July 07, 2008
Today's Poll: Do you have food allergies or sensitivities?
Feel free to add your comments by clicking on Post a comment" below.
June 03, 2008
How are rising food costs affecting you?
When energy costs started to go up exponentially last year, economists warned that we'd soon be feeling the pain at the grocery store in addition to the gas pump. Sure enough, food costs are now rising faster than they have in twenty years--and that trend is expected to continue through the rest of the year.
I know I've definitely started to notice the difference in my grocery bill, and have started making some adustments in my buying and eating habits as a result. Are rising food costs having any effect on your choices?
For those who are buying or eating differently in response to rising food costs, what changes have you made?
Please share your ideas on saving on food costs by clicking on "post a comment" below. Tomorrow, I'll give you some tips on how to stretch your food dollar without sacrificing nutrition.
March 24, 2008
Poll: What drives your food choices? Nutrition? Cost? Environmental Concerns?
We all try to make good choices with what we eat, but there are so many things to take into consideration: Is it good for me? Is it environmentally responsible? Can I afford it? Will I enjoy eating it?
It's great when you can find foods that measure up on all counts. But, of course, we often have to settle for some sort of compromise. When forced to choose between various priorities, what ends up being the deciding factor for you when choosing what foods to buy or order in restaurants?
See also this related post, and feel free to post additional comments by clicking on "post a comment" below.
February 08, 2008
How much salt do you need to be healthy?
Q. From what I read, it seems that we all eat too much sodium and need to try to cut back. But can you go too low? Is there a minimum of sodium that you need to be healthy?
A. Interesting question! Most of the government's recommended daily values (DVs) are for the minimum recommended amounts. For example, the DV for vitamin D is 400IU, meaning that most people should try to get at least 400IU of vitamin D every day to stay healthy.
But because of the health risks associated with over-consumption of certain nutrients, such as sodium, cholesterol, and saturated fat, the DVs for these nutrients represent the maximum recommended intake. The DV for sodium is 2400mg, meaning that most people should limit their sodium intake to 2400mg per day or less to stay healthy. People with high blood pressure are often advised to restrict their sodium intake even further, to 1500mg per day or less.
But a certain amount of sodium is essential for your health. The USDA estimates that you need about 1500 mg of sodium (which is not that much less than the recommended maximum!) but this is based both on the amount of sodium you lose every day through perspiration as well as the amount of sodium you need to eat in order to get enough of other minerals that generally "ride along" with sodium in foods.
For example, iodized salt is the primary source for iodine in the American diet. So restricting salt too much (or using un-iodized salt) may lead to iodine deficiency, which is being investigated as a possible culprit in ADHD.
Assuming that intake of other minerals is sufficient, the amount of sodium it would take to prevent sodium deficiency is probably closer to 500 to 1000mg (depending on how active you are and how much you sweat). Amounts in excess of this are eliminated through the urine.
The average sodium consumption in the U.S. is 3375mg per day, so, obviously, few us us are in danger of sodium deficiency.
By the way, the Daily Values (which you see on the nutrition facts label for all packaged foods and on every food analysis page on Nutrition Data) are very general. They represent an average figure that will work for most people in the population. Our Daily Needs Calculator can supply recommendations that have been tailored to your age, gender, and weight. You can then automatically save these personalized recommendations to your Preference Settings as your Individual Daily Values (IDVs).
See also these related posts:
The Debate over Salt Continues
Are American Diets Too High in Salt?
Does a Low-Sodium Diet Provide Enough Iodine?
February 06, 2008
Poll: Who do you trust for nutrition information?
Add any additional thoughts or comments by clicking on "Post a Comment" below.
January 02, 2008
What's the best way to lose weight?
In response to a poll on the best dieting strategy, users on our sister sit Epicurious.com voted for a diet that focuses on reducing calories rather than low-carb, low-fat, or low-sugar diets. Of course, reducing calories is the ONLY way to lose weight and reducing carbs, fat, and/or sugar are simply different strategies for reducing calories. But I think the results of this poll reflect the trend away from radical dieting regimens and toward a saner, all-things-in-moderation approach to food. (You can read the entire story, which includes lots of recipes, product reviews, calorie-cutting tips, and more of my thoughts on the subject here.)
