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.

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.

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.

Can you store up enough vitamin D in the summer to last you though winter?

Q. Is vitamin D stored in the body and if so, for how long? If I get 3-5 hours of direct sunlight per day during the summer, will I have enough vitamin D in my body to last me the rest of the year, or will I still need to get some from diet and/or supplementation?

A. Your body has only a limited capacity to store vitamin D and the effects of sun exposure on vitamin D levels only last a week or two at most. So, sunbathing in the summer will not get you through the winter.  And vitamin D deficiency is a serious problem, as we discussed in this recent blog post.  The average American diet provides far less than the recommended 400IU per day, and a consensus is building that even 400IU per day is woefully inadequate.

I just ran across this long but well-referenced article by Krispin Sullivan, posted at the Weston Price Foundation website, that goes into quite a bit of detail on every aspect of this issue.  I highly recommend the article for anyone attempting to meet their vitamin D requirements via sun exposure. For example, you'll learn that while you can get a sunburn from both UV-A and UV-B rays, you can only make vitamin D from UV-B.

While UV-A is present all day long, UV-B is only present at mid-day, unless you live in the tropics.  So, if you are sunning for vitamin D, you need to do it at mid-day (between 10 am and 2 pm). If you sun yourself before or after that time, you will get a sunburn (from UV-A) before you get enough UV-B to maximize vitamin D production.

Even during those hours, how much vitamin D you can produce depends on your skin type, your age, your latitude, your altitude [with a shout-out to faithful reader and astute observer Jim Kent: you said it first!], how much of your body is exposed, etc.  But get this: For less than $200, you can buy a UV-B meter that will actually calculate how many IU of vitamin D3 you are producing per minute!

Here's another fascinating tip: To maximize vitamin D levels, don't take a shower or get in the pool for an hour after sun exposure. Right after you are exposed to the sun, the vitamin D is still in the oils in your skin and can be washed away before it is absorbed into the blood.

Back to your question: Unless you live in the tropics, you will definitely need another source of vitamin D to get you through the winter, either food sources or supplements. And here's a very important point about vitamin D supplementation brought up in the article linked to above.

Sullivan notes that supplementing with vitamin D not only increases your absorption of calcium but will also increase your absorption of lead, arsenic, and cadmium if your levels of calcium, magnesium, and phosphorus are inadequate. So, if you are going to take a vitamin D supplement, be sure that your intake of these nutrients (from either diet or supplementation) is also sufficient!

Does coffee-flavored ice cream have caffeine?

Q. In the summer,  I often enjoy a scoop of light ice cream in the evening and coffee is one of my favorite flavors.  My husband claims that a serving of coffee ice cream is the equivalent of having a cup of coffee after dinner, in terms of caffeine. (I don't drink caffeine in the evenings so that it doesn't keep me up.)  Is he right?

A. He's right.  A serving of coffee ice cream can contain 40 to 75mg of caffeine, or about as much as a shot of espresso. If you are sensitive to caffeine, this could indeed be enough to disrupt your sleep patterns.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has posted a very helpful chart of caffeine amounts for many popular foods and beverages on their website. Other "eye-openers" include:

Starbucks Tazo Chai Tea Latte = 100mg

Monster Energy drink = 160mg

Ben & Jerry's Coffee Heath Bar Crunch Ice Cream = 84mg

Hershey's Special Dark Chocolate Bar = 31mg

If these numbers seem high to you, note that the CSPI measured the amounts of caffeine found in the amounts of these products that are commonly consumed, as opposed to the sometimes delusional "serving sizes" printed on the package. For example, how many people do you know who split those 20oz bottles of soda three ways? Or eat just 1/2 cup of ice cream?

Tip: To search for foods by caffeine content, use our Nutrient Search Tool.

On beans, rice, and everything you ever wanted to know about protein quality

Q. I understand beans and rice combined make a complete protein. Does that mean that the total amount of protein is more than the sum of the individual amounts or is it just a better quality protein? Also what ratio of beans to rice provides the most protein?

Q.  I've been using the Protein Quality Score tool on Nutrition Data to to calculate the effects that different plant food combinations have on the protein quality. But it seems to give results contradictory to common dietary advice. Why is the amino acid score lower for a meal of beans and rice and nuts than it is for just beans?

Q. Corn, on its own, has a complete array of amino acids. But when I combine it with portabello mushrooms, the Amino Acid Score decreases. That doesn't make sense to me.

A. Okay, Nutrition Datanauts, fasten your seat belts. This gets a little complicated but if you hang in there, you will never again lay awake at night with unanswered questions about protein quality.

First of all, you should know that all “beans” are not the same in terms of their protein quality.  For example, azuki beans are low in the methionine+cystine combination but black beans are not.  Likewise, different grains and nuts have very different amino acid profiles. So the conventional wisdom that eating rice and beans together always provides better protein quality than eating beans alone is an over-simplification.

Also, combining different foods doesn't increase the total amount of protein, only the quality of the protein.  Before we go any further, let me explain exactly how the Amino Acid Score is calculated:

My diet is super healthy! How can it be inflammatory?

Q. I find the IF Rating system on Nutrition Data.com more frustrating than useful. I eat a very healthy diet; it is very low in bad fats and simple carbohydrates. But I always have a negative IF Rating. I'd have to eat fish and curry powder at every single meal to get a positive IF Rating!

