Can You Be Fit But Fat? New Study Has Some Answers

And can you reduce your risk of a heart attack? That’s what a new study asked, and the results were recently presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Sports Medicine (abstract 366, specifically).

It’s the question everyone wants answered, given that nearly 2 out of 3 people in the US are overweight or obese. (The photos on this post are of military personnel. Even they struggle with weight and fitness!) The idea being, do we have to be focused on weight if we’re willing to do our aerobic thing, or strength training, or just leading an active lifestyle, with things like regular biking, tennis, and recreational sports and activities?

New Findings

This research, known as Tromsø Study, was carried out over 34 years, from 1979 through 2013. When you look at heart attack risk, long-term data studies are preferred, but by their nature, it takes a oong time to learn the results. That’s what makes this study more significant. Participants were grouped based on the activity levels they reported:

Low activity – walking, gardening, etc. less than 4 hours per week.
Moderate activity: walking or gardening at least 4 hours per week.
High activity: running, biking or similar things that get the heart rate up, at least 4 hours per week.
Vigorous activity: engaging in competitive sports regularly.

Being active at any weight helps

This is the good news. Highly active people at any weight cut their risk of heart attack by about 12% versus those in the low-activity group.

Those engaging in regular “vigorous activity” cut their risk by 37% overall. Among those who were overweight or obese, the more active they were, the lower their risk of a heart attack.

Being overweight or obese mattered more

Even after adjusting for age, gender, smoking, and activity level, the overweight and obese people had much higher risk for a heart attack than normal weight people. Even active obese people were more than twice as likely as inactive normal weight participants to have a heart attack.

HOLD ON! – This Study Wasn’t Perfect

No study is, and the researchers call out this study’s weaknesses and limitations:

• Heart attack was the only health issue studied. Being active DOES benefit other chronic conditions like hypertension and type 2 diabetes, to name only two, but these weren’t addressed by this study.

• Activity levels were self-reported. Sorry – but people are known to report higher levels of activity than they really engage in.

• Body composition wasn’t studied. The researchers used the body mass index (BMI) to classify people as normal weight, overweight, or obese. It’s possible to be overweight but not overfat, especially if you engage in lots of strength training and are thus very muscular, although this is not as common as you might think. Flipping this around – you can be normal weight and still have too much body fat.

Cut-to-the-Chase Advice

1. Do what you can do. Being active at any weight is better than being inactive. Check with your doctor to see what activities are right for you. Running and high-impact stuff just isn’t right for everyone.  I don’t like “perfect”.  I like “better.”  My colleague Liz Ward’s mantra is, “Better is the new perfect.”  Way to go, Liz!

2. Consistency is everything. Aim to be active every day in some capacity – even if you’re normal weight.

3. Forget trying to be a “perfect” weight. Pick a weight you can maintain. Work on holding it there for a few months, then re-evaluate. Maybe that’s where you’ll stay, maybe you’ll take it down a bit. If you do go for less weight, take it five pounds at a time.

4. For activity: DO WHAT YOU LOVE. Then love that you can do it. I’ve worked for many years with people who have physical disabilities. They’d give anything to have the option to take the stairs or just go for a walk. Embrace the gift of your abilities.

Latest Cheese Chatter: It’s Better For You Than You Thought!

Who doesn’t love cheese? Whether it’s a grilled cheese sandwich, a baked brie with fresh figs and whole grain crackers (drizzled with a little honey, perhaps?), something grated over pasta, or just some cubed cheddar to have with fruit for an afternoon snack, cheese is not only a big favorite, it’s almost a comfort food.
Cheese is often criticized by those who promote healthy eating, and it’s true that about half the fat in cheese is saturated fat. But do we need to forego one of our favorite foods in order to be healthier? More to the point, does all dairy fat BEHAVE the same way in the body? The emerging science would suggest not, with cheese coming out ahead of butter.

Isn’t butter the same type of fat as cheese?

Pretty much, but a recent meta-analysis (a study that combines the results of multiple research studies) showed that cheese lowered LDL-cholesterol (the bad kind), compared to baseline levels, and butter raised it.
That might seem odd, given that cheese and butter both have fat from the same source – milkfat – and thus has the same proportion of saturated and unsaturated fat.

