lives and meddling where it shouldn't. It is an understandable objection, but on this issue, I side with the San Francisco government. In a column published today, physician and preventive medicine researcher David Katz does a great job of presenting an argument for regulating toys in kids' meals.

When I first read about the move, my first thought was not that the government was manipulating consumers by regulating businesses, but that it was preventing the manipulation of consumers by businesses. Dr. Katz's column expresses this point better than I could:

"Let's assume that you see the removal of the toy from the Happy Meal as a case of Big Brother telling you what to do. How, then, did you view the placement of the toy in the Happy Meal in the first place?

McDonald's did not consult you to find out if you wanted a toy encouraging your child to prefer a meal of lamentable nutritional quality. They did not consult any parent. They may have done consumer testing showing that kids- and thus their parents- are apt to choose such meals, but that's to find out what's best for them, not for you."

He also makes the important point that the government must be accountable to voters, whereas McDonald's is only accountable to its shareholders. The implication here, as I interpret it, is that the decisions made by the government in this instance are much likelier to be in our best interests than those made by McDonald's.

Finally, as if reading my mind, he says, "We are all prone, whether or not we care to admit it, to manipulation by multinational corporations with fortunes to spend and the best thinnking Madison Avenue can provide. Thinking designed to figure out what it takes to get us to buy what they're selling. Being manipulated into a lunch choice my McDonald's and Dreamworks [which supplies many of the toys] is not exactly the epitome of personal liberty."

I think this last point, the one that I mentioned at the beginning of this post, is perhaps more important. If people were as vigilant of manipulation by business as they are of manipulation by government, maybe they would view this issue, and others like it, differently.

Alcohol: stealth diet saboteur

I can't tell you how many times someone has told me "I do everything right but still don't lose weight." When I hear it, I am sympathetic, yet skeptical. Why? Because weight loss is a simple matter of mathematics. Body cells require a certain amount of energy (i.e. calories) to maintain themselves and keep a human being alive. There is certainly variation in the amount of energy individuals need, depending on height, current weight, muscle mass, activity level, and a few other factors, but most people will burn between 1,000 and 3,000 calories per day doing absolutely nothing. This is a wide range, to be sure, but the people on the lower end of the range are almost certainly very small and not in need of weight loss. In general, the more you weigh, the more calories you burn. All of those extra cells require more energy and it also takes more effort to move the extra weight around. Think about walking uphill with an empty backback vs. walking uphill with a 50-lb. weighted backpack. The latter scenario will burn more calories. In the same way, a person who is 50 lbs. overweight will burn more calories during his or her physical activities compared with a normal-weight person.

Now that you understand this, you should also understand why I was skeptical when a 180 lb. man- we'll call him "Mike"-who works out daily told me that he's eating 1200 calories a day and still can't lose weight. This man had to be burning at least 2000 calories daily, so his reported intake and activity just didn't add up. After a little more prodding, I discovered the reason for the discrepancy. Mike went to a local bar for happy hour every night. He swore he ate only shrimp cocktail, a very low-fat and low-calorie food. What he neglected to tell me was that he also consumed 6-10 shots of liquor mixed with various juices. It never occurred to him that the alcohol he drank could be preventing him from losing weight.

If you are not already aware, let me be the one to enlighten you: alcohol has calories! A lot of them! A standard portion of liquor (1 1/2 oz), beer (12 oz) or wine (6oz) will contain between 100 and 150 calories. That's without any mixers. Mixed drinks and sweet liqueurs will have even more. A large pina colada, daquiri or margarita can easily contain over 500 calories. Even if you don't drink every day, like Mike in the example above, one or two nights of weekend drinking can be enough to undo your efforts during the week to eat right and exercise. If you want to know how your alcohol intake may contribute to weight gain over time, I highly recommend checking out this website, which allows you to calculate the alcohol calories you take in on a monthly, and yearly basis. To figure out how many pounds it amounts to, divide the number you get by 3500 (the number of calories in one pound of fat).

You can also calculate your BMR and estimate your energy expenditure here:

http://www.bmrcalculator.org/

Cardiovascular benefits of chocolate

If you are either a) really nerdy or b) really bored, you may be interested in this presentation on cocoa and cardiovascular health. I gave the presentation as part of a seminar course I took this summer. I finally figured out how to upload the video, so I thought I'd post it here.

Wendy's thinks their customers are stupid

It seems like every time I turn around, there's some food company saying something that makes me say, for lack of a more fitting phrase, "WTF?!" Wendy's is the latest to grind my gears. Lately, I've been seeing commercials like this one, which repeat a new tag line "You know when it's real."


I guess Wendy's doesn't think it's customers will know when it's bullshit. I think the ingredients lists for their products, taken from their website, speak for themselves:

Honey BBQ Boneless Wings
Boneless Wings (chicken breast, water, chicken flavor [salt, flavor, autolyzed yeast extract, maltodextrin, chicken flavor, chicken, gum arabic, sunflower oil, sugar, silicon dioxide, lactic acid, canola oil, modified corn starch, grill flavor {from canola oil}, citric acid, trisodium phosphate], modified food starch, sodium phosphates. Battered and Breaded with: wheat flour, water, modified corn starch, salt, sugar, leavening [sodium acid pyrophosphate, sodium bicarbonate, monocalcium phosphate], spice, onion powder, garlic powder, dextrose, autolyzed yeast, natural and artificial flavor, extractives of paprika), Honey BBQ Sauce (honey, water, high fructose corn syrup, tomato paste, distilled white vinegar, modified corn starch, molasses, Worcestershire sauce concentrate [distilled vinegar, molasses, corn syrup, water, salt, caramel color, garlic powder, sugar, spices, tamarind, natural flavor], corn syrup, sugar, salt, natural hickory smoke flavor, sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate [preservatives], spices, mustard flour, paprika, garlic [dehydrated], onion powder, turmeric). Cooked in Soy, Corn, Cottonseed, & Hydrogenated Soy Oil. Cooked in the same oil as menu items that contain Egg, Milk, and Fish (where available). CONTAINS: WHEAT.

Spicy Chicken Go Wrap
Tortilla
Bleached Enriched Wheat Flour (wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), Water, Soybean Oil, Hydrogenated Cottonseed and/or Soybean Oil, Mono and Diglycerides, Potato Starch with Monoglycerides, Contains 2% or less of: Salt, Baking Powder (sodium acid pyrophosphate, sodium bicarbonate, corn starch, monocalcium phosphate), Fumaric Acid, Sodium Bicarbonate, Dough Conditioner (wheat flour, calcium sulphate, sorbic acid, L-Cysteine hydrochloride), Sodium Propionate and Potassium Sorbate (preservatives). CONTAINS: WHEAT.

