How much fructose is too much?

Q.  I enjoy All Bran cereal, which is relatively low in carbs, with some blueberries on top.  However, I want to do a better job of reducing my fructose intake.  For lunches and dinners, I stick to salads, and meats and vegetables with no grains or desserts.  But I wonder what more I can do in the breakfast area. What do you recommend?

A.  I'm confused about why you feel you need to further reduce your fructose intake.  I can't see any problem with the diet you're describing.  Perhaps you've heard that fructose can raise triglycerides or promote fat storage?

The amounts of fructose found in fruits and vegetables are not anything that you need to worry about. In fact, a small amount of fructose may actually help your body process glucose better.

If you're worried about the effects of excessive fructose, I'd suggest that you avoid sodas and other foods with added sugars, including those made with corn syrup--which it sounds as if you already are. I think your breakfast sounds very healthy!

Blueberries: Superfood or Superhype?

Q. I hear so much about blueberries and their antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. People like Dr. Oz on the Oprah show say they are superfoods. But when I look them up on ND, it seems that there are many other fruits that are just as nutritious, or even more nutritious. Is all of this about blueberries just buzz or am I missing something?

A. While its true that some fruits have more going for them nutritionally than others, I often wonder myself how blueberries got promoted to "superfood" status.  Are they good for you? Sure! Are they so much better for you than other foods, or even other berries? I'm not so sure.

Here are the kernels of truth out of which the blueberry legend seems to have grown:

1. When measured for total antioxidant capacity (the ability to neutralize free radicals), blueberries score very high. 

2. Blueberry extracts have been shown to have anti-inflammatory properties in various animal and test-tube studies.

But these two things hardly make blueberries unique.  Foods like artichoke hearts, chocolate, kidney beans, and cranberries have similar antioxidant capacity.  Extracts of other berries and plants have also been shown to have anti-inflammatory effects. So to annoint blueberries as a superfood is, in my mind, a little ridiculous.

While we're drawing comparisons, shouldn't we also take into consideration that blueberries are higher in calories and sugar and lower in fiber and vitamin C than most other berries? And the differences aren't minor:

• Strawberries have 6 times as much vitamin C,  half the sugar, and 40% fewer calories
• Raspberries have 1/3 the sugar, twice the fiber and vitamin C, and 25% fewer calories

I could go on, but I won't.

Personally, I think the whole idea of superfoods is silly. Clearly, some foods are more nutritious than others.  But even in the realm of reasonably nutritious foods, different foods offer different nutritional benefits (and hazards).  For my money, a balanced variety of nutritious foods is the way to go.

Tilapia worse for you than bacon? Give me a break!

I have to wonder if researchers at Wake Forest University are second-thinking the wisdom of their statement that "the inflammatory potential of hamburger or pork bacon is lower than the average serving of farmed tilapia."

On the one hand, it certainly got the attention of the press. Hundreds of blogs and news outlets immediately ran with the obvious headline: Tilapia worse than bacon!  Then, all the health experts had to go on record, saying how ridiculous it was to suggest that bacon is a better choice than tilapia.

In the end, the whole circus ended up distracting from what were actually some interesting and useful observations about fish and nutrition.

In a nutshell, the researchers were simply pointing out that all fish are not nutritionally equivalent and that the American Heart Association's blanket recommendation to eat more fish in order to reduce risk of heart disease may be overly general. 

We hear a lot about fish being a good source of omega-3 fats, which are anti-inflammatory and are thought to be a hedge against heart disease.  But we usually don't hear much about the omega-6 content of fish. Omega-6 fats are pro-inflammatory and are generally thought of as "bad." 

(In truth, it's not quite right to think of omega-6 fats as unhealthy; they are essential for good health. But we need a balance of omega-3 and omega-6 fats. Most of us eat way too much omega-6 and too little omega-3, and that creates problems.)

In any case, the main point made by the researchers was that when you evaluate both the omega-3 and omega-6 content of fish, you can see that the health benefits of eating "fish" vary dramatically according to what fish you are eating.