A.  I’m sorry you found the IF Ratings frustrating but they can be useful in revealing a hidden issue with what, on the surface, seems like a very healthy diet!  I often try to make the point that what we we've been taught to think of as a "healthy" diet is not necessarily anti-inflammatory.  Your situation is a perfect illustration.

[Here's a link to an analysis I did on this user's diet, which was composed of:

Breakfast: A bowl of oatmeal, made with oatbran, flaxseed, raisins; coffee; 12 oz. lowfat milk

Lunch: A cheese sandwich made with whole wheat bread, an apple

Snacks: 1 handful almonds, 1 handful prunes

Dinner: A spinach salad with fresh mushrooms, broccoli, hard-boiled eggs, onion, and Italian dressing
and a dish made with brown rice, tomatoes, black beans and corn.]

At a glance, your diet looks great! You're choosing wholesome, nutritious foods.  You’re eating an appropriate amount of calories (about 1800) and a good ratio of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins (55:29:16).  So far so good.

I should also point out that none of the foods in your diet are strongly inflammatory. All have a place in an anti-inflammatory diet. HOWEVER, of the 22 foods you ate on this particular day, 15 of them are mildly or moderately inflammatory! 

As I’ve been writing in recent posts, the idea is not to eliminate negatively-rated foods from the diet. The idea is to make sure that your diet is balanced from an inflammatory stand-point, and yours is not.

One thing that jumps out at me about your diet from an inflammatory perspective is a high ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats, about 5:1.  As you may be aware, omega-6 fats can be inflammatory when the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats is too high.  Also, the glycemic load is a bit on the high side (125). Both of these things contribute to the negative rating.

In this case, as I said, it’s not one thing that's causing your diet to have a negative IF Rating but the combination of a whole lot of inflammatory foods: eggs, cheese, milk, grains (rice, oats), starchy veggies (beans, corn), and dried fruits (raisins, prunes), and very few anti-inflammatory foods to balance them out.

I think you can keep eating all of these foods but maybe not all on the same day.  Substituting anti-inflammatory foods for some of the inflammatory ones can bring things into balance. How about a tuna sandwich instead of cheese?  Strawberries on your cereal instead of raisins? Quinoa instead of rice? 

Fish and curry powder are both anti-inflammatory foods that can help balance the IF Rating of your diet but you have many more options to choose from as well.  Incorporate more red peppers, carrots, citrus fruit, garlic, chilies, ginger, olives and olive oil into your recipes. My point is, you don’t have to eat curried salmon at every meal to have an anti-inflammatory diet!

All of these issues are explored in detail in my book The Inflammation Free Diet Plan, which also includes lots of recipes and meal plans. Perhaps you can see if the book is at your local library. I think it might help show you how small changes can shift your otherwise healthy diet to be anti-inflammatory as well.

When should I take my iron supplement?

Q. I have anemia and my doctor gave me iron pills to take? Are there any side effects from iron pills?  Should I take them on an empty stomach? Can I take them with my multivitamin?

A. All good questions that I would hope your doctor and/or pharmacists would have answered for you but perhaps they didn't occur to you until you got home.  Here's the skinny on iron supplements:

The most common side effect of iron supplements is nausea and/or constipation.  The best way to avoid nausea is to take your iron supplement with a meal. However, you may want to avoid taking it with a meal that contains legumes (beans) as these contain phytates that can reduce iron absorption. Coffee, tea, and wine all contain polyphenols that also block iron absorption. It's fine to take iron with your multivitamin.  The vitamin C and copper contained in your multi will actually help enhance iron absorption. 

Is there any nutrition in strawberry tops?

Q. When I make a smoothie, I like to leave the tops of fresh strawberries on. Is there any nutritional value in the leaves?

A. Strawberry leaves do have some nutritional/medicinal value. A tincture of strawberry leaves is used in herbal medicine to treat intestinal complaints, diarrhea, bladder problems, and congestion. They contain some vitamin C as well as other flavonoids and proanthocyanidins and have a mild diuretic action.

But unless you are harvesting the berries yourself, you probably don't have many actual leaves attached to your strawberries.  I can't find any information on the nutritional value of the little "caps." They may also have small amounts of antioxidant activity and a bit of fiber but I doubt it amounts to much.  Still, there's no reason not to blend them into your smoothie. Waste not, want not, right?

Just take care to wash your strawberries thoroughly with a vegetable wash or distilled white vinegar to remove as much pesticide residue as possible. Strawberries absorb and retain a lot of pesticides. Better yet, choose organic if you can get and/or afford them.

100 grams versus 200 calories

Q. When I use the Nutrient Search Tool, I have to choose between 100 gram servings and 200 calorie servings. I'm never sure which to pick.

A. For those who might be unfamiliar with the Nutrient Search Tool on Nutrition Data, it ranks foods according nutrients that you select. For example, you might want to find foods that are highest in calcium or lowest in iron (or both).

Which serving size you select depends on what type of foods you are looking for.

Say you're looking for oils that are low in omega-6 fats.  Because oils are very calorie-dense, you're probably better off using a 200-calorie serving, because this is closer to the serving size that you are likely to choose.  (A 200-calorie serving of oil is approximately 2 tablespoons.)  A 100-gram serving, on the other hand, is closer to a half cup.