Iceberg/Romaine Lettuce Blend
Iceberg and Romaine Lettuce.

Spicy Chicken Fillet
Chicken Breast, Water, Seasoning (salt, spice, sodium phosphate [sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium polyphosphates, glassy], modified corn starch, paprika, natural flavor, extractives of paprika, extractives of turmeric). Battered and Breaded with: Wheat Flour, Water, Salt, Modified Corn Starch, Bleached Wheat Flour, Wheat Gluten, Spice, Gum Arabic, Egg White Solids, Spice Extractives, Yellow Corn Flour, Leavening (sodium acid pyrophosphate, sodium bicarbonate, monocalcium phosphate), Extractives of Paprika. Cooked in Soy, Corn, Cottonseed, & Hydrogenated Soy Oil. Cooked in the same oil as menu items that contain Fish (where available). CONTAINS: EGG, WHEAT.

Ranch Sauce
Soybean Oil, Buttermilk, Water, Egg Yolk, Sour Cream (cream, modified corn starch, soy lecithin, lactic acid, water, citric acid, sodium phosphate, guar gum, artificial flavor), Distilled Vinegar, Sugar, Garlic (including dehydrated), Salt, Garlic Juice, Whey, Natural Flavors, Modified Corn Starch, Onion (dehydrated), Xanthan Gum, Spices, Potassium Sorbate and Sodium Benzoate (preservatives), Propylene Glycol Alginate, Lactic Acid, Calcium Disodium EDTA (to protect taste). CONTAINS: EGG, MILK, SOY.

Shredded Cheddar Cheese
Cultured Pasteurized Milk, Salt, Enzymes, Artificial Color, Potato Starch and Powdered Cellulose (to prevent caking), Natamycin (natural mold inhibitor). CONTAINS: MILK.

Dill Pickles (2)
Cucumbers, Water, Vinegar, Salt, Calcium Chloride, Sodium Benzoate (preservative), Alum, Natural Flavors, Polysorbate 80, Yellow 5, Blue 1.

Mayonnaise
Water, Soybean Oil, Corn Syrup, Egg Yolk, Modified Corn Starch, Distilled Vinegar, Contains less than 2% of: Salt, Spice, Xanthan Gum, Sodium Benzoate and Potassium Sorbate (preservatives), Natural Flavor, Calcium Disodium EDTA (to protect flavor), Yellow 5 and 6. CONTAINS: EGG.

Ketchup
Tomato Concentrate (made from red ripe tomatoes), Distilled Vinegar, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Corn Syrup, Salt, Spice, Onion Powder, Natural Flavoring.

Mustard
Water, Distilled Vinegar, Mustard Seed, Salt, Turmeric (color), Paprika, Spice.

Onion (2 rings)
Onions.

Tomatoes, 1 slice
Tomatoes.

Italian comfort food makeovers

If you are Italian, or just love Italian food, you probably already know how high in calories some of the most-loved dishes are. Why? Because Italians like fatty meats (sausage, ground beef, pork) and tend to drown everything in olive oil before topping it with a thick layer of cheese. Occasionally you'll find a leaner meat, like chicken breast, on an Italian menu but it's typically going to be dipped in egg, dredged in flour, and fried in oil- a process that adds enough calories to completely negate the benefit of the low-fat meat. Even seemingly "light" meals like chicken Florentine or sole Francese are often loaded with oil and/or butter. And then there's eggplant parmigiana... leave it to the Italians to take a vegetable and turn it into the nutritional equivalent of a triple cheeseburger.

Being part of an Italian family and having married into another one, it has been a challenge to cook satisfying and authentic meals without sacrificing my principles. But, it can be done. Today I will share a few "recipes" (we Italian cooks don't follow recipes; we make it up as we go) that I have used to convert some traditional dishes into healthier versions of themselves.

Broccoli Rabe and Sausage-esque Turkey

Broccoli rabe is definitely one of my top 3 favorite vegetables. I posted a general recipe for broccoli rabe a while back, but in this follow up, I provide instructions for making your own turkey sausage. As I discussed a couple posts ago, commercially available turkey sausage isn't always what it's cracked up to be. If you make it yourself, you know for sure how lean it is. The recipe for the rabe is the same (see above link). To make the turkey sausage, simply combine 1 lb. 93% lean ground turkey with the following (approximate measures):

1/2 tsp caraway seeds, toasted

2 tsp fennel seeds, toasted

1 - 2 tsp. red pepper flakes

1/2 tsp. dried sage

1/2 tsp. garlic powder

Then cook the turkey in a skillet, sprayed with oil spray, and add the steamed broccoli rabe.

"Stuffed" Artichokes

Another traditional Italian appetizer is whole artichokes stuffed with breadcrumbs, cheese, herbs, and olive oil. Aside from having a less than optimal nutritional composition, this recipe is also somewhat labor-intensive to make and to eat.

Here is a super simple and light version:

Halve 1 can of whole artichokes and dry with paper towels

Place artichoke halves on an oil-sprayed baking sheet

Top with 1 tbs. seasoned breadcrumbs, 1 tbs. grated parmesan cheese, salt & pepper to taste, and another light spray of oil

Bake in the oven at 400 degrees until lightly browned

Finally, my favorite lightened-up Italian recipe,

Eggplant Parmigiana

You will need:

Eggplant

Tomato sauce (homemade or store-bought, heated)

Part-skim shredded mozzarella (you may use 2% reduced-fat mozz, but don't use fat free)

Parmesan cheese, grated (1- 2 tbs.)

Slice the eggplant into 1/2" slices

Lay eggplant slices on layers of paper towel, sprinkle with salt, and let sit for a few minutes to half an hour (depending on how much time you have to wait!)

Press on the eggplant with the paper towels to absorb excess water

Place the slices in a single layer on a baking sheet, sprayed with canola or olive oil spray and broil each side until golden brown

Remove the slices and place on paper towels to absorb any excess oil

Add enough tomato sauce to coat the bottom of a baking pan

Layer the eggplant slices on top

Continue alternating sauce and eggplant, and (optionally) cheese

Top the final layer of eggplant and sauce with mozzarella and grated parmesan

Place the baking pan under the broiler (on low setting) until cheese is melted and slightly browned

Because this recipe does not call for breading or frying the eggplant, it will be substantially lower in calories than the traditional version. The actual calorie content will depend on the type of sauce you use and the amount of cheese. Here are some tips for keeping the calories low: choose a tomato sauce that has 40-50 calories per 1/2 cup, use 1/4 cup or less cheese for each person or serving.

