I am in chocolate heaven

Some time ago, I was browsing Whole Foods looking for a healthy, tasty, gluten-free snack- not an easy task- and I came across a display of little plastic tubs full of various kinds of cookies and brownies of a brand called "Laura's Wholesome Junk Food."

Now, I've had some pretty good gluten-free cookies before (Like these, from Enjoy Life Foods), but I still view them as treats. Most cookies that describe themselves as natural, organic, allergen-free, etc., are nevertheless primarily comprised of refined flours and sugar, and in many cases saturated fats. They may be marginally better than the mass-produced types you'd find in most grocery stores, but they are not nutritious by any means.

So, when I saw these snacks by Laura's Wholesome Junk Food, I did not get my hopes up. "Wholesome," if you aren't aware, doesn't mean much of anything and carries no implications whatsoever for the nutritional content of the food it describes. Then I read the ingredient list for one of the varieties: Xtreme Chocolate Fudge Bite-lettes. The first 8 ingredients were: rolled oats, dates, expeller pressed canola oil, fruit juice, natural grain dextrins, chocolate chips, and unsweetened natural cocoa. The remaining ingredients were all similarly natural and mostly healthful. Each 2-bite-lette serving contained 110 calories, 2 grams of fiber, and 7 grams of sugar (most I'd expect comes from the dates and fruit juice). I decided that the product was acceptable from a nutrition standpoint, so I bought them.

It turns out that they are delicious. I can't really compare them to anything else because they are pretty unique in their texture and flavor. They don't exactly taste like brownies or cookies. But they are rich and very chocolatey, with undertones of fruit and a hint of lemon that somehow makes perfect sense. The consistency is a cross between a soft oatmeal cookie and a chocolate truffle. Something about this particular flavor combination gets all the right neurons in my brain firing and is as satisfying to my inner child as a slice of ice box cake fresh out of my grandmother's refrigerator.

Maybe I'm getting a little carried away. I'm sure not everyone will agree with me, but they are certainly worth trying if you are looking for a new healthy snack. Apparently there are lots of other varieties, but I've been so enthralled by this one that I haven't bothered to sample the others! If you can't find them at your local Whole Foods Market, you can order them online at the links posted above.

Mindless eating

Tweet

We all do it from time to time. Some of us may do it every day. In front of the TV, while driving, at the movies, or at our desks, we sometimes find ourselves eating without really paying attention to our food. There is a whole body of research dedicated to understanding how and why we eat mindlessly and how to prevent the frequent consequence of this habit- overeating. The Cornell Food & Brand Lab, headed by Dr. Brian Wansink, is foremost among the centers doing this kind of research.

Wansink's studies have found that, regardless of our physiologic hunger level, external cues can encouge us to overeat. Some of these cues are now becoming well-known. Portion size is a good example. By now, many people have heard that serving food on smaller plates is a good strategy. This nugget of wisdom likely came from Wansink's research, which have shown that people will eat more from larger containers, even if the food isn't particurly appetizing- as was the case in his stale popcorn study. In addition to portion size, we are also influenced by the proximity of food and the variety of food available (think about eating at a buffet).

I found the two videos below particularly interesting. In the first, patrons of a diner are served large breakfasts on 2 separate days. On the second day, they are blindfolded. This video illustrates the influence that seeing food on a plate has on how much we eat. In the second video, my pal Brian Wansink describes an experiment in which office workers are allowed access to a candy dish which is sometimes placed on their desks and sometimes placed just a few feet away. This video highlights the importance of proximity. 

Now that you know how you may be tricked into eating more by your surroundings, you can use this information to your advantage. Use small serving dishes, don't keep snacks and candy lying around in plain sight and within reach. Just making it a little less convenient for yourself to eat for eating's sake may be enough to lead to noticeable differences in your diet and ultimately, your body. Finally, when you do eat, try to minimize distractions and really pay attention to your food. Smell it, chew it slowly, and savor it. Take a breath or two between bites. Ask yourself periodically if you are still hungry, and if the answer is no, stop eating. As a culture, we have learned to ignore our internal cues for eating and instead focus on the external ones. It is possible to reverse this behavior, but it takes some practice.

