Archive for the ‘Health’ Category

« Older Entries

Grocery Shopping Experiment

January 4th, 2010

“Never shop on an empty stomach.” Or so the saying goes.

Penny-pinchers say you’ll spend more than you want to. Dietitians warn that your food choices might be less than stellar. I would add that you might spend more time in the store than intended.

It was supposed to be a quick trip to the store. I’d been running errands all afternoon–and then I popped in to the gym for a (relatively) quick bike ride (Yay for starting to train for the big ride!) By now I was tired and hungry and just wanted to get home–but I had my little list that I really wanted to get taken care of while I was out and about.

My list?

  • Fresh fruit
  • Lettuce
  • Celery

My purchases?

See for yourself.

Grocery store purchases

  • Bananas
  • Apples
  • Oranges
  • Celery
  • Lettuce
    AND
  • Green onions
  • Acorn squash
  • Avocados
  • 2 bags of cheddar cheese (on sale)
  • 2 bags of mozzarella cheese (ditto)
  • A bag of tortilla chips
  • A bag of Fritos
  • A tin of sardines in mustard sauce
  • A can of salmon
  • A bottle of Tabasco sauce
  • A bottle of ketchup
  • A box of mozzarella cheese stick snacks

The results of this little experiment?

Cost of shopping trip
Items on list cost $4.93
Items not on list cost $21.12
I quintupled the cost of my shopping trip by shopping on a empty stomach! Yikes!

Food choices
A number of my impulse purchases were of high nutritional quality (but then again, I’m a dietitian who happens to adore food). But then I still did make some purchases that I never make when I’m exercising self-control and wise shopping practices. Case in point? Frozen mozzarella stick snacks. I never even VISIT the processed freezer food section of the store. But today I thought, “You know, I would love to have some mozzarella sticks”–and since I was in the store, I just went ahead and got them. Then there’s the Fritos–which ostensibly were for with the chili I was going to warm up when I got home. But I opened the Fritos and started digging in before I was even out of the grocery store parking lot. Um, yeah.

Time
I didn’t calculate this exactly, but I’m pretty sure I picked up the items on my list in less than 5 minutes. My overall shopping trip took over 20. And, if it hadn’t have been for all those extra impulse purchases, I could have paid with the cash in my purse (instead of having to run out to the car to get my bank card, which I’d left in my gym bag.)

Based on my experiment, I have decided that “they” are right. It’s best to not go grocery shopping on an empty stomach.

Category: B3RD, Everyday Life, Home ◊ Comments (2)

One sick clan

November 11th, 2009

When I started throwing up last night, my first thought was to panic. You see, I teach a food lab—and I was afraid somehow I’d managed to have a case of food poisoning in my lab.

This morning, relief (from my anxiety, not from the ickies) came in the form of an e-mail from my aunt. My cousin and another aunt had the throw-ups last night too.

The e-mails just kept pouring in. My cousin Danny has it. A cousin and uncle have it. Penny’s e-mail intimated that Alice, Sarah, Byron, Adam, and Sharon had it before the funeral.

So apparently we all got it at the funeral.

The sick counts keep rising. I added my name to the roll. Then Daniel added his. An addendum reports that Joshua has it too. Martha wrote that she hasn’t thrown up yet but stayed home because she’s feeling icky. Dad wrote in that Tim and Grace both have it. The last report has come from my aunt in Illinois. Her husband and son have it too.

Basically, we’re one sick clan.

If you think of it, pray for us as we recover. And pray for protection for my grandparents and mom (who is currently staying with Grandma and Grandpa). The last thing they need is this nasty little stomach flu.

Category: Health ◊ Comments (0)

Life is looking up

November 2nd, 2009

…a friend found my camera–the one I’ve been looking for for over a week. It has dozens of pictures from our ladies retreat on it–and I promised myself I wouldn’t buy another camera until I could afford a digital SLR. Now I won’t have to renege on my promise.
…I managed to get most of this morning’s lab reports graded and handed back today–with only a minimum of student complaints.
…I had a lovely conversation with a former classmate (under- and over-grad) who is now a lecturer in the department

Seasonal Affective Disorder still seems to be kicking my butt. I’m behind in nearly every class–not to mention laundry, cleaning, blogging, reading, bill paying, you name it. But every so often, I can see a glimmer of sunlight that promises that winter is not forever.

