Manufacturers replacing high fructose corn syrup with sugar. Big deal.

It no longer matters whether it's actually true that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is toxic to our livers, full of mercury, or to blame for exploding obesity rates.

The tales that have been told about HFCS have become so pervasive that it's beginning to hurt sales.  Say no more! Manufacturers are now switching back to cane sugar--and using it as a marketing ploy.  "Sweetened with real cane sugar!" the packages proclaim. 

Sugar is now a healthy ingredient. How Orwellian.

So, what have consumers gained? Well, many feel that products sweetened with sugar taste better. But are they healthier? In my opinion, no.

If we continue to overconsume highly sweetened foods and beverages, we will likely continue to see massive rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.  Switching to foods and beverages sweetened with cane sugar rather than high fructose corn syrup is unlikely to have any measurable impact on public health--except perhaps indirectly.

Switching back to sugar will drive the price of these foods and beverages up. Maybe cost pressures will help shrink the ridiculously over-sized package and serving sizes. The only way anyone benefits from eating cane sugar instead of HFCS is by eating less of it.

See also "Scientists see little benefit in scramble to swap processed sweeteners for natural ones" in today's Chicago Tribune.

Regular versus instant oatmeal

Q. I have been eating instant oatmeal almost daily for a couple of years now. A friend recently told me I have been wasting my time if I thought I was eating it for nutritional reasons. Is instant oatmeal less effective than the regular stuff?

A. Actually, the nutritional differences between regular and instant or quick-cooking oatmeal are so insignificant that the Nutrient Data Laboratory for the USDA has just one analysis which applies to all three kinds of oatmeal.  All three contain the same amount of fiber and the same amount of cholesterol-lowering compounds.

The biggest difference is in taste and texture.  Regular oatmeal contains larger pieces of rolled oat grains and is a little chewier than the instant and quick-cooking varieties. (Ironically, it really doesn't take much longer to cook regular oatmeal than it does to make instant.)

Of course, I'm only talking about plain oatmeal. If the instant oatmeal that you're eating is flavored, then you're also getting a big helping of sugar with your oats. While that doesn't take anything away from the oatmeal, it may add undesirable (empty) calories. Also the little packets of instant oatmeal usually contain a slightly smaller serving than the standard serving of regular oatmeal--so you're getting a slightly smaller helping of fiber.

But rest assured that a serving of plain instant oatmeal is just as nutritious as the same amount of plain regular oatmeal.

Calorie disclosure laws: Good for public health?

More and more cities and even some states are getting on the calorie-disclosure band-wagon, requiring chain restaurants to publish calorie counts on their menus. This blog isn't the place to debate their legal, ethical, or constitutional merits but I'll admit I think these types of rules probably over-step certain boundaries.

Nonetheless, I feel quite certain that these increasingly common laws can have a significant positive effect on public health.  Many people may dislike seeing the information and some will undoubtedly go out of their way to ignore it--or even indulge in a sort of bravado by choosing the most outrageously high calorie options.  But most people are motivated to make more responsible choices.

Menu calorie disclosure is not required where I live but I travel frequently to New York, where it is. As a nutritionist, I'm supposed to be more in touch with these realities than the average consumer. But I'm still shocked to see just how many calories even healthy-sounding restaurant and take-out meals contain. The calorie counts have a major impact on what I end up ordering.

As more consumers do the same,  the signal goes back loud and clear to the restaurant operators: lower (or even reasonble) calorie count dishes sell.  This encourages them to put more healthy options on the menu and the cycle repeats.  With two-thirds of us overweight and most Americans eating out more often than in, I can't help but see this as a positive development.

Your thoughts?

Growing demand for organic foods being fed by imports

Even though tough economic times have cooled the explosive growth of organic sales somewhat, demand for organic foods is still on the rise. That seems like it would be a good thing for all concerned--eaters, farmers, and the environment. 

