The Beef Industry: Who knew how much they cared?

I got an email today from the National Cattleman's Beef Association (who gave them my email address??), who were writing to remind me that "the beef association has had a long-standing commitment to scientific research" and inviting me to share with you some important resources on "beef nutrition" and "the role of lean beef in a healthy diet."  Consider the resources shared: For more, you can visit www.beefnutrition.org.

The email appears to have been triggered by the new report soon to be released by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research on "Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer."  Although I haven't had an opportunity to review the report yet, I'm guessing that this email from the cattlemen is an attempt at damage control. I'll bet beef didn't come off too well in the report (as in, those who eat less beef or red meat have lower rates of cancer).

Those of you who read my blog regularly know that I have nothing against beef. In fact, I've made the argument that, in certain respects, lean beef is more healthful than chicken.  And the grass-fed beef growers and their fans are going to be quick to point out that researchers lump all beef in the same category, where as grass-fed beef has many nutritional advantages. 

At the Beef Nutrition Center (I'm trying to keep a straight face here), you'll find some information that adds some valuable nuance to the sort of broad-stroke epidemiology we're likely to see in the new report. You'll also find a fair amount of spin. (Beef is SO good for you, especially when you eat it with lots of fruits and vegetables!).  Suffice it to say that if you're looking for a way to defend your enjoyment of beef, you're likely to find it here!

My bottom line: I think that, for those who eat meat, a moderate amount of some types of beef is perfectly fine.  And I feel even better about it now that I know how much the cattlemen care about our health! (Think they'll be sending valentines to the press corp as well, arguing that beef is heart healthy?)

The links between diabetes, obesity, and inflammation

Southern California isn't the only thing that was on fire last week.  Your cells and tissues may have been smoldering as well, without you even knowing it. Chronic, low-level inflammation is often referred to as "the fire within," and is linked to a wide array of diseases, including heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis, and depression and diabetes.

There's also a definite connection between inflammation and obesity. Fat cells produce inflammatory chemicals at a far greater rate than other tissues, so youare at greater risk of inflammation and inflammation-related diseases like diabetes and heart disease if you are overweight.  Losing weight generally reduces inflammation (and risk of disease) but losing weight may not be enough to put out this particular flame.

New research posted on DiabetesHealth.com shows that even lean diabetics appear to have elevated levels of inflammatory chemicals in their blood, which increases the risk of complications from their disease. If you have diabetes, it may be worth asking your doctor to test your CRP levels to gauge your level of systemic inflammation--even if you are maintaining a healthy weight and blood sugar levels.

If your CRP  levels are high, an anti-inflammatory diet can help. In addition to regulating the glycemic load of your diet (which you are hopefully already doing ), try to get most of your daily fat allowance from foods high in omega-3 fatty acids and/or monounsaturated fats.  Spices like curry, ginger, and garlic also have natural anti-inflammatory properties. (See also our help page on Inflammation).

Does yogurt make your diet healthier?

Today's nutrition newswire includes results of a new study showing that women who eat yogurt frequently are less likely to be overweight and generally have more nutritious diets than women who don't.  In particular, yogurt eaters seem to get more calcium and vitamin D, a nutrient that we've been talking about quite a bit on the blog lately.

The study was conducted at the General Mills Bell Institute of Health and Nutrition. Now I don't want to be cynical but I do have to wonder what kind of "research" we're going to get out of an institution that's run by a corporation that is in business to sell products. Not that I think that the researchers would deliberately falsify data, just that the research design is likely to be oriented less towards expanding our understanding of nutrition and more toward producing findings that will make good press for the products.

So what does this study really add to our understanding about health and nutrition? Does it prove or even suggest that eating yogurt keeps you thinner and healthier? Not really.  It simply demonstrates a statistical correlation: healthy people who eat nutritious diets are more likely to eat yogurt than those who don't.  If you're overweight and subsist on junk food, adding yogurt to your diet is not likely to peel off the pounds.

Nonetheless, I expect that the PR folks at General Mills will parlay this "research" into a bunch of press releases, headlines, and ultimately ads, suggesting that eating yogurt makes you thinner!

Your thoughts?

100% of daily needs: can it be done without supplements?

Q. I'm trying to get all the nutrients I need from foods, without having to eat fortified foods or take supplements. I'm afraid that I won't get enough of certain vitamins.  I'm particularly concerned about getting enough iron, zinc, copper, selenium, vitamin A, and vitamin E. Is it realistic to try to get all recommended nutrients for one day without resorting to supplements?

A. Maybe not.  One reason that certain foods (such as milk, bread, table salt, and cereal) are fortified with extra vitamins is that the government is concerned that without fortification, most people wouldn't get enough of certain vitamins, especially vitamin D, E, folic acid, iron, and iodine.  Vitamins C and E are often added to processed foods as preservatives, but in quantities that are not nutritionally meaningful.