But perhaps you're looking for vegetables that are high in vitamin K. In this case, you're probably better off with a 100-gram serving, because vegetables are NOT calorie-dense. A 100-gram is much more likely to be a reasonable serving size. A 100-gram serving of kale is about a cup and a half.  A 200-hundred calorie serving, on the other hand, is about ten cups!

If you're still not sure which will yield the most useful results, try the search both ways! 

Another tip: Dehydrated foods such as dried herbs tend to turn up at the top of both types of searches because either serving size (100-grams or 200 calories) is going to represent a gigantic amount of the herb.  Use the links at the top of the search results to narrow your results to the categories you're most interested in. Or, control which categories display in your searches using our Preference Settings.

Non-fish sources of omega-3 fats

Q. I'm concerned about over-fishing, especially now that there is such a demand for fish oil supplements. Are there any non-fish sources of omega-3 fatty acids?

A. You're right to be concerned. Exploding demand for fish oil supplements is definitely having an impact on the fishing industry, which many worry is already straining the limits of sustainability. See for example, this article from the Herald Tribune on the impact of krill fishing, both on krill populations as well as all the fish that feed on krill.

There are non-fish sources of omega-3 fatty acids, such as flax and hemp seeds, but the primary type of omega-3 fat in these sources is alpha-linolenic acid (ALA).  While the body can convert ALA into the more bioactive omega-3 fatty acids called EPA and DHA, the conversion is very inefficient.  We get much more benefit from fish oil, which already contain EPA and DHA.

So, what we're really after is a non-fish source for EPA and DHA. Certain algae are high in both EPA and DHA. (In fact, this is where fish get them from in the first place!) You can already buy vegetarian DHA supplements made from algae.  Vegetarian EPA, however, has been a little tougher to produce.

Last year, a Swiss company announced the first algae-sourced EPA/DHA combination product, which does not yet seem to be available in the U.S.  The only source I could locate was out of the U.K.

I think it's only a matter of time before algae-sourced EPA/DHA supplements are more widely available. They are not as potent as fish oil, meaning you'd have to take more capsules to get equivalent amounts of EPA and DHA. But for vegans, vegetarians, and others concerned with overfishing, it will be a great alternative.

Do corn and potatoes count as vegetables?

Q. Do corn and potatoes count as grain servings or vegetable servings?

A. Interesting question!

Botanically speaking, corn is a grain while a potato is a root vegetable.  But I'm guessing that you're not interested in splitting hairs over the definition of the word "vegetable" (which gets quite muddy: Next time some know-it-all tries to tell you that a tomato is really a fruit, go him one better by pointing out that it's technically a berry!).

More likely, you're wondering whether corn and potatoes count towards your five servings of vegetables or your allowance for grains. In the new Food Pyramid devised by the USDA, corn and potatoes are both included in the vegetable category, and this is how most of us grew up thinking of them.  A corn tortilla on the other hand (made from ground corn) is considered part of the grain category, maybe because it seems more closely related to "bread."  It doesn't really make any sense at all.

Let's look at it from a functional, nutritional perspective.  Regardless of their botanical classification, potatoes and corn are high in complex carbohydrates (starch).  They are calorie-dense but not terribly nutrient dense.  They have a relatively high glycemic impact (meaning that they tend to produce a quick rise in blood sugar).  In all of these ways, they are much more similar to grains than they are to vegetables like broccoli, asparagus, or peppers.

Personally, I consider potatoes and corn as part of my "grains"  allowance, and not part of my vegetable quota.  Eating corn or potatoes instead of wheat or rice products isn't going to cause you to miss out on any important nutrients. But eating corn or potatoes instead of green vegetables might.

Is nutrient data adjusted for bioavailability?

  Q. Is the nutrient data on Nutrition Data adjusted for bioavailability? For example, I read that the calcium in spinach is much less bioavailable than the calcium in cow's milk. Is this reflected in the information listed for these foods?

A. You are absolutely correct that nutrients are absorbed differently from different sources. As you've pointed out, the calcium in cow's milk is better absorbed than the calcium in spinach and there are many other examples as well. Protein from animal sources if better absorbed than vegetable proteins, for example.  The nutrient information displayed on Nutrition Data is not adjusted for these differences; it simply reflects the amount of nutrients present in the food.

There are a few reasons that it wouldn't be practical to adjust for bioavailability.   How much of a nutrient your body can absorb depends on many other factors as well, such as what foods you eat at the same meal.  Iron, for example is much better absorbed when eaten with foods containing vitamin C.  Other combinations of foods can reduce the absorption of some nutrients. It would be impossible to accurately adjust for all the possible variables.

Keep in mind, however, that the USDA takes these factors into account when setting the recommended daily intakes for nutrients and bases the recommendations on typical eating patterns.  So, if the DRI for calcium is 1,000 mg, that means that the amount of calcium actually absorbed from a typical diet containing 1,000 mg of elemental calcium will be sufficient.

Nonetheless, it's important to be aware of issues such as the one you've raised, especially if your diet is atypical.  If you consume no dairy products (and no calcium-enriched foods) and take no supplements and get most of your calcium from green leafy vegetables, you'd probably want to adjust your target level up a bit to compensate for the lower bioavailability. 

Can sulfur rich foods help with arthritis pain?

Q. A friend of mine swears by MSM (methyl sulfonyl methane) for arthritis pain. Is there any evidence to show that getting more sulfur can help with arthritis pain?

A. MSM is a dietary supplement that provides sulfur, which the body needs to build and repair joint and connective tissue. (Just because you have arthritis pain doesn't mean that you are necessarily deficient in this mineral,  however.)

