More reasons to skip skim (in case grey coffee isn't reason enough)

We’ve said it before…if you do dairy (and we do), you have to skip the skim. It’s better for your weight, your skin, your bones and your fertility. Recent research adds further evidence to our skim-stance. A study published in Circulation analyzed the blood of 3,333 adults for 15 years. It’s difficult to “skim” over (had to) their findings.  People who consumed more full-fat dairy had a 46% decreased risk of getting diabetes. Another study published in the American Journal of Nutrition looked at obesity risk with full fat versus low fat dairy among 18,438 female participants. Those who consumed the most full-fat dairy products lowered their risk of being overweight or obese by 8%.

At Foodtrainers, we believe fat makes you thin. Fat keeps you full. It’s crucial for your skin, hair, nails and Vitamin D absorption. Cutting back on calories by cutting out fat typically results in eating more sugar/carb calories. And when your sugar and carbs increase your body stores more fat (remember the “fat free” 90s?).

Aside from skipping skim, fermented dairy is your best bet.  Fermented dairy contains probiotics that help your weight, cravings and mood.  These good bacteria break down some of the lactose. If you find dairy difficult to digest, fermented dairy may be easier. We adore four percent Siggi’s yogurt, Maple Hill Creamery plain kefir and Nancy’s (probiotic) cottage cheese. And it’s not fermented but Ronnybrook’s half and half and their glass bottles make life better.

Hate to say we told you so (well before fat was where it's at), but PLEASE skip the skim and grey coffee… you’re welcome. 

Speaking of dairy, Lauren and I are checking out a new cheese headquarters this week… details to follow!

Check food labels for an ingredient that can harm health and weight

There are certain ingredients many of you could identify as unhealthy. Artificial sweeteners, trans fats, BPAs and GMOs are likely on your radar.  However, a study in Nature raised health and weight concerns for a group of ingredients you may not even know about. Do emulsifiers ring a bell? I’ll be totally honest, I had to think back to Food Science classes…mayo is an emulsification. Without nerding out emulsifications are mixtures where one substance is suspended in another.

In mayo, the egg emulsify or combine things.

But egg yolks are natural emulsifiers, this recent study (and a couple prior) honed in on chemical emulsifiers. These additives are used in many products for texture and to extend shelf life.

I talk a lot about probiotics; kombucha, kefir, miso and apple cider vinegar are Foodtrainers’ staples.  Having more good bacteria can improve our mood, immunity and weight. But what if something prevalent in healthy food is harming gut bacteria? Yup, that’s what these chemical emulsifiers do and the net effect they have on out gut results in impaired satiety signals. When you are less satisfied you eat more. We do not need any assistance in the “eat more” department.

So what are these emulsifiers called? There are a ton of chemical emulsifiers- many have the word “gum” in the name.  The two emulsifiers tested in this study were

polysorbate 80  and carboxymethylcellulose. You will sometimes see polysorbate 80 called “tween 80” and the other one is abbreviated CMC or listed as cellulose gum.

Look for “tween” in ice cream, puddings, vitamins, chewing gum and condiments

Cellulose gum in used in  lowfat cookies, and jelly. What’s really sneaky is cellulose is listed as a fiber but this is not a good fiber.

In the study, these emulsifiers were given to rats with a compromised GI system and previously healthy rats. The rats with preexisting GI issues developed full blown colits and the “normal” rats gained weight. Some studies test amounts that far exceed what is typically consumed…not this time. These effects were seen with commonly consumed quantities. I’d like to take a moment to say…FDA seriously? You’ve deemed these safe? Let’s reexamine your testing methods.

In all fairness, only two emulsifiers (or gums) were tested. It is unclear if all emulsifiers have the same issues associated with them. The only emulsifier on my radar, prior to reading this, was carrageenan. Carrageenan has received a ton of bad PR. It has has been a concern as it has GI side effects (upsets your stomach) and because it’s a possible carcinogen. Perhaps the GI side effects occur because carrageenan acts like Tween and Cellulose gum messing with our good bacteria?

