Category Archives: empty calories

Decepticon Promicor (soluble corn fiber), Op. 81

Posted on June 14, 2012 | 8 comments

I heard a comedian say he wished exercise was like high school; once you get your diploma, that’s it.  You never need to do high school again.  Unfortunately, the same isn’t true with artificial nutrition.  the mad food scientists are at it again.

Enter: Soluble corn fiber (SCF), mass produced by Megatron Promitor

Over a decade ago, Atkins released low carb bars.  Well, they weren’t actually low carb per se, they were low sugar.  This was accomplished by replacing sugar with glycerol (a sugar alcohol) and polydextrose (a pseudo-fiber).  While their bars are made from cheap ingredients and low quality protein, sugar alcohols and pseudo-fibers are certainly better than sugar.

Later, sugar alcohols took off in popularity, appearing in Met-Rx Protein Plus, Detour Lean Muscle, Dymatize Elite Gourmet, etc., etc.  Glycerol was prominent in Labrada and Pure Protein bars.  Supreme Protein bars use glycerol and maltitol, and a LOT of ‘em.  Quest took a stand against glycerol and uses the lower calorie and more stomach-friendly erythritol (if it ends in “-ol,” its probably an alcohol).

More recently, the field took a considerable philosophical leap forward and starting using real fiber, good fiber.  Inulin appeared in some Atkins bars, VPX Zero Impact, and the original Quest bars.  Quest has since switched to another good fiber, isomalto-oligosaccharides.  Unfortunately no one is using GOS, yet, but they will … mark my words (that’s a prediction, or stock tip… not a threat).

But now the field has taken a turn and we have another artificial ingredient, a pseudo-fiber, with which to deal.  “Soluble corn fiber (SCF)” first appeared in Splenda Fiber packets and then in Promax LS bars.

If you’re like me, you’re asking yourself: what is this stuff?  Is it real fiber?  Is it like the super fibers inulin and GOS?  Hello Pubmed

Divide and conquer

Stewart (2010) compared SCF to 3 other fibers and maltodextrin, 12 g/d x 2 weeks =

Pullulan, a rather potent fiber, is not well-tolerated.  Resistant starch (an insoluble fiber), soluble fiber dextrin, and SCF were all OK.  The gut microbiota seemed to have no preference, as short chain fatty acid production was similar in all groups (perhaps 12 grams is subthreshold?).  Similarly, health biomarkers, hunger levels, and body weight were unaffected.

Boler (2010) compared a commercially available SCF preparation to polydextrose, 21 grams per day for 21 days in 21 healthy men (cute.)

NFC, no fiber control; PDX, polydextrose; SCF, soluble corn fiber

In this study, however, SCF didn’t do so well.  It caused gas and reflux.  Perhaps this wasn’t observed in Stewart’s study because of the lower dose (12 vs. 21 grams).  Furthermore, polydextrose reduced while SCF increased short chain fatty acid production, both of which resulting in a higher acetate:butyrate ratio.  So unlike 12 grams of any of Stewart’s fibers (including SCF), the gut microbiota seems to respond to 21 grams of SCF.  And they pooped more (both fiber groups).

Data are expressed as log cfu/g feces.

Interestingly, SCF was remarkably bifidogenic.  Much more so than PDX, MOS (see Yen et al., 2011), and inulin (see Menne et al., 2000), but WAY less than GOS (see Silk et al. 2009).

the holy grail

This same group reported a more detailed analysis of the gut microbiota which unfortunately did NOT exactly confirm their earlier finding (Hooda et al., 2012):

Data presentation is different in the two publications, and if both are true, then SCF selectively increases a few specific strains of bifidobacteria but reduces many others (enough to increase the total amount but decrease the variety).  The functional implications of this are unclear (to me).

In the meantime, SCF appears to be at most an OK pseudo-fiber substitute.  Megatron Promitor is not likely to test it against the super fibers (e.g., inulin, GOS, etc.) any time soon, so we won’t know if it’s an advance or simply a side-step.  Such is life.

 

calories proper

 

8 Comments

Posted in Advanced nutrition, empty calories, fiber, Fructose, Grains, microbiota, Protein, Sugar

Tagged , , ,

XL soda ban, Op. 80

Posted on June 8, 2012 | 1 comment

People have been warned about the dangers of excess sugar consumption, but compared to the anti-smoking campaign, the recent proposal to ban XL soda’s is like bringing a cup of water to a forest fire.

In an ideal world, a proper health initiative designed to provide people (kids too) with good nutrition information would work. The new proposal takes a different route: it bans the sale of soda’s larger than 16 ounces (but you can still buy 2-12 ouncers).  I see two possible outcomes: 1) someone who would’ve bought one 24 ouncer of soda might settle for 16 ounces; 2) the one in a million customer who wanted 24 ounces will walk away with two 12 ounce sodas instead.  Win-win, right?  In the first case, the toxic sugar burden is lessened by a third.  In the second, a potentially valuable lesson on “serving size” will be on display.   Serving size 2.0, in 3-D, spelling-it-out for all to see.

