Taste revisited

Awhile back, I posted about how taste can be impacted with recovery. This is to say that anedoctally, taste seems to come back when you are in recovery as opposed to when you are actively in your ED.

The other day, I was listening to a fascinating podcast by All in the Mind about Taste. For instance, did you know that we are all actually born liking sweet and hating bitter? As Linda Bartoshuk, director of Human Research at the Smell and Taste Center at the University of Florida, says:

You love high fat, high sweet, high salt we all do, we're born loving that. Those are incredible survival tactics -- that gives you calorie sugar, gives your brain salt an important macro-mineral for brain and muscle function..

But of course as time gos by, we learn other tastes like bitter and sour. We learn to smell which invariably affects our tastes. And then, there is the culture and emotional components that affect our tastes.

During the show, Linda talked about supertasters. So what are supertasters? They are people who have more taste buds or fungiform paillae. These people experience double the intensity as other people in regards to taste and are more sensitive to pain on their tongues. These people also have difficulty with the taste of bitter.

What does this have to do with eating disorders? Well, it got me thinking. What if you were actually a supertaster prior to your ED. Then, your ED suppressed your taste buds since your brain made food non-rewarding, and you could simply no longer recognize taste. There was a study about how taste is different for those with anorexia which provided evidence of the difference between those with AN and those who did not. Yes, this study was done with recovered anorexics. However, it still makes me wonder whether taste can fully come back in recovery--not necessarily as the rewarding factor per se but the intensity/sensitivity factor.

Does taste seem more intense in recovery? Are foods you once thought of as sweet not so sweet or sweeter? Are foods that were once sour more or less so? And how about the taste of salt, fat, and bitter?

Maybe, this would be a good experiment in a bit of intuitive eating which is partly about slowing down, eating the food and asking yourself how it tastes among other things.

Taste

The other day I was on the hunt for chocolate fruit dip. Why I don't know, but that is what I seemed to be craving. A part of me thought that this was a positive sign. I was indulging my craving versus holding it back like if I'd been in ED Land. However, another part of me was slightly worried about the calories still and opted to stay on the safe side and find something low calorie, not fattening (Even if I am in recovery, those pesky ED thoughts still like to worm its way into my brain).

Well, then I found this:



ED part of my brain thought I'd scored! Zero everything, my gosh, how I could eat whatever of it and not feel GUILTY.

Once home, I tried it, and it was utterly, absolutely GROSS! Realistically, how could I have thought anything with just zeroes on its label would have any taste at all? I took one spoonful, spit it out and never touched the stuff again. I suppose if I have been really adamant about my chocolate fruit dip, I could have added sugar or fat or something to make it slightly palatable But by this point, my craving indulgence had passed and I was onto something else.

This lesson reminded me about taste. Often times those with eating disorders cannot judge taste well. Studies have shown that taste is simply not rewarding in that part of the brain like it is for other people. Another study has also shown that individuals with restrictive eating disorders have a reduced number of taste papillae on their tongue which alters their taste response and food preferences.

While I think all this research is true, I still think that when I was in the worst throes of an eating disorder, I "convinced" myself these really low calorie/no calorie food was good, that I could eat it without so much thought or guilt. Because where was the guilt in eating nothing substantial?

In recovery, not only have I been trying to "taste" more which includes eating foods with fat, but I've also noticed that my taste receptors seem to be more "aware" if we want to give it a voice. In general, I have done fairly well with including foods like peanut butter, ice cream, avocados, ice cream, pizza, etc. which used to be on "Tiptoe's Do Not Eat Food List" which is progress from several years ago. Though these foods with the exception of peanut butter are still not something I eat on any kind of regular basis, the fear has lessened a little. Don't get me wrong, it is still there, but just not to the anxiety provoking capacity of excuse making if I was invited somewhere or endless amounts of exercise to rid myself of that glutton.

I guess the reminder of this post is that in order for something to taste "good," there must be substantial nutrients in the product. Otherwise, what is it that we are really eating?

