Author: Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

On lard, pie crusts, and whether all saturated fats are the same

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Two related questions posted on the blog recently:cherry pie

Q. I’ve been reading that lard is now considered a good fat, as long as it’s not hydrogenated. I realize that lard is still saturated fat, so it’s not ‘good’ like olive oil. And like all fats, it must be eaten in moderation.  But I’m wondering what you think about going back to Gramma’s pie crust recipe. Crisco/butter just never did make the same good crust …

Crust-y Curious

Q. Like Crusty Curious, I’ve also been wondering about lard and pie crusts, as well as other saturated fats. If we limit our intake of saturated fats to recommended amounts, does it matter what TYPE of saturated fat we use? Are palm oil, coconut oil, butter, lard, and beef drippings (for homemade gravy) all equivalent, nutritionally? Or is there some good reason to avoid certain of these? 

Judy

A. Pie crusts are a matter near and dear to my heart and I’ve been collecting pie crust recipes for years. My current favorite uses a mixture of butter (for flavor) and lard (for flakiness).  But you will find equally ardent advocates for all-butter crusts and even some die-hard shortening devotees.

Epicurious.com’s Food Editor Sarah Kagen has long been a fan of this recipe, which uses part butter and part shortening. “But lately,” she says, “I’ve had several crusts made with part butter and part lard, and I have to say, I think I’ve been converted. The lard creates flakiness like shortening, but it adds a wonderful golden toastiness.”

Epicurious.com’s Associate Editor Lauren Salkeld (who is a graduate of the French Culinary Institute’s Classic Pastry Arts Program) says, “We made all butter dough in school, so that’s what I’m used to. I find it flaky and I prefer the flavor.”

Aside from the culinary debate, is there any difference nutritionally between butter, lard, and the naturally saturated fats found in palm kernel and coconut oil (used to make trans-fat free shortening)?

Here are a few facts that might surprise you :

1. Butter contains about 20% less fat and calories per ounce than lard or saturated vegetable fat, because it contains some water. (When substituting butter for other fats, adjust quantities accordingly.)

2. All of these products contain a mixure of saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fats. Lard actually contains the least amount of saturated fat (11g per ounce) while coconut oil contains the most (24g per ounce).

3. Animal fats (lard and butter) contain more monounsaturated fat than palm kernel and coconut oil. In fact, lard contains more monounsaturated fats (13mg per ounce) than saturated fats (11g per ounce).

4. Butter contains twice as much cholesterol (60mg per ounce) as lard (27mg per ounce). Vegetable shortenings contain no cholesterol.

5. Lard contains 280mg of omega-3 fatty acids per ounce; butter has 88mg per ounce. (Palm kernel and coconut oil contain little or no omega-3s).

6. Butter contains a fair amount of vitamin A (700mg per ounce) whereas palm kernel oil contains a good helping of vitamin K (7mcg per ounce).

7. Both palm kernel and coconut oils contain natural phytosterols, which can help to reduce cholesterol levels by blocking the cellular uptake of cholesterol.

Regardless of what form of fat you’re trying to build a case for, you can find some support for it here. And of course there’s the argument that saturated fat isn’t really bad for you, anyway; it’s the carbs you eat with it that do the damage. (More comforting for bacon eaters than pie lovers.)

The only fat I can advise you to avoid completely are shortenings made with partially hydrogenated vegetable oil (old-style Crisco) or a mixture of fully hydrogenated and unhydrogenated vegetable oils (new-style Crisco). The former is full of trans fats and the latter, although it claims to be nearly trans fat free, is full of “interesterified fats,” which appear to be no better for you. (Also take care to select lard that has not been hydrogenated.)

No matter what form of fat you use, of course, pie crust is not a low-fat item.  One slice of a double-crust pie will use up about a quarter of your daily allowance of fat and around 80% of your allowance for saturated fat (not counting the filling).

So, in answer to the questions above, as long as your overal intake of fat, calories, and saturated fat is not excessive, and you are avoiding all hydrogenated products, use whatever you like to make your pie crust. (And send me your recipe!)

Living Well to 100

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

What would it take to live to 100—in good health? An international consortium of researchers recently gathered at Tufts University in Boston to debate the answer. This meeting brought together heavy-hitters from every corner of medical research—cardiovascular medicine, endocrinology, nutrition, obesity management, experimental genetics, sleep research, and more.

After two days of research presentations on every aspect of the aging process, the panelists were asked to consider:

What are the top five things we should do if we want to live well to 100?