 

Deceptive advertising is getting out of control

I have harangued before about deceptive advertising (here and here), but this instance truly takes the cake. I was in Stop & Shop today, and my husband innocently brought my attention to a display of chocolate and caramel-covered apples which boasted: "Healthy never tasted this good!" I took a closer look at the apples, which appeared to be more candy than fruit, and was appalled- to say the least- by what I found.

Although the display called these apples "healthy" and also claimed that they contained "natural antioxidents and fiber PLUS benefits of dark chocolate," the nutrition label told a different story. The apple did contain about 9 grams of fiber, but at over 800 calories, it's hardly worth it. But what I really take issue with are the claims that the product is "healthy" and provides the benefits of dark chocolate.

First of all, more than half of the fat in the apple is saturated fat. In fact, it provides 35% of the daily maximum recommended level of saturated fat that the average adult should consume in an entire day per serving. And mind you, one serving is less than ONE-FOURTH of the apple- thanks to Joyce Faraj for pointing that out. I almost missed it myself! This means that the whole apple actually contains 27 grams of saturated fat alone (over 150% of the recommended daily limit).

Furthermore, partially hydrogenated oil is listed twice on the ingredient list (in the caramel and chocolate coatings), suggesting that despite the "0g trans fat" listed on the label, the product does in fact contain some trans fat. It also contains a substantial amount of added sugar. Given these facts, I am amazed that this company (Tastee) has the gall to use the word "healthy" in the same sentence as these death snacks.

But the lies don't stop there. Tastee also implies that if you eat their products, you can reap the benefits of dark chocolate. How much dark chocolate do you get from these apples? Beats the hell out of me! The only thing close to chocolate listed on the label is cocoa, the fourth ingredient in the chocolate coating- after sugar, partially hydrogenated oil, and milk powder. The coating itself is only the 6th ingredient. I can't imagine that the amount of cocoa in the trans fat/sugar concoction that covers the apples is anywhere near enough to cause any kind of beneficial effects remotely resembling those associated with real dark chocolate consumption. Even if there was, any positive effects would be more than outweighed by the negative effects of the sugar, saturated fat, and trans fat.

You better believe I will be contacting this company to complain about their ethical standards, and I will also be contacting the FDA regarding the lawfulness of their claims, which I believe may be in violation of current labeling regulations. In the meantime, I made my own small effort to protect my fellow shoppers from Tastee's deceitful advertising (look closely):

High fructose corn syrup- "you know what they say about it"

Tweet

You've probably seen the ads, put out by the Corn Refiners Association, poking fun at concerned moms and other folks who are wary of high-fructose corn syrup for.. well, no apparent reason.

Like many people, you may be wondering whether the CRA is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, or if they're right and everyone else is just paranoid. I think it's long past time I address this controversy.

Let's start with the argument against HFCS. In one of the CRA ads, one mom chides another for serving fruit punch made with HFCS at a kids' party. When asked why she's worried about it, she replies, "you know what they say about it." When the other mom asks her to give examples, she is unable to come up with any. So, what exactly do "they" say about HFCS? There are two main arguments that I am aware of:

1. As the amount of HFCS in our food supply has increase, so have obesity rates, suggesting that HFCS may be one of the causes for the epidemic.

2. HFCS contains more fructose, which has a "lipogenic" (fat-generating) effect. Fructose is metabolized differently than sugar and leads to higher levels of triglycerides and LDL in the blood, insulin resistance, and more visceral fat storage. All of these are risk factors for diabetes and heart disease.

However, there are some very big problems with these arguments. In regards to argument #1, a correlation between HFCS and obesity is simply not enough to suggest a causal relationship. I could just as easily point to any other change that happened to occur in the last 50 years or so and blame it for the rise in obesity. I could blame the increases we've seen in college graduation rates, the number of women in the work force, or public interest in vampire romance novels. But this would, of course, be ridiculous.

The second argument lends some scientific credibility to the hypothesis that HFCS could cause some metabolic problems, and it is based on research. The problem is that much of this research is in mice, which are not always good models of human metabolism (and in fact, human studies have not consistently had the same results). But more importantly, the animal studies frequently compared the effects of diets very high in pure fructose or pure glucose-- sweeteners we rarely see in foods or beverages. Instead, our choices are usually HFCS or sucrose (sugar). And we don't typically consume the quantities of either sweetener that are tested in research.