A few small studies suggest that taking MSM can help with arthritis pain but evidence from large-scale studies is scarce. Nonetheless, millions of people, like your friend, "swear by it."  MSM, although pricey, is generally well-tolerated and safe. If the cost is not an issue for you, you could conduct an experiment of one: Try it for 8 to 12 weeks and see if you notice a difference.

Or, why not simply try to increase your intake of sulfur from natural food sources? Unfortunately, sulfur is not one of the nutrients measured in the USDA food composition database so sulfur content does not appear as part of our nutritional analysis. But you can get more sulfur by eating sulfur-rich foods, which include all members of the cabbage family (including broccoli, Brussels sprouts and cauliflower, etc.), members of the onion and garlic family (including leeks and scallions), and eggs.

Low-carb granola? Don't believe everything you read!

The other day, a Nutrition Data user emailed me a granola recipe she'd found on a website dedicated to low-carb dieting. The granola was supposed to contain only 6 grams of carbohydrates per 1/2 cup serving. Although she said the granola was delicious, she was skeptical about the carb count and wanted me to check it out.

She was right to be skeptical.  Here's my analysis of the recipe she forwarded. According to my figures, this recipe contains 26 grams of carbohydrates per serving! Even if you subtract the 8 grams of fiber (which is the indigestible portion), you still have 18 grams per serving, or three times what the author claimed. That's a pretty big error!

I guess one lesson here is that you need to take what you find on the web with a grain of salt. However, unreliable recipe analysis is not limited to amateurs. I have seen recipes published in major magazines with extremely questionable nutrition information.

Most professional recipe analysis is done using software that works just like Nutrition Data's recipe analysis tool.  A dietitian or other food professional selects the proper ingredients and quantities from a large database of foods and the software crunches the figures.  But the analysis will only be as accurate as the ingredients and quantities selected by the analyst. 

Fortunately, you can use Nutrition Data's recipe analysis tools to do your own analysis.  Here are some of the most common mistakes made (even by professionals) in recipe analysis. You can use these tips to improve the accuracy of your own recipe analysis here on Nutrition Data.com.

Lots of questions about anti-inflammatory diets and IF Ratings

If you've been following the health news for the past couple of years, you've probably tuned into the fact that many experts (including Andrew Weil, Barry Sears, Nicholas Perricone, Leo Galland, and yours truly) recommend an anti-inflammatory diet as a way to forestall aging and disease. For the benefit of those interested in this aspect of nutrition, Nutrition Data displays the IF (Inflammation Factor) Rating of foods and recipes as part of the detailed nutrition analysis.

Over the past few weeks, I've gotten a lot of questions about the IF Ratings of various foods. For example:

Q. Whole grains are supposed to be good for you and have an overall anti-inflammatory effect on the body, but your data on, e.g., barley and oats, indicates a high inflammatory effect. Could you please explain this?

Q.  Why is the IF Rating for farmed salmon (-421) so much lower then the rating for wild salmon (+901). Both are salmon. Why there is such a big difference in the IF?

Q.  I don't understand why walnuts have a negative IF Rating. I've heard that they are anti-inflammatory because they are high in omega-3 fats.

Q.  Can you explain why an apple would be considered an inflammatory food?

First, a bit of background on how the IF Ratings (and I) came to be part of ND:

I developed the IF Rating system in 2005, as a way to estimate the inflammatory and anti-inflammatory potential of foods and combinations of foods.  In 2006, I published The Inflammation Free Diet Plan, a book in which I detailed how the IF Rating system is calculated and how to  use it.  After the book and the IF Ratings were published, NutritionData.com (with my permission) added the IF Ratings to the site as part of its food and recipe analysis.  Subsequently, I was invited to be a nutrition advisor for ND.

Even before I become a member of the ND team, I was delighted to make the IF Ratings available as part of NutritionData's analysis. However, one downside of making the ratings more widely available is that they now appear without the explanatory information included in the book.  All of the above questions, for example, are addressed in The Inflammation Free Diet Plan.

Let me try to clear up a few of the most common misunderstandings:

If I limit saturated fats, do I need to worry about total fat?

Q.  I understand that fat should be limited in one's diet. However, I also understand that it's the saturated fats that are worst. Would it make sense to limit the saturated fats and not the total fat in the foods one eats?

A. Let's start with the "official" answer and then we'll dig a bit deeper.

The National Academy of Sciences (which sets the government's official dietary recommendations) suggests that you limit your saturated fat intake to 10% or less of your total calories and avoid trans fats entirely.  In addition, they also recommend limiting total fat to no more than 35% of all your calories.   

One reason to limit your consumption of fat is that eating a lot of high-fat foods--even when they contain "healthy" fats--can seduce you into eating more calories than you otherwise would, or should.  Fats are very calorie-dense but not particularly satiating, meaning that you can consume a whole heck of a lot of fat calories before you start to feel full.

But if you are eating the appropriate number of calories and otherwise getting all the nutrients you need, I think its possible to push the fat ratio a little higher and still have a very healthy diet.  A Mediterranean diet, for example, emphasizing fruits, vegetables, whole grains, fish, nuts, and olive oil has been shown to be extremely healthful, and may contain up to 50% of the calories from fats (mostly monounsaturated).

