Category: Healthy Eating Tips

Practical tips for improving your nutrition

Local produce hard to find in winter?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

I’m a big fan of the local food idea.  Eating food grown close to where you live saves a ton of gas, spares the environment, supports local growers, and puts fresher, more nutritious food on your table. If you live in Southern California or the southeastern U.S., the growing season is more or less year-round. But what about the rest of us?

Where I live in Maryland, for example, not much grows in the winter. So how do we get our five-a-day without resorting to fruits and vegetables that have been trucked in from California or flown all the way from South America? Growing your own sprouts (or “micro-greens”) can provide you with fresh, crisp greens throughout the winter. And what could be more local than your own kitchen windowsill?

sprouting lidsAll you need to grow your own sprouts is a couple of quart-sized jars, some cheesecloth or sprouting lids like the ones pictured here, along with a supply of seeds and beans for sprouting. You can find everything you need at your local health-food store or online.  In three to five days, you’ll be harvesting your own fresh vegetables.  I usually have two jars going: One with smaller “salad” sprouts like alfalfa, clover, radish, or broccoli sprouts and another with larger sprouts like lentils, sunflower seeds, mung beans or other legumes.

The salad sprouts are rich in vitamins C, A, and K and a host of other nutrients. Broccoli sprouts also contain potent cancer-fighting chemicals.  You can use salad sprouts in place of lettuce in sandwiches or wraps. We also love piling an inch or two of mixed salad sprouts on a slice of lightly buttered whole wheat bread.

The larger sprouts from beans and other legumes are particularly high in protein, fiber, folic acid and other B vitamins. Their heartier texture makes them good in soups, stir-fries, and omelets.  If you are a baker, knead a half cup of sprouted sunflower seeds or wheat berries into whole-grain bread dough just before shaping your loaf.  Or try some of these great, healthy recipes from Epicurious.com:

Black_cod_on_sunflower_sprouts_1 Miso-Glazed Black Cod on Sprouted Sunflower Seeds (pictured)

Spinach and Sprout Salad

Marinated Halibut on Radish Sprout and Fennel Salad

What’s so magical about the Mediterranean Diet?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Forget the mouse studies. After a couple weeks of controversial and much-contested rat studies on the effects of carbohydrates on various aspects of metabolism and disease, here’s a study involving 200 newly-diagnosed, diabetic humans.  Half were told to follow a Mediterranean-style diet, rich in vegetables, whole grains, and monounsaturated fats from poultry, fish, and olive oil and limiting carbohydrates to 50% or less of total calories.

The other half were assigned to a “low-fat” diet, which also emphasized whole grains and discouraged sweets and high fat snacks. Fat was limited to 30% or less of calories and saturated fat to 10% or less of calories.

After four years, the Mediterranean group had lost more weight and was only half as likely to need anti-diabetic medications.

What’s the real difference here?

Notice that the macronutrient distributions between the two diets are not all that different. The Mediterranean diet was not terribly low in carbohydrates (although it’s being described in media reports as a “low-carb” diet). The low-fat diet isn’t really all that low in fat. The two percentages certainly aren’t mutually exclusive. In fact, it’s entirely possible that the distribution of fats, proteins, and carbohydrates between the two groups was very similar.  Nor can we necessarily chalk it up to refined versus complex carbohydrates.  Both groups were instructed to favor whole grains.

Perhaps it was just a matter of what the dieters were told to focus on.  The Mediterranean group was told what to eat: vegetables, fish, grains, olive oil. The low-fat group were told what to avoid: sugary snacks and high-fat foods.  Could it be as simple as casting dietary recommendations in terms of positives instead of negatives?

Are Saturated Fats from Vegetables Better?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

I’ve been getting a lot of questions about coconut oil–a vegetable source of saturated fat. It’s alleged health benefits are being heavily promoted but there’s not much solid evidence to back up the claims.

It’s hard to say whether saturated fats from vegetables are better than saturated fats from animals–in part because the evidence that saturated fats cause heart disease looks increasingly shaky. Maybe the truth is that the vegetable saturated fats aren’t better than animal saturated fats but that the animal fats weren’t that bad in the first place?

How can people who try so hard to get it right get it wrong so often?