A lot of the coverage of this study talked about the prevalence of chemical emulsifiers in processed foods. If you aren’t big on processed foods don’t be relieved as these thickeners are also used in dairy free and gluten free foods. And we all blame sugar for increasing obesity rates following the fat free phase/ 90s…however, chemical emulsifiers are found in most “fat free” foods too. I examined the labels in our fridge and found two items with gums in them. Our gluten free bread had xanthan gum and organic cream cheese had “organic” locust bean gum. I reached out to the bread company and the owner told me she wasn’t concerned as the bread was one of the only sources of gums in her diet. I’m not sure I agree and urged her to look at the study.

What should you do? Look at the ingredients on packages in your pantry and fridge. If you see cellulose gum OR tween 80…I’d certainly toss those. I’d also encourage you to contact companies using these ingredients. Carageenan has been pulled from many products as a result of customer concern. Further studies need to test other gums so that we can assess their safety. One more vote against ingredients we cannot pronounce.

Have emulsifiers been on your radar? Any products you consume that have gums in them? Will you avoid them going forward?

Bake it Happen: Paleo Pumpkin Brownies

Yes, the look decent but read on...

Last night, I was on my way home from work tired and hungry. I’ve had a couple travel days and as a result my office days are packed which isn’t a problem until the end of the day. I knew the boys would be getting home from hockey and they’d need dinner and I also had brownies to bake. My friend Shari started a campaign called Bake it Happen where you bake one of her mother’s recipes and in the process raise money for breast cancer research. One of the recipes is Judy’s pumpkin brownies.I had the tired thought “do I have to do this tonight?” and quickly reminded myself of Shari’s work and Judy’s battle. I was going to bake.

 I would’ve had an easier time if I stuck to Judy’s recipe but no, I insisted on making a gluten free/paleo version. I expressed to Shari my conflict with unhealthy (Minute Made pink lemonade on my recent Delta flight) in the name of disease research. Shari explained she wasn’t looking at things through the lens of healthy she just got such pleasure knowing everyone was making her mom’s recipes. Duh- of course.

Last year I somehow had an easy time Foodtrainers-ifying the banana bread recipe. Things were different this year. On Monday, I gathered a bunch of healthy pumpkin brownie recipes. The boys were off from school and we gave one a whirl. Pumpkin and cocoa and coconut flour, how could it be bad, right? When the consistency and flavor isn’t right, that’s how. The boys gave me the “they’re ok”. So last night was make it or break it. I didn’t have time to experiment so I used this recipe from the jaybird blog. 

The photos looked beautiful, the comments were positive and I liked the idea of the pumpkin and chocolate being separate.  As I prepared to bake the cocoa powder was on the tippy top shelf on top of a jar of almond flour. Rather than getting the stepladder, I attempted to pull down the almond flour with the cocoa tin on it. Of course there was a massive cocoa spill.  Half laughing, half crying I cleaned the cocoa mess and the cocoa out of the grout of every tile. When I finally got to work I thought about Shari saying no matter what Judy cooked every night. 

Ugly photo, messy counter I didn't have time to food style

I measured and I whisked. I followed the instructions or so I thought. 

When it came time to assemble the 2 batters something was off. I was to layer the chocolate and the pumpkin and “repeat” but I only had enough batter for 1 layer of each.

 I swirled the top with a chopstick (as directed) and felt pretty fancy.

When the brownies came out of the oven the pumpkin layer seemed a little moist. 

Ugh. I let them cool on the drying rack and cut them up. The boys were now asleep but my husband came in from hockey (yes everyone plays) and grabbed a brownie. I asked for his review and received “well I’d eat them”. He’d eat anything. I can’t even blame the recipe because clearly I am the only one who messed it up. Maybe my baking powder (which I never use) is old? Was I not meticulous enough with my measurements? I’m not sure.

You can try these (and let me know) or try Judy’s delicious version. It almost felt like Judy was trying to tell me something. I didn’t know her well but “just stick to my tried and true version” entered my mind.

Any idea where my brownies went wrong? Do you bake? Do you do gluten free or paleo baking?

On another note, earlier this week I saw a friend with advanced cancer and talked about breast cancer awareness month. Her concern was the percentage of funds that actually go to research, toward a cure not just awareness. She told me of an organization called METavivor that focuses on metastatic breast cancer. This is what Judy had and this is what my beautiful friend has as well. Please check out their site and Bake it Happen.

