Blog

Pros and Cons of Nutrition Scoring Systems

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

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” >

No Tears for the Food Pyramid

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Thursday marks the unveiling of a  new icon to replace the USDA’s much-maligned 20-year-old food pyramid.   I’ve been getting media inquiries all week, asking about my thoughts on the move.   I haven’t yet seen the new icon–it’s been kept under close wraps.  (Last minute tweaking?) But from the rumors everyone has now heard, the new plate-shaped icon sounds like a step in the right direction.

The food pyramid should have been retired long ago.  It wasn’t clear, it wasn’t helpful, and, most importantly, it obviously hasn’t improved the nation’s eating habits.  The 2005 revamp was even worse than the 1992 original on all counts. The new plate-shaped graphic sounds much more intuitive and easy to interpret.  It answers the simple question, “What should my plate look like at any given meal?” Continue reading “No Tears for the Food Pyramid” >

Red Meat and Colon Cancer: Beyond the Headlines

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

I’m sure you saw the headlines this week about a new report from the American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund.  The report covered a variety of factors that appear to increase risk of colorectal cancer, including alcohol, processed meat, and excess belly fat, as well as things that appear to decrease the risk, including exercise, garlic, milk (but not cheese), calcium, and foods containing fiber.  However, most of the headlines I saw were along the lines of “It’s Official: Red Meat Causes Cancer.”

As long-time followers know, I’ve long been suspicious of the science on “red”  vs. “white” meat.   See, for example: Red Meat: Not so Bad After All?

Having now read the latest report in its entirety,  I want to highlight a few nuances that may help you decide how–or whether–to change your eating habits based on this latest indictment of red meat. Continue reading “Red Meat and Colon Cancer: Beyond the Headlines” >

A Chink in the Small, Frequent Meal Theory

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

For many years, we’ve been told that eating small, frequent meals is a good strategy for weight loss.   In part, this was based on a body of research showing an inverse relationship between meal frequency and BMI.   In other words, studies found that people who reported eating  more times per day were less likely to be overweight.

I’ve always been confused by this.  In my observation,  people who eat more frequently usually end up eating more calories overall–and eating more calories generally leads to higher body weight.

In a new paper in the Journal of Nutrition, Megan McCrory and colleagues explain why the research data don’t seem to line up with reality: the research data were wrong. Continue reading “A Chink in the Small, Frequent Meal Theory” >