For one thing, some fish, such as salmon, bronzini, and farmed trout, are very rich in omega-3, where are others, such as tuna, grouper, and snapper, contain much less. More importantly, though, certain fish, especially farmed catfish, tilapia, and salmon have very high levels of omega-6 fatty acids, including a particularly inflammatory omega-6 called arachidonic acid. (This is likely due to the vegetable-oil enriched diet fed to farmed fish.)

Three of the most commonly eaten fish (tuna, farmed tilapia, and farmed catfish) actually contain more omega-6 than omega-3 fatty acids.  And (drumroll, please) some of the tilapia sampled for this particular study contained more arachidonic acid (and less omega-3) than bacon or hamburger.  Which is how we ended up with the statement, "the inflammatory potential of hamburger or pork bacon is lower than the average serving of farmed tilapia."

In fact, I would agree with that statement. I've made similar points regarding farmed fish, especially salmon, in my book (The Inflammation Free Diet Plan) and previously on this blog.  However, I think I'd stop short of promoting bacon as a healthier choice. Although it may be lower in arachidonic acid, it's a whole lot higher in fat and calories. Excess calories can easily lead to fat storage which leads directly to inflammation.

So let's keep this all in perspective here. 

1. Bacon, while perhaps not directly inflammatory, is high in fat and calories (not to mention sodium) and should probably be enjoyed in moderation. 

2. Fish is a great source of high quality protein and can be a good source of beneficial omega-3 fats.

3. If you're eating a lot of farmed tilapia and catfish (especially if you're doing so in an attempt to reduce your risk of heart disease) there are other fish that are probably better choices, such as wild salmon, farmed trout, haddock, cod, halibut, and flounder.

Whether or not you decide to eschew tilapia, you can use the IF Rating system here on NutritionData.com for a more comprehensive view of the inflammatory potential of your diet--one that takes into account not only fatty acids but also antioxidants, glycemic impact, and other factors.

Foods to avoid if you have gout

Q. I have gout and need to avoid foods with purine. How do I know which foods have purine?

A. Unfortunately, The USDA does not include purine in the nutritional analysis of foods because this amino acid is not essential for health and is not considered a nutrient. 

But knowing the purine content of foods is very important to those with gout, a painful condition caused by a build-up of uric acid in the joints and tissues.  People with gout are usually advised to eat a low-purine diet, which can help reduce uric acid build-up, thereby reducing pain and swelling.

Foods high in purine include mushrooms, liver and other organ meats, and certain types of fish.  Here's a more extensive list of foods and their purine content.

Hungry? Or just a victim of habit?

There was a fascinating article in Sunday's New York Times ("Warning: Habits can be good for you") about how public health workers successfully used Madison Avenue techniques to ingrain new hand-washing habits in poor African populations, thereby reducing disease and death rates. The trick was not to teach people that hand-washing reduces disease.  Because that didn't work.

What worked was to run television commercials that associated hand-washing with certain activities, such as toilet use or food preparation.  The idea is that doing a certain thing (or being in a certain place) would eventually become an unconscious cue to perform a certain activity.

The same techniques are used to train you to spray your living room with deodorizer every time you vacuum, pop a stick of chewing gum after meals, or reach for the chips before heading to the family room.  When certain behaviors are repeated often enough, they become so closely enough linked in your mind that it becomes almost impossible to do one with out the other. (Ask any ex-smoker!)

In the article, Duke psychology professor Wendy Wood is quoted (emphasis mine):

“Habits are formed when the memory associates specific actions with specific places or moods...If you regularly eat chips while sitting on the couch, after a while, seeing the couch will automatically prompt you to reach for the Doritos. These associations are sometimes so strong that you have to replace the couch with a wooden chair for a diet to succeed.”

The real point of the Times piece is that advertising techniques, which are regularly used to dupe you into behaviors that aren't necessarily good for you, are now being used for good. But I thought it was an interesting insight into just how big a role habits play in our decision-making process.