You might be surprised at the answers. It’s not about expensive medical interventions, drugs, or futuristic technology. According to the best available research, it all comes down to a few simple habits—things we all can do.

Continue reading “Living Well to 100” >

Calorie Restriction: Life extension or eating disorder?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Cutting calories isn’t just for dieters anymore.  A growing number of people are embracing extreme, calorie-restricted diets in the hopes that it will drastically extend their lifespan…to 120 or beyond. (See also “Extreme Calorie Restriction for Long Life”  on MSNBC.com).

Proponents of Calorie Restriction (or CR) typically eat 30-40% fewer calories than it would take to maintain what is generally considered to be a “healthy” weight.  They generally lose quite a bit of weight before stabilizing at a much lower body weight.  The motivation for such extreme deprivation? Animal studies in everything from fruit flies to primates indicate that CR can extend the maximum lifespan of the animal in question as much as 20 or 25%.  There are no human studies verifying that CR will have the same effect on humans, but short-term studies show that CR does reduce biomarkers for aging along with lowering the risk of chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes.  For many, that’s evidence enough. Continue reading “Calorie Restriction: Life extension or eating disorder?” >

Calorie Restriction: Life Extension or Self-Starvation?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Cutting calories isn’t just for dieters anymore.  A growing number of people are embracing extreme, calorie-restricted diets in the hopes that it will drastically extend their lifespan…to 120 or beyond. (See also “Extreme Calorie Restriction for Long Life”  on MSNBC.com).

What is Calorie Restriction?

Proponents of Calorie Restriction (or CR) typically eat 30-40% fewer calories than it would take to maintain what is generally considered to be a “healthy” weight.  They generally lose quite a bit of weight before stabilizing at a much lower body weight.  The motivation for such extreme deprivation? Animal studies in everything from fruit flies to primates indicate that CR can extend the maximum lifespan of the animal in question as much as 20 or 25%.  There are no human studies verifying that CR will have the same effect on humans, but short-term studies show that CR does reduce biomarkers for aging along with lowering the risk of chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes.  For many, that’s evidence enough. Continue reading “Calorie Restriction: Life Extension or Self-Starvation?” >

Obese America: Is Corn Syrup to Blame?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

In a recent discussion about fructose and heart disease risk, a reader brought up the issue of high fructose corn syrup and I promised to address this hot topic in a new post.  Let me just say up front that a lot of people are likely to disagree with my view on this subject. But what’s a blog without a little controversy once in a while?

For those who haven’t been following along, there has been a lot of heat around the widespread use of high fructose corn syrup in processed foods.  Manufacturers can save big bucks by using HFCS in place of more expensive table sugar, or sucrose. (One reason that HFCS is so much cheaper than sugar is that corn is heavily subsidized by our government via the Farm Bill, but that’s another story!)

Many products (most notably soft drinks) that used to be sweetened with regular sugar now use HFCS instead. It’s also true that the increased use of HFCS in the food supply roughly corresponds to rising obesity rates.  And there is research suggesting that fructose may be more readily stored as fat than glucose, which is metabolized differently.

These facts have led many to conclude that the rise of HFCS in industrial food production has led to our current national health crisis of obesity and related disorders (such as diabetes and heart disease).  Not surprisingly, some savvy marketers have even managed to position sugar as healthy, touting virtuous HFCS-free soft drinks that are sweetened with good old fashioned sugar. But hang on a second.

High fructose corn syrup sounds like it would be high in fructose, right? The truth is that it contains roughly the same amount of fructose as…regular sugar.

Sucrose is about 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Regular corn syrup almost entirely made up of glucose. In order to make it a more appropriate substitute for sucrose, raw corn syrup is enzymatically treated to convert some of the glucose into fructose, bringing fructose/glucose ratio up to that of regular sugar.

Look, I’m not saying HFCS is good for you.  All I’m saying is that HFCS is not higher in fructose than sugar…it’s just higher in fructose than regular corn syrup.  Personally, I think the rise in obesity rates has less to do with the influx of HFCS into the food supply and more to do with our increased consumption of soft drinks and other calorie-dense foods.  As portion sizes (of everything) get bigger, our calorie intake increases and we gain weight.

Local vs. organic: the environmental debate

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Yesterday, I wrote about new research showing that organically-grown produce contains more disease-fighting nutrients than conventionally-grown vegetables.  Yet another reason to choose organic whenever circumstances and budget allow. After all, as any eco-conscious eater knows, organic farming is also better for the environment–or is it?