Thanks for praying–and please continue when you can. I need to find some time to talk to a medical practitioner about switching my meds–but right now just the thought of scheduling an appointment and discussing all this with a new doctor (since my teaching assistant insurance doesn’t pay for my regular PAs) is overwhelming.

Category: Health, Reflections ◊ Comments (0)

B3,RD: How safe are artificial sweeteners?

October 29th, 2009

I know some of you have been wigging out waiting for this–so I’ll put you out of your misery.

Artificial sweeteners? Safe or the devil’s spawn? It’s a great question that’s racing through the minds of nutrition conscious people everywhere. Dietitians are divided in their thoughts. There’s the “I can’t live without my Diet Pepsi” crowd (many of my nutrition professors in our “Pepsi” school fit into this group), and there’s the “artificial sweeteners are going to be the end of Western civilization as we know it” crowd (although this crowd tends to not mind the end of Western civilization in other contexts).

Because this issue is such a divisive one–and one with so many different opinions–I’m going to give you the facts and my general recommendations, and then let you decide for yourself.

FDA Regulation of Food Additives

First of all, it’s important to be aware of how additives to our food supply (such as artificial sweeteners) are regulated. According to the rules of the 1958 amendment to the Food, Drugs, and Cosmetics Act of 1938, no chemical additive can be used in food if it has been “found to induce cancer in man…or in animals.” This means that, at least as far as cancer is concerned, we’re home free. If additives have been found to cause cancer in humans or in lab animals AT ANY LEVELS of exposure, they may not be used in the American food supply.

Once the additive has been determined to not cause cancer or other genetic changes, experiments are done to determine what levels of the additive are safe. Researchers find the highest “dose” that causes no observable health effects and then decrease that 100 times to determine the “Allowable Daily Intake” or “ADI”.

See the below table nabbed from the Mayo Clinic for more information on the ADIs.

Artificial sweetener ADI* Estimated ADI equivalent** OK for cooking?
Aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal) 50 milligrams (mg) per kilogram (kg) 18 to 19 cans of diet cola No
Saccharin (Sweet’N Low, SugarTwin) 5 mg per kg 9 to 12 packets of sweetener Yes
Acesulfame K (Sunett, Sweet One) 15 mg per kg 30 to 32 cans of diet lemon-lime soda*** Yes
Sucralose (Splenda) 5 mg per kg 6 cans of diet cola*** Yes

*FDA-established acceptable daily intake (ADI) limit per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight.
**Product-consumption equivalent for a person weighing 150 pounds (68 kilograms).
***These products usually contain more than one type of sweetener.

You can see that the ADI limit for a 150 lb individual ranges from 6 to 30 cans of diet soda per day (for the rest of your life). Since ADIs are established at 100x LESS than the highest exposure at which no observable health effects can be noted–the actual “danger level” is somewhere around 600 to 3000 cans worth of diet soda per day. I think it’s safe to say that none of us consume that much artificial sweetener.

So, based on FDA regulations, artificial sweeteners are safe for use at the levels in which they are present in the food system.

The National Cancer Institute on Artificial Sweeteners

According to the National Cancer Institute’s fact sheet on artificial sweeteners, “there is no clear evidence that the artificial sweeteners available commercially in the United States are associated with cancer risk in humans.”

A few studies suggest correlations between artificial sweeteners and cancer risk, but these studies are generally poorly designed. It is unclear whether the vague results of these studies have any applicability. For example, a study suggested that national brain cancer rates rose as a result of the introduction of aspartame. However, the trend in rising rates began 8 years prior to the introduction of aspartame and occurred in a population unlikely to consume aspartame.

