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!