The problem is that American organic producers are finding it difficult to keep up. (Details here.) As a result, we're relying more and more on imported foods to meet the demand for organics--and this may not be such a good thing.  Locally-grown food is fresher, and therefore, often more nutritious. Importing food from abroad also increases the amount of fossil fuels used to transport and store food and sends jobs and dollars overseas.

Is local is the new organic?

When forced to choose between local and organic, an increasing number of consumers are choosing local--or paying a premium for foods that are both.  In an ideal world, we wouldn't be forced to choose. Consumers have made it clear that both are a priority. Now, it's a matter of American growers and producers catching (and keeping) up with the growing demand.

Although there may be some speed-bumps on the road, it still seems like overall, we're headed in the right direction.  Your thoughts?

Does cooking with oil create trans fats?

Q. How exactly is trans fat created? If I bake with some (say, 1/4 cup) oil in a batter, does that make trans fats?

A. We’ve all read a lot about the dangers of trans fats.  Most of the trans fat in our diet comes from artificially hydrogenated oils that are still widely used in food manufacturing.  But did you know trans fatty acids also occur naturally? The natural trans fatty acids found in milk and other foods are not considered to be a health threat. In fact, one naturally-occurring trans fatty acid called conjugated linolenic acid, or CLA, is thought to have many beneficial effects in the body.

The trans fats you need to watch out for are the ones created by artificial hydrogenation. These “Franken-fats” are polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) that have been twisted into an unnatural configuration called a trans-isomer. This means that the molecule contains the exact same number and type of atoms as it did before, but they are arranged in a different shape.

But what a difference that small change makes!  Polyunsaturated fats and their trans-isomers produce completely opposite effects in the body. While PUFAs help to improve cholesterol profiles and reduce your risk of heart disease, trans fats contribute to heart disease by fueling inflammation, raising bad cholesterol and lowering good cholesterol.

What does it take to create a “Franken-fat”?

Artificial hydrogenation involves mixing polyunsaturated oils with hydrogen atoms under very high pressure--not something you could accidentally do at home!  High heat can also cause PUFAs to trans-isomerize into trans fats, if it is applied for long enough. For example, you have to heat a polyunsaturated oil to 240 dgrees F for 16 hours before it begins to trans-isomerize into trans fats--and even then, only a very small percentage (less than 1%) are converted.

As you can see, normal cooking temperatures and times are not nearly enough to create any significant amount of trans fats in the foods we cook at home.

Reference: Wolff, R. L. 1993. Heat-induced geometric isomerization of alpha-linolenic acid: effect of temperature and heating time on the appearance of individual isomers. Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society 70(4): 425-430.

Tips and recipes for a healthier Memorial Day cookout

This weekend is the traditional opening of the summer grilling season (although we pretty much grill year-round at my house, snow or no!).  Grilling is a quick, convenient, and delicious way to prepare many foods. However, grilling also presents a health risk. Two separate types of carcinogenic compounds are produced by high-temperature grilling:

• heterocyclic amines (HCAs)
  HCAs form when a meat is directly exposed to a flame or very high-temperature surface. The creatine-rich meat juices react with the heat to form various HCAs, which have been shown to cause DNA mutation, and may be a factor in the development of certain cancers.
• polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
  PAHs form in smoke that's produced when fat from the meat ignites or drips on the hot coals of the grill. Various PAHs present in the resulting smoke adhere to the outside surface of the grilled meat. PAH exposure is also believed to be linked to certain cancers.

Here are some tips for dramatically reducing HCA and PAH content in grilled meats:

1. Select leaner meats.
   Leaner cuts of meat are less likely to drip fat on the grill and produce PAH-laden smoke.
2. Marinate meats before grilling.
   Researchers have determined that marinating meat prior to grilling, even for just a few minutes, can reduce HCA formation by 90% or more.
3. Grill at lower temperatures.
   Lower temperature "roasting" also greatly reduces HCA formation.
4. Prevent flare-ups.
   Flames from grill flare-ups cause the formation of both HCAs and PAHs. Keep an eye on your grill and turn meats frequently to minimize the chance of flare-ups.
5. Don't overcook meats.
   While it's important to cook poultry and ground meats thoroughly, be careful not to overcook any meat. Well-done or burnt meats contain higher levels of HCAs than less cooked meats.