Now let's muddy the water even further:  Many readers of this blog would argue that there is no need to limit saturated fats because it's carbs that cause heart disease, not saturated fat. See, for example, the lively conversation going on on this post about eggs.   

I think the important principle here is you can't draw conclusions about the effects of individual dietary components, such as saturated fat, without taking into consideration the composition of the rest of the diet.

There is certainly a lot of evidence suggesting that a diet high in saturated fats can be quite healthy, providing that it is also very low in refined carbohydrates. On the other hand, a diet high in both saturated fats and refined carbohydrates is a pretty bad idea.  So, how much (and what kind of) fat your body will thrive on depends on your genetics and, even more importantly, how the rest of your diet looks.

One last twist: we've talked about saturated fats, trans fats, and monounsaturated fat, but haven't yet mentioned polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs).  You need a small amount of PUFAs in your diet because they supply essential fatty acids that you cannot get from any other source. These include the notorious omega-3 and omega-6 fats. 

It's very important to strike a balance between omega-6 and omega-3 fats. Most of us get a whole lot of omega-6 PUFAs (which are found in cereal grains, seeds, and vegetable oils) and not enough omega-3 PUFAs (which are found in fish, hemp, chia, and flaxseeds).   The resulting imbalance can lead to chronic inflammation, which increases your risk of many diseases. 

You read an awful lot about the importance of adding more omega-3 to your diet.  But there's another option that I don't see talked about much: reduce your consumption of omega 6!  When the two are in balance, you don't really need very much of either; a couple of grams per day is sufficient.  If you analyze your diet using ND's tracking tools, you'll see total omega-6 and omega-3 amounts (along with totals for saturated, trans, and monounsaturated fats) listed as part of the analysis report.

How does cooking affect vitamin K content?

Q. For foods that act as natural blood thinners (such as broccoli, cabbage, etc.), does it make a difference whether the foods are eaten raw or cooked? My mom, who takes prescription blood thinners, has been told that she should avoid all these foods. But these foods are also good for you and I would like to be able to find a balance. It seems to me that you would need to consume a great deal of vitamin K in order for it to produce a negative effect together with the Coumadin.

A. First, a clarification on why people taking blood-thinners are sometimes advised to avoid foods that are high in vitamin K. Vitamin K does not act as a natural blood-thinner; quite the opposite. Vitamin K regulates clotting action and can interfere with blood-thinning medication.

But you are quite right to note that these foods are also very good for you and, in fact, it is not necessary to eliminate them from the diet when taking blood-thinning medication.  It is important, however, to keep your intake of vitamin K relatively steady from day to day so that your doctor can calibrate your dosage appropriately. Please refer to this post for a more complete discussion of this issue.

To your question about how cooking affects vitamin K levels: The amount of vitamin K is not greatly affected by cooking.  Nonetheless, most vegetables are listed in our database in both their raw and cooked forms so you can check the vitamin K content of a food according to how its prepared.

Vitamin A: all your questions answered

I got three questions about vitamin A this week...must be something in the air!

Q. The Nutrition Facts for carrots shows that they are very high in Vitamin A. I thought that vitamin A was only found in animal products and that vegetable sources like carrots contained beta-carotene, a compound that's converted to vitamin A. Can you explain?

A. The type of Vitamin A found in animal foods is called retinol. it's also sometimes referred to as pre-formed vitamin A.  Plants contain precursors to vitamin A (such as beta-carotene), which are converted to retinol in your liver.  The figure that you see in the Nutrition Facts label represents the vitamin A potential of a food--or how much vitamin A your body can either absorb or make from the precursors in that food.

If you scroll down the analysis page to the detail section, you'll see the various vitamin A compounds listed separately (retinol, beta-carotene, lutein, and so on). There, you'll see that carrots contain no retinol but lots of carotenoids. The carotenoids are converted to retinol activity equivalents (how much vitamin A your body can produce from them) and the total is then converted one more time into IU (international units).

Q. In your recent post about vitamin D, you mention that we should be cautious about our intake of vitamin A exceeding 10,000 IU. What are the issues with that? It seems that I get quite a bit of A in my diet (thanks to your website, I now know this!), and there is so much conflicting information out there, it's hard to know what's what.

A. The most important thing to realize is that the concerns about excessive vitamin A intake apply only to retinol and not to vitamin A precursors like beta-carotene.  To see where the vitamin A in your diet comes from, scroll down to the detail section, where you can see how much is in the form of retinol and how much is from carotenoids.

One major concern is that retinol intake of 5,000IU a day can increase the risk of osteoporosis in  older people.  This is the amount found in many multivitamins.  Excessive intake of preformed vitamin A (retinol) can also cause liver damage.  The recommended upper limit for retinol is 10,000IU or 3,000mcg a day.  Note that this is only about three times the recommended daily intake!

The typical diet is not going to exceed this amount. High-dose vitamin supplements and/or taking lots of cod liver oil are the most common culprits. If you take a mult-vitamin, try to find one that provides some or all of the vitamin A activity in the form of beta-carotene. There is no reason to be concerned about getting too much beta-carotene from foods.

Q. Monica, could you please mention something about Retinyl Palmitate as I've seen it in supplements. Is this a synthetic Vit A that we should avoid?

A.  Most of the vitamin A in your liver is stored as retinyl palmitate, which is a compound made of retinol (which is unstable by itself) and palmitic acid (which stabilizes it).  Synthetic retinyl palmitate is frequently used in vitamin supplements and fortified foods and is identical to the retinyl palmitate your liver makes.  Other than the cautions outlined above, there's no reason to avoid it.