This is where butter and cheese part ways. Cheese seemed to lower LDL-cholesterol, compared to baseline levels, butter raised it. Cheese also lowered HDL-cholesterol but the LDL figure is usually given more weight, with respect to cardiovascular risk.

A more recent study, a single randomized control trial involving 92 men and women, showed that cheese fared better than butter only on these cholesterol metrics, not on other metabolic factors such as blood pressure or fasting glucose levels, and the LDL-effects were more pronounced in subjects with higher baseline LDL levels.What gives?

The reasons for the differences produced by cheese vs. butter are not totally clear. Top theories are:

• The dairy calcium may be binding with fat in the small intestine, reducing fat absorption and thus cholesterol synthesis.

• Cheese’s fermentation may play a role in impairing cholesterol synthesis and reabsorption in the large intestine. A 2011 study postulated that bacteria in the large intestine may bind to bile acids that, in turn, prevent some cholesterol from being absorbed.

• Some of the fat in cheese (and milk, for that matter) is trapped within the casein matrix, perhaps making some of that fat less available to fuel cholesterol synthesis.

Keeping grounded, without grinding

None of these study results is a license to go out and scarf an 8-oz wheel of brie (much as I’d love to). The 2017 study above also looked at how high monounsaturated fats (MUFA) and polyunsaturated fats (PUFA) stacked up against the butter and cheese diets.

Result: The MUFA and PUFA diets produced lower levels of LDL-cholesterol then either butter or cheese. In other words, cheese fares better than butter, but diets higher in MUFA and PUFA fats seemed to lower LDL cholesterol even more.

Cut-To-The-Chase Tip: Keep eating cheese. It’s loaded with great protein, calcium, and other nutrients and it’s delicious. Keep it to an ounce or two, and pair it with good company, like fruit, vegetables, and whole-grains. For cooking, favor olive or canola oil instead of butter. Healthy eating is NEVER about deprivation, obsession, or perfection. It’s about balance.

You Can’t Get “Energy” From an “Energy Drink”

Kids and teens seem to want more “energy,” especially in this world where multi-tasking is expected and their desire for non-stop involvement with social media and all things “screen-based”.  Indeed, constant engagement is the new normal, to the point that kids (and let’s face it, adults, too) can fear disconnecting from it, even if that means cutting into sleep time. Indeed, Sleep can start to seem like a waste of time.

Enter: “Energy drinks”

Different from “sports drinks,” energy drinks are marketed for their ability to help with focus, concentration (although real evidence is sketchy at best), and overall vigor. The reality: anything called an “energy drink” is really just a liquid stimulant – something to give you a buzz. That buzz usually comes from the added caffeine, but these drinks often have potentially harmful herbs or other compounds as well, including:

• St. John’s wort,
• Yerba mate,
• Methylxanthines,
• Taurine, and more

These ingredients supposedly help improve “focus and concentration” (real evidence for this is sketchy at best) but can also interact negatively with medications kids might be taking.

Sure, coffee and tea have caffeine as well, but their caffeine content is proportional to their volume and even then, kids don’t need the caffeine in them either. If they like the taste of coffee (I do), there are certainly caffeine-free versions they can drink (count me in there as well). On the other hand, a 2-oz. “shot” of an energy drink can have the equivalent of 3 large cups of coffee – and anyone can slam that back in a gulp or two. The makers often throw in some vitamins and minerals to foster the illusion that it’s almost nutritious, but that’s window dressing and don’t be fooled for a minute.

Energy ≠ Vitality

What concerns me about these drinks is their potential for misuse by teens. One “energy shot” in the evening and they’ll be up until all hours, only to crash the next day when they should be – and need to be – rested and alert.

Some kids use the stimulants as a study aid or because they think the extra focus will help them on a test. Caffeine may or may not, but it’s certainly no substitute for studying and it inevitably has diminishing returns. Once started however, it can be a hard habit to break.

If you need more convincing that “energy drinks” are bad news, the American Academy of Family Physicians opposes even the sale of these drinks to persons under the age of 18 years.

The Bigger Issue: More “Energy” Isn’t the Problem

If kids — or adults — feel they need more energy, they don’t need a drink, they need more sleep. According to the National Sleep Foundation, 7 hours of sleep per night is the bare minimum acceptable amount for school-aged children and teens. Most need between 8 and 10 hours, and aren’t getting it.

