Family Meals: You Don’t Have To Go Big, Just Go Home

Eating together as a family – however you define your family – has always been a good thing, but now it’s been shown to be a healthier thing, too. This September marks the 4th National Family Meals Month ™, a campaign started in 2015 by the non-profit Food Marketing Institute Foundation to encourage families to eat together more often.

And The Survey Says…

Here’s what a Nielson Harris poll, conducted last year, found about the campaign’s impact among consumers who saw it:

• 4 in 10 (42%) said they were cooking more meals at home.

• More than 3 in 10 are:

    • Making healthier food choices
    • Eating more fruits and vegetables
    • Eating together more as a family

As a nutrition professional, these are big wins. But the bennies don’t stop there. Read on.

This publication from the University of Florida reviewed the benefits of family meals and found:

• Family meals are happening more often. Now 7 in 10 kids eat with their families at least four times a week.

• Family meals strengthen family bonds and teach an appreciation of cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage.

• Teens said that talking/catching up, and spending time with family members was the BEST PART of family meals. Huge win for families and a huge opportunity.

Something that’s better for nutritional, physical, and mental health, improves social behaviors, and contributes to a family’s overall feeling of happiness is as close to a “magic bullet” as you’re going to find. They’re certainly cheaper than eating out or getting take-out. Do they take a little time to prepare? Yes, but show me something, ANYTHING, that does a better job of helping you and your family be healthier and happier and save you money. There isn’t anything better for a family than a meal eaten together. Period.

So What Are the Barriers To More Family Meals?

Despite all these benefits from family meals, they aren’t happening often enough. The top obstacles cited in the FMI survey:

• Scheduling issues – everyone is in different places at meal times.

• Too tired to cook. Takeout or eating out seems easier.

• Too time-consuming to make meals.

• Too many distractions: social media, TV, homework.

But… What’s For Dinner?

Have you noticed that this nutritionist has mentioned very little about things like calories, fats, and added sugars in this post? I’m actually less interested in what you serve than the fact that you’re eating together.

Get the family meal ritual down first. The research has shown that once more family meals start happening, the quality of the meal starts advancing: more fruits and vegetables, fewer empty calories, less sugar and saturated fat. Eat together at home and you’re probably on your way to a better meal.

One rule though: No technology at the table. Each member has a place at the table because they matter. Yes, family meals can be part of esteem-building also

Getting Help: A Few Tips

• Delegate: Older kids an share some meal prep duties. It’s good for initiate communication without being “face-to-face”. Make sure to thank them for their help, too. It reinforces that they’re appreciated.

• Convenience if OK: Bagged greens, frozen veggies, and yes, canned foods like beans and tomato sauce are nutritious and save time. I encourage them.

• Set it up: before work, set the table, get out any pots or pans you’ll need, and anything non-perishable. It really shaves valuable time later.

Dinner IN 30 Minutes? Try Dinner FOR 30 Minutes

Eat more slowly, do more talking. The food won’t go away and you’ll enjoy it more. If the kids are done eating sooner, then have them stay for the full 30 minutes to make conversation. Make it a family tradition and try doing it as often as you can, because #FamilyMealsMonth matters, and it matters all year long.

Could Losing Weight Make You Richer?

Well, yes and no. It won’t automatically add to your bank account, but according to this study you’ll probably spend less on health care. Reducing weight reduces health risks – and what they cost you.

The authors studied data between years 2001-2015 from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), an annual survey that uses a nationally representative sample of adult civilians. They looked at the additional cost of being obese, compared to a non-obese person with the same condition.

They combined the costs for obesity-related illness from all “third-party payers”, including Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance plans, and patient “out-of-pocket” spending, other than for over-the-counter medicines. The results are worrisome – and costly.

Price Per Pound

Out of the 334,000 adults surveyed, 30%, or 99,000, had a body mass index (BMI) over 30, indicating obesity. This is no surprise, as other national surveys have shown similar percentages. This percentage would double if they had included people who were merely overweight, with BMI values between 25-29.9.

After adjusting for inflation to 2015 dollars, here’s the change in the percentage of medical costs associated with obesity:

• 2001: 6.13% of medical expenditures
• 2015: 7.91% of medical expenditures

That might not seem like a huge change, but it amounts to a 29% increase, compared to someone with the same condition who is not obese. Some states, such as Ohio and Wisconsin, fared even worse, with increases over 40%.
The cost of obesity isn’t just born by third-party payers. Consumers often have plans with high deductibles. If your visits require a co-pay, the more visits you need, the more money out-of-pocket costs you have. Consumers now average nearly 5% of their own medical costs to treat obesity, with consumers in many states far exceeding this percentage. The study also noted that 13% of prescription drug costs are to treat obesity

Weighing Down Your Earnings?