As an example, I made a large portion of this (enough for an entree for normal people) for my husband and these were the nutritional stats:

Calories: 365

Total fat :11.5 g

Saturated fat: 6.5 g

Carbohydrates: 47 g

Fiber: 22 g

Protein: 29 g

This recipe is also packed with vitamins and minerals, and with the unhealthy stuff left out, it is a nutritional powerhouse of a meal. Unfortunately, I can't find a reliable source of nutrition information for a restaurant serving of eggplant parm, but take my word for it- it would be a lot more calories and saturated fat!

Mmm.. cheese

Is there anyone who doesn't love cheese?? It has to be one of the best tasting foods on Earth. Some people are picky about their cheese. You know the type- they don't like bleu cheese or they don't like goat cheese, or they don't like orange cheese (yeah, Ma, I'm talking about you). My feelings towards cheese are like Violet Beauregarde's towards gum: if it's cheese, it's for me.

Sadly, as a student of nutrition, my infatuation is somewhat tempered by an ugly mole on the otherwise flawless face of cheese: saturated fat. Not to mention the calories that this excess saturated fat provides. Most cheese has about 100 calories per ounce (about 1/4 cup shredded or the size of 4 dice). It is practically unavoidable. What gives cheese its full-bodied flavor and creamy mouthfeel is fat. Most of the fat in cheese is saturated, as is much of the fat from animal sources, be they meat or dairy. The only way to get around the saturated fat in dairy products is to choose fat-free or low-fat versions. I think this works pretty well when it comes to yogurt and milk. The difference between whole milk and 1% is noticeable, but not intolerable. Ditto for yogurt. Even lower-fat ice cream and frozen yogurt is still pretty darn tasty! Not so with cheese. Fat-free cheese is out there, but have you tried it?? It bears more resemblance to rubber than it does to actual food.

But fear not, I have some solutions to offer. Over the years, I have tried many different kinds of cheese-full fat and reduced fat- and have come up with the following guidelines for including cheese in your diet without breaking your calorie budget or clogging your arteries.

Eat full fat, but in small portions:

These cheeses are so full of flavor, you can reduce the portion (1/2 oz. - 1 oz. per sitting) and hardly notice.

Parmesan cheese - I especially recommend the pricier parmigiano reggiano. Buy a wedge of it and shave with a potato peeler over a salad or grate into recipes. It keeps for a long time in the fridge and can also be frozen for a longer shelf life.

Bleu cheese- A little bit of this goes a long way. But be wary of ordering salads topped with bleu cheese at restaurants. You can easily get 400 calories or more of the stuff. Either ask for less cheese or, if you can trust yourself, push some of it aside before you dig in.

Sharp cheddar- I find that a mere tablespoon (~25 calories) of extra sharp cheddar cheese adds an amazing flavor to my scrambled eggs.

Eat reduced-fat versions:

These are some taste-tested (by me and the hubs) lower-calorie cheese items

Sargento reduced-fat string cheese and colby/jack cheese sticks- when it comes to string cheese, there's really no point in buying the full-fat kind. The lower-fat versions almost always taste perfectly good. This brand seems to be the best of them all, in part because it also melts well. Why would this matter? Well just imagine you want to melt some cheese on.... something.. and all you have is string cheese. If it doesn't melt well, you're screwed, aren't you?! Hey, it's happened to me. Now if I can just stop hearing the Kermit-the-frog-like voice of the guy in the Sargento commercials everytime I buy it, I'd be good.

Laughing Cow light babybel and wedge cheese- Laughing Cow really knows what they're doing when it comes to light cheese. The babybels are great for eating by themselves and the wedges are delicious on crackers or spread on bagels, or vegetables, or pretty much anything! If you're my husband, you might just the eat the wedge as-is too, but I still think that's taking it a little too far. It's not unlike eating cream cheese with a spoon out of the tub. :-/

Cabot 75% reduced-fat varieties- This is about as good as it's going to get for a very low-fat cheese. And it melts well considering its fat content.

Finally, I have a special section for the best cheese ever made:

Burrata mozzarella- since my vacation to Vegas, where I was first introduced to this cheese, I have begun a love affair that I think will last a lifetime. This is a type of fresh mozzarella that has cream added to it so that it is extraordinarily creamy and delicious. I thought for sure this cheese would be twice as high in calories and fat as regular mozzarella and the truth is, I didn't care. It was worth it. BUT, as it turns out, by some miracle performed by superhero cheesemakers, burrata is actually LOWER in fat and calories than traditional mozzarella. Most fresh mozzarella has 80 calories and 6g of fat (4g saturated) per ounce. Burrata has only 60 calories and I can't tell you how much fat because I (stupidly!) threw the darn package away already and I can't remember. But I'm sure it was less. It is hard to find, but gourmet Italian food stores (like Liuzzi cheese in North Haven, CT) may have it. Try it. You won't regret it.

The great sausage swindle

I see chicken sausage and turkey sausage everywhere these days. Great, right?! Well, maybe not as great as you'd think. It seems like sausage made from poultry would be an obviously healthier choice than beef or pork sausage, but unfortunately, the benefits of choosing these kinds of products are overblown more often than not. Case in point: my shopping experience this afternoon.

I was at my local Stop and Shop, picking up some ingredients for an Italian pasta dinner tomorrow night and, keeping with tradition, I planned to make sauce with meatballs and sausage. Looking at the options for sausage, I thought for a moment about getting chicken sausage. Although I don't like to sacrifice too much of the authenticity of a meal for a better nutrient profile, I also don't mind making subtle changes where I can. I picked up a package of chicken sausage and a package of pork sausage from the same company, flipped them over and compared the nutrition labels. What do you know? The calorie content was almost exactly the same (110 vs. 100 calories per 2 oz. serving) as was the fat content. That sure made my decision easier. I took the pork sausage and put the imitation healthy sausage back.

It's true that the chicken sausage did not bear any claims about healthfulness or fat content, but it's my suspicion that most shoppers would assume, without any such explicit claims, that the chicken sausage would just have to be better than the pork sausage. And I doubt everyone would take the time to make the label comparison that I did. The point of this rant is to provide a warning. Just because a product is made with chicken, turkey, or some other meat with a healthful aura, does not automatically mean it is any lower in fat or calories than the original version. If you are trying to choose leaner meats (good for you!), please make sure you read the package labels and make sure you are getting the benefits you think you are.

P.S. I'm sure there are some legitimately more-healthful varieties of sausage out there, so don't discount them entirely. And if you've seen some, please share your find with the rest of us!

More perverse food advertising

It seems like there is never a shortage of questionable food marketing tactics, especially when kids' foods are involved. The latest example: a new commercial from Kellogg's touting its cereals' new and improved fiber content. Although I could not find a video of the commercial, here is a link to a page on the Kellogg's website which explains the importance of fiber and portrays Froot Loops, Apple Jacks, and Pops as nutritious by virtue of the added fiber they now contain.