Sleep is a big deal. It’s like oxygen – it has no substitute. When you’re well-rested, thinking is clearer, decision-making is more rational, less impulsive. Some hazards of not getting enough sleep:

• Eating impulsively – it’s the body’s futile attempt to get more energy
• Weight gain – see this recent study pointing to a lack of sleep as a risk factor for obesity in kids.
• Poor concentration, cloudy thinking
• Lethargy – you don’t want to be active when you’re already exhausted

What to do for more sleep

If you suspect your kids are using energy drinks, it’s crucial that they stop. Instead of being critical with them, just factual.  Make getting sleep a family priority. Here are some tips for creating a home environment that supports a great night’s sleep:

Shut it down. That means all technology — at least an hour before bedtime, preferably 2 hours. The world will spin, I promise. Cuts down on mindless snacking, too.
Remove screens from bedrooms.
Close the kitchen 2 hours before bedtime. GI tracts need time to wind down.
Bath time. A hot bath or shower relaxes everyone.
Warm milk. Don’t laugh. Warm drinks are relaxing, but the tryptophan in milk may even help produce some serotonin – the brain’s own sleep aid.  Plus, most kids — and adults — aren’t getting the calcium they need.  This helps close the gap — and maybe their eyes — a little more.

Eat The “Dirty Dozen” Fruits & Veggies & Be Healthier For It

It’s that time of year again – spring – when the Environmental Working Group (EWG) publishes it’s “Dirty Dozen” list of fruits and vegetables with the most pesticide residue. It’s also when I’m reminded that fear sells and facts are more boring (but more essential!).

Many fruits and veggies on this list are popular favorites:

1. Strawberries                                 7. Cherries
2. Spinach                                          8. Pears
3. Nectarines                                     9. Tomatoes
4. Apples                                           10. Celery
5. Grapes                                           11. Potatoes
6. Peaches                                         12. Sweet Bell Peppers

This list always gets a ton of media attention (probably why the EWG keeps issuing it) but it fails miserably at giving context, and that’s unconscionable for an issue that’s so important.

As a practicing clinician of some 33 years, what concerns me most about this list is that it can put already confused consumers off of eating produce. It’s exactly what shouldn’t happen, but research suggests it’s exactly what DOES happen. This study – not industry-funded, please note – found that:

“Messages naming specific FV with pesticides shifted participants toward

‘less likely’ to purchase any type of FV regardless whether organically or conventionally grown.”

Exactly what no responsible health professional wants.  The amount of solid, scientific evidence indicating the health benefits of eating more fruits and vegetables is overwhelming and indisputable.  That research – all of it – was carried out with conventionally grown produce.

Pesticide Residues: Perspective & Context

The issue of pesticide residues has been scrutinized by the feds for ages. The EPA is extremely conservative in setting allowed levels of pesticides. Indeed, many countries follow our lead on this.
Strawberries were ranked #1 on the Dirty Dozen list. Yet, EPA has found that a typical 3½-oz portion of strawberries had maximum residues that were about 1/100th of allowed levels.

Cutting to the chase: You’d have to eat about 22 pounds of strawberries daily – for life – to reach the EPA threshold levels.

Another perspective: Take two Olympic-sized swimming pools, both bone-dry. You throw a drop of water into pool A and 100 drops of water into pool B. You can accurately say:

• Pool B actually has 100 times more water than pool A.

Now, in context:

• You won’t drown in either pool.
• You won’t even get wet in either pool.

Organic ≠ Pesticide-Free

Reality bites: pesticides are allowed on organic crops.  If you like eating organic and can afford it, go for it, but know it’s still not pesticide-free — and that’s OK.  Some other facts about organic that most people don’t know:

• There are several HUNDRED “natural” pesticides that USDA approves for organic farming.

• Even some synthetic pesticides are allowed on organic crops. Check the feds’ complete list here.

• Pesticide residues on organic crops aren’t monitored as thoroughly as they are on conventionally grown crops. The National Organic Standards Board has 15 people. Only one is a scientist.

ALL produce deserves cheers, not fears. So read the Dirty Dozen list if you like. When you know the facts, you won’t worry. You’ll do what I do: yawn — and grab an apple.

MORE: Want to know if corn is a vegetable? Do Beans count as veggies, too?  Want about canned/dried/frozen fruit?  I have you covered.  Get the answers here.