Calculating your metabolic rate

Q. How accurate are the various methods of estimating Resting Metabolic Rate? After checking several calculators, I had my RMR tested using a mask that measured oxygen levels for 20 minutes while I read a book. It resulted in an RMR of 720. I was expecting it to be closer to 1200. I'm very confused now.

A. According to this post by our resident fitness expert, Steve Cabral, the test you had done is fairly accurate when properly administered.  So, I'm also a bit surprised at the discrepancy between your test results and the various calculators.  I wonder if it would be worth having it retested.

Obviously, RMR calculators, which take into account your size, age, gender and body composition, can only provide an estimation of your true metabolic rate. For most people, though, these estimates are pretty close. This article explains other factors that can affect your RMR and estimates your RMR using 5 different formulas. When I plugged in my data, all five calculators estimated my RMR within 100 calories.

To estimate how many calories you actually burn in a day, our Daily Needs Calculator starts by estimating your RMR and then estimates how many calories you expend in your normal daily activities, plus exercise, plus a relatively small number of calories attributable to the thermic effect of food (which is bascially the energetic cost of converting food to energy).   The resulting figure is an educated guess about how many calories you expend, which can help you gauge how many calories you should be consuming. But short of going through every day wearing an oxygen/CO2 mask, there's no way of knowing your exact calorie expenditure.

It's tempting to think of the human body as a machine, for which we can simply calculate a "miles per gallon" figure. And in a way, it is a machine, but one so complex that it resists reduction to simple formulas.  In his book Good Calories, Bad Calories, Gary Taubes argues that attempting to manage our body weight by manipulating the calories in/calories out equation is a waste of time anyway, because the body will recalibrate its engine to compensate for changes in input and output. Taubes holds that it's the type of fuel, not the amount, that determines fuel efficiency.

So, I guess my point is that the calculators are merely a way to get you on the green. Once there, you've got to get out your putter. And by that I mean that despite your best efforts to figure out how many calories you should be eating, you may need to adjust that if you find you are gaining or losing weight when you don't expect to.

Anyone else have any experience with RMR testing?

A question of maturity

Q. What is the difference between immature and mature pinto beans?

A. As you've noticed, when you search the database for certain beans, such as pinto or lima beans you'll find listings for both "mature" and "immature" beans. But you might not have noticed that the "mature" varieties are classified as legumes while the "immature" beans are in the vegetable category.

Beans that are shelled and eaten green are considered immature. Beans that have been allowed to ripen and then dried are considered mature.  So, if you are buying them in the produce or frozen vegetable section, they are immature. If you are buying them in the canned and dried bean aisle, they're mature.

Nutritionally, the mature and immature varieties are fairly similar, except that the mature (dried) beans appear to be significantly higher in folate and selenium.

Which foods slow macular degeneration?

Q. My dietitian suggested I go to your site to find a list of foods that are relatively high in lutein and/or zeaxanthin. I am in the early stages of age related macular degeneration and am told I need these in my diet. I tried imputing Lutein into your search and got no results.

A. The main search box (which you'll find in the upper right corner of every page on NutritionData.com) searches the database by food name but not by nutrient name. To find foods high or low in specific nutrients, use the Nutrient Search Tool, which I used to create this list of foods high in Lutein and Zeaxanthin. (Lutein and zeaxanthin are separate compounds but they are measured together.)  Below is  a screen shot of the the search results.

At the top, you'll see a summary of all the categories that foods high in lutein and zeaxanthin fall into. The category with the most foods (by far) is the vegetable category, which gives you a big hint as to what types of foods you're looking for.  You can click on any category and to see just the results in that category.

In the list of foods, you'll see the amount of lutein + zeaxanthin per 100 grams. By clicking on the name of the food, you'll go to that food's detail page for a complete nutritional analysis. Or click "Add to Pantry" to add some of these nutrient-rich foods to your list of favorite foods.

With a little exploring, you'll see that the foods that you want to emphasize in your diet to hopefully slow the progression of your eye disease include all kinds of leafy greens, peppers, winter squash, and cruciferous vegetables.

Is microwaving safe?

Q. Is it safe to microwave food? Does it affect the nutrient content of foods?

A. This question came up at the Nutrition and Health conference I recently attended, and it's especially  timely given our recent discussions about how to reduce energy use in the kitchen.  Microwaving is a very energy efficient way of cooking foods. But many people have concerns about the effect of microwave radiation on foods.

First off, no radiation remains in the food (or in the oven) following microwaving. As long as your microwave oven seals properly, radiation is not a concern. (If you're unsure, you can buy an inexpensive radiation leakage detector to test the integrity of your seal.)

But what about the nutritional value? In fact, the nutrient content of microwaved foods may be slightly higher than that of conventionally-cooked foods, because the cooking time is vastly reduced and less water is used. (Long cooking times degrades nutrients and exposure to water leaches vitamins and minerals from foods.)

There have been some concerns about the effects of microwaving on protein foods, particularly that microwaves denature or otherwise alter protein configuration.  All cooking denatures proteins and although I've certainly heard a lot of rumors, I haven't been able to find any conclusive evidence that normal microwaving alters proteins in a way that would be dangerous. 