It's true that fiber is an important part of a healthy diet and most kids don't get enough. However, Kellogg's narrow focus on a single nutrient is nothing more than a clever marketing ploy designed with the hope that consumers will miss the forest for the trees and buy what they're selling- both literally and figuratively.

The new ad campaign comes at a time when nutrition experts and public health professionals are calling for a shift in focus from nutrients (e.g. fat, carbohydrates, fiber, vitamins, etc.) to foods. In agreement with many others in my field, it is my belief that we should be giving the public recommendations about nutrition that are simple, based on scientific evidence, and easy to understand and put into practice. Rather than providing acceptable ranges of saturated fat and fiber (do you know what to do with that information???), we should instead encourage consumption of whole, minimally processed foods (think rolled oats and fresh apples) and advise limiting intake of foods whose component parts are no longer recognizable and contain substantial amounts of added sugars, salt, and other unwholesome ingredients (think Apple Jacks).

The so-called "reductionist" approach to nutrition smacks of hubris that has gotten out of control. To believe that we can take a food in its natural state and process it to the point that it looks and tastes completely different and then simply add back the nutrients we deem to be important is to assume that we know everything there is to know about the nutrients humans need. This is very far from the truth. Most vitamins have only been discovered within the last century and for many of them (vitamin D included), we only have a general idea of how much we need to avoid illness. We don't necessarily know how much we need for optimal health. Furthermore, research on non-vitamin bioactive food components (like antioxidant polyphenols) is still relatively new. So far, it suggests that these substances are very important, too, but we don't know enough about them to use them in food fortification.

My point is- we can only add back what we know we took out. I think it is extremely arrogant to think that we can manipulate foods to our liking and not suffer any health consequences. Whether or not fiber-fortified sugary cereals are leading to deficiencies in flavonoids or other important compounds, they are almost certainly leading to excess calories and excess weight relative to foods that naturally contain the nutrients that Kellogg's sprays their Froot Loops with.

The truth is, we don't know all that much about the health effects of specific nutrients. Just look at the baffling results of studies on Atkins-like diets. Despite being high in saturated fat, a nutrient that has been demonized for decades, people who follow the diet for a long period of time actually have better improvements in their cholesterol levels than those on a low-fat diet. Some Eskimo populations have diets that are 80% meat and very high in total fat, yet they have lower rates of chronic disease than Americans do. What we do know more about is the dietary patterns that are associated with better health. And they are almost universally based on whole foods close to their natural state.

This post has turned a little rambly, but the point I'm trying to get across is: when you see food ads and commercials like the one Kellogg's is airing, be skeptical. Trust your common sense. Food manufacturers want you to believe that they can "fix" any nutritional shortcoming, but don't fall for it. They can't. Not now, probably not ever, and certainly not in your lifetime.

For an eye-opening discussion of food-based vs. nutrient-based approaches to nutrition by a much more eloquent writer, I highly recommend Michael Pollan's New York Times essay, "Unhappy Meals."

A quarter pounder with cheese, hold the fat please

I think one of the most common pitfalls of dieting is the assumption that the formula for success involves simple addition of healthy, if unpalatable foods and subtraction of favorites that are tasty but pernicious. It seems to me that many people try to tolerate a bland, meager diet for a period of time to lose weight and are inevitably disappointed and (inexplicably) surprised when they revert back to old habits and regain the weight they lost. Although the strategy of muddling through one's days eating celery sticks and cottage cheese will technically work, I have yet to meet anyone without a serious eating disorder who is able to do this indefinitely to maintain a svelte physique.

To my knowledge, the only way to keep oneself at a healthy weight permanently without sacrificing sanity is to eat foods that are both nutritious and delicious. But finding such foods can be tricky. When I cook for myself, my husband, or my family, I usually re-work traditional recipes to make them healthier. More often than not, the result is something that retains a lot of its original appeal.

A good example is the hamburgers I frequently make for by husband, Steve. His nutritional needs are pretty restrictive-- calories, protein, fat, and carbohydrates must all be within a specified range. Depending on the day, I might make burgers from 95% lean ground beef, 93% lean ground turkey, or extra-lean ground turkey breast. The higher the percentage, the more challenging it is to make a flavorful, juicy burger. Last week, Steve requested extra-lean burgers. If I were to make patties with the ground turkey and simply throw them on the Forman grill, they would be extremely dry and tasteless. So, I added a few things I had on hand to increase the moisture and flavor of the burgers. Then, I formed patties and cooked them in a skillet sprayed with oil spray. After they were seared on both sides, I also added a little water to the pan and covered it with a pot lid to steam them. I can't tell you how long I cooked them because I didn't keep track, but I assume most people can figure out when a burger is cooked! The ingredients for the meat are listed below. If you'd like to try this recipe out, cook the burgers as described above, top with a small amount of 75% reduced-fat cheddar cheese, and serve on low-calorie buns with your favorite toppings (for Steve, this was lettuce, tomato, pickles, ketchup, and mustard).

Ingredients (for 2 medium/large burgers):

8 oz. raw ground turkey breast (99% fat free)
1/4 cup black beans, mashed
2 tbs. ketchup
1 tsp. dijon mustard
2 tsp. Worcestershire sauce
1 tbs. real bacon bits
salt and pepper to taste

1/2 oz. reduced-fat cheese for topping, 2 low-calorie buns



If these burgers are lean enough for a bodybuilder, I think they will meet anyone's standards! They are low in fat and very high in protein. I have included the nutrition information for a single burger, below. If you have high calorie needs, you can easily eat 2 or 3 of them. If you are a lighter eater, I would suggest making smaller patties, as these are pretty thick.

Coconut deliciousness

It seems like coconut is a love-it or hate-it kind of thing. I don't know too many people who don't have strong feelings about coconut, one way or the other. If you're not into coconut, I'm sorry but this post won't interest you, you strange person you. If you do like coconut, you will LOVE these macaroons from Aleia's Gluten Free Foods that were recently introduced to me by my technology-challenged cousin, Thea, who will never read this. There are some pros and cons of this product, which I will outline below. But, overall I highly recommend it.

First let me get the Cons out of the way:
- They are expensive- about $8 for a bag of 24 (Yikes!)
- They are difficult to find- I have so far only seen them in some natural food stores and occasionally Stop and Shop in the New Haven, CT area. But, according to their website, they are available in many stores across Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island

Now for the Pros:
- Each cookie has only 30 calories, 1g of fat and 2g of sugar
- Each cookie has 2 grams of fiber!
- There are only 5, all-natural ingredients: coconut, water, tapioca flour, sugar, and egg whites
- They are gluten-free
- They are also available in chocolate
- They are soft and chewy
- They stay soft and chewy pretty much forever
- Most importantly, they are insanely good!