DRINK BEER, LIVE LONGER, MORE OR LESS

But maybe a little less than you thought.  Lots of people see holidays like St. Patrick’s Day as the a day when getting drunk doesn’t seem so awful, because:

a) it’s tradition to do it,
b) people almost EXPECT to do it, and
c) you feel almost left out if you DON’T do it.

I had a patient once who recalled his family’s St. Patrick’s Day tradition, “it’s a rule: you go to the parade, then you come home and abuse yourself.” A case of beer PER PERSON (that’s four 6-packs or 24 cans) during the course of the day was not unusual, “and that wasn’t the only stuff we drank, either.”

Moderate drinking seems to be fine (see below) but there’s no way this kind of drinking is moderate and certainly not healthy, even if it’s “typical” for some St. Patrick’s Day.

What’s “moderate drinking”? There really are definite numbers here. The feds describe “moderate drinking” as: 2 drinks for a man, one for a woman. What’s “one drink”?

• 12-ounce can or bottle of beer
• 5-ounce glass of wine
• 1.5 ounces of distilled spirits

So that case of beer should have last about 12 days for a man, and 3-1/2 weeks for a woman. That’s the bad news for beer drinkers. For wine drinkers, you may want to check your pour. Five ounces is likely less than you think – it means 5 drinks per average bottle or white or red.

Booze: The good news

Moderate drinking, as defined above, seems to be associated with a longer life. The 90+ study was initiated in 2003 to study the common factors about people who live to be 90 years and older. There’s reason for this study – the nonagenarians are a fast-growing group. Baby boomers will likely contribute to their expansion in the years to come.

The 90+ year-old folks who have one or two drinks per day tended to live longer than those who abstained. Ditto for moderate coffee drinking, which has been defined as two to three cups daily. As for why moderate drinkers live longer, that’s till up for grabs.

This is an “association” study – it cannot show that moderated drinking of booze or coffee CAUSE you to live longer. Studies like these can only generate a hypothesis. Still, at least drinking moderately isn’t associated with negatives like earlier death.

It could be that people who drink moderately also aren’t taking take medication that is incompatible with alcohol. Therefore, the alcohol consumption acts as a screener or “marker” of people who are healthier to start. Same with coffee drinking. If you have high blood pressure, you may be told to stay away from caffeine, associating abstainers with poorer health.

“Beer-Bank”? It’s No-Deposit, No Return 

With booze, unfortunately there is no “banking” your beers ahead of time so you can enjoy a big blast on St. Patrick’s Day – or on any random Friday night. It’s two drinks per day, use them or lose them. If you know you’re going to drink more than that, keep it to no more than one drink per hour. The liver just can’t metabolize alcohol more quickly than that. Even at that rate, you may still not pass a breathalyzer, so don’t drink and drive. Period.  And please, holiday or not, legal drinking only, not for kids.

By the way, plenty of other factors were also associated with longer life, including daily exercise and working on hobbies of interest. Sounds like those who are enjoying themselves more also tend to live longer.

Silver lining for moderate drinkers/teetotalers

Keep your drinking sensible and instead of kissing the Blarney Stone, you’ll kiss hangovers good-bye and feel great the next day.  Cheers!

BEST DIETS: THESE 2 TIED FOR GOLD

It’s January, and that means US News has issued its “Best Diets” rankings. Out of the 40 diets ranked, both the DASH diet and the Mediterranean Diet tied for first place – again.

Why? They have the most research behind them and they’re both great for your health. The DASH diet (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) was created to reduce high blood pressure and the Med diet is intended for heart health – two very common health conditions.

Both diets emphasize plenty of fruits and vegetables. The main difference is that DASH also emphasizes at least 2 to 3 servings of low-fat dairy foods daily. The Med diet is strong on heart-healthy fats like olive oil, nuts, and fish, like salmon, because of its high omega-3 fat content. The Med diet can be a bit low on calcium, due to the modest intake of dairy foods.

“Flexibility” Gets a Bronze!