The main danger associated with microwaving foods is the absorption of dangerous compounds from plastic containers or plastic wrap that comes into contact with the food being cooked. This truly is a concern, even for containers or wraps that are labeled "microwave safe."  Use only glass or ceramic containers to microwave foods.

Microwaving can't always match the results of baking or roasting foods, in terms of taste or texture. For many tasks, however, such as heating liquids, cooking frozen vegetables, or reheating leftovers, it's perfectly acceptable.

The bottom line? Microwaving offers a quick and energy-efficient way to cook or reheat foods while minimizing nutrient loss. Just keep in mind 3 safey tips:

1. Never use plastic wrap or containers. Use only glass or ceramic to microwave.
2. Cover cooking dishes and stir foods during cooking to ensure even heating.
3. Avoid over-cooking foods.

How can I avoid low blood sugar when dieting?

Q. I am on my way to my goal weight...13 pounds down!  My problem is I have hypoglycemia and frequently find myself with low blood sugar since starting my diet.  Do you have any tips for keeping my blood sugar level up while eating low-fat foods?

A. First of all, congratulations on your success and keep up the good work!  I have three suggestions for you. 

First of all, watch your sugar intake.  Many "low-fat" foods are actually very high in refined carbohydrates, which can send your blood sugar on a roller-coaster ride.  This is the dreaded "Snackwell Syndrome."  So, try to choose foods that are low fat but also low in sugar. Use our nutrient search tool to find foods that are both.

Secondly, be sure that you are getting enough fiber, in particular the "soluble" kind of fiber which is found in wheat bran, 100% whole wheat products, apples, oranges, leafy green vegetables, seeds, and nuts. Soluble fiber helps slow down the absorption of sugar from foods, which will keep your blood sugar  levels steadier. Aim for a minimun of 30 grams of fiber each day.

Third, try to avoid eating meals and snacks that are all carbohydrates. Including some protein and/or fat with every meal will also help keep your blood sugar levels from bottoming out.  So, instead of a piece of fruit, have a piece of fruit and some cheese or nuts.  If you are making a meal of pasta and low-fat sauce,  add some lean protein, such as a grilled chicken breast. 

Let me know if these strategies help!

Soluble vs. insoluble fiber: Which is more important?

Q. I know that I should get about 30 grams of fiber a day.  What I don't know is how much of this fiber should be soluble and how much should be insoluble. What is the exact difference between the two?  Is there any difference in how these different fibers are used by the body?

A.   There are a dozen or so different types of compounds that fall under the general heading of dietary fiber, including gums, pectins, lignans, beta-glucans, cellulose, etc.  Nutritionists tend to categorize different types of fiber as either soluble or insoluble fiber, depending on whether or not the fibers will dissolve in water (soluble) or not (insoluble). The two have very different functions in the body.

Soluble fiber helps slow down digestion  (which keeps you from getting hungry as quickly after a meal) and helps regulate blood sugar and cholesterol levels. A diet high in soluble fiber can help reduce your risk of heart disease, diabetes, and may help you lose weight. Good sources of soluble fiber include oranges, apples, carrots, oats and oat bran, psyllium husk, nuts, legumes, and flaxseed.

Insoluble fiber, on the other hand, is the type that helps prevent constipation, colon cancer and other digestive diseases. Good sources of insoluble fiber include wheat bran, corn bran, nuts and seeds, dark leafy vegetables, fruit and vegetable skins (for example, apple and potato skins).

The USDA doesn't make a specific recommendations for how much of your fiber intake should be soluble or insoluble.  I think your best strategy is to eat a wide variety of fiber-rich foods to satisfy your total daily requirements, thereby getting the best of both worlds.

How long will dyed eggs keep?

Q. We're planning to dye hard-boiled eggs for Easter. How long do hard-boiled eggs keep and how long can they sit out once they've been dyed?

A. Having checked with the American Egg Board and the Egg Safety Center for answers to your questions, I realize that I am lucky to be alive today.  When I was a kid, we'd spend all afternoon coloring Easter eggs.   After we went to bed, my parents would hide them around the house and yard for us to look for in the morning. Once we'd (hopefully) found them all, they'd be displayed for the rest of the day in a big bowl. Eventually, they'd go back in the fridge, where we'd snack on them for the next week or so. 

As an adult, I lived for a while in Europe and I was initially startled to learn that many European housewives never refrigerate their eggs, storing them in a cupboard or in a wooden box on the counter until they were used.  Although I continued to refrigerate my own eggs, I certainly ate a lot of unrefrigerated eggs while I lived there and never got sick.

But according to the people who should know best, here are the rules for eggs:

1. Discard any eggs that are cracked.

2. Wash hands thoroughly with soap and water before handling raw, cooked, or dyed eggs.

3. Make sure dyes are warmer than the egg, which prevents dyes and bacteria on the surface from being absorbed into the interior.

4. Discard any eggs (raw or boiled) that have been unrefrigerated for longer than two consecutive hours.

5. Eat hard-boiled eggs within one week of boiling.

Like I said, I'm not sure an Easter ever went by that we didn't break most of those rules.  But if you want to minimize your risk of food-borne illness, those are the official guidelines.

Incidentally, organic eggs are not immune from bacterial contamination (as discussed in this recent post) so all the same rules apply!

Does baking with flax seed ruin the omega-3s?

Q. I know that the fatty acids in flaxseed can quickly become rancid when exposed to air. (That's why you're supposed to grind them right before you use them.) But can baking with flaxseed destroy the valuable omega-3 fats they contain?