Epicurious.com is primarily focused on food and cooking, while Nutrition Data's primary focus is on nutrition and health. (As our joint feature Healthy Dinner Tonight goes to show, however, eating healthy and eating well are NOT mutually exclusive.)
But I'm curious to know how Nutrition Data readers would respond to the same poll that Epicurious posted for their readers. How do you vote?
December 21, 2007
Just for fun: test your holiday nutrition IQ
It's party season and many people have put their healthy eating habits on a back burner until January 1st. Why not take the Better Choices approach instead? In every situation, there are going to be some foods that are healthier choices than others. Trim 30 calories here, 10 grams of fat there, get a few some vitamins along the way--over the course of the season, these small choices can really add up. It's a way to enjoy all of the festivities and still keep your diet on track.
Just for fun, here's a quick quiz to test your holiday nutrition IQ. All of the answers can be found right here on Nutrition Data, of course, but see how well you do without peeking!
You can use the same Better Choices strategy to improve your diet year round. Read more about the Better Choices Diet.
December 19, 2007
New pre-stocked pantries make diet tracking easier
Whether you're trying to improve your nutrition or watch your calories (or BOTH), tracking and analyzing your diet is the best way to get handle on what you are actually getting from your food. I won't kid you: it takes a bit of effort to log in what you eat. But even if you only do it for a few days or a week, I guarantee you will learn a lot and probably make some lasting changes based on what you learn.
We've also just added a new feature that makes it a bit easier to get started. I've put together some pre-stocked pantries that you can import to your own pantry with a single click. You can choose from low-fat, low-carb, heart-healthy, and more. (See our Prestocked Pantry page for the complete list.) Once your pantry is stocked with the foods you eat, simply indicate the quantity and add it to your total consumption for the day. (See our Pantry Help page for more information.)
Happy Tracking!
October 10, 2007
Calorie Restriction: Life Extension or Self-Starvation?
Cutting calories isn't just for dieters anymore. A growing number of people are embracing extreme, calorie-restricted diets in the hopes that it will drastically extend their lifespan...to 120 or beyond. (See also "Extreme Calorie Restriction for Long Life" on MSNBC.com).
Proponents of Calorie Restriction (or CR) typically eat 30-40% fewer calories than it would take to maintain what is generally considered to be a "healthy" weight. They generally lose quite a bit of weight before stabilizing at a much lower body weight. The motivation for such extreme deprivation? Animal studies in everything from fruit flies to primates indicate that CR can extend the maximum lifespan of the animal in question as much as 20 or 25%. There are no human studies verifying that CR will have the same effect on humans, but short-term studies show that CR does reduce biomarkers for aging along with lowering the risk of chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes. For many, that's evidence enough.
CR is a difficult lifestyle. Many who practice it admit to dealing with constant hunger and obsession with food. In a society where every social situation and celebration seems to focus on food, the CR lifestyle can be isolating. It's also time-consuming. When you are eating very few calories, it becomes difficult to ensure adequate intake of protein, essential fatty acids, and vitamins and minerals. There is literally no room for empty calories and meticulous meal planning and tracking becomes a necessity. (Nutrition Data has a big following in the CR community because our dietary analysis tools make it easier to practice Calorie Restriction with Optimal Nutrition, or CRON.)
Whatever its potential benefits, CR is obviously too austere for the vast majority of the (mostly overweight) population. And, predictably, the biotech companies are racing to develop drugs that will mimic the beneficial effects of CR without the deprivation. But in the meantime, CR is attracting more and more baby-boomers determined to forestall the march of time.
What's your personal view on calorie restriction? Would you be willing to put up with daily hunger in exchange for 10, 20, or even 30 extra healthy years?
Please add any additional comments below.
September 07, 2007
"Guiding Stars" steer shoppers to healthier foods
What a cool idea! A grocery store in Maine hired a nutrition advisory board to assign a rating to every food in the store...foods earned from 0 to 3 stars based on a formula that took into account vitamins, minerals, fiber, and whole grains (all plusses), trans fats, saturated fats, cholesterol, and added sugars and salt (all minuses).