The Flexitarian Diet approaches vegetarianism but not obsessively so. I like this approach. It takes the best from the vegetarian diets but the only thing it banishes is the absoluteness. You don’t have to choose a camp here. For many people, veg is fine – but not all the time. This diet , and so supports this thinking, and so do I. Plus, it’s actually very healthful.
What I love about the DASH, Mediterranean, and Flexitarian diets is that they’re basically eating styles. You can lose weight on them, but they can be a way of eating for the whole family, even the kids. This is ideal for families where one person is trying to lose weight, but doesn’t want to make, or eat, different food from the rest of the family. These diets are all about healthy (and tasty) eating. They also take no special work, don’t require exotic food, and have enough options for everyone.

>>>Cut-to-the-Chase Eating Style: A “MediterDASHean Diet”<<<
Here’s my short-order combo of the DASH and Med diets:
• All fruits and veggies – and 5 portions of them (at least!) daily.
• Low-fat dairy foods of the DASH diet Aim for 3 servings but at least 2 (that’s still an improvement for most).
• Extra-virgin olive oil, fatty fish, nuts, and sure, a glass of wine (if you drink).
Basically a Med diet with more low-fat dairy foods. More inclusive, flexible, less limiting – IOMO.
Up next: The Worst Diets (NOTE: this could get ugly)

COULD “REVERSE RECESS” IMPROVE BOTH TEST SCORES & DIETS?

I’ve said forever that kids who eat breakfast do better in school. A growing pile of research also suggests that “reverse recess”, that is, having some physical activity before – not after – lunch, may also contribute to better test scores.  This reverse recess also seems to help0 kids want to eat more of what they need.

The latest study  included 1350 students in Texas elementary schools and looked at the differences in intake and test scores when schools scheduled recess before or after lunch.

Simple changes, big results

I love research like this. It’s simple and shows real results.

When students (third, fourth, and fifth grade students) had recess before lunch, they scored higher on the “3Rs” – reading, writing, and arithmetic. Not all grades scored higher on all measures, but the results were enough to impress school principals enough to consider changing the school’s recess schedule for next year.

There were nutritional implications here, too. In the schools with recess before lunch, students ate more of all lunch components: the entrée, fruit, milk, and even the veggies. Two things may be happening here to produce the results:

• The kids were hungrier after being active, so they had a better appetite for their lunch
• Having just actively “let off steam”, they were a bit more calm and more ready to eat, and with play time done for a while, they could devote more time to eating and socializing.

Another thing I love about his study is that it looked at “plate waste”. This is messy research, because it requires the investigators to look at how much food was actually eaten. It’s a dirty job, but I’m glad they did it, because the results are more informative than some other studies that look only at how much food is chosen, not necessarily eaten. That’s significant, because it’s not nutritious until they eat it.

More than nutrition: BEHAVIOR benefits, too?

A 2014 study done in an Oregon community however, found that the students having recess before lunch drank significantly more milk and were 20% more likely to drink the entire 8-oz. carton of milk than were the students having recess after lunch.

Even better: the teachers reported that having recess before lunch resulted in better classroom behavior and greater readiness to concentrate on academics after the lunch period.

What I love about these studies is that they really didn’t change the curriculum or even the offerings of the school lunch program. Only the scheduling changed, so that kids were given more activity right before they sat down to lunch. Easy fixes for nearly all schools, and most certainly worth a try, especially because virtually none of the schools offering recess before lunch noted any misgivings or negatives.

Finally, remember that kids like to eat stuff that tastes good, but we adults can stand to learn a thing or two about what we assume kids will eat. The kids in the 2014 Oregon school study ate the most fruit when pineapple and cottage cheese was served. Wake-up call here!

Eat Well During Holidays Without Crossing Over to the “Dark Side”

Healthy holiday eating and enjoyment are not mutually exclusive, IF you know the right tricks. Having a healthy eating style doesn’t have an “on-off” switch and. It’s not about choosing between living in a healthy food monastery, or crossing over to the dark side, where all enjoyment happens.

Being healthy is being on a food journey, not on a diet. On a journey, there’s room for everything.  Extreme, overly restrictive eating styles aren’t sustainable and most people wouldn’t want to sustain them either. I wouldn’t. But I think of holidays as just another opportunity to hone a better eating style. Keep in mind, my own eating style has evolved over the years. Give yourself permission to evolve a little, too.

Think about the reasons why our usual eating styles get “disrupted”:

• “…the kids were off from school this week”.
• “…it was the (fill in the holiday)”
• “…we had a party at the house this weekend.”
• “…we had family in from out of town.”
• “…we were doing a lot of socializing.”

