Information for Food Decisions

   The Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend that calories be monitored on a daily basis.  The recommendation is based on the importance of consuming the appropriate amount of calories to prevent 'over fatness' - which appears to increase the risk for several diseases.
   To be fair, clear and honest, many of us do not know our calorie needs - the amount that balances with our energy expenditure.  This lack of knowledge needs to be addressed, but is not the focus of this post (calorie needs are assessed on an individual basis).  For now, lets pretend that everyone does know their personal needs- and agree that for most of us its between 1800 and 2500 calories a day (NOTE: if you need 1800 calories a day and consistently eat 2500 calories a day, you will have excess fat!)
   Presuming you need 1800 calories a day and you know this, and you obtain many of your meals away from home, to stay on target you need access to nutrition information at the point of purchase at those places . 
    I feel it is imperative that nutrition information be available everywhere  food decisions are made, but it is not.  The national menu labeling law (passed within the Affordable Care Act) amends an older law, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act which excluded ready to eat foods, like those at restaurants- from nutrition labeling.  This oversight was a mistake and it took a new law to fix it.  The fact that the new law does not include all places that sell ready to eat foods, e.g., entertainment venues, is dumbfounding.  The FDA can fix this - they are responsible for the final rules.  It needs to be fixed now, not 20 years from now.  This is a real fight and certain industries and labeling advocates are battling it out - leading in some part to the delay of national labeling.
   The Center for Science in the Public Interest is lobbying for the expansion of nutrition labeling and today they shared the picture below from a New York City cinema.  NYC has a much broader labeling law, however, the federal law will override state and city laws.  That means even the NYC policy will not include movie theaters, (or theme parks, bowling alleys, etc.) if the federal law doesn't include them.  Take a look at the numbers below and see how important this information is to the person trying to stay in their limits.  BTW, we should all try to stay in our limits, at least most days.   
 

To take part in the campaign to expand labeling - click HERE

Just a note, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act is the one that mandated nutrition information and nutrition facts panels on the foods you find on grocery store shelves.

Children's Meals and Diet Quality

   Most of my reading and therefore my writing, has to do with environmental factors that increase the risk of adults becoming overweight, but the same issues apply to children.  Children are especially vulnerable to advertising and branding, which shapes their preferences, but they are less vulnerable to the low price allure.  It is their parents who fall into that trap, sometimes out of  necessity. 
   Menu labeling, providing nutrition information, is one way to address the issue of over consumption of calories and non-nutritive foods when eating away from home.  This is something I blog about often.  Recently, I read a report from researcher Ameena Batada, Dr.PH, that shed some light on the nutrition status of children's meals.  It was pretty bad - not the study!  the meal outlook.  
   For her study, which she completed with the assistance of Margo Wooten, D.Sc and  CSPI,  the nutrition content of  children's meals  from 34 of the top 50 restaurant chains (who had children's menus and nutrition information for those meals) was evaluated.  The researchers considered the meals to be meant for children aged 4 to 8 years.
   Of note, Dr. Batada shared the Expert Nutrition criteria that was used to evaluate the meals (to determine if they were a healthy option) as well as the criteria used by the National Restaurant Association.  The National Restaurant Association has a special Kids LiveWell program and I have to say, its impressive.  Both groups (expert panel and NRA) look at the amount of calories, fat, sugar and salt in the meals.  The Expert Nutrition standards disqualify a meal if it has more that 450 calories (the NRA, 600).  The Expert Nutrition standards disqualify the whole meal if it comes with a beverage that has been determined to be unhealthy.  This should be an eye opener for parents.  An unhealthy drink is defined as a soda, a sports drink, a fruit juice that is less than 50% juice OR has added sugar, anything with caffeine(except naturally occurring in choc. milk) AND milk that is 2% or higher in fat.  That is right, if the children's meal comes with whole milk it is NOT healthy.  The NRA criteria excludes any meal that comes with a fried item, including potato chips!  Both standards also have inclusion factors, i.e., the meal must have some things to even be considered (e.g., 1/2 c of fruit, 1/2 c veggies, whole grains).
   With the criteria in hand, the researchers rated the meals at the top chains.  They listed the percent of the meals at each place that met the Expert and the Kids LiveWell standards.  Nine of the restaurants in the study met neither standard, including, Chipotle, Dairy Queen, Hardees, McDonalds and Panda Express.  Chiptole lost out because every child's meal comes with potato chips.  Some of the chains at the top of the list include Arby's, Burger King, Red Lobster, IHOP (what?!) and Subway.  However, the percent of the meals sold that met either criteria was NOT high.  E.g., 28% of Red Lobster children's meals met the expert standard and 42% met the NRA standard.  Red Lobster offers fruit and vegetable as the default option in their children's meals.  That means you don't have to ask for it!  Only one  restaurant had more than 42% of its meals quality and most scored lower.  The winner, Subway.  They only serve apples and low fat milk and do not provide any soft drinks with children's meals.  At Subway, 100% of the child's meals met both standards.
   The report can give you an idea of which restaurants will offer you a healthy option for your children, but you still have to make that choice and you can only do that if you have all the information at the time that you need it.  That is when you are standing at the counter or the server is at your table. 
   Last fact.  The most commonly sold item, 83% of the restaurants sold fried chicken fingers.  
Thanks to Drs. Batada and Wooten for this great report.
See it here.

