Planning your Thanksgiving menu? Here are some healthy ideas

Few of us exercise strict dietary control on Thanksgiving Day. Most of us cut ourselves a little slack to enjoy the traditional pleasures of turkey, potatoes, stuffing, gravy, pumpkin pie--more or less guilt-free. 

While certain dishes may be non-negotiable at your house, there's usually a bit of flexibility with the side dishes. Here are some truly delicious recipes that will up the nutritional ante of the meal. (If you've been invited to dinner, offer to bring a dish. Take one of these and you're guaranteed to have at least one healthy option.)

Each of these recipes from our sister site Epicurious.com has been analyzed using Nutrition Data's recipe analysis feature, so you can see the full nutritional breakdown of each one and save it to your My Recipes for future reference.

Edamame Dip with Crudite 
A lot of the damage on Thanksgiving Day happens before you even sit down to dinner. After filling on nuts, chips and dip, and crackers and cheese all afternoon, you're likely to arrive at the dinner table already stuffed! Instead, enjoy crisp crudite with a creamy but low-fat dip.
Click here for the recipe
Click here to view nutritional analysis.

Lemon-Roasted Green Beans with Marcona Almonds
Skip the heavy mushroom soup and fried onion treatment and try this light and elegant green bean dish. You can roast the green beans in the oven along with the turkey. If you can't find Marcona almonds, blanched regular almonds work just as well.
Click here for the recipe
Click here to view nutritional analysis.

Carrots and Brussels Sprouts
This just may be the perfect Thanksgiving side dish: seasonal, colorful, delicious, and super-nutritious as well.  The sweetness of the carrots is the perfect complement to the slight astringency of the Brussels sprouts. You can prep the vegetables ahead of time to make things less hectic in the kitchen.
Click here for the recipe
Click here to view nutritional analysis.

5 Minute Slaw
Just what the over-worked cook ordered: a side dish that practically makes itself.  In addition to being low in fat and calories and high in valuable nutrients, a crisp shredded salad is a welcome contrast to the heavier dishes on the menu.
Click here for the recipe
Click here to view nutritional analysis.

From our family to yours, a healthy happy holiday!

How much fructose can you safely eat?

Q. I'm confused by conflicting things I've read about fructose.

[In this article], I read that:

When large amounts of fructose are ingested, they do "provide a relatively unregulated source of carbon precursors for hepatic lipogenesis." In other words, if you eat too much fructose, the liver can make the excess into fat. 

But later in the same article, another scientist is quoted as saying:

There is no evidence that reasonable consumption of fructose in a typical diet has any adverse effect on the liver or that it produces more body fat than sucrose or glucose.

I'm confused. Should we be concerned about fructose actually being stored as fat?  And how much fructose would a typical person have to eat for fat conversion to begin?

A. Notice that whenever the negative effects or dangers of fructose are discussed, it's always in regard to  "large amounts of fructose" or "too much fructose" or "when fructose is consumed in excess."

If you eat too much of ANY nutrient, the excess will be stored as fat. Fructose may be converted to fat more efficiently than glucose but these fat stores are readily mobilized when energy is needed. Over the long term, body fat accumulates because we take in more energy than we spend.

Here's an analogy I used in a recent episode of my weekly podcast: 

Your body stores energy (or calories) in a variety of formats and places in your body. You store a little bit in your blood, a little bit in your muscles, some in your liver, and the rest you store as body fat. It’s a little like storing your money in a number of places. You probably have some in your wallet, possibly some more in your dresser drawer, some in a checking account, and maybe the rest is in a money market account. 

Your body alternately makes and burns body fat all day long, transferring fuel in and out of its various accounts.  When you eat, energy is stockpiled in your body's accounts. As you go through your daily activities, you draw down these reserves. Which account you withdraw energy from will probably depend on how much you need and how fast you need it.

But just like with your money, regardless of which account you withdraw from, you’re still spending the same amount. If you spend less than you deposit, your net worth goes up. And when you burn fewer calories than you take in, you’re going to gain body fat.

Is fructose really the problem?