The authors quoted several studies that suggest associated a higher BMI with lower wages, but for women only, not men. Weight-related discrimination in the workplace has also been documented. Indeed, there is less chance of being hired because of weight. Then there are the issues of obesity-related health problems causing more missed days due to illness, more physician visits, more medication costs.

When you add it all up, shedding a few pounds starts to make financial sense, not just healthy sense. Who wouldn’t rather put that money to better use if they could – and you can.

Going Positive – a 5% solution

This study showed national averages but you’re not a population, you’re you. Everyone is different. You can’t change national numbers but you can impact your own. Losing 100 pounds is not necessary to be healthier and reduce obesity-related risks. This review of weight research studies documented that even losing 5% of your body weight will produce health benefits. Weigh 200 pounds? That means if you release 10 pounds you’re healthier. Hold that for a year and I’m your biggest cheerleader.

Take It Easy To Save More

I wouldn’t care if you made one small positive change to your diet or lifestyle each month. Just do what you can commit to and know it’s moving you in the right direction, health-wise, and money-wise. In fact, if you’re making changes you notice quickly, you’re probably making too drastic a change. OK to slow down, take a year to lose 12 pounds – a pound a month. If that gets you to the 5% solution, you’re already saving money on health care costs.

BTW — This is a pic of a huge California peach on a “smiling” dessert plate.  It WAS dessert, amazingly delicious all on its own.  

Dark Chocolate: Does More = Less for BMI & Waist?

Readers of this column know I’m a lover of good dark chocolate. I make no secret of my interest in finding out all that’s good about the stuff. Here’s the latest:

This recent meta-analysis looked at the effects of eating dark chocolate on body weight, body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference.

Why I Like This Study

• It included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only. That means “cause-and-effect” results of an intervention. Large population studies can’t do that (no matter what the headlines imply).

• The studies in this meta-analysis all had to investigate cocoa’s or dark chocolate’s (DC) effect on body weight, body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference .

• DC had to be specifically prescribed and compared with a placebo group that did not consume cocoa or DC

• Neatness counted. The authors of this meta-analysis looked only at studies with adults. No animals.

First the bad news: Glass half empty?

There was no significant effect of dark chocolate/cocoa supplementation on BMI, weight, or waist circumference. Bummer. Some studies found a difference, some did not, but when you pool all the studies together and treat them as one huge study, which is what a meta-analysis does, no significant difference in these parameters could be found.

If you’re a glass-half-empty kind of person, this sounds bad, but it really isn’t. DC hasn’t traditionally been known to be a weight-loss aide. Then again, read on…

Saving the best for last…

In studies that lasted longer, 4 to 8 weeks, and that included at least 30 grams of dark chocolate daily:

• There was a significant reduction in BMI and body weight.

• Waist circumference was reduced but only in doses of 45-60 grams daily.

Personally, 30-60 grams of dark chocolate daily would not pose difficulty for me, especially if I knew it would help my waist circumference. It’s means budgeting in about 150-300 calories, but it’s nice to know that there might be justification for moving dark chocolate from the “once-in-a-while treat” to “healthful way to spend discretionary calories.” If it motivates you to get on the treadmill for 30 minutes daily, so you can balance out that extra ounce of DC, so much the better. Hey, #Commitmentiseverything 😉

Here are a few of my latest fave bars.  They’re pricey, but good chocolate isn’t for gulping.  Learning to savor our food just adds to the enjoyment.

Is the Med Diet a Dead Diet? No – Despite Retractions

But the Mediterranean diet did get a kick in the keester. The New England Journal of Medicine just published a retraction of the 2013 PREDIMED study because of flaws discovered in the randomization methodology. Basically, it found that about a fifth of the 7447 trial subjects weren’t randomized properly, which could have allowed bias to creep into the data.

PREDIMED was a study on the Mediterranean diet and its impact on cardiovascular disease, specifically heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular-related death. The study was intended to go on for 7 years but was stopped after about 4 years because the results were so dramatic that it was considered unethical to prevent the participants on the control diet from benefitting from the Med diet.