What if your organic produce is flown in from Chile? Do the fossil fuels burned transporting your organic food cancel out the environmental benefit of using fewer petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides?  Obviously, local and organic would be ideal. But if you can’t have both, which is the better choice?

Eating “right” has gotten a lot more complicated

With the local food movement gathering steam, I’ve heard many people argue that local, conventionally grown food is more environmentally friendly than organic food from far away.  But a recent post on the Terrablog cites new research from the University of Wales, finding that:

“In general, the food miles are actually a minor portion of the total ecological footprint of food. In the study of a basket of foods in Cardiff, transport amounted to only 2% of the total environmental cost. Growing conditions, packaging and processing made up the bulk of the impact. In fact, a separate article in the same journal shows that local food systems actually have slightly higher carbon emissions!”

What’s the “Ethicurian” to do? (I can’t take credit for that clever term, by the way. It’s the title of a great new blog devoted to helping people “chew the right thing.”)  For what it’s worth, the readers of the Terrablog pretty much dismissed this new research as bogus.  What do you think? What are your priorities in choosing the foods you buy?

On today’s menu: weeds

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Part of the fun of a CSA-share is the opportunity to try vegetables that would otherwise never end up in my shopping cart, such as the sweet potato leaves I wrote about a couple of weeks ago.  One of our options this week was purslane, a plant related to the portulacas you might plant in your garden.  I first read about purslane in Artemis Simopoulos’s book The Omega Diet.  Purslane is one of the richest vegetable sources of omega-3 fatty acids.

See also: Purslane as a source of omega-3s: A reality check

A big part of the reason that the meat from pasture-raised cattle (and wild game) is higher in omega-3 fats is because grazing animals favor these succulent wild greens and will eat them preferentially over other grasses.  It makes good grazing for people, too. According to research published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 100 grams of purslane contains 300-400 mg of omega-3 fats (alpha-linolenic acid), along with over half a day’s supply of vitamin E, a third of the day’s vitamin C, and a quarter of the day’s vitamin A.  But does it taste good?

I’d never bought or cooked with purslane before. In fact, I’d never even seen it at the grocery store. But in her weekly email to us One Straw Farm shareholders, our farmer Cheryl Wade gave it a big drumroll:

“The tips, either in or out of flower are cute enough for garnish and add a definite zip to fresh salads. You can also steam it, stems and all and serve it with oil and vinegar or butter and soy sauce or most people need nothing on it at all. When you have a bumper crop you can start steaming piles of Purslane and popping it in the freezer as a blessed addition to soups. It does a nice job of thickening the soup, too. Purslane can be substituted for spinach or wild greens in lasagnas, filled pastas, and Greek-style tarts.”

I couldn’t wait.  When I got to the market on Thursday, however, I opted out of the purslane and chose other vegetables instead. Why? Because once I saw it, I realized that I’ve got all the purslane I need growing in my garden! I bet you do, too. It sprouts up everywhere, in between the cracks in the terrace, along the sidewalk, and in flower and vegetable beds. In fact, I spend a good part of the summer weeding it!  Here’s what purslane looks like:

Purslane

As it happens, my personal crop was a little depleted by some power weeding we did over the weekend, but experience tells me it will be back soon. So instead of weeding the next batch, I plan to harvest it and try some of Cheryl’s suggested preparations. I’ll let you know how it goes. If you haven’t weeded your garden recently (and haven’t sprayed any chemicals on it), you might enjoy some purslane today. Here’s a couple of other serving suggestions from The Omega Diet (p. 157):

“When you first try purslane, serve it raw tossed with olive oil, lemon juice, salt, and pepper. Delicious. Once you’ve gained appreciation for its delicate flavor and unique texture (like a cross between tender pea pods and a buttery lettuce), add it to mesclun, toss it in soups, or saute briefly in butter and serve with a light cream sauce.”

Are you a TOFI?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

And, no, this article has nothing to do with soybean curd! I’m referring to some new research that is really going to change how we look at health, weight, and body size.

By now, I’m sure you’re familiar with the BMI (body mass index). It’s a formula that combines your height and weight to tell you whether you are underweight, overweight, or like Goldilocks, just right. You can calculate your BMI here and then find your category:

BMI Categories:

· Underweight = <18.5
· Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
· Overweight = 25-29.9
· Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
(Note: The BMI categories may not apply to people with greater than average muscle mass, such as body-builders.)

But now, researchers are saying that a having normal BMI isn’t good enough. Continue reading “Are you a TOFI?” >