The molecular makeup of these two substances is not remarkably different. A molecule of sucrose is comprised of 1 molecule of glucose and 1 molecule of fructose. Thus, sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. High-fructose corn syrup, belying its name, ranges from 42-55% fructose and the rest glucose. Therefore, studies comparing the metabolic effects of pure fructose and pure glucose are largely irrelevant to the question of whether HFCS is more harmful than sugar. Finally, studies that have been done on humans comparing HFCS and sucrose have not found any differential effects on metabolism or appetite.

Finally, if fructose is the "bad guy" in HFCS, then why isn't anyone attacking the natural and organic food manufacturers adding fruit juices (60%+ fructose) and agave nectar (84% fructose) to their products and touting it as healthier than the convential stuff? Chew on that one for a bit.

The bottom line is, the evidence doesn't support choosing sugar over HFCS, or choosing products with more natural sweeteners instead of products with HFCS. BUT, evidence certainly does support avoiding BOTH high-fructose corn syrup AND sugar. My goal here is not to vindicate HFCS and encourage people to not feel guilty about buying soda. Quite the opposite. My intent is to emphasize that ALL added sugars of any kind are equally horrible.

References
Melanson et al. High-fructose corn syrup, energy intake, and appetite regulation. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008; 88(6):1738S-1744S.

Schaefer EJ et al. Dietary fructose and glucose differentially affect lipid and glucose homeostasis. J Nutr. 2009;139:1257S-1262S.

"Sugar Overload: Curbing America's sweet tooth." Nutrition Action Healthletter. January/February 2010.

White rice cereal for babies: yes or no?

Tweet

While eating breakfast this morning, a story on Good Morning America caught my ear. A pediatrician in California, Dr. Alan Greene, has started a campaign against white rice cereal-- traditionally recommended by pediatricians as an introductory solid food for infants. Parents in the US have been told to feed their babies white rice cereal first because it is free of most allergens and easy to digest.

Dr. Greene believes this advice is misguided, and that white rice cereal may actually predispose children to obesity. According to his theory, feeding babies white rice cereal is akin to feeding them sugar in terms of nutritional value. Furthermore, because the starchy cereal is the first solid food experience many American babies have, it affects their taste preferences for life, setting them up to eat more refined carbohydrates and sugars later on and potentially become obese. Instead of white rice cereal, Dr. Greene recommends that parents choose an iron-fortified whole grain baby cereal. "Let every child's first food be a real food," he says.

Of course there are people who disagree with Dr. Greene. Unsurprisingly, Gerber made a statement noting the lack of scientific studies to support any link between white rice cereal and childhood obesity. The baby food company may be biased, but a presumably impartial associate professor of pediatrics, Dr. Keith Ayoob, has also said that focus on one particular food is probably inappropriate. The American Academy of Pediatrics makes no distinction between white and brown rice cereals in their infant feeding recommendations.

Before I explain my stance on the issue, let me first acknowledge that there isn't any scientific evidence of what Dr. Greene is suggesting. So, his argument is not strictly "evidence-based." But (and this is a big but), a lack of evidence does not disprove any theory. We can only have evidence of what researchers choose to study. It just so happens that no one has studied white rice cereal. If no one ever decided to compare lung cancer rates in smokers and non-smokers, you can be sure tobacco companies would be reminding us that there are no studies to support a link! There are never studies that show something is dangerous.. until there are studies. Another example in recent history of a food presumed to be good until it turned out to be bad is margarine- and other products where saturated fat was replaced by trans fat.

So what should we do when there is no evidence one way or another? Should we assume that white rice cereal is healthy for babies until there are studies proving otherwise, or should we assume it's not healthy until there are studies proving otherwise? Are foods innocent until proven guilty? My answer is: it depends. When you are trying to decide whether a food is likely to be good for you or your child, ask yourself: if I had to grow and produce all of my own food, could I still eat it? In other words, is this food very close to nature or has it been tampered with in some way? If the answer is yes, then I would assume the food is healthy until there is reason to believe differently. If the answer is no, then I would assume it's not. In the case of white rice cereal, you probably could not produce this on a small farm by yourself, so I would agree with Dr. Greene and choose the whole grain cereal instead, unless and until research studies prove that white rice cereal is just as good.