While it's true that our consumption of fructose has gone up dramatically, it has simply paralleled the increase in our intake of sugar (and calories). Even with the increased use of high fructose corn syrup, the proportion of sugar consumed as fructose has not changed significantly.  So, regardless of what happens when you feed huge quantities of pure fructose to lab rats, I think it's a little silly to say that  the negative effects of too eating much sugar are because of fructose.

How much fructose can you safely eat?

In my opinion, if your intake of added sugar is not excessive and your total calorie intake is appropriate to your needs, you probably don't need to worry about consuming too much fructose.

What's excessive? The World Health Organization recommends limiting added sugars to 10% of calories (something in the neighborhood of 50g/day).  More recently, the American Heart Association has recommended limiting added sugars to 5% of calories. Both are well below the threshold where fructose consumption would be a concern.

What's an added sugar? The WHO defines added sugar as concentrated sugars (white sugar, brown sugar, honey, maple syrup, etc.) that are used in processed foods and beverages, recipes, or at the table.  The naturally occurring sugars in fruits and dairy are not considered added sugars.

Can you eat too much fruit?  You can eat too much of anything. But no-one is claiming that excessive fruit intake is behind the rise in obesity or diabetes (although fruit juice might be another story). Reasonable intake in the context of a typical diet is two to four servings of whole fruit a day.

P.S. The entire article is well-worth reading.

Where do I find the potassium content of foods?

Q. My husband needs to reduce potassium/sodium levels in what he eats. I find the sodium levels but potassium is rarely listed. How do I find this?

A. Information about sodium is required on the nutrition facts label but information about potassium is optional--and many manufacturers don't include it.  The ingredient list won't contain many clues, either.  Products that are marketed as "heart-healthy" are more likely to list potassium content, by the way. Usually, these are foods that are relatively high in potassium and low in sodium.

You can look up the potassium content of foods here on ND, of course. Simply scroll down to the Nutrient Information box on any food detail page to see the amount of potassium that food contains. (Remember to select the appropriate serving size at the top of the page.) You can also use our nutrient search tool to research which foods are highest and lowest in potassium and sodium. 

In general, fruits and vegetables are the richest sources of dietary potassium. The average person eats about 3,000 mg of potassium a day. People with the highest intake of fruits and vegetables take in 4 or 5 times as much.

Fruits and vegetables that are particularly high in potassium include beet greens and spinach, potatoes, lima beans, green soybeans (edamame), bananas, prunes and prune juice, acorn squash, tomato juice, and raisins.  

Fruits and veggies for a low potassium diet

Of course, fruits and vegetables are among the healthiest foods that you can eat--which creates a bit of a dilemma for those who need to restrict potassium.  Fruits and vegetables that are relatively low in potassium include turnips and turnip greens, Napa cabbage, bean sprouts, leeks, pears, blueberries, cranberries, and apples. Cooking (and draining) vegetables and fruits can also remove up to 70% of the potassium--although other nutrients are lost as well. 

Hope that helps!

Health benefits of sourdough?

Q. I use homemade whole-grain sourdough daily. I am totally convinced it has exceptional health benefits. But I can't find nutritional info on it. It seems to me that it has to have probiotics, for instance.

A.   Sourdough starter does contain lactobacillus bacteria, often referred to as probiotics. It's the lactobacillus that give sourdough its characteristic sour flavor. But it's hard to say for sure which strains are present in a sourdough without laboratory analysis. The sourdough in my kitchen probably has different strains than the one in yours, for example. And different strains of lactobacillus offer varying health benefits, as discussed in this recent post on probiotics.

But whatever beneficial bacteria may be present in your sourdough starter, they will probably be destroyed by cooking. Most lactobacillus bacteria are only viable to about 112 degrees F.  So while sourdough starter could be considered a probiotic food, sourdough bread would not.

Another potential health benefit of sourdough is that the bacteria partially "digest" some of the starches and sugars in the grains.  As a result, sourdough bread appears to cause less of an increase in blood sugar than yeast breads. (Here's a link to the study.)

In terms of the relative nutritional value of sourdough, the biggest factor is probably whether it's made with refined or whole-grain flour. And, although whole-grain sourdough may be healthier than regular white bread, it is still basically bread. I wouldn't eat it in unlimited quantities!