Why is it so hard for us to get it right? As Marion Nestle’s argues in the introduction to her recent book, What to Eat, part of the problem is embedded in the very nature of scientific research. In an effort to reduce the variables, nutritional research focuses too much on the details and not enough on the big picture.

“The range of healthful nutrient intake is broad, and foods from the earth, tree, or animal can be combined in a seemingly infinite number of ways to create diets that meet health goals,” she writes. “The attention paid to single nutrients, to individual foods, and to particular diseases distracts from the basic principles of diet and health…But you are better off paying attention to your overall dietary pattern than worrying about whether any one single food is better for you than another.”

I suspect that the kind of reductionist thinking that Nestle is deploring is exactly what got us into this mess about saturated fat.  We were looking for a culprit for heart disease. We found one in saturated fat…but I suspect we overlooked the critical importance of the context in which that saturated fat was being consumed.

Replacing High Fructose Corn Syrup with Sugar: Big Deal.

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

It no longer matters whether it’s actually true that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is toxic to our livers, full of mercury, or to blame for exploding obesity rates.

The tales that have been told about HFCS have become so pervasive that it’s beginning to hurt sales.  Say no more! Manufacturers are now switching back to cane sugar–and using it as a marketing ploy.  “Sweetened with real cane sugar!” the packages proclaim.

Sugar is now a healthy ingredient. How Orwellian.

So, what have consumers gained? Well, many feel that products sweetened with sugar taste better. But are they healthier? In my opinion, no.

If we continue to over-consume highly sweetened foods and beverages, we will likely continue to see massive rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.  Switching to foods and beverages sweetened with cane sugar rather than high fructose corn syrup is unlikely to have any measurable impact on public health–except perhaps indirectly.

Switching back to sugar will drive the price of these foods and beverages up. Maybe cost pressures will help shrink the ridiculously over-sized package and serving sizes. The only way anyone benefits from eating cane sugar instead of HFCS is by eating less of it.

See also “Scientists see little benefit in scramble to swap processed sweeteners for natural ones” in today’s Chicago Tribune.

Sodium and Potassium: What’s the Relationship?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Q. Please comment on the relationship between potassium and sodium.  How can I be sure that I’m not getting too much potassium as I continue to decrease the amount of sodium in my daily diet? 

A.  Decreasing the amount of sodium in your diet won’t necessarily affect the amount of potassium you’re getting but it will probably increase the ratio of potassium to sodium in your diet–and many believe that this is a good thing!

Sodium and potassium have complementary functions in the body, helping to regulate things like fluid balance and blood pressure.  We need to maintain a precise balance of potassium and sodium in our cells but our intake of potassium and sodium may vary greatly from day to day. Therefore, the body has systems that tightly regulate this balance, excreting any excesses into the urine.

The potassium/sodium content of our modern diet is radically different than the diet our ancestors ate–and many believe that this contributes to a lot of our modern health problems. Potassium is found in fruits and vegetables; most of the sodium we eat comes from processed and packaged foods.

By some estimates, our ancestral (pre-industrial) diet had a potassium to sodium ratio of at least 3:1, meaning that it contained about three times as much potassium as sodium.  However, as we’ve come to eat more and more processed foods and less fruits and vegetables, our intake of potassium has declined and our intake of sodium has skyrocketed.  The typical potassium to sodium ratio today is 1:3 (three times as much sodium as potassium) or exactly the inverse of our ancestral diet.

Whether or not the potassium/sodium ratio theory is correct, reducing your intake of processed foods and increasing your intake of fruits and vegetables is a great health upgrade for your diet!  I think  its pretty unlikely that you will get too much potassium from foods. Most Americans get about 2500 to 3000 milligrams per day; the recommended intake is about twice that!

How often should you eat?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

In a recent episode, I debunked the myth that eating more frequently keeps your metabolism revved up. Not only does skipping meals not shut down your metabolism, but there may be some benefits to going a bit longer between meals.

As I explained in that episode, going for four or five hours—or even longer—between meals will not affect your metabolism one whit. In fact, there are some good reasons to go longer than just a few hours between meals.

This article is also available as a podcast.

