Category: Nutrition in the News

My take on the latest diet and nutrition headlines.

Greetings from the 5th Annual Nutrition and Health Conference

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

[Archival: Originally published on my (discontinued) NutritionData.com Blog]

Monicadrweil I’m writing to you from sunny Phoenix, where I’m attending the 5th Annual Nutrition and Health Conference, hosted by Dr. Andrew Weil and the Program in Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona.

The sessions I’ve attended so far have been full of great, practical insights into how we can make our diets healthier. I can’t wait to to share this information with you in more detail! I only have a few minutes before the next session begins but wanted to dash off a quick post with some of the highlights so far.

In the opening session this morning, Dr. Weil set the stage for the rest of the conference with some general observations about diet and the role it plays in our long-term health.  A few nuggets:

On fat: Low-fat diets (less than 20%) are not only unsatisfying and difficult to stick to, but they don’t appear to be necessary for good health.  Dr. Weil argues (and I agree) that diet containing 30 to 40 percent of calories from fats is perfectly healthy. Of course, what kind of fats is important. Most of the fat in your diet should come from monounsaturated sources, such as extra virgin olive oil or canola oil.

At the same time, Dr. Weil points out that there’s no reason to be paranoid about saturated fat:

“You need to limit your intake of saturated fats but you don’t need to be afraid of them. Set a budget for your saturated fat consumption [I recommend 10% of calories–MR] and then decide how you want to spend it. If you love butter or ice cream, spend your saturated fat budget on those foods. Personally, I love cheese, so that’s what I choose to spend my saturated fat calories on.”

On protein: We’ve been trained to think in terms of “good” and “bad” carbs and fats but we tend to think of proteins as all “good” calories.  The problem with protein foods, says Dr. Weil, is what often comes along with them.  Conventionally-raised livestock may contain antibiotics, hormones, pesticide residues; fish may contain mercury, PCBs, and other contaminants.

Most of us could get along on a lot less protein than we are currently eating. Dr. Weil recommends  getting 10 to 20% of your calories from protein– and much of it from vegetarian sources.  Those with diminished kidney function may want to eat an even lower-protein diet to save wear and tear on the kideys:

“One thing I see in traditional medicine is that we wait too long before we tell people with kidney disease to start restricting protein. We wait until they are in kidney failure.  If we started them on a low-protein diet ten years earlier, at the first signs of declining kidney function, we could probably avoid or at least delay the onset of kidney failure.”

On essential fatty acids and balance:  With all the emphasis on getting more omega-3 fatty acids, we’ve started to think of omega-6 fatty acids as “bad” nutrients. Dr. Weil reminds us that omega-6 fatty acids are essential for good health!  The problem is one of balance.

“The body is designed to function in a state of dynamic tension–between forces that push and forces that pull. We need to support both forces in equal measure to remain healthy.”

And consider this: The amount of omega-3 you need to consume to keep your body in balance is directly related to the amount of omega-6 in your diet, Weil points out.

“It takes very little fish oil to balance the blood chemistry of someone eating a diet that is very low in omega-6 fatty acids. But for most Westerners, who consume a huge amount of omega-6 in their diets, it takes an enormous amount of fish oil to accomplish the same goal.”

There was so much more to report, but I’m out of time for the moment. I’ll post updates throughout the conference and will also post in greater detail on some of the more interesting research after I get home. Wish you were here!

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!

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?” >

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?

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?” >

Calorie burning sodas: are they for real?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

envigaWhat’s better than zero-calorie soft drinks? Calorie-burning soft drinks! If you live in New York or Philadelphia, you’ve probably already seen the billboards. For the rest of us, the onslaught is scheduled to begin in 2007. But the buzz around Enviga, Coca-Cola’s new “negative-calorie” beverage, is already growing.

The calorie-burning claim for Enviga is based on two “active” ingredients, caffeine and EGCG, a green tea extract. In combination, these ingredients are purported to boost your metabolism and increase the number of calories you burn each day. (The artificially-sweetened soda contains about 5 calories per can.)

Enviga is not the first calorie-burning soda on the market. Elite FX introduced a similar product called Celsius in 2005, but the product never really pushed through into the mainstream. Coca-Cola’s massive marketing push for Enviga will change all that.

The burning question: Does it work?

The Center for Science in the Public Interest doesn’t think so. The plucky consumer watch-dog group is threatening to file a lawsuit against Coca-Cola, based on what it considers to be “fraudulent” claims for Enviga’s calorie-burning powers. Even big companies like Coca-Cola have to take the CSPI’s guerilla tactics seriously. Earlier this year, Kentucky Fried Chicken decided to change their recipe, in part due to the publicity surrounding a similar lawsuit filed against them by the CSPI.

But are the claims for Enviga truly fraudulent or merely exaggerated? Coca-Cola is basing their calorie-burning claim on unpublished research that it conducted in partnership with the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, showing that consuming 600mg of caffeine and 270 mg of EGCG can help you burn an extra 66 to 100 calories per day. Note that the study didn’t actually use Enviga. Instead, the subjects took a pill that contained 600 mg of caffeine and 270 mg of EGCG, the amount equivalent to 3 cans of Enviga. It’s also worth noting that none of the subjects were over-weight.

Those findings are in line with another small Canadian study that was published last year in the British Journal of Medicine, which found that daily consumption of caffeine and EGCG increased energy expenditure by about 180 calories per day. What’s interesting about the Canadian study that they compared the effects of different levels of EGCG, ranging from 270 to 1200 mg per day, plus a standard amount (600 mg) of caffeine. The amount of calories burned was the same regardless of how much EGCG the subjects consumed. It makes you wonder how much of the calorie burning effect is actually due to the caffeine.

Based on this research, I think we can tentatively conclude that the combination of caffeine and EGCG may lead to a small increase in calorie expenditure. You could get that combination from Enviga, from supplements, or even from drinking one cup of coffee followed by one cup of green tea, three times per day. But let’s put the benefit in perspective. If you burn an extra 80 calories per day, it would take you six weeks to lose one pound. It would also take 131 cans of Enviga, which as the suggested retail price of $1.29 a can would set you back around $170.

Or, you could burn the same number of calories by walking at a moderate pace for about 22 minutes every day for 6 weeks. (To see how easy it can be to burn a few calories, visit the ND Calories Burned Calculator)

But, hey, it’s your buck. And regardless of whether Enviga delivers any substantial benefit, I predict Coca-Cola is going to have a big commercial success with it. If you do decide to try Enviga, keep in mind that each can contains as much caffeine as a cup of strong coffee, about 5 times as much caffeine as a can of Coca-Cola. So you might not want to drink Enviga too close to bed time.

To mimic the effects of the research study, you might also want to take your caffeine + EGCG an empty stomach, 30 minutes before each meal.