After a year of testing the Guiding Star system in their stores, they report that this simple system had a dramatic impact on which foods their customers bought. Sales of foods with zero stars (such as whole milk) declined, while sales of similar foods with higher ratings (such as lowfat milk) increased. (More details in this New York Times article.)
I found it particularly interesting that many foods touted by manufacturers as "healthy" scored low on the 3 star scale, usually because of added sugars and sodium. Another good reminder that just because the box trumpets "low-fat" or "whole-grain" doesn't mean that that it's good for you!
Now, one could probably quibble over the (undisclosed) formula they used to assign stars. And we don't have any information about whether buying healthier foods made these shoppers any healthier. Megan Steintrager of Epicurious.com emailed me about this story and wondered whether people might be tempted to eat more (i.e., too much) if they are eating foods with high ratings. Just a couple of days ago, I wrote about research showing that people eat tend to eat far more calories when eating at restaurants that promote their menu items as "healthy." (See "Healthy menu choices can really backfire.")
I think the real point of all of this is that people will choose healthier foods if you make it simpler to compare them. That's the idea behind the standardized Nutrition Facts label mandated by the government. But maybe the Nutrition Facts label doesn't make it simple enough.
And that's precisely the point of the ND Rating system (which is also available to the 99.99% of us who don't shop at Hannaford's in Maine). The ND Rating evaluates 27 different nutrients and assigns a rating of 0-5, according to the density of desirable and undesirable nutrients. You'll see the ND rating on the Nutritional Target Map, which appears at the top of the analysis page for every food. You'll also get an ND Rating as part of every recipe analysis and total consumption report.
So, what do you think? Would a simpler index like the Guiding Stars or the ND Rating system be more helpful than the Nutrition Facts label in helping you choose foods? How would you change the Nutrition Facts label to make it more useful?
Please add your comments below!
July 20, 2007
Will 75% of Americans be overweight in 8 years?
That's what the folks at Johns Hopkins are saying this week! If Americans continue to get fatter at the current rate, three-quarters of us will be overweight by the year 2015. (And the other 25% will be NutritionData users!)
Right now, two-thirds of Americans are considered to be overweight (having a body mass index of greater than 25). Half of these are obese (having a BMI of 30 or more). So, how do NutritionData users stack up against the national statistics? If you don't know it, you can calculate your BMI here. Then, come back and be counted. (It's completely anonymous, of course.)
Note: Because the BMI is not a reliable estimate of body fat for body builders and others with a very high ratio of lean muscle to fat, and because we have a lot body-builders on NutritionData, I'm going to include a special category for them!
Many of our users say they user NutritionData tools to help them lose or watch their weight--and we've heard some remarkable success stories. One user kept us posted on his progress as he lost over 100 pounds using NutritionData to track and analyze his diet.
Post a comment below to share your experience. How do you use NutritionData tools to manage your weight? Do you look up restaurant foods to see which are highest or lowest in fat or calories? Do you use the total consumption report to self-monitor your intake? Do you analyze recipes? Use tools like Better Choices or Calorie Ratio Pyramid to select foods?
What do you find to be the most helpful?
July 18, 2007
Local vs. organic: the environmental debate
Yesterday, I wrote about new research showing that organically-grown produce contains more disease-fighting nutrients than conventionally-grown vegetables. Yet another reason to choose organic whenever circumstances and budget allow. After all, as any eco-conscious eater knows, organic farming is also better for the environment--or is it?
What if your organic produce is flown in from Chile? Do the fossil fuels burned transporting your organic food cancel out the environmental benefit of using fewer petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides? Obviously, local and organic would be ideal. But if you can't have both, which is the better choice?
Eating "right" has gotten a lot more complicated
With the local food movement gathering steam, I've heard many people argue that local, conventionally grown food is more environmentally friendly than organic food from far away. But a recent post on the Terrablog, "Conservation tip: prioritize organic over local, " cites new research from the University of Wales, finding that:
"In general, the food miles are actually a minor portion of the total ecological footprint of food. In the study of a basket of foods in Cardiff, transport amounted to only 2% of the total environmental cost. Growing conditions, packaging and processing made up the bulk of the impact. In fact, a separate article in the same journal shows that local food systems actually have slightly higher carbon emissions!"