I have to mention.. these are still cookies and shouldn't be eaten with abandon, but if you're going to eat a cookie, you won't find a better combination of taste and relative innocuousness (yup, it is a word. Spellcheck says so). So, unless you are one of those inexplicable coconut-avoiders, I suggest you try to find these near you. At 33.333 cents per cookie, I'm not sharing!

Why exactly are so many people overweight?

The great thing about devoting 10 years of your life to studying nutrition and public health is that no matter how much you learn, everyone else seems to think they know at least as much as you do about it. Despite the $100,000 price tag on my degrees, apparently my opinion isn't actually any more valuable than anyone else's. Case in point: when I was doing my thesis, I worked with a high school food service director who loved to tell me his theories about the childhood obesity epidemic. When I said something about the food in school cafeterias, he would go on a tirade about how sedentary kids are these days and how much different it was back in the good ol' days when he was growing up doing manual labor on the farm (I kid you not). I nodded in feigned agreement, all the while thinking "no it's the darn french fries they're buying from cafeterias like yours."

I have had a lot of conversations like this. Among the "causes" that have received blame for the obesity epidemic are food preservatives, artificial sweeteners, hormones in meat, a dieting culture, and of course laziness and lack of self-control. Each of these (with the exceptions of the last two, which I do not think are factors) may in fact play some intermediary role, but the variables that ultimately affect weight can be narrowed down to just two: energy intake and energy expenditure (i.e. calories in and calories out). So which of those is responsible for the dramatic increase in obesity we've seen in recent decades? Well, the obvious answer is "both," certainly. But, it is unlikely that they both contribute exactly equally. So what is more important? Everyone has a different view, but if you want the evidence-based (hence the name of the blog) answer, it's......

...

...

...
...

...

CALORIE INTAKE

After deciding to post on this topic today, I discovered that I already covered it about a year ago (here). But, I figure, if I didn't remember it, probably you didn't either. So, here I am blogging about it again. In the original post, I referenced a really interesting study, but I didn't describe the results in detail. Today I will. You may or may not be interested in the details, depending on how much thinking you feel like doing right now, but here they are.

The study, by Swinburn et al. (2009), concluded that the increase in calorie intake in the U.S. since the 1970's can entirely explain the increase in obesity that occurred during the same time period. How did they figure this out? They used food supply data to determine how much more Americans are eating now than they did 30-40 years ago (about 350 calories/day for kids and 500 calories/day for adults). Then, they used that information to predict how much more people would weigh based on the increase in calories. If it turned out that people weighed more than that, that would suggest that a decrease in physical activity was responsible for some portion of the collective weight gain. However, if people weighed the same as what was predicted, that would mean that the extra calories did it.

The results: Children weighed almost exactly what was predicted, while adults weighed more than 5 lb. LESS. Assuming that the data and calculations are accurate (this assumption is open to criticism), this means that physical activity has stayed about the same for kids and increased for adults (the extra activity is what would account for adult weights being less than predicted). I have to admit, I find it hard to believe that the video-game-addicted, internet-connected kids of today get the same amount of exercise as the 1970's set and that adults today are more physically active. But, the study does make a strong case for diet being the primary, if not the only, culprit in the obesity epidemic.

It makes sense when you consider, as the principal investigator of the study noted:

"To return to the average weights of the 1970s, we would need to reverse the increased food intake of about 350 calories a day for children (about one can of fizzy drink and a small portion of French fries) and 500 calories a day for adults (about one large hamburger). Alternatively, we could achieve similar results by increasing physical activity by about 150 minutes a day of extra walking for children and 110 minutes for adults..."

Other ways to save 500 calories:

Have 2 slices of pizza instead of 4

Eat only half of your restaurant entree

Skip dessert when you go out to eat

Have 2 slices of toast with jam instead of a muffin with butter

Have 3 cans of diet soda instead of regular soda

Skip the rolls and butter with dinner

Have a low-fat ice cream sandwich instead of a large bowl of Ben & Jerry's

So what sounds easier to you? Doing one of the above every day? Or walking for an hour and half every day? I know what I'd rather do.

Rant: Skinny vs. Curvy

Normally, I try to make my posts educational and/or helpful in some way. But today, I'd like to take a moment to complain about something that's been bothering me for quite some time. In the media, it seems that people often talk about women being "skinny" or "curvy," as if these two are mutually exclusive categories that women neatly fall into. I have to disagree. Skinny refers to the amount of body fat a woman has, whereas curvy refers to the distribution of body fat. One can be skinny and curve-less, skinny and curvy, thick and curve-less or thick and curvy.

The reason this bugs me so much is that I, admittedly, fall into the skinny category. However, even at my heaviest I have never been curvy, and I can say with certainty that I will never, without the help of substantial plastic surgery, be curvy. So when I hear people suggest that skinny girls would look better if they gained weight because then they'd be curvy, I cringe. I WISH that I could just gain a few pounds and look like Marilyn Monroe, but that's never going to happen. If I on the heavier side, I wouldn't look healthy or voluptuous. I would look like a big bean bag sitting on top of a couple of sticks.

On the flip side, it is perfectly possible for a woman to be skinny AND curvy. (curse those lucky SOBs..) If you don't believe me, let's look at some examples, shall we?

First, in the skinny/curvy category, my arch nemesis: Megan Fox

Megan's waist is impossibly small and she probably wears a size 0 or maybe a 2, so the "skinny" label definitely applies. However, her overall shape is obviously the classic hourglass. So, you can just as easily call her curvy. If there was ever a doubt about life being unfair, women like Megan Fox serve as incontrovertible proof.

Next up: Skinny/curve-less. This is where I fit in. If I ever took any full-body pictures of myself wearing something that shows my shapelessness, I would post one. But I don't, so here is another celebrity- Cameron Diaz.

Cameron is not any skinnier than Megan Fox, but her weight is distributed differently, giving her a more straight boyish shape.

In the thick and curvy category, you find women like Scarlett Johansson, Kim Kardashian, Kate Winslet, Beyonce, and Christina Hendricks. I think this group is pretty self-explanatory.

Finally, the thick/curve-less category. Interestingly, there aren't many celebrities in this category it seems. The only person I can think of off-hand is Sherri Shepherd. Although she is "curvy" on top, she has more of a V-shape and narrow hips.

So, you see, it is not really accurate to say that a woman is either skinny OR curvy, because they describe totally different things. Body size can be changed with diet and exercise, but body shape is almost entirely determined by genes.