A. You're right that some polyunsaturated fats, such as the omega-3 fats in flax seed, are notoriously unstable and reactive.  Grinding the seeds right before using them will help protect the oils from becoming rancid. Refrigerating ground flax (or flax oil) also helps keep them fresh.

But what happens when you bake or cook with them?  Theoretically, heat can alter the molecular structure of a fatty acid. After all, that's how trans fats are made!  But normal cooking times and temperatures will have only a minimal effect on the omega-3 fats in a food.  You can see this by comparing the nutrient data for raw and baked salmon, which have virtually the same amount of omega-3 fats.

Best foods for weight loss or gain?

Q. I have been a big fan of ND.com for a long time.   I am wondering, however, why some foods that are low in calories, fat, and cholesterol are marked as only a couple of stars for weight loss, but several stars for weight gain.  For example, take pancakes: http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c21Ja.html. They have only 84 calories per 4" diameter pancake, which really isn't so bad.  If you could help me understand this, I would appreciate it. 

A. I'll try to help!  As part of every food and recipe analysis Nutrition Data awards 0 to 5 stars in each of three categories, based on their nutrient density (ND Rating) and their satiating effect (Fullness Factor).

Weight loss: Foods that are both nutritious and filling are considered better choices for weight loss because they keep you feeling satisfied with fewer calories.

Optimum Health: Foods that have more essential nutrients per calorie are considered better choices for optimum health because they maximize your nutrient intake.

Weight Gain: Foods that are nutritious without being overly filling are considered better choices for healthy weight gain because you can eat more high-quality calories without feeling too full.

The star ratings are a sort of short-hand for the information found Nutrition Data's Nutritional Target Map.  Foods that fall in the upper right hand corner of the map get more stars for weight loss. Foods that fall in the lower right hand corner of the map get more stars for weight gain.

A couple of things to keep in mind about the star ratings

First of all, the ratings are completey independent of serving size. They indicate how that food compares to other foods based on a standardized 200-calorie serving.   Also, lower ratings do not necessarily mean that the food should be avoided but that it might be best consumed in moderation. Likewise, high ratings do not guarantee a perfect food but indicate a food that is more likely to be a positive addition to your diet.

So, in the example you've asked about:  Two stars for weight loss simply indicates that there are lots of foods that will be more nutritious and/or more filling for the same number of calories as pancakes.  Three stars for weight gain suggests that compared with equally nutrious foods, pancakes do a relatively good job of providing calories. Two and a half stars for optimum health suggests that pancakes are middle of the pack for nutrition: there are foods that provide more nutrition per calories but about an equal number of foods that have less nutrition per calorie.

Does that make more sense?

Secrets of Anti-Aging Nutrition: Join me in Virginia

Because our world-wide community of users convenes here in cyberspace, I rarely get an opportunity to meet NutritionData users in person.  So I want to let you know about a seminar and retreat that I'll be leading in April in Northern Virginia and invite any of you who might be within striking distance to join me!

The 4-day program will focus on the principles (and practice) of anti-aging nutrition and will be held at the fabulous Airlie Center, one of the nation's premiere "green" conference centers. The whole thing is being organized by Decadent Health, a company that specializes in wellness travel. 

If this is the type of thing you might enjoy, you can get more information on the Decadent Health website.  If you decide to join me for the program, be sure to mention that you learned about it through my blog here on NutritionData.com and Decadent Health will extend a 10% discount on the registration fee.

For all of you who cannot attend, I promise to report on all the highlights of the program here on the NutritionData blog!

Organic, free-range eggs less likely to carry salmonella (but no guarantees)

Q. I recently heard someone claim that you can't get salmonella poisoning from organic eggs. I thought that salmonella was a risk for ALL eggs. What's the truth?

A. You are correct that all eggs and poultry carry some risk of salmonella, which is the leading cause of food poisoning in the U.S.  Organic or free-range eggs and poultry are not immune from contamination with this bacteria. The only way to eliminate all risk of salmonella is to thoroughly cook all eggs and poultry to a temperature that kills the bacteria. (That means no runny yokes.)

That's not to say that every egg is contaminated. People regularly order their eggs sunny side up or easy over.  Classic recipes for Caesar salad dressing, mayonnaise, and chocolate mousse all involve raw eggs--and many enjoy these foods every day and live to tell the tale. Nonetheless there is always some risk involved. And it is true that the risk is lower with free-range eggs.

Conventionally (industrially) raised egg layers are kept confined in very close quarters, where as free-range layers have more space. The extra space translates into less contact with waste and lower contamination rates.  A recent British survey found that about about a quarter of caged hen  populations tested positive for salmonella, versus less than 5% of organic flocks and 6.5% of free-range flocks. In fact, the amount of salmonella contamination was directly parallel to the size of the flocks. Huge industrial chicken farms housing 30,000 or more birds had four times the level of bacteria of the smaller flocks mandated by U.K. organic standards.

Obviously, if you want to eat your eggs raw or undercooked, free-range, organic eggs are much safer (although the risk is not zero). They also appear to be a lot more nutritious.  Analysis conducted by Mother Earth News found that eggs from pasture-raised chickens contained twice the omega-3 content, three times more vitamin E, and a whopping seven times as much beta-carotene as commercially produced eggs. They also had a third less cholesterol and a fourth less saturated fat.

In my