Note--*This is only my opinion of this particular brand. Who knows other products may be good but it is doubtful that I will be trying them anytime soon.

A dieting example

Most of us know the mentality of dieting either through personal experience or observation of others. Many people turn into black and white thinkers if they aren't ones already. Foods become "good" and "bad." It becomes about deprivation of not only the food but also the soul. Of course, this does not happen with everyone, but the majority do fall into this category which is why dieting has such a huge fallout rate.

This was one reason I was pleasantly surprised at hearing my physical therapy assistant say that although she was trying to lose weight, she is not depriving herself. She said she is beginning to ask herself whether she is truly hungry and if she really wanted that piece of cake. If she does, she would take a small slice. I don't think she knows it, but she is beginning some intuitive eating.

The other thing that she said which is not something you'd hear from most people is "I'm going slow, I'm not in any real hurry." Though I am never into using the word "dieting," I do think she is taking an even keel approach at this, and I commend her for her work.

Something else she said stuck out to me. She said that when she got divorced and was raising her two daughters, she could not afford the healthy food most experts say we should all be eating.. She said "unfortunately, my kids paid the price." Many studies have shown that there is a link between socioeconomic status and quality of food. Even back in 2004, researchers were saying there was a relationship between obesity, "cheap" food, and socioeconomic level. (here)

Though this news is not new to me, the fact that someone said it so blatantly was really surprising to me. I guess the saying "when you know better, you do better" applies here. Or rather, when you make more money, you have the ability to eat better.

Anyway, overall, this brief ten or so minutes of my physical therapy assistant recounting her dieting habits was a bit refreshing to hear. Here was someone who truly was losing weight for health in a healthy, moderate, slow way. This may not seem like much, but I think she is a rarity in these times. Kudos to her! Even though I am against "dieting," I do think changing a lifestyle in a positive, healthy way like this person is doing can be beneficial .I just wish more people did dieting this way.

NuVal

Last week while grocery shopping, a brochure caught my eye. It was for something called NuVal which sounds like some type of gimmicky product. After several days, I finally got around to reading it.

What is NuVal? Apparently, it is a new scoring system for foods. Currently, it is debuting at the stores Price Chopper, HyVee, and Meijer. The premise of the scoring system is to rate the health of food products based on a scale of 1-100, 1 having the least nutrition and 100 the most nutrition. The idea is that this simple system (like an at-a-glance) will help enable consumers to make informed decisions about the foods they buy as well as give an ability to compare products based on price and nutrition.

The NuVal scoring system is based on the Overall Nutritional Quality Index (ONQI) algorithm which considers over 30 nutrients and takes into account trans fats, quality of macronutrients, and the density of food products. The development of the NuVal system itself is headed by Dr. David Katz, an Associate Professor of Public Health at Yale University School of Medicine, along with 12 other experts in medicine, nutrition, and public health. Their goal is to havea NuVal score for the over 50,000 food products in an average store. One nice thing is that this is independently funded, so there is no promotion by manufacturers or other food companies.

In general, I think this is an interesting approach to take, much better than displaying calories on menus, billboards, etc. In the "Nutritional Insights" section of the website, it emphasizes that there are no "good" or "bad" NuVal scores--that it's just an objective tool. It makes the point that you don't have to buy the highest NuVal score, but rather that you may simply choose a product because you love it. That's actually an important statement for me to read as I have a tendency to base my food choices on the highest value of nutrition versus just taste. (post here on health versus instinct)

It will be interesting to see how this works and whether consumers catch on to using this system. There does seem to be more of an educational aspect here than just good calories and bad calories.

What is your opinion? Could this be a valuable tool for consumers and their food choices? Would/will you use this system?

Borborygmus

I happened to catch this word, borborygmus (pronounced bor-buh-rig-mus), in a recent issue of O! magazine. I don't read this magazine often, but secretly only bought it because there were some interesting articles on animals in it. And who says we don't buy magazines for content? Ha!