Top 5 side-dish recipes

As a quasi-vegetarian, my meals usually consist primarily of side dishes. I just don't find meat thrilling enough to waste my time with it (unless it's filet mignon). But I've always thought that sides are the best part of a meal anyway. Unfortunately, they often contain a lot of butter, cheese, cream, and/or white starchy stuff. And if they don't, they might be bland. I for one love a good bunch of steamed broccoli, but not everyone has my plain jane tastebuds. So, I am going to highlight my 5 favorite healthy (and delicious!) side-dish recipes. Some are my own and some I have gotten from other sources. Here they are, in no particular order:

1. Yukon Gold Potatoes: Jacques Pepin stye.

I made these for the first time on Christmas, after reading the rave reviews online, and was AMAZED by how delicious they were! The technique is very simple and the recipe requires very few ingredients: baby Yukon Gold potatoes, chicken stock, butter (I used Smart Balance to improve the nutritional profile), parsley, salt & pepper. But these are not ordinary potatoes. They are soft and moist inside with a salty, flavorful crust on the outside. Better than saturated-fat-laden au gratin potatoes any day.

2. Anise-Roasted Green Beans.

Who would have thought to roast green beans with anise seeds?? It sounds strange, but they are SO good! This recipe calls for 1/2 cup of oil, but I just use about a tablespoon. Olive oil may be healthy, but it still has lots of calories, so I don't see the point in using more than I need to. And you definitely don't need much here.

3. Chipotle Mashed Sweet Potatoes

I had these for the first time at a restaurant and fell in love. It may seem like an odd pairing, but the smoky-spicy flavor of the chipotle works very well with the sweet potatoes. And making them couldn't be easier! Microwave or bake a sweet potato, pull the flesh out of the skin and mash it with a little salt, and as much chopped chipotle (canned in adobo sauce) as you want. A little goes a long way, so start with maybe 1/4 or 1/2 a pepper for a large potato. Then, add a little low-fat milk or fat free half and half to desired creaminess.

4. Italian-style Broccoli Rabe

One of my favorite foods growing up was broccoli rabe with sausage. It was garlicky with a little spice from the sausage, and like most things Italian, enough oil to endanger aquatic life if it were ever spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. My grown-up nutritionist take on this dish is a lot lighter on the oil, but still heavy on taste.

1 bunch broccoli rabe

sliced garlic cloves (to taste)

red pepper flakes (to taste)

2 tbs freshly grated parmigianno reggiano cheese (it's worth the expense)

1 tbs olive oil

Serves: 2-4 (1-2 in my house)

Rinse the broccoli rabe and chop into medium-ish pieces

Steam until just tender in vegetable steamer

Remove steamer from heat and add olive oil to a pan on med/high heat

When oil is hot, add garlic and pepper flakes

When garlic is just browned (not burnt!), add broccoli rabe and toss to coat

Remove from heat. Add salt/pepper and cheese.

To make this side dish an entree, you could add turkey or chicken sausage, lean beef or turkey meatballs, chicken breast, and/or cannelini beans.

5. Herbed Spaghetti Squash

I came up with this idea last Thanksgiving. I love spaghetti squash because it is a great low-calorie substitute for pasta or rice. Instead of having one cup of pasta, you could have 3 cups of this stuff! And, it just happens to be fantastic. Bear with me with this "recipe" because I really don't measure things when I'm making them. Here is the general gist:

1 spaghetti squash

1-2 tbs. smart balance (or butter, if you must)

handful chopped basil

handful chopped tarragon

handful chopped sage

1/2 cup freshly grated parmigiano reggiano cheese
salt and pepper to taste

Serves 4-6

Cut the spaghetti squash in half and remove the seeds

Place halves cut side down in a microwave-safe dish with a little water in the bottom and cover with plastic wrap

Microwave on high for 10-12 minutes or until squash is very soft and can be easily pulled out of the skin like spaghetti. You can't really over-cook, but you can under-cook so it's better to cook longer if you aren't sure

When the squash is cool enough to handle, use a fork to pull the strands out into a serving bowl

Add all of the other ingredients and mix to combine

So there you have them. If you try any of these recipes, please post a review!

Food I am loving right now: Baked Kettle chips

This post will be brief. I just want to share one of my new food finds. These baked chips, by Kettle, are a big improvement on the baked Lays chips that I once ate on a regular basis. They are not mashed up potato mixed with extra starch and formed into chip-like shapes that break into shards at the smallest disturbance. No, these are actual slices of real potato, baked with just a small amount of oil and sea salt. And they are delicious! They taste like real potato chips, but without all the grease.

And another bonus: because they are thick and extra crunchy, they hardly ever break! I put a ziploc bag of these in my schoolbag, mashed up against my laptop and notebooks all day, and I still end up with hardly any small pieces. It's great because even a small serving seems like a lot of chips! If you are a salty snack fiend looking for a low-calorie and relatively unprocessed food to satisfy your cravings, I highly recommend giving these a try!

One-ingredient wonders

Recently, I've been thinking about what I'll call one-ingredient wonders: those foods that are perfect and delicious just the way they are. You can eat them by themselves with nothing else (except maybe a little salt) and be completely satisfied. I think these very special foods deserve a little shout-out. Interestingly, tasty single-ingredient foods are almost always nutritious as well. This is probably because it is only when we start to take foods out of their natural context that they become harmful to our health. Some of the treats we find most enjoyable are combinations of refined, calorie-dense ingredients. For example, a doughnut is comprised mostly of flour, sugar, and oil. But any one of these ingredients alone would hardly be as desirable as the end product. In contrast, when we eat whole, unprocessed foods, we are eating the way nature intended (i.e. the way we evolved to eat). Of course there are exceptions to this rule- fatty cuts of beef come to mind, but they are few.

Now, without further adieu, here are my selections for the tastiest additive-free foods:

Avocado

Probably one of my favorite foods of all. It's creamy with a subtle but wonderful flavor. It is often featured in sushi rolls, in guacamole, and atop salads, but my favorite way to eat avocado is straight out of the skin- its very own serving dish, with a sprinkle of salt. I've been in the habit of eating an avocado a day as of late, mostly because it's so darn good but also because it is portable and needs no refrigeration or heating. I might look a litle strange to others when I take one out of my bag and start cutting it up, and I did have an unfortunate mishap in class the other day when a wayward pit ended up rolling across the floor; nevertheless, I enjoy my daily avocado too much to give it up.

Nutritionally, avocado has a lot going for it. Although avocado is often vilified for its high calorie and fat content, it contains mostly healthy mono-unsaturated fats. Diets high in monounsaturated fat, like the Mediterranean diet, have been associated with lower risk of heart disease. One avocado also has a whopping 9 grams of fiber and 15-30% of the daily value of the B vitamins, vitamin E, and folate. If you are watching your weight, you should use avocado as a condiment and limit portion size. But if you are an athlete or have an otherwise high calorie requirement, feel free to eat the whole thing!