What's the "Ethicurian" to do? (I can't take credit for that clever term, by the way. It's the title of a great new blog devoted to helping people "chew the right thing.") For what it's worth, the readers of the Terrablog pretty much dismissed this new research as bogus. What do you think? What are your priorities in choosing the foods you buy?
You know the drill: Vote below and then chime in with your comments by clicking on the "post a comment" link.
July 13, 2007
Can a sports drink with protein improve your workout?
I saw a poster at the gym today for a new fitness drink called Accelerade. It's the latest in a growing brigade (remember when there was only Gatorade?!) of drinks that are supposed enhance athletic performance with electrolytes, vitamins, minerals, various performance-enhancing herbs, and fuel for your muscles (read: sugar). Accelerade's new twist is to add whey powder in a ratio of 4 parts carbohydrate to 1 part protein, which is supposed to "start the rebuilding process of muscles damaged during exercise." The result is less muscle soreness and quicker recovery. Sounds good, but is the product going to improve your work-outs (or your body)?
If you run or do other endurance exercise for an hour or more at a stretch, or if you are beating up your muscles with a heavy-duty weight-lifting routine, these sorts of drinks might actually give you a performance edge. Personally, I don't work out long or hard enough to require additional sugar, salt, or protein to keep functioning. I usually run a couple of miles and do about 20 minutes of strength-training and water works just fine. Nonetheless, I regularly see women chugging 20-ounce bottles of gatorade during their 30-minute stint on the Stairmaster. Calories burned? 177. Calories consumed? 160.
April 18, 2007
Good intentions don't equal healthy choices
A number of different reports on Americans' dietary habits and preferences were in the news this week, all pointing to the same trend: Although we consumers say we want to eat healthy, there seems to be a significant disconnect between our attitudes and our actions. A report titled "Attitudes to Food: Weight and Diet" indicates that while consumers believe it's important to eat a healthy diet, they continue with unhealthy habits. The majority of consumers surveyed considered saturated fats, trans fat, cholesterol, salt, and added sugar to be harmful, for example. Yet we eat more fat and calories than ever before--and have the expanding waistlines to prove it.
Why? Because, consumers say, unhealthy and fattening foods continue to be cheaper, quicker, and more available--not to mention tastier. It's tempting to shift the blame and responsibility for our unhealthy eating habits to the food and restaurant industry. But is this really fair? A study commissioned by the restaurant industry reported that consumers were frustrated by the lack of healthy choices on restaurant menus. Yet restaurant managers insist that when they add low-fat, low-calorie, or other healthy alternatives to the menu, customers continue to order the same fat- and calorie-laden dishes that were on the menu to begin with. The broccoli spoils in the walk-in cooler while the French fries continue to flow out the kitchen doors.
Continue reading "Good intentions don't equal healthy choices" »
February 16, 2007
Poll: Are you a vegetarian?
Feel free to add your comments by clicking on the "post a comment" link below. (The "comment" link above takes you to the site that tabulates the votes.)
February 01, 2007
Can we trust industry to sponsor nutrition research?
Last week, the Associated Press reported that industry funding was leading to biased findings in nutrition-related research. Reviewers from the Boston Children's Hospital and the Center for Science in the Public Interest found that studies funded by industry sponsors were four to eight times more likely to reach conclusions that benefited the sponsors than studies that received no industry funding. Today, food science reporter Stephen Daniels, PhD, posted a compelling rebuttal to the charge that industry money is corrupting research.
Continue reading "Can we trust industry to sponsor nutrition research?" »
January 22, 2007
How are you doing on your New Year's Resolution?
Experts say that it takes three weeks to form a new habit. If you've stuck to your New Year's Resolution since January 1st, then by now, you should have successfully converted that resolution into a new habit.
If you've fallen off the wagon, don't give up hope! You can renew your commitment today and have your healthy new habit established by Valentine's Day.
December 29, 2006
Poll: What do you think about the FDA's position on cloned food?
To post your thoughts on cloned foods, click on the 'Post a Comment' link just below. (The 'comment' link above takes you to Vizu, the site that tabulates the votes).