Anyway the magazine said the definition was "the grumbling noises your stomach makes." Well, immediately, I thought hunger. This is true to an extent, but after some quick google search, it's actually the sound produced from gas movement in your intestines. Bleh, that is nice to know eh? It's just that the growling is typically associated with the stomach, because it is usually louder.

The origin of borborygmus is Greek, translating as an onomatopoeia (a word that imitates the sounds it makes) meaning "rumbling." This Scientific American article explains in detail the mechanism of what is going on in your body. In digestion, there is a term called peristalsis. It is a series of wave-like muscular contractions which helps move food along within the digestive tract. Peristalsis increases with the consumption of food, however, it also occurs in the absence of food and when the stomach and small intestines have been empty for about two hours. Once this has occurred, stomach receptors respond by causing a reflex generation of waves of electrical activity (migrating myoelectric complexes) that leads to hunger contractions. This then leads to an intestinal "housecleaning" of sorts which causes the grumbling noises associated with hunger.

It is good to distinguish here that these are NOT hunger pangs which result 12-24 or more hours after the last meal. The borborygmus is more like a false hunger pang.

I bring this up, because I know for so many of us, it seems are bodies are constantly hungry. This is true after years of deprivation, and it is quite nuisance when it seems our bodies do not believe we have just fed it! However, I think a lot of what we are feeling too is this borborygmus, at least after initial refeeding.

I know the worst time this has happened is when I've been at therapy appointments and my stomach decides to growl loudly despite having eaten a short time ago. None of my therapists have ever said anything, but I always wonder if then, they question whether I have eaten or not. This borborygmus (it's nice to have a name to it) always makes me want to shout, "Really, yes, I have eaten, just an hour or two ago, I swear." And then, I just imagine some stare, eyes looking down upon me, like a schoolteacher looking over her glasses, saying "Uh-huh." Then, it makes me feel guilty for all the times I've lied about not eating, when really now, I just want to be believed.

How family can remind you how far you have come

My dad recently came to visit me this past weekend. Overall, the visit went okay. It seems as long as he is not asking too much about my future plans or mentioning graduate or medical school, things seem to be fairly kosher. Back in October, he set a new record of talking about these topics 15 times in a 4-5 day period. Now, his new record for less mentioning of these topics is 6 months. I never hold my breath entirely that he will just stop talking about it, but it does seem there is some behavioral change which has all around helped our relationship.

As my parents like to do when they come visit me, we went grocery shopping. They just continue to think I do not have enough in my fridge, freezer, and pantry. Now, I have a whole house full to feed an army! Gah, it's a little intimidating.

Since Luna and Clif bars were on sale at Whole Foods, I did buy a good number of them. When we got home, here is how our conversation went:

Dad: You know those Luna bars you eat have a lot of calories.
Me: Umm, no, not really. Why do you think that?
Dad: Well, just look at the label. Those things are small.
Me: Yes, but if you read the label, there is protein, carbs, and fat, all things your body needs.
Dad: Why can't you just eat a candy bar?

Back in high school and college, I would never have touched an energy bar, because of the calorie count. In my freshman year of college, my mom became worried about me and decided to send a whole bunch of energy bars. At this time, the options were not as vast as now, and the bars did not taste very good. In protest, I took one bite out of each one, proclaiming I had tried them all (technically yes but not exactly what she wanted to hear) and hated them. I vowed never to touch one again.

I don't remember when I started eating them or why. For several years, they became the staple of my breakfast, and the only thing I would eat. Today, I literally only use them as snacks or eat something else along with them as a breakfast.

The post isn't just about eating energy bars, it's more a reminder of how my thinking and behaviors have changed. It also gives me a good alarm bell in gauging if I'm ever headed downhill in that I would retreat back to thinking how Luna bars or any other energy bars had too many calories. (Kim wrote a good post on knowing when you're in relapse)

I'm still not to the point of just eating a candy bar and don't know if I ever really will as candy bars have never been my thing, but that's okay. There are still other goals to reach beyond just energy bars, but it is one step on the staircase.