Eggs

I love eggs. From my head down to my...okay I'm being silly. But truly, I think eggs are another near-perfect food in terms of taste. Whether they are scrambled, fried, or hard-boiled, all they need is a little salt and pepper. I have been eating eggs in one form or another every day for breakfast for the last 7 years. I have yet to grow tired of them.

Eggs often get a bad rap because they are high in fat and cholesterol. But in fact, eggs are relatively low in saturated fat. It's true they are high in cholesterol, but more and more evidence is suggesting that dietary cholesterol is not as important as once thought. Numerous studies have found that regular egg consumption does not adversely affect blood cholesterol levels or other markers of disease risk. Omega-3-enriched eggs may be even better than conventional eggs. Eggs are not only good sources of protein, but also B vitamins, vitamin A, and many minerals. They are also satiating and may reduce total daily calorie intake when eaten for breakfast.

Almond Butter

Some nut butters have all the luck. While peanut butter basks in the glory of the nearly universal love it receives from Americans who loyally pack it in their kids' lunches, spread it on crackers for a quick snack, and hand it out to trick-or-treaters in chocolate cups; almond butter has been relegated to the rarely visited aisles of the natural food section of the grocery store, embraced only by a small group of crunchy granola types. I think it deserves better. Although its only ingredient is almonds, almond butter somehow has a taste that far exceeds that of mere nuts. I can't really describe it. You just have to try it for yourself, if you haven't already. You could use almond butter the same way you would peanut butter, but I prefer to eat it by the spoonful out of the jar. Aside from the fact that its additive-free nature makes it somewhat less spreadable than peanut butter, I think that eating it alone is the best way to appreciate its unique flavor and texture.

Like avocado, a serving (2 tbs) of almond butter has a lot of calories and healthy fats. It also has half of the daily value of vitamin E, plus a good amount of magnesium and other minerals.

I'm sure there are many other foods that I could include in this list, but I think this post is long enough already. So, in conclusion, I encourage you to try to incorporate more single-ingredient foods in your diet, and discover what a fantastic chef Mother Nature is.

Metabolism Confusion

A lot of the questions my students are asking have to do with metabolism. Unfortunately, most of them are also based on faulty assumptions and myths. In this post, I am going to try to clear some of these up.

One of the questions I received was: Why is it harder for some people to lose weight and easier for others? This is a common question that many people have, whether or not they verbalize it. When people talk about metaobolism, I think they are referring to some genetic, unchangeable characteristic that determines how quickly your body uses energy; something similar to eye color or shoe size. While there may be some genes having to do with the way fat is stored and used(which are beyond the scope of my knowledge), I believe that MOST of the differences in ability to lose weight between people do not have anything to do with the rate at which calories are burned. Here's what does matter:

- Weight: Believe it or not, the heavier you are, the more calories you burn! Why? Because you have more cells that need those calories. It's simple mathematics. If you drive 2 cars, you need twice as much gas as you would if you drove 1 car the same distance. Similarly, if you have 2,000 fat cells, those cells require twice as many calories as 1,000 cells.

- Muscle mass: Like weight in general, muscle needs calories to exist. But, muscle needs more calories than fat cells, so someone who gains 10 lbs of muscle will burn more calories than someone who gains 10 lbs of fat. This is also why men tend to lose weight more easily than women. They have more testosterone, and therefore more muscle, which means they burn more calories.

- Age: Although calorie needs do decrease with age, it is primarily the result of other changes which can be avoided. As we get older we tend to be less active, which of course will decrease the calories we burn. Furthermore, inactivity will decrease our muscle mass, which will also lead to reduced calorie needs. Changes in hormones also tend to make it more difficult to maintain muscle. But it does not have to be this way. The simple way to combat this is to be more [hysically active and work at building muscle with resistance exercise.

- Height: This is related to weight. It is unfair and unfortunately, not something we can change. Because a healthy BMI is based on a weight-to-height ratio, taller people are supposed to be heavier. It makes sense. Two hundred pounds would look very different on a 7 foot tall person than someone who is only 5 feet tall. Plus, taller people also have more bones and other tissues which all need energy. So, if you are tall- lucky you! You get to eat more calories and still maintain a healthy weight. If you are short- well, you just aren't so lucky. You can't eat the same amount as your taller peers and get away with it.

These factors will affect how many calories your body needs on a day-to-day basis. But there are other things that will affect your calorie balance (calories in vs. calories out). They are pretty obvious:

- How much you eat: Although some of those "fast metabolism" braggarts may swear that they eat fast food five times a day, I am skeptical of these claims. It may be that the people who are "naturally thin" or who lose weight easily are simply not eating that much. They may think they are eating more calories than they actually are. And what about those painfully thin celebrities who credit their metabolisms for their slim figures? It's BULLSHIT plain and simple. They just don't want to admit they are anorexic/bulimic/cokeheads/etc.


- How physically active you are: Again, even non-exercisers may be more active than they think. Research has shown that some people can fidget away extra calories unconsciously. So, people who think they have a fast metabolism may just be fidgeters.

Finally, fat distribution can also play a role in how easy it is for a person to lose weight. Fat that is stored in the lower body (hips, butt, thighs) is harder to lose, whereas fat stored in the abdomen is mobilized more quickly. But, the flip side of this is that lower body fat is much less dangerous to your health (and less unsightly, in my opinion) than upper body fat. This is another reason why men tend to lose weight faster than women. They tend to store more upper body fat.

So, if you want to give your metabolism a boost, forget about weight loss drugs and try muscle-building exercise!

Small, frequent meals vs. 3 squares a day

I have just discovered a new trove of blog topic material: the students in the nutrition class that I TA. The class's instructor requested that the TA's collect a nutrition-related question for each student, to help guide her lectures. But I think that a lot of their questions are probably the same questions that a lot of people have. But most people don't ever take a college nutrition course to learn the answers. So, I've decided to try to answer some of their questions (and maybe yours, too).

First up: Is it better to eat 3 meals per day or more frequent, smaller meals?

When I was an undergrad what feels like millenia ago, I thought I knew the answer to this. My then-boyfriend and now-husband used to think that the anonymous posters on internet bodybuilding forums were the best source of information about this kind of thing. And according to BigGuns123 and SwoleDude456, it was a no-brainer: 6 small meals per day was best for gaining muscle and losing fat. Period.