Subjects were supposed to have been randomly assigned to one of three groups:

• Instruction on the Med diet and provided free extra-virgin olive oil (EVOO);

• Instruction on the Med diet and provided free nuts (about 30 grams daily of a mix of almonds, hazelnuts, and walnuts);

• General advice on a low-fat diet. After 3 years, this group would also have additional dietary instruction.

Where did things go awry?

For about a fifth of the 7447 participants, randomization didn’t happen. They point out several ways the randomization failed for these participants, and these failures didn’t seem intentional or malicious. Probably due to site technicians who were poorly trained, poorly supervised, or sites that just weren’t run efficiently.

The authors completely re-analyzed the results of the study and published them here.

Did the corrected analysis change the results?

Yes. The results are still good, but not as dramatic. The Med Diet with either nuts or EVOO showed benefits only for reducing the risk of stroke, but not heart attack or other cardiovascular event.

We shouldn’t dismiss the Med diet though.  Although the PREDIMED study had flaws, other Med diet studies have shown positive results.

What holds true about the Med diet

• It’s simple and sustainable.

• It uses easily obtainable foods.

• It doesn’t require major dietary changes, yet still has at least some cardiovascular benefits.

As a clinician who has spent years helping people change their eating behaviors, a diet with these attributes hits the tri-fecta.

Where the Med diet could improve

A 14-item questionnaire was used in the PREDIMED study to determine a “MedDiet Score” of adherence to the diet. Some of the questions are a bit odd, if not troubling:

• Why are homemade pastries OK but “commercial bakery” items discouraged?

• Why are “red and processed meats” grouped together? More to the point, why is lean red meat in the same category as fatty, salty sausage?

• There is absolutely no mention at all of dairy foods, milk, yogurt, or cheese, either low-fat or regular? Yogurt and cheese are nutrient-rich and present in a Med Diet, even if not adequately so.

Solution: A “MediterDASHean Diet”

It combines the best of the Med Diet with the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet. Both emphasize lots of fruits, vegetables, legumes, but DASH makes up for what’s missing from the Med Diet and the diets of most people: dairy nutrition.

The Med Diet, for all it’s advantages, is low in calcium. Even the 2015 US Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which praises the Med Diet, acknowledges the likely lack of adequate calcium in the Med Diet.

A calcium supplement alone cannot replace the nutrition-rich package in dairy foods.  With a MediterDASHean Diet, you just do the Med diet but include at least 2 servings of dairy foods daily – full-fat, low-fat, or non-fat, whatever your calorie needs allow. Personally, I get three servings and happily so.

The Med diet discourages “red and processed meat” but it’s not clear why. It’s even less clear with a new dynamite study that looks at what happens when a Med Diet swaps out lean poultry for lean beef and pork. It’s my next post, so watch this space!

Photo credits: Penne: Petar Milošević – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=59899700  Caprese salad: Jessica Rossi, https://www.flickr.com/photos/jesswebb/3797226962

Can You Be Fit and Fat?

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.

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.

YOU’LL BE “CRUCIFER-IED” FOR EATING THESE FOODS!

“I can’t stand cabbage but I only have to eat it once a year, on St. Patrick’s Day.”

Cabbage gets a bad rap because it’s so often boiled with corned beef. While corned beef needs to be boiled for a long time, cabbage just loses flavor the longer past al dente it cooks. If your only other exposure to cabbage is that poorly made deli-style coleslaw the above sentiment is justified, as it would be for most veggies eaten that way.

If St. Patrick’s Day is the only time you ever eat cabbage (save perhaps for the mayonnaise-laden coleslaw at the deli or maybe some super-salty sauerkraut on a hot dog) then it might be worth another look at this incredible food.

Not a cabbage fan?

No big.  Mother Nature provides many ways “up the mountain”. Cabbage is just one in a family of “cruciferous” vegetables, which research has shown to have cancer-fighting compounds called “glucosinolates”. These are the sulphur compounds that give the veggies much of their distinct taste and “aroma” but these veggies are loaded with other antioxidants, as well as vitamins and minerals. There are lots of delicious options to cabbage:

• Broccoli                                   • Collard greens
• Brussels sprouts                    • Mustard greens
• Bok choy                                 • Radishes
• Cauliflower                             • Turnips/turnip greens
• Chinese & napa cabbages    • Watercress

How tastes change

Never in my wildest days did I ever think Brussels sprouts (also a “cruciferous” veggie) would be an “in” food. Ditto kale. Indeed, kale got so “in” it’s now almost out (but the nutrition stays). Of course, like cabbage, if you’ve always associated Brussels sprouts with boiled-to-death soggy spheres, you’ll hate them. Tossed with olive oil and roasted however, maybe with some walnuts or pine nuts at the end, makes them a whole other ball game. Even better for kids, sliced or “shaved” disguises them completely and turns them into a great stir-fry with onions and any other veggie.