The American Dietetic Association (ADA) on Artificial Sweeteners

According to the ADA Evidence Analysis Library (which compiles and evaluates all of the best research on nutritional topics), “Limited research in humans, from peer reviewed journals, supports the safety of non-nutritive sweeteners for the general population. Considering the lack of high quality studies, continuing post-market surveillance of the safety of non-nutritive sweeteners is prudent.”

The phraseology is a bit bulky (that’s what happens when committees write a recommendation), but the gist is as such: “We don’t have a lot of good research in humans, but what we do have says that non-nutritive sweeteners are safe for the general population. However, since there isn’t a lot of good research available, we should continue watching for evidence one way or the other.”

How’s that for equivocation?

My opinion on the safety of artificial sweeteners

My opinion falls somewhere between the FDA’s “of course they’re safe”, the National Cancer Institute’s “all the studies that say they aren’t are flawed,” and ADA’s “we can’t really tell.”

I think that it is safe to believe that artificial sweeteners are unlikely to cause cancer. Because of the restrictions of the 1958 Delaney Clause, the FDA is required to conduct a great deal of research on the carcinogenic properties of potential food additives prior to approving them. The National Cancer Institute concurs that the artificial sweeteners that have been approved by FDA are unlikely to cause cancer.

However, only a limited body of research exists in other non-cancer areas of health. There are big blank holes in the research.

We do know, based on other chemicals, that most substances have dose-dependent responses. Even the best of things, when consumed in excess, can be toxic. Much of the nation was startled to learn of water intoxication in 2002 when Cassandra Killpack died after being force-fed excess quantities of water by her adoptive parents. Even water, the chemical most essential for life, is toxic in large quantities. On the other hand, in low doses, many potential toxic chemicals have little effect.

It makes sense that we should control the DOSES of artificial sweeteners that we consume. If you are close to or above the FDA ADIs, you might consider backing off on the artificial sweeteners.

Also, since children have lower body weights, they are more susceptible to overdosing on anything–so it makes sense to watch children’s intake more carefully. Pregnant and lactating mothers may want to watch their intake more carefully as well, as we do not know what effect any artificial sweeteners might have on rapidly growing babies.

So, my general recommendation, is that artificial sweeteners are likely to be safe when consumed in moderation. As a quick rule of thumb, I would say that if you are consuming more than three servings of foods made with artificial sweeteners (half the ADI for Splenda for a 150 lb individual), you might want to back off. But if you’re consuming less than three servings of artificial sweeteners in a day, the benefit of consuming fewer calories is probably greater than the risk of some unknown health issue.

Your B3,RD challenge for today (although today is nearing its end–sorry folks, this one took longer than I expected) is to calculate up approximately how much artificial sweetener you consume in an average day. Do you top my recommendations? How about the FDA’s?

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Category: B3RD ◊ Comment (1)

B3,RD: On Alternative Sweeteners

October 27th, 2009

You see them everywhere in dizzying arrays. Little pink or blue or yellow pouches. The grocery store shelf containing alternative sweeteners is growing larger every year. And diet products are forever announcing that they’re “now made with [insert name of alternative sweetener here]!”

It’s hard for anyone to keep track of all the many sweeteners that are available–which is why I’m going to focus today’s B3,RD post on simply understanding what’s available.

Alternative sweeteners are non-sugar substances that can be used in place of sugar to provide sweetness with fewer calories. They do this one of two ways. Some alternative sweeteners are indigestible or only partly digestible and are passed through the digestive system with only minimal calorie absorption; while others contain the same number of calories per gram as sugar, but are so much sweeter than sugar that much less of them can be used (thereby allowing them to contribute fewer calories to the food item).

The main characters in the first group (that are only partly digestible) are sugar alcohols. These contain somewhere between 1.5 and 3 calories per gram; less than sugar’s 4 calories per gram. Sugar alcohols are often used in hard candy or chewing gum because they do not promote cavities like regular sugar does. In fact, they do the exact opposite and inhibit cavity development. Sugar alcohols include sorbitol, xylitol, isomalt, mannitol, maltilol, and lactilol. Because these products are only partially digested, they can create unpleasant gastrointestinal effects (such as diarrhea and gas) if consumed in large quantities.