WARNING: Science-y stuff ahead. Skip this section if you are easily bored
Their argument was that after 3 hours of not eating, the body would start to break down muscle (they even used the word "catabolize" so they'd sound smarter), which ultimately leads to a decrease in metabolism. Also, the process of digestion itself was supposed to boost metabolism. I have some serious doubts about these theories. It is true that some calories are burned during digestion, but I don't see any reason to believe that the body would burn more calories digesting 300 calories 5 times than it would digesting 500 calories 3 times. The energy that is used during the breakdown of nutrients is the result of the way the chemical bonds in those nutrients are broken. So, the amount of energy needed for digestion during any given day should be dependent on the amount and type of nutrients consumed, not how often they are consumed. Second, although I am not an expert on metabolism, I am pretty confident that muscle breakdown does not occur to a great extent until fasting has been prolonged. Instead, during at least the initial 4 hours after a meal (1), the body's stores of glucose (glycogen) are used for energy along with fatty acids (from, you guessed it.. fat). Even when muscle is broken down for energy, this would only result in a net loss of muscle if protein intake throughout the day was not sufficient to replace it.

The other, more logical, argument for small frequent meals is this: if you eat regularly, you will not get a chance to feel very hungry. And when you're not ravenous, it's much easier to make smart choices about what you're going to eat and to stop eating when you are full. On the other hand, when you come to the table starving, you will eat whatever you can get your hands on and you will eat much more than your body actually needs.

Regardless of the bases for these theories, they are still just theories. What's important is what actually happens. What evidence is there to support them? As it turns out, this question does not have an easy answer. One study found that children who eat more meals are less likely to be overweight.(2) Eating just one meal per day appears to have negative effects on cholesterol and blood glucose.(3,4,5)However, there doesn't appear to be much research comparing 3 meals per day to 5 or 6 meals per day. So, it is difficult to determine whether one pattern is better than the other.

Here's my stance: Don't eat by the clock. Eat when you are hungry but not starving, and stop eating when you are comfortably full. If you feel hungry 3 times per day, then eat 3 meals. If you feel hungry 6 times per day, eat 6 meals. As always, the total calories you consume matter much more than when or how you consume them. So, eat in a way that will help you to not eat too many calories. If you are prone to snacking mindlessly all day, you may be better off limiting your eating to 3 main meals only. However, if you are more likely to stuff yourself silly at every meal, you may benefit from having smaller, more frequent meals that keep you satisfied all day so you are not driven to overeat.

References
1. Morton, The Digestive System, 2001
2. Toschke AM, Küchenhoff H, Koletzko B, von Kries R. Obes Res. Meal frequency and childhood obesity. 2005 Nov;13(11):1932-8.
3. Stote KS, Baer DJ, Spears K,et al. A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Apr;85(4):981-8.
4. Bhutani S, Varady KA. Nibbling versus feasting: which meal pattern is better for heart disease prevention? Nutr Rev. 2009 Oct;67(10):591-8.
5. Carlson O, Martin B, Stote KS, et al. Impact of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction on glucose regulation in healthy, normal-weight middle-aged men and women. Metabolism. 2007 Dec;56(12):1729-34.

How much of your calorie budget goes to non-essentials? Discretionary calories explained

Over the last couple of weeks, the students in my discussion groups at UMass have heard (or slept through) my lecture on the food pyramid. I think that my readers might benefit from a little explanation as well. The food pyramid is pretty confusing, and there is a lot of information I could bore you with. But for now, I'm going to focus on what I think is the most important and least understood aspects of the pyramid: discretionary calories.

If you haven't seen the food pyramid in a few years, you probably haven't even heard this term. It is a new category, a substitute for the "fats, oils, and sweets" group depicted at the very top of the old food pyramid. Oils have now been recognized for their beneficial nutrients (e.g. essential fatty acids) and given a group of their own. The other fats and added sugars now comprise the "discretionary calories" (DC) group.

In a nutshell, DC are the calories left over after your nutrient needs are met. They are not unlike the money you have left after paying your bills; money you have for discretionary spending. These are the calories you can "spend" on whatever you like. The MyPyramid Plan site will tell you exactly how many of these calories you have to use each day, based on your age, BMI, gender, and activity level. For example, a 120 lb. lightly active 5'4" 25 year old female has a daily allowance of 195 discretionary calories.

One could use this allowance on approximately 6 oreo cookies. This may sound like a generous amount of junk food to be able to eat daily. But, what many people don't realize is that these nutrition-less calories are not only found in the obvious places-- cakes, cookies, fried foods, and the like-- but also lurking in less conspicuous staples of the American diet. For example, a cup of 2% milk has 41 DC, a single slice of cheese 83 DC, and a small hamburger patty has 74. Even seemingly harmless foods like low-fat yogurt (97 DC), granola bars (59 DC), and fruit sorbet (82 DC) can quickly whittle away your discretionary calorie allotment.

The important thing to remember about these calories is that they provide no valuable nutrients. They are truly "empty calories." All they do is give you more energy which, if not needed, will be stored as excess fat. The flip side of this is that foods high in DC tend to displace more nutritious foods. So, not only are you getting more calories than you need, but you may also not be getting enough nutrients because you are foregoing healthful things like fruits and vegetables in favor of the junky stuff.

If you want to know how much of your daily calorie budget you're spending on foods that don't do anything good for you, go to the MyPyramid site to find out your DC limit, and then check out MyFood-a-pedia.gov. It has a searchable database of foods with complete information about the food groups they belong to and their exact number of discretionary calories (called "Extras").

While I am at it, a final word on the food pyramid: I don't think it is anywhere near the best nutritional guidance we can come up with. For an alternative view, you may want to consult Walter Willett's Food Pyramid. This one is actually based on science, not input from agricultural lobbyists.

Eat this veggie!

Over the weekend, I made one of my favorite vegetables to accompany my lunch; one that I think few others ever eat. Fennel. As I took my first bite, taking in the taste of the lightly salted, crunchy/soft, toasted pieces of the licorice-scented plant, I thought "why don't more people eat this?" I think everyone should know about this tasty and healthful food, so here I am, telling you about it.
This is what fennel looks like when you buy it in the store. Sometimes it's labeled "anise."


To prepare it, cut off the green stems and slice the bulb like you would an onion. I cut the bulb in half and then slice each half. You can eat it raw on a salad or, as I prefer it, roasted in the oven. Actually, I broil it technically. Grilling is another option. Once it's sliced, I lay the slices on a baking pan sprayed with oil spray (like PAM), spray another coat of oil on top of the slices, and season with salt & pepper. Then, I put the pan under the broiler until the fennel is browned, flip the slices once and let them cook until lightly browned on the other side.

I love fennel just by itself, but it's also very good with carrots, potatoes, other root vegetables, and fish. It has a unique flavor unparalleled by other vegetables and plenty of nutrition, too. Fennel is low in calories and high in vitamin C and fiber. So next time you're in the mood for something a little different, give fennel a try!