Maybe we're kidding ourselves that we're actually "making decisions" about what and when we eat. The whole thing could be far less rational than we imagine.

So if you find yourself frequently eating things that you don't mean to, you might look for the triggers that are derailing your better intentions.  Is there a couch in your life that needs to be replaced by a wooden chair...at least temporarily?

How do I adjust the caloric ratio of my diet?

Q. My Daily Needs Calculator suggests that I should get 45-65% of my calories from carbs, 20-35% from fat, and 10-35% from protein.  Is there a way for me to readjust the macronutrient distribution to more of my liking?  For example if I wanted to make it 70/15/15, how would I do that?

A. The recommendations for how much carbohydrate, protein, and fat you should have in your diet are based on the Institute of Medicine's guidelines for what works for most people.

   

But you can absolutely adjust these to your own needs.

Here's how to do it yourself (or, you can use the calculator I've included at the bottom of the post):

Let's say you are going to eat about 2100 calories per day and you want to eat 70% percent as carbohydrates. First, let's see how many carbohydrate calories you want:

70% of 2100 is 1470 calories (2100 x .70 = 1470)

Next, let's figure out how many grams of carbohydrates that is:

1470 calories divided by 4 calories per gram = 368 g carbohydrates.

You can do the same procedure to figure out fats and protein. 

15% of 2100 is 315 calories (2100 x .15 = 315)

315 calories divided by 4 calories per gram = 79 grams of protein.

315 calories divided by 9 calories per gram = 35 grams of fat.

In the future, I'd like to have a calculator right on the site that would figure this out for you. In the meantime, here's a little calculator you can use if you have Excel:  Download calratiocalc.xls). Just plug in total calories and the desired percentages of carbohydrate, protein, and fat, and the calculator will tell you how many grams of each to eat.

Now, you can enter these values into your preferences, as shown here:

You'll also see the distribution of carbs, fats, and proteins in your foods, recipes, and total consumption displayed on the Calorie Ratio Pyramid. For example, here's the caloric ratio of spinach:

 

How can this be?

A lot of you have written with questions about nutrient information here on ND that doesn't seem to make sense. For example, one user noticed that cooked red peppers have more vitamin C than raw red peppers. How can this be? Vitamin C is generally lost in cooking so it should be the other way around, shouldn't it?

Other user reported that cooked rutabagas had higher amounts of omega-3 and omega-6 fats than raw rutabagas.  Yet another wrote to ask why frozen blackberries have less fiber than fresh blackberries. Both perfectly valid questions. Cooking vegetables shouldn't increase the amount of fat they contain and freezing shouldn't reduce the amount of fiber.

Maybe you've run into similar nutrient data on NutritionData and thought to yourself, "How can this be?"

In some cases, it's because the quantities that are being compared aren't quite identical. Take the rutabaga, for example.  Both listings were for a cup of cubed rutabaga. But you'll notice that the calorie count for the cup of raw rutabaga (50) is less than for a cup of cooked rutabaga (66).

Think about it: If you were to take a cup of raw rutabaga, cook it, drain it, and put it back in the cup, you wouldn't quite have a full cup because as the vegetable cooks, some water is lost and it gets softer. To get a full cup of cooked rutabaga, therefore, you'd have to start with slightly more than a cup of raw rutabaga.  Judging by the percentages, the difference in omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids appears to be due to the difference in the quantities involved.

But that doesn't seem to adequately explain the red peppers or the strawberries. Something else is going on here.

Is watermelon the natural Viagra?

A recent study from Texax A&M is generating some sensational headlines such as Watermelon Triggers Viagra-Like Effects

Turns out that watermelon contains an amino acid called citruline which, if taken in sufficient quantities, is converted to arginine, which increases nitric oxide levels, which causes blood vessels to relax and dilate. 

"But people taking viagra should not except same results from watermelons," Todd Wehner of North Carolina State University says. 

Gee, ya think? Here's the small print:

You'd have to eat a LOT of watermelon to increase nitric oxide levels in the body--enough to send your blood sugar levels soaring. It would also probably have you rushing to the loo. Even then, the effect is not likely to be as, shall we say, focused as the headlines might imply.