It takes about three hours for your body to finish digesting a meal. If you eat every two or three hours, as many experts now advise, your body will constantly be in what nutritionists call the “fed state.” This simply means that you are always in the process of digesting food.

If, on the other hand, you don’t eat again, you’ll go into something we call the “post-absorptive” state after about three hours. Several interesting things happen in the post-absorptive state, which continues for another 12 to 18 hours if you don’t eat again.

First, you begin tapping into your body’s stored energy reserves to run your engine. Your hormone levels adjust to shift your body out of fat-storage mode and into fat-burning mode. Hanging out in the post-absorptive state also reduces free-radical damage and inflammation, increases the production of anti-aging hormones, and promotes tissue repair. And, just to reinforce what we talked about last week, your metabolic rate remains unchanged.

But what about your blood sugar?

You’ll often hear people say that eating small, frequent meals helps to keep your blood sugar levels steady. And it does: It keeps your blood sugar steadily high.

Whoever said that your blood sugar levels were supposed to remain constant throughout the day, anyway? They’re not. They are supposed to rise after meals, as food is digested and converted into glucose, and then fall back to baseline as the glucose is taken up by the cells and used for energy or stored for future use.

Having your blood sugar level fall to baseline is not bad for you! In fact, having your blood sugar closer to baseline for more of the day helps to protect you from developing diabetes. Now, of course, it is possible for blood sugar to get too low. This is known as hypoglycemia. A lot of people self-diagnose themselves with this condition, but very few of them actually have it. Diabetics using insulin or folks with a medical condition called reactive hypoglycemia need to be careful about letting their blood sugar get too low.

But for the vast majority of us, managing blood sugar levels is about avoiding the peaks, not the valleys. If you experience headaches, fatigue, and other discomfort whenever you go more than two or three hours without eating, the problem is probably not that your blood sugar has gotten too low, but that it’s been too high.

Eating a lot of sweets, sweetened beverages, white bread, and other refined carbohydrates will cause your blood sugar to go up very high, very quickly. What goes up, must come down and the higher the spike, the more uncomfortable the plunge. The easiest way to make that feeling go away is to eat again. But if you eat more of the same kinds of foods, you’re simply getting back on the same roller coaster. And that roller coaster is on a fast track to type 2 diabetes.

To get off this roller coaster, eat foods that contain less sugar and more fiber, protein, and fat. I’m talking about whole grains, nuts, fruits, and vegetables. For pasta, go al dente.  Your blood sugar levels will rise more slowly and gradually, making the decline far less dramatic. And you may find that you don’t need to eat every three hours in order to feel well.

A word about hunger

The biggest problem you are likely to experience is feeling hungry, and this is not as big a problem as many of us have led ourselves to believe. When you are used to always being in the fed state, you tend to panic the minute you notice that your stomach is empty.

In fact, feeling hungry is not a medical emergency. Often, if you simply wait 10 minutes, the feeling will go away. Sometimes simply having a cup of tea or a glass of water is all you’ll need. Chewing gum is another great way to feel less hungry!  Allowing your stomach to be empty for an hour or two is really not that uncomfortable if you allow yourself to get used to the sensation. It’s also the perfect time to exercise. Exercising two or three hours after you eat will allow you to get the most out of your workout and, as a bonus, usually makes hunger pangs go away.

Please understand, I’m not advising you to stop eating or to starve yourself. I’m just saying going several hours without eating is not unhealthy. In fact, it can have some health benefits.

Originally published at QuickandDirtyTips.com

Farmed Salmon Gets an Anti-Inflammatory Makeover

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

The latest nutrient data from the USDA shows that farmed Atlantic salmon has undergone what is perhaps the most dramatic nutritional makeover in history.

Salmon is known for being rich in anti-inflammatory omega-3 fatty acids and, as you know, the anti-inflammatory diet is very big these days. (The recognition of inflammation as a key factor in heart disease and other common diseases was hailed by Time Magazine as one of the Top Ten Medical Breakthroughs of 2008.)

In 2006, I caused quite a stir by pointing out in my book, The Inflammation Free Diet Plan, that farmed salmon was actually highly inflammatory. When I first published the IF Ratings, a 3-ounce serving had an IF Rating of -491.