Or, opt for a vegetarian cookout.  HCAs and PAHs are not formed when grilling  and the options are virtually unlimited: Try veggie kabobs, portobella mushrooms, or black bean burgers.

Here are a variety of recipes (both veggie and non) for a healthy, gourmet Memorial Day cookout. (Click on "see nutritional analysis" for a complete ND analysis of each recipe!

Grilled Asian Flank Steak with Sweet Slaw

Yogurt-Marinated Chicken Kebabs

Grilled Shiitakes with Ginger and Scallions

Bulgur Veggie Burgers with Lime Mayonnaise

Spicy Grilled Chicken with Green Onions

Grilled Lemons, Baby Artichokes, and Eggplant

Grilled Pork Loin with Fire-Roasted Pineapple Salsa

Fructose: friend or foe?

Q. I've been reading conflicting information about fructose.  Is it low-glycemic index or not, a good idea for diabetics or not?  I'm concerned because there's diabetes in my family.  There's fructose added to breakfast cereals and my favorite low-fat frozen yogurt.  If I'm eliminating foods with high-fructose corn syrup from my diet, is some fructose from these sources OK?  What about the powdered fructose sold from the grocery store?

A. Fructose does have a lower glycemic index than regular table sugar, meaning that it causes less of a rise in blood sugar. That's because fructose is not absorbed into the blood stream like glucose but is processed in the liver instead. Note that fructose is not calorie-free, however. It contains the same number of calories as regular sugar.

Fructose is found naturally in many foods, such as fruit. It's also widely used in food manufacturing--both in products for diabetics as well as mainstream foods. Regular table sugar is 50% fructose, similar to the amount found in high-fructose corn syrup.

I think there are a lot of benefits to cutting back on highly-processed, sweetened foods and beverages--regardless of whether they are sweetened with fructose, table sugar, high fructose corn syrup, or even artificial sweeteners. Regardless of the relative merits of the various sweeteners, these foods usually don't have a whole lot to offer nutritionally, and tend to crowd more nutritious foods out of the diet.

Whether you have diabetes or not (or perhaps a predisposition to it), I think a diet based on whole, unprocessed foods--such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains like oatmeal and brown rice, nuts, seeds, legumes, healthy oils like olive oil, and lean meat, eggs, and dairy if you desire--is ideal. If these foods are the bulk of your diet, a small amount of added sugar (or fructose) is not likely to cause problems.

Dairy vs. calcium supplements for bone health

You've heard plenty about this already: Most Americans don't get anywhere close the recommended amount of calcium, especially after early childhood.  And as sweetened beverages like sodas, bottled tea, juice and sports drinks edge out milk as our beverages of choice, the gap widens.

For parents, middle-aged women, and others  with "calcium guilt," there are a host of calcium-fortified products that seem as if they might be part of the solution. You can get a dose of added calcium with your orange juice, another by choosing one of the new calcium-fortified cereals, breads, or pastas. Or, pop a couple of pills and you're good to go.

Not so fast, say researchers from Purdue University.  They fed two groups of rats diets containing the same amount of calcium. But one group got their calcium from dairy products and the other in the form of calcium carbonate supplements. The study was funded (but not conducted by) the National Dairy Council, who must have been thrilled to learn that the milk-fed rats ended up with stronger bones than the rats who took calcium supplements.

An aside on industry-funded research: Just because the results are agreeable to the funding agency doesn't necessarily mean that the study was flawed. Although its not a perfect system, there are independent review boards that approve study designs for objectivity. And, to be fair, industry spends lots of money on studies that DON'T deliver the results they hoped for. Nonetheless, it's important know who funds research, which is why I note it here.