Anti-junk food law in Korea

As most of us know, reports of obesity in children have risen worldwide, and it seems more and more countries are placing stipulations on foods, especially "junk" foods. In 2006, there was a big push to eliminate sodas from schools in the US.

A year later, Korea followed suit with similar measures in banning sodas in schools. And now, according to KoreaBeat , the blog for Korean news in English translation, an anti-junk food law went into effect 21 days ago. The purpose of the law is to prevent the selling of high calorie, low nutrition "junk" food, like sodas, hamburgers, and ice cream sold near schools. The government hopes this will help children to curb their "junk" food eating habits. Unfortunately, this has backfired since the nutrition regulations are not very standardized and have been delayed for some food items, causing much confusion within the vendors.

According to one middle school girl whose school ejected vendors last year, there has not been change in students snacking habits between meals. Another girl said there was an increase in students bringing instant ramen noodles from home or just buying sodas and snacks at a convenience store.

I find this interesting since you really don't hear much about what other countries are doing to stymie the "obesity" epidemic in their countries. It seems everywhere, the same notion is implied--junk food is bad, soda is bad, greasy foods are bad, sugar is bad, fat is bad, etc. This just breeds children who will begin to fear everything, and that is not a healthy view to give. I wonder if Korea and other countries will follow suit with posting calories on menus like several cities in the US (UK has as well) have or propose an "obesity" tax on non-diet sodas, or ban trans fats, etc.

In the end, I don't know how much any of these measures really solve the overall problem. This is not to say that some of these efforts aren't made with good intentions, it's just that they do not seem to be properly thought through, creating many other problems to occur.

Note:--*It's a bit ironic, but a small study suggests that junk food make make kids fatter but happier
*Removing sodas in schools was stickier than thought in some places.

Vegetarianism and eating disorder risk

AP photo from the LA Times

First off, I find this photo absolutely hilarious! I know it is for promoting vegetarianism, but those vegetable costume cut outs are just incredibly silly. It kind of reminds me of PETA's sexy lettuce ladies who also are known for similar antics as mentioned here in the Philippines.

The story about vegetarianism and eating disorders is also found in the Daily Mail and ABC News, both of which add more details than the LA Times piece.

A new study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association looked at a self-reported survey of 2,516 young adults aged 15-23 about their eating behaviors, weight, and lifestyle. They found vegetarians on the whole ate healthier and had healthier weights than their meat-eating counterparts. However, of the former and current vegetarians, they reported they were twice as likely to use unhealthy measures to control their weight such as diet pills, laxatives, and purging than their non-vegetarian peers. About 20% of current vegetarians also reported binge eating and a feeling of loss of control.

Several questions the researchers asked were:

Does lack of meat in the diet make people more likely to binge?
Are people with a susceptibility to eating disorders attracted to vegetarianism in their teen years?

Whatever the answers are to these questions, the more important question to ask is what the motivations are for choosing a vegetarian lifestyle. This is a cue to parents to take interest in their child's answer, and if it is for weight loss, a red flag should be alerted. However, at the same time, many teens also answer that going vegetarian is about "health." This is when it can get tricky as the "health" scheme can become a guise for an already existing eating disorder or a pre-emptive eating disorder in conveniently restricting.

Sometimes I feel vegetarianism gets a bad rap in thinking that vegetarianism and eating disorders go hand in hand, but at the same time, I can ascertain why it's a big deal too. In the end, it comes down to personal choices. Hopefully, those choices will be ones that reflect true health, mindset, and beliefs and not just to determine a number on the scale..

Note: *Two related posts by bloggers Carrie (Vegetarianism and eating disorders) and Kim (Going vegetarian?)

Schools and calorie boards

Within the last few years, there has been a big push to put calories on menus to fight the "obesity" epidemic. I'm sure most of us have heard about it. In mid-February, a Federal Appeals court in New York upheld the ruling of posting calories on menus. Though some chain restaurants have already been doing this, it is now required if there are 15 or more outlets. California and Philadelphia have taken similar regulations with effects occurring next year. Even the UK has gotten in on this bandwagon.