Diverticulosis

   There was a time when diverticulosis, a condition under which tiny sacs grow on the wall of the colon, and diverticulitis, when those sacs become painfully inflamed, were treated with diet restriction.  The way to prevent those painful flair ups, it was thought, was to avoid eating foods or meals that had seeds, kernels etc (tomatoes, popcorn, nuts) in them. I know this to be true because I live it - vicariously.  A loved one of mine was diagnosed with the disease (via the emergency room) and we (his family) were put on high alert to make sure no seedy foods landed on his plate.  As it turns out, diverticulosis has more to do with ones overall lifestyle and diet patterns and not seeds or nuts.  In fact, the risks for diverticulosis are similar to those of colon cancer, and include eating a lot of red and processed meats (some say more than once a week is a lot), consuming a diet high in refined grains (white breads, pasta, baked goods) and not getting enough fiber (from food)- while also being overweight and exercising too little.  Gee - this sounds familiar!  Those same things are related to many different diseases.
   I remembered this story from my past after reading about the seed myth in the current issue of the Nutrition Action Newsletter.  I have to mention the article because there is something I want to quote from it - which is quite funny, in that sad but true way.
   If you have read my blog for any length of time, you've seen my posts about colon cancer and colonoscopy as a preventative measure.  I have talked about fecal occult tests used to detect abnormalities as well.  Anyways, in the CSPI Newsletter, it was  pointed out that colon cleansing - tonics and such that are sold direct to consumers, are not necessary and could be harmful.  A physician with Georgetown University Medical center, Ranit Mishori was interviewed for the story.  She said a few things worth repeating.  
   One is that the ads suggest that using a colon cleanser will reduce ones stress.  She advises that "yoga, exercise, walking, talking, and even having a glass of wine" will do the same thing and are safe.  She doesn't understand why people think that they need to "detoxify and get the gunk out."  But her best point was made when she compared the preparation for a colonoscopy to the aftermath of a cleansing drink or suppository.  Recall this blog post where I shared my friends story of her first colonoscopy.
   Dr. Mishori said, "in either case you are sitting on the toilet for two days and its uncomfortable."  She said she was puzzled by peoples eagerness to do it for some hyped up claim on a commercial and unwillingness to do it so that they can have a cancer screening exam.  Good point.

(the article I quoted from was the cover story for the Nutrition Action Newsletter Jan/Feb 2013, but there was no author listed)