Making holidays work FOR you, not AGAINST you

File all these reasons under “stuff happens” but they happen all year long, so make life’s little disruptions amount to nothing more than a minor nuisance. They may even open a new dimension to your eating style or give you different “routines” for each situation.

Here are some positive ways to help yourself during “disruptions”:

• MOVE MORE! Just make it a part of the fun. Activity is a total ace in the hole. The more you move, the more calories you burn, for sure, but the more fun you can have, too. Moving kicks in your brain’s “feel-good” chemicals called “endorphins” that lift your mood. Walk through decorated neighborhoods, go ice skating, and make sure you dance at all the holiday parties! Feel the fun, not the burn!
• Workday “me” time: take 30 minutes of your lunch hour and walk briskly. THEN have a modest lunch and you’ll deserve a little indulgence. Or bank it for tomorrow’s indulgence!
• Splurge on some delicious, healthful foods you like but usually deny yourself: smoked salmon and pre-seeded pomegranates, (where all the work is done for you) are two of my faves. Keep grapes and clementines on the counter for a tasty impulse-bite. Gift yourself the convenience of salad-in-a-bag to make sure you and your family have an easy way to get plenty of low-calorie, nutritious foods (throw in some of those pomegranate seeds!). It’s also an easy way to get kids started in the kitchen with simple prep. Try some high-end balsamic vinegar and you’ll need less oil.
• Expect the unexpected. If a disruption is likely to happen, keep the rest of your day’s eating smart. Leave 200 or so calories for something unexpected. That way it doesn’t set you back.

MEAT AND TYPE 2 DIABETES? CALM DOWN — LET’S BOIL IT DOWN

Just when people are at feeling (justifiably) entitled to feel OK about eating meat again, out comes a study that “associates” consumption of meat with type 2 diabetes.  It was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology and was part of the Singapore Chinese Health Study.  Here’s the gist:

Over 63,000 Chinese adults, ages 45-74 years

There were two interviews during follow-up of just under 11 years to determine type 2 diabetes

Dietary pattern determined only once – at the start, by a food-frequency questionnaire

The variables: intake of poultry, red meat, seafood and incidence of type 2 diabetes upon follow-up.

They divided the subjects into four groups based on intake of shellfish, poultry, and red meat.  Then they compared the groups with the lowest intake of meat/poultry/shellfish with groups that had the highest intakes.

Here’s where things get interesting, but first:

Iron 101

There are two ways iron exists in food.  Iron is either part of hemoglobin (called “heme iron”), as in the case of animals, or it’s bound to other compounds (called “non-heme iron”), as with plants.  Compounds like phytates in plants bind to iron to make it less absorbable.  Eating plant iron with an acid, like having spinach with a vinaigrette dressing, will help liberate some of the iron, but in general, heme iron is more available to the body.

How much iron do we need each day?  Adults need 12 mg/day and women of child-bearing age need 18 mg/day, because they lose iron each month they menstruate.

The study data are “noisy”

This means the study has limitations that prevent drawing strong conclusions. To be fair, he study’s authors were pretty responsible in pointing out some of the limitations of their study. Most notably:

  • Dietary pattern was taken at the beginning and never again. So, what you had for dinner on a  Tuesday night 11 years ago predicts your health now?  You might be able to get statistics from this data, but drawing any realistic conclusions is making a Grand Canyon leap.  People’s diets change over 11 years!
  • Activity patterns were also assessed only once, at the beginning of the study.
  • Those who ate the most red meat ate averaged only about 53 grams daily – less than two ounces! And they still ate more seafood than meat.
  • Those who ate the most seafood also averaged about 33 grams of red meat daily — a little over an ounce! So differences between the HIGHEST and LOWEST consumption of red meat was only 20 grams – about 2/3 of an ounce.
  • Different meat types were assessed (beef, pork, lamb, etc.), but not cuts of meat, or parts of poultry (legs have more heme iron than breast) or dietary fat.  Pork belly has lots more fat than pork loin, for instance.

With the difference between the highest fish-eaters and the highest meat eaters being only 20 grams of meat, the difference may be statistically significant but not clinically (“real life”) significant.  The “associations” these studies talk about don’t mean “cause-and-effect” but consumers don’t often understand that. and the headlines don’t help much. To get the facts you usually have to read beyond headlines.