In the second group (those alternative sweeteners that are much sweeter than sugar), we have a whole smattering of artificial and “natural” sweeteners. Below is a quick chart with pertinent information about these “non-nutritive sweeteners”.

Common name
(Brand Names)		 Times sweeter than sugar Heat stable? Approved by FDA
Acesulfame-K
(Sunnette, Sweet One, Swiss Sweet)		 200x Yes 1988
Aspartame
(Nutrasweet, Equal, Natrataste)		 160-200x No 1996
Neotame 800-13000x No 2002
Saccharin
(Sweet’n'Low, Sugar Twin)		 200-700x Yes 2000
Stevia
(Truvia, PureVia)		 300x Yes 2008
Sucralose
(Splenda)		 600x Yes 1999

Some of these non-nutritive sweeteners (especially saccharin) have a bitter aftertaste that can be quite unpleasant.

Modest evidence supports the notion that consuming foods made with non-nutritive sweeteners instead of higher calorie foods made with sugars can help individuals cut calories. While some people claim that non-nutritive sweeteners induce people to eat more than they normally would (thus consuming more calories overall), the evidence appears to contradict this statement. Replacing caloric foods and/or beverages with ones made with alternative sweeteners does not cause increases in intake, but rather promotes modest decreases in caloric intake.

SO…if preventing obesity and obesity-related complications is your main health concern, replacing a sugar-loaded snack with a lower-calorie one made with artificial sweeteners is probably a good idea.

Today’s B3,RD challenge only applies if you are generally a consumer of regular soda or sugared gum: Purchase a sugar-free variety of your favorite soda or gum and taste test it to see how you like it. If you like the alternatively-sweetened version, you can save some calories by switching over.

Stay tuned for more information on the safety of artificial sweeteners tomorrow!

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Category: B3RD ◊ Comments (0)

How HFCS affects farmers

October 26th, 2009

Davene asked me a great question about this morning’s B3,RD post:

How about the way the HFCS industry affects farmers? I don’t know much about it – something about HFCS affecting the price of corn, and that affecting the price of feed for dairy and beef farms. Just thought I’d pick your brain. :)

I’d like to clarify that I am not an expert in farming or agricultural economics, but I do have some interest in the subject. So, please read judiciously (as you always should, but especially when the speaker/writer is not an expert in the field.)

The United States’ federal government subsidizes corn, making HFCS a less expensive option than sugar for many food processors, which is why many food processors switched from using sugar to using HFCS in the ’70s and ’80s.

Since a majority of American domestic corn use is for animal feeds, anything that increases the demand for corn (without also increasing supply for corn) would increase the price of corn–and thereby, the cost of meat. However, despite the ubiquitous-ness of HFCS in the American diet, HFCS remains a small player in overall demand for corn.

According to an article published in the February 2008 edition of “Amber Waves” (a USDA publication), total demand for HFCS reached a peak in 1999 and has since begun to decline.

The below graph, using data from the USDA on US domestic corn use, further supports my assertion that HFCS is unlikely to be a key player in raising the prices of feed, and therefore meat.

US Domestic Corn Use

This graph indicates that total domestic corn use in the United States has doubled in the past 25 years. Twenty-five years ago (in 1983), almost 81% of all corn used in the United States was used for animal feeds. In 2008, animal feed made up only 51% of all corn used in the United States.

What made the difference? Probably not HFCS. In fact, in the 25 years since 1983, total corn used for food, as seed, or for other industrial purposes (apart from fuel) decreased from 16% to 13% of total corn usage.

In the last 25 years, corn use for feed has multiplied 1.3 times. Corn use for food, seed, and industrial purposes has multiplied 1.7 times. Corn use for fuel (as ethanol), on the other hand, has multiplied 23 times.