Although I don't have hard evidence to back up my theory this time, I do have quite a bit of logic on my side. Human health is largely the product of interactions between genes and the environment. Natural selection produces organisms that are adapted to their environment. Because human genes have not changed much in the last few million years, it is reasonable to assume that our bodies are best adapted to the environment our ancestors lived in back then- not the one we live in now. White rice didn't exist when our ancestors were evolving. And actually, brown rice wouldn't have been a large part of our ancestors' diets either. Before the advent of agriculture (only about 10,000 years ago), humans didn't eat much grains at all- whole or refined. But refined grains are even more novel; they didn't come on the scene until the Industrial Revolution. The process of removing the bran and germ of grains- the parts that contain many vitamins, minerals, plus essential fatty acids and fiber-requires mechanized mills that were not developed until the late 19th century- practically minutes ago in evolutionary terms!

What are the odds that a food that didn't exist until a little over a hundred years ago would be a more appropriate choice for an infant than one that is not processed and has all of its nutrients intact? If I were a betting woman (and I am), I would put my money on the brown rice cereal over the white rice cereal without hesitation. Whether or not white rice cereal is truly as harmful as Dr. Greene suggests it may be, it is highly unlikely that it provides any benefit at all over the whole grain version.

Irresponsible journalism at work

One of my biggest pet peeves is the sensationalized reporting of nutrition research by the media. I happened to come across a great example of this today: an article on msn.com titled "Big breakfast may make you fat after all, study finds." The article explains the results of a study in which 380 individuals- some normal weight, some obese- wrote down everything they ate for 10-14 days, and researchers used this information to assess whether individuals ate less over the course of a day when they ate a large breakfast. What they found was that, contrary to popular belief, eating more in the morning did not seem to prevent overeating later in the day.

This probably sounds pretty straightforward to anyone unfamiliar with the principles of research methodology in general or nutrition research in particular, which is most people. And most people who read this article probably see nothing wrong with it. In fact, in the 3 hours that this article has been available, it has been tweeted 169 times and "recommended" on facebook 156 times. Who knows how many times it will be re-tweeted and re-posted.

I see a number of problems with the way these study results were presented. For ease of reading, I will outline them:

1. The article suggests that this study has identified a cause and effect relationship. Reading this article, you would think that eating more in the morning causes not only eating more over the course of a day but also that it directly leads to weight gain. The title of the article as well as the statement: "a new study suggests that the only thing a big breakfast does is lard on more pounds" certainly give that impression.

However, because this study was cross-sectional and did not actually test an intervention, any relationships between a behavior (eating a big breakfast) and an outcome (total calorie intake for the day) are purely speculative. We cannot know whether the behavior caused the outcome. For example, perhaps on the days that the study participants happened to eat a big breakfast, they were just hungrier for some reason, and would have eaten more throughout the day regardless of what their breakfast was. Or maybe people tend to eat bigger breakfasts on weekends or holidays or other times when calorie intake is higher.

This may be a bit easier to understand if I use a different example. Let's imagine that I did a study looking at people's clothing choices and activity levels. I might find that people who report wearing sneakers on a given day are more likely to exercise that same day. Would this mean that wearing sneakers causes people to exercise? If I decide to start wearing sneakers every day, will I suddenly start exercising more? Maybe I will a little, because it's easier to be physically active in sneakers than in heels, but probably no one would think that wearing sneakers is a good weight loss strategy. Wearing sneakers and exercising just go together. It doesn't mean that one causes the other.

2. The article suggests that the results of this study negate findings of earlier research. I see this a lot in the news. "We've always been told to do X, but it turns out X may not work at all! Instead, we should be doing Y." But no single study can ever prove or disprove anything. We need to look at the accumulation of evidence on a topic before we jump to conclusions.

3. Speaking of jumping to conclusions, this article goes beyond making inappropriate inferences about cause-and-effect relationships and actually uses these flawed assumptions to give the readers nutritional advice: "If you want to lose weight, cut back on the calories you consume in the morning," the tag line reads. Given the questionable validity of this one study and the complete lack of consideration of any other studies, this advice is unsubstantiated.

Now that I've pointed out the gross misinterpretations presented in the MSN article, I suppose it's only fair to give you my interpretation of the study. After reading the original research article, here is my take.