As I (and others) pointed out, farmed Atlantic salmon was quite high in arachidonic acid, an inflammatory fatty acid from the omega-6 family. The problem was that farmed salmon were being fed a diet rich in omega-6 vegetable oils rather than a more natural diet of omega-3 rich fish and algae. As a result, their flesh was unnaturally high in omega-6 fats.

Fish farmers apparently got the message! Big changes in aquaculture practices have resulted in farmed Atlantic salmon that is much lower in arachidonic acid…so much lower, in fact, that the most recent samples tested by the USDA had an IF Rating of +775 per 3 ounce serving!

So, after years of warning people to avoid farmed salmon, especially if they were trying to follow an anti-inflammatory diet, I’m now putting farmed salmon back on the menu!

Is Fasting a Good Way to Lose Weight?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

People fast for many reasons: as a religious observance or spiritual ritual, as a political protest, in preparation for medical procedures, or as an occasional health practice.   And studies have confirmed that short-term fasting can have a number of health benefits. Yet fasting for the purposes of losing weight is not generally seen as a good idea.

Fasting Doesn’t Teach You How to Eat Better

One argument is that you need to learn healthy eating habits in order to achieve long-term weight control. Fasting is by necessity a short-term strategy. Sooner or later, you have to begin eating again. And skills such as exercising portion control, choosing more nutritious foods and fewer empty calories, eating more vegetables and whole grains are not developed by fasting.

And we’ve all heard the argument that people who skip meals (whether one or a whole day’s worth) tend to eat more calories later to compensate. (More on that in a moment.) But a series of new studies, summarized in the U.S. News and World Report, suggest that there may be a legitimate role for modified fasting as a weight loss tool.

Fasting as a Dieting Strategy

A group of researchers in Louisiana conducted a small study in which overweight subjects ate just 20% of their normal caloric intake every other day. On the days in between, they ate as much as they wanted. On average, they lost about 8% of their body weight over the next two months.

Inspired by these results, Kenneth Webb decided to try his own version of the program. Webb calculated his daily calorie requirements (you can calculate yours with this Daily Needs Calculator) and ate just 30% that many calories every other day. On the alternate days, he ate 130%.  Over the course of about seven months, he lost 30 pounds. Not surprising, because he reduced his overall calorie intake by about 20%. But Webb says his one-day-on, one-day-off routine has a psychological advantage: He claims that it’s easy to be disciplined for a single day, knowing that the next day he’ll be eating as much as he wants–with no guilt.

Health and Anti-Aging Benefits of Fasting

There appear to be health benefits to fasting as well. Short-term fasting has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease, improve insulin sensitivity, and slow the cellular aging process.   Some research suggests that fasting every other day may be almost as effective (and far less difficult) than the practice of calorie restriction.

Still, fasting isn’t for everyone.  For some, going an entire day on just a few hundred calories is simply too uncomfortable. For others–especially anyone who has struggled with eating disorders–the alternating sequence of fasting and feasting may lead to out-of-control binging.  You’ll have to be the judge of whether this strategy is a good fit for your lifestyle, disposition, and relationship to food.

And if you do decide to try it, remember that when calories are limited, the quality of them matters even more.  On your fasting days, be sure to concentrate on nutritious foods like fruits, vegetables, and lean protein.

A final thought: We’ve all been led to believe that skipping meals is an ineffective way to lose weight. But research from Cornell University suggests that restricting calories for one meal per day may be an effective weight loss strategy.

In a small, 2-week study, one group was given a 200 calorie (kcal) lunch (such as a cup of yogurt or bowl of soup) and another was given a 600 calorie (kcal) buffet lunch.  Both groups were allowed to eat as much as they wanted the rest of the day.  Surprisingly, those who ate only 200 calories for lunch didn’t seem to compensate by eating more the rest of the day. In fact, their daily calorie intake was, on average, precisely 400 calories less than those who ate the larger lunch, leading to weight loss.

Time for you to weigh in (so to speak!) on this interesting topic:

Have you ever tried modified fasting as a weight control strategy? How did it work for you?

Do you think every other day fasting would be a workable lifestyle? Easier than dieting every day?  Or do you think its just a gimmick?

Would the possible health benefits of fasting, aside from weight control, motivate you to try this approach?

I look forward to your comments and discussion!