That pain in your neck? Another case of nutrition whiplash, I’m afraid. Earlier this year, the USDA’s new Dietary Guidelines for Americans made the need to reduce sodium intake one of its primary messages.
Then, just last week, a new Cochrane Review concluded that “cutting down on the amount of salt has no clear benefits in terms of likelihood of dying or experiencing cardiovascular disease.” Continue reading “Forget Salt. Focus on Potassium.”
If you’ve dabbled around in nutrition, you’re probably familiar with the 4-4-9 rule, which says that carbohydrates and proteins each contain 4 calories per gram, while fats contain 9 calories per gram. However, this is really only a rough approximation. Making matters worse, manufacturers are legally allowed to fudge the calorie counts on their labels in certain situations. If you’ve ever wondered why the calories on the label don’t seem to add up to the carbs, proteins, and fats listed there, this week’s podcast explains it all. Read or listen to it here.
Natural…local…unprocessed…it all sounds good, but what do these terms really mean?
Unlike the term organic, which is defined according to standards established by the USDA’s National Organic Program, words like natural, local, and unprocessed have no standard definitions. Continue reading “Natural, local, processed? What do these labels really mean?”
A listener recently wrote with a question about herbal supplements such as St. John’s wort, which is sometimes recommended as a natural treatment for depression. “I know you aren’t a big fan of vitamin supplements,” she writes, “but what about herbal supplements for specific disorders?”
Generally speaking, herbal supplements aren’t used as a source of nutrition but as a concentrated source of bioactive compounds or chemicals that affect the body’s function. I think you need to use herbal supplements with as much care and caution as you would use a drug. In this week’s episode, I have three questions you should ask before taking any herbal supplement. Read or listen to it here.
A recent study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition reports that a higher intake of omega-3 fatty acids from fish does not appear to reduce the risk for depression. It’s the latest disappointment in a slew of recent studies finding that fish oil failed to help prevent or slow Alzheimers, atherosclerosis, atrial fibrulation, or kidney disease.
In a way, however, the part of this latest study that didn’t make the news is far more interesting than the headlines would suggest. Although a higher intake of fish oils did not ward off depression, a higher ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 in the diet did. Now that’s newsworthy.
In fact, it supports an argument I’ve been putting forth for some time: In order to get the benefits of omega-3 fats, we’d be better off cutting back on vegetable oils and other sources of omega-6 than popping fish oil capsules like bunch of deranged seals.
For a more detailed explanation of why this is the case (and how to go about it), please read or listen to my podcast: Fish Oils and Omega-3s.
Q. My local supermarket has added ‘NuVal’ nutrition scores to most of the labels in the store. How accurate do you think they are for judging the healthfulness of food? I can’t find details about how the NuVal score is calculated but sodium seems to be a factor. A low sodium version of the same product will score higher.
A. NuVal is the commercial incarnation of the Overall Nutrition Quality Index or ONQI, a nutrition scoring system that’s been in development for several years. Foods are scored on a scale of 1 to 100, using a complex equation that takes into account a long list of vitamins, minerals, fiber, types of fat, protein quality, energy density, glycemic load, and so on. “Good” nutrients like antioxidants or omega-3 fats bring the score up; “bad” nutrients like cholesterol, sugar, and sodium bring the score down. The basic idea is to save shoppers time and simplify the task of selecting healthy (or at least healthier) foods. Continue reading “Pros and Cons of Nutrition Scoring Systems”