Undaunted, the scientists at A&M's "Vegetable Improvement Center" are said to be hard at work breeding watermelons with less sugar and more citruline. Now that's vegetable improvement put to good use.

The shocking truth about many "healthy" diets

Attention "healthy" eaters: Your diet may not be as healthy as you think. 

We tend to make certain assumptions about diet: If it's organic (or all-natural), it's good for you.  A meatless diet is a healthy diet.  Vegans are all skinny.

People, it ain't necessarily so.  Junk food comes in all varieties, including organic, raw, and vegan. And simply eliminating certain foods or classes of foods from your diet does not automatically yield a balanced, nutritious diet.

My colleagues who practice nutrition counseling are reporting an uptick in the number of obese vegan clients, including children.  Their diets are found to be extraordinarily high in sugar, fat, refined carbohydrates and highly-processed junk food.  Ironically, many vegans don't eat anywhere close to the recommended servings of fruits and vegetables. 

Scientists also make false assumptions about "healthy" diets.  A study recently published in the International Journal of Obesity notes that "A food pattern rich in vegetables is associated with lower risk of obesity and non-communicable chronic disease in Western countries."

However, the researchers went on to discover that in certain parts of China a diet rich in vegetables is linked to increased rates of obesity. Why?  The researchers concluded that it's because all those healthy vegetables are stir-fried in oil, which makes these vegetable-rich diets higher in calories. 

But as Dave Dixon points out in his blog, the vegetable-rich diets weren't all that much higher in fat or calories. They were, however, substantially higher in refined carbohydrates. Whatever the explanation, it's clear that eating more vegetables doesn't necessarily make your diet healthier.

Or, consider this recent study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which found that a "Prudent" diet pattern (higher in low-fat dairy, whole grains, fruit and fruit juice, legumes, and vegetables) was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. A "Mediterranean" diet pattern (higher in liquor consumption, poultry, seafood, vegetables, salad greens, and high-fat salad dressings) was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer.

This is, of course, a very surprising result that contradicts previously findings. Investigators acknowledge that more research is needed to figure out what it was about the "Prudent" diet pattern that seems to have contributed to higher breast cancer risk in this study.  But the fact that scientists chose the value-loaded word "prudent" to describe this dietary pattern demonstrates that they are making certain assumptions about what makes diets healthy.

My real point here is this: We tend to think that our healthiest habits (such as eating a lot of vegetables or not eating meat) characterize the quality of our entire diet. Some might argue that it is our worst habits (such as drenching those vegetables in oil or eating a lot of junk food) that actually characterize the quality of our diets.

I'll take the middle road: You've got to look at the whole picture to really see what's going on.

Here are the take home lessons for all of us:

1. Vegans, vegetarians, raw foodists, and "health-food" aficionados still need to pay attention to the amount of calories, fat, and refined carbohydrates in their diets and to maintain a healthy body weight.

2. Just because foods are organic, natural, vegan, or raw does not mean that they aren't fattening or that they are nutritious.

3. Even if all the foods in your diet are healthy ones, your diet is only healthy if it is balanced. Using Nutrition Data's diet tracking tools can help you ensure that your diet is balanced and meeting your nutritional needs.

Your thoughts?

Summer Travel Part 2: Gluten-Free on the Road

Yesterday, I had some tips to help keep summer travelers on track with their healthy eating plans.  But for those who are gluten-sensitive, the challenges are even greater.  Gluten is found in many grains so most baked products are out. But it also sneaks its way into condiments, flavorings, additives, and most processed foods, so vigilant label reading is a must.

(Here is a list of foods and ingredients considered unsafe for those with gluten sensitivities from celiac.com and another helpful guide from the Celiac Sprue Association.)

The world is becoming a slightly friendlier place for the gluten-insensitive, though.  Cheryl Harris, a dietician specializing in gluten sensitivities has compiled some great tips for traveling gluten-free, including directories of restaurants with gluten-free options.