If you want to avoid processed foods, including things like cereal and bread, then you may find it a bit challenging to hit the mark on certain nutrients.  Just for fun, I tried to build a one-day meal plan that would hit 100% all recommended nutrients, using only whole foods.

Eat a Healthy Gourmet Dinner Tonight...and Every Night

Looking for some last minute inspiration for tonight's dinner?  Ideally, of course, it should be easy to pull together, good for you, yet still delicious and imaginative. Too much to ask? Not anymore.

Our new Healthy Dinner Tonight recipe feed gives you a great, new, healthy recipe idea every day! Dig into restaurant-worthy dishes like Pasta with Butternut Squash and Lima Beans or Orange and Rosemary Tuna Kabobs...guilt free, and usually in 30 minutes or less!

Although not all of the recipes on our sister site Epicurious.com could be considered "light," I've found a treasure trove of wonderful, nutritious, (and not-too-complicated) recipes that make eating healthfully a decadent pleasure. Working with Megan Steintrager, Senior Editor for the site, I've assembled the best of them into a daily dose of healthy inspiration.

In addition to the recipe, the feed also includes a nutritional overview of the dish, plus a link to a detailed NutritionData analysis, so you can see exactly how the dish fits into your dietary goals.  And here's the really cool part: If you use our pantry tool to analyze or track your diet, you can add the entire recipe (plus all its individual ingredients) to your own pantry with a single click.

You can view the feed on a web-based feed reader such as google or yahoo or any other RSS-friendly device. (It's free, of course.) See the Communications page of Epicurious.com for more information or to subscribe to the feed. Or, you can simply bookmark the Healthy Dinner Tonight page and check in to see what's new each day.

Can the right diet prevent breast cancer?

As you've no doubt noticed by now, October is Breast Cancer Awareness month.  People all over the country are racing, cooking, walking, dining, and shopping for the Cure and everything from cell phones to santoku knives is available in pale pink! All of these initiatives help raise awareness about breast cancer but also generate research dollars that will hopefully one day lead to the end of this devastating disease. 

The link between diet and breast cancer has been the subject of a lot of recent research but the results have been surprising.  The latest and biggest studies now suggest that low-fat diets and diets high in fruits and vegetables don't seem to lower the risk of breast cancer, as was previously believed.

So, where does that leave us? If diet makes no difference in disease risk, why not just eat what we please?  Well, as Elaine Murphy wrote this week on the Nutrition Data Diet and Weight Loss Blog, there is still an irrefutable connection between obesity and breast cancer. 

The diet that actually prevents breast cancer appears to be any (healthful) diet that gets you and keeps you at a healthy weight. For more expert advice on weight loss, visit ND's new Diet and Weight Loss Blog.

"Grass-fed" beef gets an upgrade

The USDA has tightened the rules for what kind of meat can be called "grass fed."  Until now, looser regulations allowed animals that had actually been fattened on grain to be marketed as "grass fed" if they had been pastured at some point in their lives. The new regulations require that grass-fed animals be just that: entirely grass-fed throughout their lifetimes. (That's what most consumers have always assumed it meant.)

How will this affect the end product?  True grass-fed meat will likely be leaner and without the marbling that we've come to associate with high quality beef. (Marbling is a result of feeding the animals corn and grain, which they convert to fat.)  But it also means that the meat will be higher in omega-3 fats and lower in omega-6 fats.

Read more on The Ethicurian.

Vitamin D and chronic pain

I associate vitamin D deficiency mostly with its effects on bone health: Inadequate vitamin D can lead to weak and brittle bones.  There's also been a lot of new research lately showing that D deficiency may also be linked to cancer, diabetes, depression, and other serious diseases. (See also "Vitamin D Deficiency Called Major Health Risk" from WashingtonPost.com.)

Now, a new study has found that people with chronic pain frequently have low vitamin D levels. Vitamin D deficiency also appears to make people less responsive to pain medication. (Hopefully, researchers will now confirm that supplementing with vitamin D can lead to better pain management for many people.)

Vitamin D Deficiency is on the Rise

On average, the American diet provides about 250IU of vitamin D a day (mostly from fortified foods), which is just over half the recommended daily amount of 400IU. Your skin also manufactures vitamin D when exposed to ultraviolet light. But with the increased use of sunscreen, you may not be getting enough exposure to cover your vitamin D requirements.

Vitamin D deficiency is becoming so common that experts are calling for an increase in the recommended allowance. If you do not get a lot of natural sunlight on your skin, be sure to get enough vitamin D in your diet.  Fish (such as salmon, herring, and mackerel) are naturally high in vitamin D. Cereals and dairy products are often fortified with vitamin D. (Here's a list of foods highest in vitamin D, generated with ND's Nutrient Search Tool.

Can diet protect you from losing your eyesight as you age?

Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD), which causes a gradual deterioriation of your central vision, is the leading cause of blindness in the elderly. At present there is no cure or treatment--but researchers had high hopes that a diet rich in antioxidants might prevent macular degeneration. Unfortunately, the latest study results now suggest that antioxidants do not in fact protect against macular degeneration.