My first observation is that this is a shoddy piece of writing and I am amazed that it was published anywhere. I guess I ought to start submitting my papers to this journal because apparently they'll take anything. Secondly, there was another interesting finding that was not discussed in the MSN article: although people who ate high-calorie breakfasts ended up eating more calories over the entire day, people who ate a greater proportion of their total calories at breakfast actually ate fewer calories over the entire day.

I realize this may sound confusing. Let  me try to explain it a different way. In this study, obese people who ate 35% of their total daily calories at breakfast ate 100 fewer calories per day than obese people who ate only 7% of their calories at breakfast. For normal weight people, it was a 200 calorie difference. To put this into perspective, for someone eating 1800 calories per day, a breakfast providing 7% of total daily calories would be 126 calories, whereas a breakfast providing 35% of daily calories would be 630.

To sum up, this study found that, eating a bigger breakfast increases total calorie intake; but, eating a bigger breakfast relative to other meals decreases total calorie intake. So which result is more relevant? I would contend that the latter is more useful for the average person. I would be willing to bet that most nutritionists don't recommend that people eat larger breakfasts period. Rather, they (and I) recommend that people eat larger breakfasts AND smaller dinners and/or lunches. I often say that we, as a society, have our eating patterns backwards. We should be eating more calories at the beginning of the day and less at the end. This advice is fully supported by this recent study, despite what the popular media article implies.

A final comment: although it was alluded to in the article, I want to stress that a big breakfast of junk is a far, far cry from a big nutritious breakfast. Even if the former leads to higher calorie intake, it says nothing about the latter.


On an unrelated note, why are my blog posts always so long?! I never, ever intend for them to look like this, but try as I might to be concise, I never seem to succed. Who is actually reading all of this? If you made it to the end, I applaud you.

Recipe: Reduced-fat "Anginette" muffins

Lately, I've been on a muffin-baking kick, which is kind of ironic because I don't even eat muffins. I was diagnosed with a gluten intolerance a while back, so I mostly bake for other people now. My most loyal customer is my husband, Steve. I try out all of my new muffin recipes on him and I also get to live vicariously through him. A couple of days ago, I decided to try to make some low-fat muffins that would taste like my favorite Christmas cookie: anginettes. I made a few batches of anginettes before Christmas for family members and friends, so I guess I still had them on the brain.

If you aren't Italian, or just haven't tasted an anginette before, let me tell you what they are. Anginettes are small, cake-like cookies flavored with lemon and orange juice, topped with a sugary glaze and sprinkles. They are so simple, but so delicious. The trick with anginettes is not to overbake them. Many of the anginettes you might find in a bakery cookie platter have been dried out from too much time in the oven. A properly cooked anginette will be soft and moist and will stay that way for many days.

I came up with the following recipe in an attempt to recreate the taste of an anginette, in a muffin form. Unfortunately, because I don't eat gluten, I cannot vouch for them myself. However, Steve's reaction when he tasted them and the speed with which they disappeared assures me that they are in fact good.

Note that the nutrition facts provided here are based on a recipe yield of 8 muffins and the assumption that you use half of the glaze (no need to completely enrobe the muffins in sugar!).

Anginette Muffins

2 cups all-purpose flour
1/3 cup sugar
3 teaspoons baking powder

3/4 teaspoon salt

1 cup orange juice

1/4 cup unsweetened applesauce

1 large egg, lightly beaten

1 tsp vanilla extract

1 tbs lemon extract

Cooking spray

Glaze

½ cup confectioner’s sugar

2-3 tbs. whole milk

Preparation

Preheat oven to 400°

Combine all-purpose flour and other dry ingredients (including sugar) in a large bowl; stir well with a whisk. Make a well in center of mixture. Combine juice, applesauce, egg, and extracts in a separate bowl. Stir into flour mixture. Spoon batter into 8-12 muffin cups coated with cooking spray. Bake at 400° for 20-25 minutes or until muffins spring back when touched lightly in center. Remove from pan. Cool completely on a wire rack.

To make the glaze:

Pour confectioners sugar in a small bowl. Add 1 tbs. of milk and mix until absorbed. Add 1 tsp of milk at a time, mixing thoroughly after each addition, until the glaze reaches desired consistency (it should be thick enough to coat the muffin tops without running).

When muffins are completely cooled, turn each upside down and dip in the glaze to coat. Place muffins on a plate or baking sheet and sprinkle with decorative candy sprinkles before the glaze dries.