Did you hear the news about tequila and weight loss?

It wasn’t long ago that Well and Good posted about an ice cream cleanse. I tweeted saying something like “the margarita cleanse can’t be far behind”.  Little did I know that days later, a study would surface out with some intriguing news about a tequila ingredient. “Tequila plant is possible sweetener for diabetics helps reduceblood sugar and weight”. Psychic food tendencies aside, this was fun news. Before we go further, I will confess my bias. I like tequila. I like a tequila shot, I like mixing tequila with green juice and sea buckthorn and please, who doesn’t like a margarita? It’s like the Ellen DeGeneres of drinks, everyone likes them.

When I read that this study was conducted on mice I chuckled at the thought of drunken rodents being weighed and tested (PETA I’m joking). However, I learned that the mice were not given tequila but one of the ingredients in tequila called agavins (different from agave nectar). Mice consuming these agavins ate less, dropped weight and had lower blood glucose levels compared to other sweeteners. It also turns out that these agavins are prebiotics meaning they are good for our GI health.

If you’re starting to get excited (I sure was), hang on. When explaining the findings, the researcher specifically said that the agavins are converted to ethanol during fermentation ergo they’re not present in tequila. Even if it turns out agavins have the same beneficial effects on humans, we will not ingest them via our tequila intake. Shoot.

While this feels like a bad almost-April Fools joke some tequila facts.

• Skip the gold- one of the reason many have had bad experiences is that gold tequila is made using caramel coloring (or that in college you had 20 shots) pick silver or blanco and ask what they’re using when you order. Quality is important even with booze.
• And tequila expires (or deteriorates) once you open a bottle you have one to two months to finish it. I’m thinking there’s some ancient tequila lurking in may of your homes. Please do not finish the bottle of tequila just because I told you this.
• I don’t want to leave you totally sad to start the week. While I detest the word “moderate” when it comes to drinking that’s about 4 drinks a week. And it seems that amount has some beneficial effects on insulin sensitivity (alcohol lowers your blood sugar).

As for the agavins, they're another “sweet” option we can follow up on once they hit the shelves which I’m guessing will happen by tomorrow based on this research.
Do you like tequila? Did you hear about this study? What was your reaction? 

Protein as bad as smoking? Um not so fast.

We give research a lot of credit. “This study said” is going to give what follows it a little more authority. The problem is that scientists want their work to get attention, may have hidden agendas and can twist their “data” in ways not all that different from my husband telling me “I need to go with these guys from work to the Ranger game, it’s important for business.” There’s more to that story and more to the latest “animal protein is as bad as smoking” headline too.

The background

The study garnering a lot of attention is from the journal Cell Metabolism. They looked at self-reported diet data from NHANES. Over 6,000 men and women were tracked over 18 years. The researchers zeroed in on protein intake and concluded those with the highest protein intake had higher relative risk for cancer and cardiovascular disease from ages 50 to 65. Their hypothesis is that protein increases a hormone IGF-1 and that this increases disease risk but it’s not as clear-cut as it sounds. Remember my husband and the hockey/business conclusion?

All protein isn’t created equal

The headlines zeroed in on meat, cheese and milk not exactly the foods any nutritionist worth his or her degree is going to base a food plan on. We have also seen data showing that fish and poultry reduce relative risk. And the current study found plant sources of protein (legumes and nuts) didn’t raise relative risk (in humans more on that later). So it’s clear that all protein isn’t created equal. I would go further to say not only is red meat different from plant protein but how do we lump McDonalds in with grass-fed organic meat? Foods are not simply protein or carbohydrates but combinations with some components heathy and others harmful. 

It’s dangerous at one age, beneficial at another?

Two other parts of this study sort of put the simple conclusion that protein is bad on its head. First, you turn 65 and protein isn’t only OK- this study showed that the low protein group is more likely to die of cancer after your 65^th birthday. Then a rodent study was thrown in. We read about mice with higher protein diets (and implanted with melanoma cells) having a higher risk of death than lower protein but here’s the catch in the critters.. animal and plant protein had similar results here.