For more on the science of sourdough, see this article.

Browse the headlines and highlights from the NutritionData.com Blog right from your inbox! Sign up for our free e-letter (it comes out twice a month) and we’ll keep you in the loop! View the archive.

Reality Check: Does candy turn kids into monsters?

Trying to rein in the amount of sugar kids eat is hard enough.  Having a plastic pumpkin full of candy in the house sure doesn't make it any easier.

There are plenty of compelling reasons to limit kids' intake of sugar. Candy is a source of empty calories that can displace more nutritious foods, lead to weight gain, and wreak havoc with insulin metabolism. (Type 2 diabetes used to be called Adult Onset Diabetes, but no more.)

But many parents are also convinced that sugar turns kids into little monsters--making them hyper-active, aggressive, or otherwise unmanageable. Yet the research fails to bear this out.

Is it all in parents' heads? 

Controlled studies have measured the effects of sugar consumption on behavior and cognitive performance and failed to find any connection. See for example this meta-analysis. There have even been interesting studies where parents were asked to observe kids behavior. When the parents thought the kids had eaten sugar, they reported changes in behavior--even when the kids had actually been given a placebo. See this article for more on the sugar-hyperactivity myth.

Just last month, there was an interesting new twist on this: Researchers found that kids who ate candy every day were more likely to be arrested as adults for crimes involving violence, as reported by AP News. The researchers hastened to add that the association is probably more complex than it sounds. It may be, for example, that individuals with poor impulse control eat more candy as kids and then commit more crimes as adults. 

What's a responsible parent to do?

Most parents settle for damage containment and try to strike a balance between nutrition concerns and letting kids enjoy this once-a-year festival. Rather than banning all Halloween candy (now who's the monster?), try to limit the amount that is collected and then dole it out slowly.  One small treat after a healthy meal isn't going to turn your kids into monsters.  Getting your kids up and moving--whether it's to rake leaves, play touch football, or even some Wii tennis--is also an effective way to mitigate the effects of a little extra sugar.  

Common sense prevails: Froot Loops not a "Smart Choice"

An industry-funded labeling program which awarded green "Smart Choice" checkmarks to packaged foods, based on "strict science-based nutrition criteria" has been suspended after the FDA questions its validity. 

And rightfully so.  Any system that considers Froot Loops cereal to be a smart choice is worse than meaningless. Read more here.

Modified vegetable oil? Sounds like a bad idea to me

Spanish researchers are working on a chemically modified vegetable oil that they claim will be a good substitute for pork fat in processed meats and other foods. Haven't we learned our lesson yet? Nothing good ever seems to come out of our attempts to chemically modify foods to make them "better" for us.

What's so wrong with pork fat, anyway? The researchers claim that they're simply trying to provide consumers with foods that are lower in saturated fat.  Even if reducing saturated fat is desirable (some will disagree), I'm pretty sure that replacing it with chemically-modified vegetable oil is not a step in the right direction. Doesn't that sound like the kind of thinking that brought us trans-fat-filled margarines 30 years ago?

Besides,  pork fat actually contains as much monounsaturated fat as saturated fat. Whatever your position on saturated fats, replacing monounsaturated fat with polyunsaturated fats certainly doesn't seem like an upgrade.

More to the point, chemically manipulating foods to look and taste like something other than what they are usually does a lot more for food manufacturers' bottom lines than it does for consumers' health. 

I think we'd all be better off eating less "modified" food.  If the saturated fat in pork makes you nervous, eat less pork. 

Is posting calorie counts on menus back-firing?

Oops.  Since the New York City law requiring fast food restaurants to post calorie counts on their menus has gone into effect, researchers found that the average calorie count per order has gone UP slightly--even though about half of consumers think that the calorie counts help them make healthier choices.

The entire study is described in this article in the New York Times. However, before we conclude that the calorie count laws are a bust, keep in mind that the researchers purposely targeted low-income populations. The rates of diabetes and obesity (and fast food consumption) are highest in low-income populations. And this study does suggest that the labeling laws have had no positive effect in those groups. 