With large states taking this action, it seems like it is happening everywhere. Posted calorie menus have been seen on college campuses (though Harvard removed theirs) and now even in school districts. Case in point, in North Carolina, some districts are going high tech in presenting nutrition information, including some with calorie and fat numbers. Amy Harkey of the CMS Child Nutrition Services says, "Food can be fun for kids, and I think that message needs to come across. We don't want to burden them with too much."

While it's true that food can be fun and should be, how would presenting a blaring neon-type board with calorie counts not be burdening to children? This only emphasizes dieting, a pre-cursor to eating disorders and unhealthy body image. Though I think it is is important to have some general information, like ingredients of wheat, soy, seafood, peanut for those with allergies, I think listing calories is unwise. Schools need to figure out an alternative way of passing along nutrition information. I can guarantee that this will only cause more harm than good on an already vulnerable population.

Healthy food: choice versus instinct

Carrie's post and commentary of her encounter at Whole Foods reminded me or I should say made me think about my food beliefs a bit.

Back in October, I went to a large dog conference. Though I tend to do horribly eating at conferences, I did manage to socialize and eat dinner every night. I remember on the night before the conference ended, a big group of us--10 or 11 people went to the Old Spaghetti Factory. I'd never been here, but everyone said how good it was.

I remember ordering some angel hair pasta with mushrooms over a marinara sauce. L., a woman who I had dinner with almost every night and who I knew from past conferences, sat beside me. After the orders were taken, I remember leaning over toward her and saying something to the effects of, "I'm surprised they don't have whole wheat pasta. Normally, that's what I would have eaten."

Her reply to me was "that's because you are a health nut."

Maybe I am. Maybe I'm not. Maybe it's just a convenient way to mask the eating disorder. I'm sure many of us are used to that. The thing is, however, I question how much my thinking has come to the point of becoming ingrained. How much is changeable?

Example: if I'm choosing between a white baguette and a multigrain one, I always choose the latter. I tell my self it is healthier, has more nutrients than the white, therefore, I should only eat that one. This is true, but it's the point that I really don't allow myself to eat the one that is less nutritionally valued.

I do this with other items too--white potato versus sweet potato, lowfat yogurt versus nonfat Greek yogurt, iceberg lettuce versus romaine lettuce, green pepper versus red pepper, white flour versus wheat flour (in the dogs' case, it would be wheat flour versus oat or white/brown rice flour), whole wheat pasta versus regular pasta, and you see the drift here. My choices wind up becoming based on what is nutritionally "better, more dense" than for purely what I may want or what has more taste.

This is what we are all told, right? We should choose foods that are nutritionally dense, balanced, just simply healthier for you. So when you're in recovery, trying to unhinge that mindset a bit, how much can you change really? How much becomes almost instinctual by now?

This is not to say that I don't eat some foods that have the item I would normally not choose (example I'm an animal cracker addict), it's just when push comes to shove, I'll go with the item with more nutrients. I'm certainly not trying to knock people who choose healthier options for health reasons, but when does it become about choice versus instinct? Right now, I'm grappling with that question and trying to figure out a balance somewhere.

Future dietitians and weight bias

I came across this disturbing article the other day about weight bias among future dietitians. A new study in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association showed only two percent of future dietitians have positive or neutral attitudes towards obese individuals with the rest moderately biased.

Dietetic students were asked questions about both a normal weight male and female as well as an obese male and female with the same health characteristics other than weight. The results indicated that the majority of the 182 students who participated viewed obese patients' self control, attractiveness, eating habits, compliance to treatment, self-esteem, and insecurity negatively.

Although this may show that dietitians are not immune to weight bias, this can impact treatment negatively. What patient wants insensitivity by a professional? How can a patient learn to trust her/his dietitian and get though the treatment plan?

This makes me wonder what dietitians think of eating disorder patients as first impressions. Do they think we are all stubborn, non-compliant? Do they feel some of us are too thin or too fat to be there? Whatever stereotype a dietitian or any other professional may hold affects both the patient relationship and treatment in the long run. No one needs stigma held over them. Perhaps, stigma reduction classes, similar to medical students compassion training classes, should be implemented into in the class curriculum, as well as positive role models and mentors who do not reflect weight bias.