Demand for ethanol has increased significantly in the last 5-10 years. According to a USDA briefing on corn, “strong demand for ethanol production has resulted in higher corn prices.” This has then led to the higher meat and dairy prices you may have noted in the last few years.

So, in answer to Davene’s question (and perhaps yours), HFCS is unlikely to be a cause of concern to our farmers–or a cause for higher meat or dairy prices.

(Ethanol, on the other hand–well, that’s opening a whole new can of worms. I personally have my doubts about how environmentally friendly ethanol is–but beyond that, I think it’s foolish to use FOOD to fuel our cars. Wouldn’t it be a lot smarter to use something humans can’t use otherwise?)

Tags: , , , , ,
Category: Environment, Health ◊ Comment (1)

B3,RD: Demystifying HFCS

October 26th, 2009

You’ve probably heard warnings about high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). You’ve heard that HFCS is responsible for the obesity epidemic. You’ve heard that you should go for products made with regular sugar instead.

Perhaps someone has cited studies that link high fructose diets with heart disease. They’ve talked about how fructose doesn’t act the same way as glucose in the body.

They’re right–except that they’re wrong.

High fructose diets are linked with heart disease. And fructose does act differently than glucose. But High Fructose Corn Syrup is not the problem.

There are two types of HFCS: a syrup that is 42% fructose (HFCS-42), and a syrup that is 55% fructose (HFCS-55). HFCS-42 is used in baked goods and non-carbonated drinks, whereas HFCS-55 is used primarily in carbonated drinks.

Table sugar, on the other hand, is 50% fructose. So, depending on which “version” of HFCS you’re talking about, HFCS either has slightly more or slightly less fructose than “regular sugar”.

So a high fructose DIET might cause problems–but high fructose CORN SYRUP is not the culprit (since high fructose corn syrup and sugar contain very similar proportions of fructose.)

Increased sugar intake is the problem, regardless of its source. Americans are consuming more calories than ever, and more and more of those calories are coming from sugar (either HFCS or table sugar). This is contributing to an overall increase in fructose consumption–and an overall increase in calorie consumption.

So, if you want to do what’s best for your health, don’t worry about choosing BETWEEN regular sugar or HFCS. Instead, work on cutting down sugar intake altogether (regardless of the source).

Today’s B3,RD challenge is to avoid the anti-HFCS hype and instead work on choosing a lower-sugar version of your favorite snack or soft-drink (or just eat/drink less of the high-sugar version.)

Tags: , , ,
Category: B3RD ◊ Comments (3)

B3,RD: THE Nutrition Professionals

October 23rd, 2009

Three years ago, when I started my venture to read every book in Eiseley library, I used Pearl Buck’s rules to give myself an out. If, after reading 50 pages of a book, I was not interested in continuing on, I had permission to stop.

After three years and over 1400 books, I am using that rule for the very first time. Because I absolutely cannot stand Oz Garcia’s The Healthy High-Tech Body.

The Healthy High-Tech Body

Garcia’s biography in the back of the book states that he is “one of the best-known nutritionists and health authorities in America.” Problem is, he’s an absolute quack. Sure, he can throw around chemical names like no other and give incomprehensible explanations for why we should follow his recommendations–but the real science behind his recommendations is tenuous at best.

I know this because I’ve devoted the last six years of my life to learning the science of food, nutrition, and health behavior change. But what’s the average consumer to think? If you can’t trust “one of the best-known nutritionists and health authorities in America”, who can you trust?

That’s where the Registered Dietitian comes in. You see, anyone can call themselves a nutritionist–even someone with marginal education and no credentials (for instance, Oz Garcia.)

The designation Registered Dietitian (RD), on the other hand, carries distinct educational and professional requirements. RDs are required to complete a core curriculum in nutrition, food science, and health behavior change from an accredited university. RDs are required to undergo at least 900 hours of supervised practice. RDs are required to pass a Registration Exam and complete at least 75 hours of continuing professional education every five years in order to attain and maintain their credentials. Additionally, RDs are bound by a Professional Code, which, among other things, insists that they provide evidence-based nutrition services.

