New Pepsi line? Throw it back!

So PepsiCo is launching a new line of sodas that are made with sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Should we celebrate the company's newfound health consciousness? Hardly! The new sodas are still full of empty calories from sugar. Sugar is not health food, natural or not. Lard is natural, too, but I don't see people extolling its virtues and buying it in bulk.


People have gotten the idea that HFCS is worse than sugar, because it is allegedly metabolized differently by the body and leads to weight gain. HFCS has been partially blamed for the obesity epidemic, and rightly so, but it is not because it is inherently different from sugar, but because of the way it changed the food supply when it came on the market. HFCS is much less expensive than sugar. When HFCS became available, it enabled food manufacturers to sell sugary foods and drinks at much lower prices than they used to. This likely led people to start consuming a lot more calories from HFCS-sweetened products. As nutrition expert Dr. David Katz has explained, its cost-effectiveness also led to its widespread use in processed foods, even those that are not supposed to be sweet. The result is that we end up consuming more sugar overall. So, HFCS may have played a role in the rising prevalence of obesity and diabetes in the U.S., but sugar could have had the same effect if it were used in the same way ("Sweet and Corny").


There is no empirical evidence that HFCS is any worse than sugar or that it has any different effects on appetite, weight, or other metabolic factors. The abstract from a review of studies on HFCS published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition had this to say:


"High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has been implicated in excess weight gain through mechanisms seen in some acute feeding studies and by virtue of its abundance in the food supply during years of increasing obesity. Compared with pure glucose, fructose is thought to be associated with insufficient secretion of insulin and leptin and suppression of ghrelin. However, when HFCS is compared with sucrose, the more commonly consumed sweetener, such differences are not apparent, and appetite and energy intake do not differ in the short-term. Longer-term studies on connections between HFCS, potential mechanisms, and body weight have not been conducted. The main objective of this review was to examine collective data on associations between consumption of HFCS and energy balance, with particular focus on energy intake and its regulation" (Melanson et al., 2008).


Bottom line: Stick to diet soda or no soda at all! What? Afraid of artificial sweeteners? See the post below.

My take on artificial sweeteners

Among the many misconceptions that people seem to have about nutrition and food safety is the notion that artificial sweeteners are essentially poison and must be avoided in order to be healthy. This one really gets my goat because despite the fact that it is not backed up by any credible science, a large proportion of the population readily believes it. This behavior strikes me as incredibly hypocritical, given how arbitrarily Americans seem to decide which products they are going to be wary of and demand the highest level of proof of safety and
which they will accept and use regardless of the
harm they are likely to cause.

For example, we have an abundance of evidence about the dangers of the typical American diet: one that is high in calories, saturated fat, sodium, and refined carbohydrates and low in fiber. Yet, this is not enough to convince anyone to abandon their typical American eating habits, save for the first week of January. On the other hand, a few unsubstantiated rumors about artificial sweeteners show up on some conspiracy-theory websites and everyone immediately swears them off!

All of the artificial sweeteners currently on the market have been approved by the FDA. Obtaining this approval is a long and rigorous process, entailing the meticulous conduct of numerous safety studies. But this is apparently not enough to convince the American public, who believes that the research demanded by the FDA is not sufficient. On the other hand, diet pills, vitamin and mineral supplements, and herbs, including the natural sweetener Stevia, are happily embraced despite the fact that they have not received FDA approval and are largely unregulated. (A product containing Stevia has recently received FDA approval, but it has been used by many for decades prior to this).

Another thing I think many people don't realize is that artificial sweeteners have been approved for use by adults, children, and pregnant women. If you use artificial sweeteners normally, there is no need to stop using them when you become pregnant or to prohibit your children from having any foods or drinks containing them. There is simply no scientific reason to ban them from your diet ever.

Even the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a well-known "whistle-blowing" organization often referred to as the "nutrition police" because of their rigid approach to consumer safety standards, has given sucralose (Splenda) its seal of approval, describing it as "safe." CSPI is not so kind to other sweeteners, but it does call aspartame and acesulfame potassium, two of the most commonly used sweeteners, "probably safe." Read their assessment of all sweeteners here.

Some studies have suggested that drinking diet beverages may actually lead to weight gain. I believe this to be a gross misinterpretation of research findings. The studies that have found an association between overweight and diet drink consumption were cross-sectional, non-experimental designs. In other words, they just looked at one group of people and compared those who drink diet beverages to those who don't. One can never determine causation with this type of study design. There are too many other factors at work. Researchers have theorized that artificial sweeteners may increase one's desire for sweets, leading to excess consumption of sugar later. It has also been postulated that the perception of sweetness actually triggers a hormonal response similar to what would occur if actual sugar were consumed.

I have read a number of experimental studies on artificial sweeteners (the ones that never make it to mainstream media because their results are not controversial enough), and these have found no difference in weight or in hormonal response (e.g. glucose and insulin levels, among others) when people were given a sugar-sweetened beverage compared to an artificially-sweetened beverage. Therefore, I have different theories about why people who drink diet beverages seem to be more likely to be overweight:

1. People who are overweight are simply more likely to drink diet beverages. Think about it, if you've never been overweight, it might not occur to you to buy diet anything. Whereas, if you are overweight, switching from regular to diet soda might be the first thing you do.

2. When people drink diet beverages, they feel free to eat more food. Be honest, how many times have you justified eating a larger portion of something or indulging in something high in calories because you a.) had a light lunch, b.) skipped breakfast, c.) ate really healthy yesterday, etc. ? When you eliminate calories you might otherwise be drinking, it's easy to think you can "afford" calories from something else (like that extra scoop of ice cream or the larger sized order of fries).

The easy way to avoid gaining weight when using artificial sweeteners is to make sure that your total calorie intake is within the range it should be for weight loss. If you write down what you eat and don't exceed your daily allotment, you will not have trouble losing weight even if you drink a gallon of diet soda daily. If any doubt remains in your mind, I use anywhere from 25-40 packets of Splenda a day (no, I'm not exaggerating) and I drink at least one 12-oz. can of diet soda, and I am underweight. If artificial sweeteners truly caused weight gain, this would not be possible.

The bottom line is that artificial sweeteners are probably going to do much less damage, if any, to your health than regular sugar would, especially if you are prone to drinking a lot of sweetened beverages or eating a lot of desserts.

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.