Note--this is only a small study with a mostly Caucasian group, so there might be differences in ethnicity attitudes. This also can obviously not be a clear generalization, as with any profession, there are always the good apples and the bad.

Asian food labels, Calories, and their significance?

Last week, I headed to the Asian supermarket. I go once about every 3-4 months, all depending on when I run out of this: Yes, kimchi! It's probably one of my favorite foods. I'm not the typical Korean, eating it for every meal, just dinner, along with my other veggies, rice/noodles, and protein.

While I was there, I picked up other items, like noodles, sweet wild rice, crackers, sauces, frozen potstickers, bean paste products, and even some whole sardines! (for the dogs not me) Who knew sardines came in other sizes than just those ones you see canned? :grin:

The majority of items there have labels both in Asian and English languages. However, I was thinking about this very thing. I used to love to try all the different Asian ramen noodles there. They are much tastier than the standard supermarket kind. I used to buy 5 or 6 different types--everything from kimchi flavor to sesame to even green tea! That was until I read the actual food label. As I've mentioned before, my ED descent led me to a life of being fat-phobic. So I was naturally appalled at how many fat grams this 4-5 oz package of noodles had. Well, that was the end of that, and I never touched those specific noodles again, rather opting for something like soba noodles which were less calorific.

Then, I was thinking, what if all my food items were only with Asian food labels, like this one below.
I say this, because I cannot read Asian characters. Would this make a difference, or would it backfire and just cause me more anxiety not knowing how much a certain food item was? I mean, what if I were stuck on some island like all those people in Lost and had to forage for myself? (The Lost people did find normal, packaged foods which they lived off of for awhile) Would I be thinking about calories then?

This led me to think about the actual history of the "Calorie." (kcal) How did it become to play such a significant role in how we eat, diet, and exercise?

According to this brief article in the Journal of Nutrition, it really wasn't until 1887 when chemist Wilbur Atwater published a paper about the "Calorie" relating to food energy that the concept even arose. Atwater used the calorimeter as away to measure the energy in food. In this case, the Calorie is the amount of heat produced when a food is burned to dry powder or ash.

It wasn't until about two decades later that the idea behind calories with dieting hit mainstream. Prior to this, we could say "modern" dieting began with the likes of William Banting in England, forerunner of the Atkins plan, Sylvester Graham, inventor of the Graham cracker who believed in strict vegetarianism, and Horace Fletcher, aka the "Great Masticator" who felt everyone must chew their food something like 32 times before swallowing. None of these men said people should eat X amount of calories.

That is until Dr. Lulu Hunt Peters published her book, Diet and Health, the key to the Calories in 1918. This is considered the first modern diet book where counting calories became the key to weight reduction. The book gives a formula to find ideal body weight, sort of a forerunner to the BMI configuration. She also includes advice on how many calories one should eat based on their ideal body weight with an analysis of macronutrient information. Dr. Hunt, surprisingly, did not promote diet aids nor saccharine.

However, she was apparently not shy to tell readers that dieting was hard work, a life-long commitment, where vigilance was required--that dieting was based on self-discipline. Some have credited her with starting the idea that being overweight is a moral sign of weakness. Despite this, the book proved to be successful, selling somwhere between 800,000 and 2 million copies.

After this book, there came others who emphasized food combinations and when to eat certain foods. Some even mentioned "magic pairs" of foods to eat. During this time (1920s and beyond), there were also many substances touted as the miracle cure for obesity (hmm, that one hasn't changed a bit, has it?), as well as an array of diet plans.

So ladies and gentlemen, that's a brief overview of how the Calorie came about in the role of dieting. It's quite amazing when you think about how much "clout" we give to a simple word, a simple measurement of heat in science, isn't it?