You wouldn’t go to your next door neighbor–or even Oprah–to get your broken arm set. Your next door neighbor is nice enough–and Oprah is popular enough–but neither have the credentials to set your broken arm. You’ll go to someone who does have the credentials: an MD (Medical Doctor), a PA (Physician Assistant), or a NP (Nurse Practitioner).

Likewise, no matter how nice or how popular a “nutritionist” might be–they don’t have the credentials unless they’ve got an RD behind their name.

So next time you’re looking at an article or a book, or evaluating something someone is saying on the television or online, look for the RD behind the name. Because RDs are THE food and nutrition professionals.

Today’s B3,RD challenge is to think critically about the nutrition information you see and hear today. Ask yourself whether the speaker has the credentials–an RD behind their name.

A search for Garcia’s education and credentials produced only the most tenuous results.

Mr. Garcia is occasionally ascribed a Ph.D, but I have been unable to find any explanation for this designation. He has certainly never listed where he attained his doctorate or what his doctorate is in.

Tags: , , , , ,
Category: B3RD, Books, Rants ◊ Comments (3)

B3,RD: Am I hungry?

October 22nd, 2009

Confession: I, Rebekah Menter, Registered Dietitian, don’t just eat when I’m hungry. Sometimes, I eat because I’m tired, because I’m stressed, or because I’m bored–even though I’m not hungry.

And that’s okay.

I attended a fantastic session at FNCE that dealt with this very issue. Megrette Fletcher, RD and Michelle May, MD spoke on “Improving Self-Management with Mindful Eating.”

Megrette Fletcher Michelle May

Ms. Fletcher and Dr. May had a number of insights for dietitians, but one thing Dr. May said struck me as being worth sharing with my readers. She encouraged us (and our clients) to ask ourselves one question before eating.

Before eating, ask yourself: “Am I hungry?”

Many of you are probably rolling your eyes right now, thinking “I’ve heard this before–Eat only when you’re hungry, stop when you’re full.”

But that isn’t what I said. I said, “Before eating, ask yourself: ‘Am I hungry?’”

The point is not that you only eat when you’re hungry. The point is that you are aware of whether you are hungry or not when you’re eating. The point is KNOWING. The point is being mindful.

Sometimes, we eat because we’re tired, because we’re stressed, or because we’re bored–even though we’re not hungry. But none of us should eat without knowing why we’re eating.

We can talk about when to eat and when not to later. For now, let’s just focus on being aware.

Today’s B3,RD challenge is simply to ask yourself before eating: “Am I hungry?”

Tags: , , , , , ,
Category: B3RD ◊ Comments (0)

I’m home

October 20th, 2009

After a jam-packed weekend in Denver at FNCE (Food and Nutrition Conference and Expo), I am now home.

I talked politics with Jeff, spent way too much money on food, attended interesting lectures, got scads of free junk, and even drove the van for a while.

I did NOT jump out of an airplane, talk to a homeless person, drink alcohol, or complain to a waiter (as others in my group did).

I graded papers, collected CPEUs (Continuing Professional Education Units), schmoozed with UNL alums, saw some of my internship preceptors, watched the unfortunate football game, and slept on Dr. K’s floor.

I attended a great session on mindful eating (more on a B3-RD post later), and an almost worthless session on blogging (it was created for someone who had little to no awareness of social media). I learned about nutrition for kids with Asperger’s and about the development of the American Dietetic Association’s Evidence Analysis Library. I cleared up a question about high fructose corn syrup (look forward to this one on a B3-RD post) and collected an awful lot of simply thick (I’ll probably post about this too–even though it’s unlikely to be useful for you personally.)

All in all, it was a good conference. I enjoyed the intellectual stimulation, the company, the food, the room, the drive (except maybe the drive back). But now I’m pretty much pooped.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Category: B3RD, Education, Everyday Life, Reflections ◊ Comments (0)

« Older Entries