What to do

First, let’s remind ourselves that when it comes to body composition and weight, recovery from illness and growth protein is beneficial (I have “research” to show you if you’d like). My advice for clients who are concerned is that we need protein in our diets but it should come from good sources. Protein at breakfast is crucial for appetite control, it's also helpful at lunch but dinner? We don't need animal protein there and that's a great time for a good carb (quinoa, sweet potato) and a copious amount of veggies. Aside from the hoopla about raw kale and thyroid function, vegetables are always good. Also. be aware of restaurant protein portions- you and the 6 foot 6 man get the same amount, leave some over or take it home keep protein to the size of an iPhone max. 

As for the scientists I mentioned earlier, the smoking comparison was purely hype. No part of this study compares the protein data to the smoking research so that’s questionable even irresponsible. And one of the lead researchers on this study Dr Longo is involved with a company that makes meat replacement products. So much for credibility.

Did you hear about this study? Did it make you reconsider your protein intake? What sources of protein do you include in your diet?

Don't Listen to the New York Times

If you’ve been here before, you know I love to myth bust. If you bring up “calories in versus calories out” or sound giddy about a “fat free” product, we’re going to have a chat. However, what drives me  (and weight conscious people everywhere) crazy is when one expert or study comes out saying “sugar is good” or “exercise is useless” or some other sweeping conclusion that puts common sense health information on its head.  While I read through many nutrition research studies each day, I know the  difference between research and reality.

This point hit home a while back when I did a GMA segment in which a few experts were asked for comments. The topic was a popular fad diet and I went straight to the research and blasted it. Dr Oz was asked his opinion and said something to the effect of- if something is working for a large number of people we have to pay attention to that (even if we don’t know why). This stuck with me and when I read the lastest study, I also hold them up and compare to what I have learned from my clients.

This week, the New York Times printed a story questioning whether breakfast eating is beneficial for weight loss. Dr Allison, a researcher out of Birmingham, found fault with the studies used to make this claim.  He then dismisses The National Weight Control Registry which is widely respected and cited because over 10,000 participants have not just lost over 30 pounds each but kept it off. His feeling was that conclusions from this group aren't causal or based on studies. First, I'll point out that 80 percent of National Weight Control registry members eat breakfast. Second, having been in obesity research, I will add that being a "study participant" isn't without its glitches in terms of accuracy.

I’ve been counseling for 15 years and seen thousands of clients, here are some breakfast tips the article excluded:

• It depends what we eat for breakfast. As I mentioned Monday (in the interview with Food Matters) if it’s a sugar or grain fest it may not be beneficial for your weight or your health. Higher protein breakfasts decrease ghrelin levels (the hunger hormone) while high carb breakfasts can do the opposite.
• The article didn’t address the “when” question. You don’t have to eat breakfast the second you wake up at 5, 6 or 7am. However, your blood sugar is lower after a night of sleep and it will continue to drop. Have something within a couple of hours. I’ve also written about a period of fasting overnight, aim for 12 hours food free between your last bite at night and breakfast.
• The piece also ignored the behavioral side of meal selections. Skipping breakfast feeds in to the “saving up” syndrome; I promise what is consumed mid afternoon or after dinner carries more risk than that smoothie ever will.
• With regard to eating and exercise, you don’t have to eat pre working out and if it doesn’t leave you feeling poorly exercising on empty may be beneficial for your weight. Just be sure you eat ASAP after your workout.

Tricia provided great breakfast options in Monday’s post. I’ve written about smoothies, chia pudding and yogurt which all make appropriate breakfast choices. Breakfast, to me, is not the most important meal of the day. It doesn’t have to be large and shouldn’t be overly grainy but if you eat breakfast the right way weight loss will come your way.

Do you skip breakfast? How would you say you feel on days you have versus skip that first meal? Do you change your eating based on a research study? 

When it comes to sugar substitutes, what about stevia?