Other Sources:
The history of diets
The history of dieting
When did dieting begin?
Lulu Hunt Peters and the birth of the modern diet book

*Note--I'm still working up to eating those Korean ramen noodles with much more than my usual alloted fat grams.

My reminder of the importance of fat

Full set here

This is my reminder of the importance of fat in a diet. Yes, I know it seems really cheesy, but for someone who was fat-phobic for years (okay still is to a degree but working on it), I need to be reminded.

Tovah is a growing puppy (current weight 30 pounds) and fat in her diet is important. Although dogs' digestive systems are built differently from humans, primarily in that they have a much shorter digestive tract (one reason why they eliminate faster), the role of fat still plays a major role in their diet.

Like humans, fat in a dog's diet helps with cell structure and function, provides a healthy coat and skin, gives insulation and protection of internal organs, supplies and accesses energy, acts as a carrier for fat-soluble vitamins, and nourishes the brain for development. Without fat, a puppy doesn't grow properly nor a human develop appropriately.

I know this all consciously, yet still, I have to think hard about adding fat to either Tovah's diet or my own. It's not a natural thing. I have to resist throwing away the chicken and turkey skin which provides wonderful fat for a puppy. I have to be aware of increasing her fat at important times of her growth, especially if I want all those neural connections to be working properly and efficiently. In essence, it's been a challenge in the way I've had to think. But of course, I'm going to do the best for her as possible.

Now, I only wish I'd follow suit and think similarly for myself. Don't get me wrong, I do eat fat and much more than I used to, but I still have my hang-ups about it and have a long way to go. I really don't know if I will ever "embrace" fat, but I think if I can get to the point of continually challenging myself to the functions of fat, maybe fat can have a more positive spin for me.

*Side note: This also led me to think about how fat got such a bad rap and connotation. I came across this article in the New York Post about diet and fat and its misconceptions. The thing I found interesting about it was that Ancel Keys, yes the same Keys who was famous for the Minnesota starvation study, was convinced of the correlation between heart disease and fat consumption. Thus, the thinking of how a lower fat diet is better for heart health and otherwise was born and continues on even today.

*Note: All my dogs are fed properly and get appropriate amounts of nutrients in their diets. Just thought I'd should throw that in.

Coca-cola slammed by FDA

In 2007, Coca-Cola marketed the Diet Coke Plus with a tagline of "a good source of vitamins B3, B6, and B12, and the minerals zinc and magnesium." Now, the FDA has issued a warning letter to Coke for their "mislabeling of it claims.

The "plus" to a product can only be used if the product has at least 10% or more of the Reference Daily Intake or Reference Daily Value. Apparently, Diet Coke Plus's nutrient content fell short on this. The FDA also said in their letter that they felt it wasn't appropriate to fortify snacks like carbonated beverages.

Truly, this doesn't surprise me. Soft drink companies and alike continuously try to reach sales of their products by adding new marketing schemes. I no longer drink soft drinks, but I keep coming back to those who do and wondering whether people really believe you can get sufficient vitamins and minerals from these substances.

Fortification, in general, has been around for a long time. Most notably, cereals are on the most fortified products, however, I'm seeing a lot of other nutrients added to products. For example, omega-3 is now available in some yogurt. Fiber is now in splenda! Tell me how
that one makes sense? With each fortification, strict rules apply in accordance to the FDA
guidelines. And even with the correct labeling, it can still leave consumers confused.

Source: Scientific American

Healthy eating obsession

The Today show had a short segment on the obsession with healthy eating this morning with Leslie Goldman, author and blogger of the Weighting Game and Madelyn Fernstrom, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Weight Management Center. For the most part, I thought they got their point across about the hazards of obsessed healthy eating and how it can lead to vitamin/mineral deficiences, loss of weight, loss of muscle mass as well as eating disorders and/or orthorexia.