All those great healthy compounds in cruciferous veggies are also a source of flavor. They just need some herbs and spices to complement them. Stir-fries have done wonders to awaken people to the flavor of cruciferous veggies.  Here’s my recipe for my fool-proof “Quick, Colorful, Cruciferous Stir-Fry Medley”.  Delicious, fast, and super-healthy.

Roasting cruciferous veggies, like Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, and broccoli makes them almost irresistible, and they take added herbs and spices like garlic, oregano, and cardamom very nicely. Of course, there’s always my go-to addition, grated parmesan or pecorino. Even just a teaspoon amps up the umami quotient.

Kids love finger food, and roasted veggies make great finger food.  Get them eating these veggies with their fingers, then deal with etiquette issues later.

Bonus: What’s St. Patrick’s Day without soda bread?  Get “My Mistake Brown Irish Soda Bread” recipe that I tweaked from Cook’s Illustrated’s version.

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!

IF YOU FORGOT TO BUY CHOCOLATE, YOU MAY NEED TO EAT MORE!

If your significant other likes chocolate, you probably give it on Valentine’s day, but some science says eating it every day might help your brain function better. Chocolate and its components have been studied a fair amount in recent years, from its effects on blood flow through arteries to performance on cognitive tests.

What exactly does chocolate do to our brains?

This scientific review looked at studies on chocolate’s effects on our mood and found “very reliable effects of chocolate and chocolate components” on lessening mental fatigue and negative moods. Even better: the best effects came from eating “whole chocolate” rather than in pill form or in a supplement-type drink.
The review also looked at studies that showed acute effects of chocolate on brain function. Performance on cognitive tests that measured factors like working memory, attention, and reaction time were improved after giving test subjects single doses of “cocoa flavanols” – the antioxidants in chocolate. Not all studies showed such benefits, and to be fair, most studies used a fairly high dose of cocoa flavanols.

There is also a host of population studies that show “associations” between chocolate consumption and better health, less heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, etc., but these are non-specific and just serve to generate clinical trials.

How does chocolate do all that?

The exact mechanism is still unclear. What we DO know is that eating flavanol-rich chocolate and cocoa improves things like blood flow, blood pressure, and insulin sensitivity. Cocoa flavanols also have been shown to stimulate areas of the brain that deal with working memory, so they appear to be biologically active, and positively so.
It’s also possible that the caffeine and theobromines in chocolate are involved. Although caffeine can increase blood pressure, but theobromine seems to overcome this effect, helping reduce blood pressure.

Cocoa flavanols have long been known to improve blood flow. Better blood flow to the brain may be responsible for the cognitive effects. Improved circulation may also contribute to improved insulin sensitivity, among other benefits. Still, there’s a lot more we need to know before saying anything conclusive, but it’s good to know chocolate has some good things going for it besides taste.

What chocolate has the most antioxidants?

Definitely it’s plain, unsweetened cocoa powder, and not the type that the label says was “processed with alkali” or “Dutched”. That process pretty much destroys the antioxidants. Cocoa powder has almost no fat in it, either, so it’s also pretty low in calories. I use it in my homemade hot chocolate (I use about double what’s called for in most recipes!). Aside from it’s use in baked goods, you can add it to smoothies and try adding a tablespoon of add cocoa powder to chili (intensifies the flavor and I highly recommend it!).

As for solid chocolate, the darker the chocolate, the higher the antioxidant level – usually. Not all 70% chocolate will have the same amount of flavonoids, but again, the darker the better.

The presence of milk seems to reduce the absorption of the antioxidants. This study found that having a glass of milk when eating dark chocolate reduced the antioxidant absorption by 46%. Eating milk chocolate alone? The plasma antioxidants were reduced by a full 69%.

Cut-to-the-chase advice on chocolate

If you like chocolate, have it! Yes, it has calories, about 160-170 in an ounce, but with a cup of coffee or tea it makes a better snack or dessert than most. All those antioxidants make getting your cocoa on a good thing. Having milk with it cuts your absorption of the antioxidants, but it’s so loaded you’ll still get a good dose.

Me? Oh, I’m in.

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!