My take-away from this study? Not a whole lot.    

And the authors pretty much agree with me, noting, “We do not perceive any reason for meat intake to be related to the likelihood of disease diagnosis in our study population.”  Simply put, this study failed to connect meat intake with type 2 diabetes.  Game over.

Seafood absolutely is great food, but meat and poultry are also nutrient-rich.  Some tips for eating meat and poultry well:

  • Go leaner whenever possible.
  • Keep portions real. Even 4 ounces of lean meat is going to be loaded with enough protein for your meal.
  • Keep half your plate veggies and fruits.
  • Include a whole grain or a starchy vegetable.
  • Keep added fat reasonable. Olive oil or canola are good choices, rather than butter or coconut oil.

 

Paleo-Inspired Baby Food? Sorry, They Need ALL Food Groups

In the EdibleRx, I like to keep things informative and simple.  I’m not a fan of demonizing foods or food groups.  Balance is key, and I believe in making recommendations based on sound evidence – as good as it exists.

Food trends come and go – witness the plethora of extreme diet books that have populated bookshelves (maybe even your own) and spurred endless conversations and discussions.  When a trend becomes potentially harmful to a vulnerable group, however, I cannot let that slip by.  Having spent most of my career working with children and families with special needs, it makes my blood boil when food trends and fads get visited on vulnerable groups.

Case in point: Back around 2004 I was called to testify before the House Energy & Commerce Committee, which was examining two companies in particular that were marketing diet pills and supplements for children.  One supplement actually used herbs that were contraindicated in anyone under age twelve years.  I pulled no punches and spoke the science, the facts, and also my outrage.  When you get the ear of Congress people, believe me, it’s not about keeping quiet.  It’s about using a professional voice to speak the truth, and making sure it is heard by those who can make changes.  That supplement website was shut down, fortunately.

I was interviewed September 18th for an ABC News story about a company making Paleo-inspired baby food: free from grains, dairy, and fruit, centered around meat and vegetables.  Beef, chicken and veggies are great foods and fine for a meal, but promoting a diet free from dairy, grains, and fruit for infants and toddlers is not. Young children this age need balance and variety from all five food groups.  Simple, basic foods from these groups are a nutrient-rich package and round out a balanced diet.

Their reasoning?  From their website:

“We were shocked by the amount of sugar in most baby foods, because sugar (even from fruit) creates inflammation which leads to health problems and can make a baby fussy from the blood sugar crash.”

In 30+ years as a pediatric nutritionist/dietitian working with children with special needs of all forms, I have yet to see an infant/toddler who had a “sugar crash” from eating strained pears.  Period. 

As for their food, it comes in three different flavors, “free-range chicken, “all grass-fed beef” or “uncured bacon”, each mixed with vegetables and each with either 4 or 5 grams of protein – less than what you’d get from about an ounce of edible beef or chicken (both typically contain about 7 grams of protein per ounce).   Squeeze pouches only, sold online in 6-packs.  Each pouch is 4-oz. or ½ cup.

Baby Nutrition 101: Mixed dishes are not first foods

They call these products “first foods to feel good about” but these are all mixed dishes.    You never want to introduce more than one new food at a time.  If there’s an allergic reaction, you won’t know which food is causing it.

Meat and vegetables are great foods for babies – but not JUST meat and vegetables.  While they shun dairy, I hope they’re OK with breast milk – it has even more “sugar” than cow’s milk.  (For the record, cow’s milk doesn’t replace breast milk or formula until at least 12 months.)

“Ridiculous” Costs

Cost per 6-pack: $26.95, or about $4.50 PER SERVING!  For $26.95 you can buy enough healthful beef, chicken and veggies – and grains, fruit, and dairy – and feed your toddler for days, or even buy wholesome prepared baby food.  An infant/toddler diet that excludes grains, dairy, and fruit isn’t serenity.  It’s insanity.  And $26.95 for 3 cups of meat and veggies?  Unnecessary food elitism.  Good baby food — store-bought or homemade — should be, and IS, far more affordable than this.

And even if you buy baby food in pouches, feed it to baby with a spoon.  Stay involved.  It’s the start of having family meals — one of the BEST ways to feed kids of all ages.  Hey, it’s Family Meals Month.  Make it happen in your family. THAT make healthier kids.