What I found interesting were the comments from the show. Some people understood what was being said, while others felt their lifestyles were being attacked. It just goes to show how many people are misinformed about the whole topic. The operative word in all this is "obsessed." I wish people would understand that most people know there is nothing wrong with wanting to be vegetarian, vegan, macrobiotic, or raw foodist (okay, the last two kind of make me raise my eyebrows but to each his/her own) as long as they are educating themselves and it is for the right reasons, not being masked by fear, an eating disorder or otherwise. That would mean correct nutrients and caloric intakes were being met as well as a heathful dose of psyche, ie "balanced," not black/white thinking.

One commenter mentioned that we should "highlight the positive aspects of these 'unhealthy' foods"--that maybe that would help people see a bigger picture.

What do you think? Is there a way to stop all the paranoia of obsessed healthy eating? Or is this a moot point with the nation worried about the obesity epidemic?

Should nutrition facts be brought back to Harvard?

Laura at the blog Are you "eating with your anorexic?" posted about the Ivy League college Harvard University removing calorie information at their dining services. Apparently, not everyone is happy with these actions and published their own opinion in this piece. I think the author raises some interesting points, though each could be counter pointed.

The issue of providing calorie information has been a hot topic of debate for awhile now with those adamantly against it, others for it, and some who sit on the fence. In the end, there will never be 100% happiness with the policy.

Should energy drinks be regulated?

image: Rockstar

Most of us know the effects of caffeine on our bodies and minds, both physically and mentally, but what about the rest of general population?

In the last few years, energy drinks, like Red Bull and Rockstar have become increasingly popular. Sales on these type of products are estimated in the billions which seems comparable to the diet industry. And they don't look to be stopping any time soon with an annual increase of 55%.

These energy drinks have anywhere from 50mg to over 500mg of caffeine per container. A standard brewed coffee of 6 oz. has 80mg to 150mg and a 12 oz. soft drink 35 mg. Some researchers feel that these drinks need labels of not only the caffeine content but also warnings of the possible effects of caffeine intoxication, something a lot of people have never heard of or even considered.

One study with 469 college age students, an often targeted audience for these energy drink advertisers, showed that 51% consumed an energy drink in the last week and about a third had weekly "jolt and crash" episodes. Another 19% experienced heart palpitations. And even scarier than that, almost a third of the students mixed energy drinks and alcohol in the last month!

Another worry among this population is the relationship between energy drinks and the abuse of non-medical prescription drugs.

As worrisome as that is (and it is), another group, caffeinated moms, are increasing their caffeine consumption, including different forms of energy drinks. One mom said, "I need about four energy drinks, three cups of coffee and a six-pack of soda every day."

I think in general, we are a very caffeinated society. During high school and college, I heavily relied on caffeine to get through my day. Plus, half the time, I used it as a substitute for a real meal which really doesn't do much when you're trying to study for a test. I probably would have gotten into energy drinks, but I tasted one once, and it was awful!

In the past, I've tried to completely cut out coffee and all caffeinated beverages. I probably could have done it, but honestly, I like the taste and smell of coffee a lot. I do, however, drink decaf most days in the mornings. There is one exception, and that is driving. I have no problem chewing Jolt caffeinated gum if I have to.. That'll likely be the case this Friday when I'm driving long distance.

NYC continues on trans fat mission

In a press release today, NYC will be implementing further its ban on trans fat in cooking products. As of July 1, all artifical trans fat items will be off the menus in NYC. NYC had already begun to ban trans fat in their restaurants last year, but this is the final installment of the series.

I know this was a very hot topic of debate when NYC first suggested this ban at the end of 2006. Everything from economics to personal freedom to "nanny" regulations were discussed. I think this has died down a bit, but I'm not sure since I do not live in NYC nor do I go to fast food restaurants where these trans fats were mostly the culprit. It does look like NYC restaurants have mostly complied with the ban, though maybe that was so they wouldn't get fined?

Anyway, I do know that just about every single product these days touts "no trans fat." Does it make people think about their health more? Do people know what trans fats even are? So I guess I wonder whether this has been truly helpful. Has it really slashed the obesity crisis? Hard to tell with any of this, and there are so many other confounding factors involved. Will this stir up more hackles and regulations? I guess only time will tell.