For many, it's the price, not the nutrition that counts

I think this quote, from Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, is key: “Nutrition is not the top concern of low-income people..."

Since the economic down-turn, fast food chains have been pitching the low-cost of their food. If you need to get your calories as cheaply as possible, you can hardly do better than 825 calories (the average meal total) for a couple of bucks.

Clearly, if the only goal of calorie disclosure in fast food restaurants was to help recession-stressed, low-income, high-risk consumers to make more healthful choices, it has failed. But I hope that a similar study currently underway by New York City pubic health officials will include a broader cross-section of the population. My gut tells me that the calorie counts may have had a much more beneficial effect in other sectors. 

As for this high-risk population, clearly we're not going to make much progress until we can find a way to make healthier choices as convenient and inexpensive as burgers and fries.

As organic goes mainstream, corporations take over (again)

A new USDA report examines the ways in which the organic marketplace has been transformed in recent years.  Just ten years ago, for example, most organic food was sold in health food and "healthy food" stores. Today, more than half of organic food is sold in conventional grocery stores, and big box/club stores like Sam's and Costco.

The face of the organic farmer has changed as well.  Small, independent organic growers have been squeezed out or acquired by large conventional manufacturers, who have added organic brands in response to customer demand. True, there are more organic producers now but the average size of those producers is also much larger.

I see the general move to organics as a positive trend. Ideally, however, we won't make the same mistakes we've made in the past and allow the entire food supply to be dominated by a few corporate giants. Buying your organic food at Costco may save you money.  Buying it at the farmer's market can be a great deal as well--plus you'll be supporting small, local,  independent farms. Local food is also fresher--and fresher means more nutritious (organic or not!).

Probiotic confusion

Last week, I answered a question from a reader who had seen a study showing that probiotic supplements reduced cold and flu symptoms in children. He reasoned that eating yogurt every day might be a good step and wondered how much he'd have to eat to get a similar "dose" of probiotics.   To answer his question, I compared the number of active cultures in a typical probiotic supplement to the number of active cultures in a typical yogurt.

But I missed an opportunity to clarify what I think is a widespread misunderstanding about probiotics. Many people think of all probiotic supplements and foods as being somewhat interchangeable. They're not.

Probiotics: an umbrella term for thousands of different bacteria

In terms of labeling foods and supplements, the FAO/WHO defines probiotics as "Live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host."  That's any health benefit.

There are hundreds of different strains of lactobacillus bacteria and they offer a variety of potential health benefits to humans. Some colonize the large intestine, others live in the lining of the stomach, still others have an affinity for the mucus membranes in the nose.  Of the many strains likely to colonize the large intestine, for example, some may improve gut immune function, others digest complex sugars, others may benefit the host by producing vitamin K.

There are also lactobacillus bacteria that don't do much of anything to improve or defend your health. These, while harmless, would technically not be classified as probiotics--although they might still be considered "live and active cultures.". 

Foods versus supplements

Most probiotic foods contain a variety of bacterial strains--your average supermarket yogurt might contain six different bacterial strains. And the lactobacillus bacteria found in yogurt are not necessarily the same as those found in other fermented foods like kefir or kim-chi.

Many of the studies you read about use "boutique" strains that are not likely to be found in any traditionally-fermented foods. In the case of the study I mentioned above, for example, they used two trademarked strains called Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM and Bifidobacterium lactis Bi-07.

Is there any point to consuming probiotic foods?

I still think there are general health benefits to eating traditionally-fermented foods like yogurt, kefir, kim-chi, kombucha, sauerkraut, and miso. Eating a variety of fermented foods, which provides a wider variety of bacterial strains, might offer a wider range of benefits.

But we need to be careful about assuming that the findings on a particular strain apply to all probiotics and probiotic foods.  If you're going for a specific therapeutic benefit, such as protecting against side effects while taking antibiotics or improving flu resistance, there's no guarantee that yogurt or any other fermented food will contain the same bacteria as were used in a particular study.

Similarly, when shopping for probiotic supplements, pay attention to the individual strains in that supplement and how they compare with the strains used in various studies you might be responding to.