Blue, pink, yellow? d) None of the above

Yesterday, The New York Times ran a story entitled “Choosing a Sugar Substitute”. I found the article, like most sweeteners, unsatisfying. We’re told “for any of the sweeteners, one can as easily find a study that offers reassuring analysis of safety as one that enumerates potential alarming side effects.” When it comes to food and nutrition this “jury is still out” reasoning doesn’t work. As far as I’m concerned, the risky results have more clout. The article further tries to ameliorate potential risk by quoting a layperson and self-described “yellow girl” (yellow referring to Splenda affection) saying “hundreds of millions of people swallow food and drinks containing artificial sweeteners and so far, no widespread calamities of health have swept over them. “ I would love to know if yellow girl feels migraines, obesity and cancer are "widespread" enough. I don’t know if she equates danger with immediate death but we’re not talking about snake bites. With toxins, things can take time. Walter Willet expressed “if you smoke cigarettes, the lung cancer risk doesn’t go up for 30 years.”  Trans fats weren’t seen as problematic for 90 years. You can read my thoughts on artificial sweeteners here in “Better Safe Than Sweet”

The best way to test a sweetener isn’t always research, where funding can introduce its own bias, but time. Sugar has been used long enough that we know the downside and concerns. Stevia has also been used for centuries in many cultures though only marketed (and approved) in the US recently. I was disappointed the Times article snubbed stevia. It is a plant you can grow in your garden. Detractors will say, “Just because it’s natural doesn’t mean it’s safe” and this is true but I’ll still take the garden over the lab as a starting point.  I love a brand called NuNaturals, which has no stevia-y aftertaste but also have this local honey and maple syrup in my home. Liquid stevia can seems rather pricy but a small bottle can last months, even a year because it’s much sweeter than sugar. Since it’s much sweeter than sugar, you use it sparingly.

Even the title of the Times piece rubbed me the wrong way. Sweeteners aren’t mandatory. Whether it’s honey or maple or stevia, I don’t believe our food should be doused with sweetness. Sweet begets sweet and the more you have the more you crave. The converse is also true and less sweetness leads to fewer cravings. One “sweetened” item a day is a good guideline. For me, that tends to be my smoothie or an afternoon cardamom cappuccino. So I'm not a blue, pink or yellow girl and truthfully I'm not that sweet.

What sweetener(s) do you use? How many sweetened foods would you estimate you have each day? Have you tried stevia? 

Setting the Table For Weight Loss

Which black circle is larger? 

I’ve mentioned my adoration for Brian Wansink before. For those of you who aren’t enthralled with food research he’s the author of Mindless Eating. Much of his research focuses on external cues that affect our eating. Everything from what we’re told about a food to the lighting in a room has an impact on what we ultimately eat. I was interviewed for a GMA segment, that should air today, about the Wansink's most recent research.  This study entitled “Plate Size and Color Suggestibility: The Delboeuf Illusion’s Bias on Serving and Eating Behavior” looked at food color, plate color and the amount of food we eat.

The main conclusion was that we eat less food when the plate and the food are contrasting colors. Conversely, we eat more when food and plate are more tonal. To GMA’s credit they conducted an informal study at a NYC restaurant to replicate or challenge the study results. Sure enough (and thankfully for the producers' sake) particpants plated significantly less (2 ounces less or almost 30%) pasta pomodoro on white plates than they did on red plates. While I’m not saying pasta pomodoro on white plates is the answer to your weight loss dreams. The plate/food color is something to think about.

So what is the explanation for the color and consumption connection? It’s related to an optical illusion with concentric circles (see top).  When “two circles of identical size have been placed near to each other and one is surrounded by an annulus; the surrounded circle then appears larger than the non-surrounded circle if the annulus is close, while appearing smaller than the non-surrounded circle if the annulus is distant." Thank you Wikipedia for that. For those of you, like me, who didn’t learn annulus when studying for the SATs, it means ring. The contrasting color in the study provides the close annulus and the net net is that the food on the plate will appear larger.

If you have white plates, you don’t need to do much other that eat the way practically all nutritionist’s suggest which is brightly colored food. Should you buy a second set of plates for when you have cauliflower or grilled chicken? Probably not. And I don’t foresee people going to restaurants and BYOP (bringing their own plate) as this crosses into eating idiocy. However, if you’re in the market for plates I would suggest white, small ones. And unlike food and plates, the researchers found table linens should be a similar color to your plate or the illusion is ruined. Coincidentally, my new plates from my favorite place in SF, Health Ceramics, are different colors and shapes. How versatile.

slightly concerned about oatmeal in the beige bowl

Do you pay attention to how external cues (sound, lighting, company) affects your eating? What type of plates do you own? What do you think of the circles above, does the one on the left appear larger?