But there still may be a nutrition connection.  Scientists have found that systemic inflammation  (indicated by high C-reactive protein levels) is directly linked to the risk of developing AMD. And this implies that an anti-inflammatory diet may be effective in preventing this devastating condition.

So, while these studies seem to imply that antioxidants have no effect on AMD, I suspect that it's a little more nuanced than that. Antioxidants alone may not be enough to reduce CRP levels and disease risk, but as part of an anti-inflammatory diet, they may play an important role.

Antioxidants help reduce inflammation, but an anti-inflammatory diet also requires limiting saturated and trans fats, increasing monounsaturated fats and omega-3 fats, moderating the glycemic impact, and including nutrients that lower homocysteine.  Inflammation also increases your risk of heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, and depression--so there are plenty of good reasons to consider an anti-inflammatory diet. The IF Ratings can help you create a diet that reduces excess inflammation. (See more on our Inflammation Help page.)

Calorie Restriction: Life Extension or Self-Starvation?

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.

CR is a difficult lifestyle.  Many who practice it admit to dealing with constant hunger and obsession with food. In a society where every social situation and celebration seems to focus on food, the CR lifestyle can be isolating.  It's also time-consuming.  When you are eating very few calories, it becomes difficult to ensure adequate intake of protein, essential fatty acids, and vitamins and minerals.  There is literally no room for empty calories and meticulous meal planning and tracking becomes a necessity. (Nutrition Data has a big following in the CR community because our dietary analysis tools make it easier to practice Calorie Restriction with Optimal Nutrition, or CRON.)

Whatever its potential benefits, CR is obviously too austere for the vast majority of the (mostly overweight) population. And, predictably, the biotech companies are racing to develop drugs that will mimic the beneficial effects of CR without the deprivation. But in the meantime, CR is attracting more and more baby-boomers determined to forestall the march of time.

What's your personal view on calorie restriction? Would you be willing to put up with daily hunger in exchange for 10, 20, or even 30 extra healthy years?

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Please add any additional comments below.

Is dieting hopeless? Monica takes on a "skeptic"

In a recent post, I offered some advice to a reader who wrote to ask how many calories she should eat if she wanted to lose weight. I recommended that she aim to create a calorie deficit of about 7,000 calories per week (by reducing caloric intake AND increasing physical activity), which would lead to losing approximately two pounds a week.

Over the weekend, a reader ("Skeptic") posted a detailed critique of my post, charging that it was an "oversimplification" of metabolism and containing "a lot of inaccurate information." (You can read his entire comment on the original post.)

Input from readers is always welcome, and often adds valuable information to the dialogue.  And I completely agree with Skeptic on some points.  Fuel metabolism is complex, and we often simplify things in order to make the ideas easier to work with. For example, the equation "cut or burn 3500 calories to lose one pound" is a simplified (but still useful) approximation.

But several of Skeptic's points are worthy of further discussion.

Too much perfume? Could be a zinc deficiency.

Do you know someone who wears too much perfume or cologne? Although it's extremely unpleasant for their co-workers and those sitting close to them at the movie theater or on the commuter train, these folks usually have no idea that their scent is over-powering to those around them.  And in fact,  it may be the result a nutritional deficiency.

At the recent annual conference of the American College of Nutrition, researchers presented results of an intriguing study that found that those who over-apply scents have dramatically lower zinc levels than normal. In addition to affecting your sense of taste and smell, zinc is critical for a healthy immune response and neurological function.

It can be touchy to approach someone about what seems like a personal grooming matter. But if anyone has ever hinted to you that your cologne might be a little over-the-top, consider the possibility that low zinc levels are rendering your sniffer unreliable.

Good food sources of zinc include meat, dairy products, shell-fish, nuts, and beans.  (Here's a more complete list of foods rich in zinc, generated with ND's Nutrient Search Tool.  The Recommended Daily Allowance is around 10mg per day.

No such thing as bad carbs?

If you find it difficult to say no to so-called "bad' carbs like white bread, potatoes, and sweets, Dr. Glenn Gaesser has good news for you! Having analyzed hundreds of studies on the effects of carbs and weight gain, Dr. Gaesser has concluded that high-carbohydrate or high-glycemic diets don't lead to weight gain. (Read more about the glycemic index on our Gycemic Index topic page.)

According to Dr. Gaesser, author of It's the Calories, Not the Carbs, people who eat high carbohydrate diets tend to be thinner and healthier than people who don't. Furthermore, he says, high glycemic foods are not necessarily unhealthy and do not impede weight loss efforts.

Of course, this runs contrary to the current dietary dogma, which holds that excessive consumption of high glycemic carbohydrates (foods that cause a quick, sharp rise in blood sugar) can increase your risk of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Most nutritionists also advise dieters to emphasize low-glycemic (or "good") carbohydrates for better appetite control.

My take on Dr. Gaesser's contrarian view?