In any case, this study seems to reinforce something that we've talked about many times in the past: nutrients seem to be safer and more beneficial when they are consumed as they naturally occur--in foods rather than as supplements.  And this is not the first study to note that the calcium in dairy products is quite well-absorbed.

For my vegan friends and others who eschew dairy products: This does not mean that those who don't consume dairy products are doomed to diseases of calcium deficiency.  Vegetables can provide plenty of calcium, although it is not as well-absorbed as the sources in dairy. However, those who do not eat meat may also NEED less calcium to maintain healthy bones because they tend to consume less protein. (Higher protein diets increase calcium needs.)

Watch out! The reduced-fat version may be higher in sodium

If you are trying to cut back on fat, you are probably on the look out for lower-fat versions of your favorite processed foods. However, if you're also watching your sodium, then you've no doubt noticed that it's hard to find reduced-fat versions of processed foods that are also reduced-sodium. In fact, the low-fat versions are often even higher in sodium than their regular counterparts.

Food scientists have found that reducing the salt affects the flavor of low-fat foods more than it affects regular fat foods.  It seems that the absence of fat makes us more sensitive to the absence of salt.  That's why it's practically impossible to produce decent-tasting products like cheese or deli meats that are both low-fat and low-sodium.

Why bother with these highly-processed foods, anyway? Whole foods are naturally low in sodium--even when you salt them to taste. Most (about 70 to 80%) of the sodium in our diet comes from prepared and processed foods. The salt we add during cooking or at the table is minor by comparison.   

So, if you're trying to reduce fat and sodium, skip the deli counter and cured meats altogether and head for the salad bar, instead.

Agave nectar: A healthier option?

Q. I have seen lots of hype about "agave nectar" being low in calories and having a low-glycemic-index. But in comparing the data, I found that it contains almost exactly as many calories as something like honey which is definitely not low-calorie. Are there any other factors that would affect the body's glycemic response besides caloric density?

A. I'm really glad you asked this question!  Many people, who have seen agave touted as a healthier sweetener, mistakenly believe that it's lower in calories. But you're absolutely right: Agave syrup or nectar contains virtually the same amount of calories as other liquid sweeteners like honey and maple syrup.

However, caloric density is not the only thing that determines glycemic impact, or how a food is likely to affect your blood sugar levels.  Although it has roughly the same number of calories as honey--and, therefore, is just as likely to contribute to weight gain--agave has a lower glycemic impact. It won't cause as great a rise in blood sugar. That's because a high percentage of the sugars in agave nectar are in the form of fructose, which is not absorbed into the bloodstream but processed in the liver. 

Fructose: friend or foe?

As you might have noticed, there's been a lot of hoopla over fructose lately.  Researchers have found that large amounts of fructose may raise triglycerides and cause damage to the liver.  A lot of these studies are in rats, not humans, and involve feeding them giant amounts of 100% fructose--which is not how it is generally consumed.

Still, many people are now trying to avoid concentrated sources of fructose and agave syrup is quite high in it. In fact, it often contains more fructose than the much-reviled high fructose corn syrup! 

As an aside, I think the hysteria about fructose (and HFCS) is slightly misplaced. The real problem, in my opinion, is that we tend to over-consume sugar, IN ALL ITS FORMS.  It's not really our fault. Our sweet tooth is hard-wired into our DNA and we have a catastrophic abundance of refined sugar available.

Intellectually, we know that too much sugar isn't good for us. But our bodies and brains cry, "More! More! More!"  I think that's we're so quick to latch onto (and over-consume) any new product that's promoted as a "healthier" sweetener. 

Bottom line: Small amounts of agave syrup are unlikely to cause problems and may offer some advantage (vs. honey, etc.) in terms of blood sugar control. But, in my opinion, it should be consumed in limited quantities, just like ALL concentrated sweeteners!

For another take on this, see this recent story from the LA Times.