It might actually work.  From a nutritional perspective, 90 grams of highly bioavailable sugar (HFCS) is a biological disaster.  Pound for pound, there aren’t many worse things you can consume… it’s the anti-thesis of “moderation.”  Regardless of your stance on the calorie debate, no one can argue that 90 grams of sugar all-at-once is more detrimental than it’s caloric content would imply.  Even for skinny people (metabolic obesity?).  It’s worse than dietary fat, and  might be THEE cause of leptin resistance.

This isn’t a TPMC original, but this graph of soda, diabetes, and obesity is just about as compelling as epidemiology can be:

 

douse those sugar cubes with artificial flavors, colors, and preservatives, and we’re good to go

If the ban goes into effect and actually impacts sales, will there be a backlash? more food company lobbying?  increased government subsidies (reduced HFCS consumption -> more taxpayer dollars used to cover the losses)?  Who knows.  If it teaches people a lesson about serving size or empty calories it might be worth it.

calories proper

1 Comment

Posted in Advanced nutrition, Dietary fat, empty calories, Energy balance, Fructose, Sugar

Tagged , , ,

the opposite of food, Op. 76

Posted on May 15, 2012 | 5 comments

Processed non-junk food

or

as close to “non-junk” as processed food can be

Notice the inverse relationship between fat content and the number of ingredients in these three commercially available sour cream products.  This is processed food.

Regular:
Cultured pasteurized grade A cream and milk, enzymes.

Low-Fat:
Cultured Milk, Cream, Nonfat Dry Milk, Whey, Modified Corn Starch, Sodium Phosphate, Guar Gum, Carrageenan, Calcium Sulfate, Locust Bean Gum, Gelatin, Vitamin A Palmitate.

Fat Free:
Cultured Low-fat Milk, Modified Corn Starch, Whey Protein Concentrate, Propylene Glycol Monoester, Artificial Color, Gelatin, Sodium Phosphate, Agar Gum, Xanthan Gum, Sodium Citrate, Locust Bean Gum, Vitamin A Palmitate.

 

 

“Fat-Free Half & Half”

not cream

In general, “Half & Half” refers to a 50:50 blend of whole milk and cream.  People think it’s better than cream because it has less fat.  Whole milk is about 3% fat by weight, while cream is about 30%.  Mix ‘em together and you end up with Half & Half, which is somewhere in between (12-14%).  Fat has a profound effect on flavor and texture… so how exactly does “Fat-Free Half & Half” taste and feel just like regular Half & Half?!?  Muah ha ha ha haaaa!

divide and conquer

From what I can gather, the fat is replaced with corn syrup and pharmaceutical grade thickeners, emulsifiers, etc., scientifically engineered to mimic the precise flavor and texture of Half & Half.  There are even artificial colors added to make it look like cream.  There are artificial colors added to make it look like cream?  AYFKM?  For some reason, I find this oddly offensive.  It is to these artificial colors which I object.  I want this concoction (that is advertised as better than cream) to look like whatever “corn syrup, carrageenan, sodium citrate, dipotassium phosphate, mono and diglycerides, and vitamin A palmitate” looks like.  And it should release a pale green mist upon contact with coffee.

The sugar in Fat-Free Half & Half comes from corn syrup, while that in real dairy is lactose.  Glucose is sweeter than lactose, and there’s 2-3x more sugar in Fat-Free Half & Half.  Does this mean people use less of it?  I doubt it, because the additional sweetness is probably necessary to compensate for the lack of fat.

And what about all the other additives in Fat-Free Half & Half?  This is reminiscent of the introduction of trans fats into our diet by way of replacing butter and lard with margarine and shortening…

Carrageenan is partially responsible for improving the mouthfeel and texture of Fat-Free Half & Half.

carrageenan. Looks scary, right?

At high doses, it’s an inflammatory gut irritant.  Given coffee’s not-so-gut-friendly reputation, do you really want to push it with carrageenan?

On another note, carrageenan is used to design some of the most beautifully artistic desserts.

In this context, I’m reminded of the phrase: “the dose makes the poison.”  In other words, those dishes are a dietary rarity, reserved for the most special of occasions.  At that level of exposure, it could be a blend of carrageenan, trans fat, sucrose, and Red #40, you could eat 5 of them at a time, and you’d never experience any malevolent effects.  But what about a few tablespoons in your coffee every morning for 30 years???  (alternatively, perhaps I’m underestimating carrageenan exposure a bit) (other, more sordid uses of carrageenan)

Avoid processed foods, especially when they’re no more convenient or healthy their conventional counterparts.

 

calories proper

 

P.S.  Perhaps I was a little too hard on Fat-Free Half & Half.  It’s not as bad as microwave popcorn, or this classic:

One 43 gram Twinkie contains 5 grams of fat, 25 grams of sugars, 1 gram of protein, no fibre, 150 kcal, and over 35 ingredients:

  • Enriched Wheat Flour – enriched with ferrous sulphate, B vitamins (niacin, thiamine mononitrate, ribofavin and folic acid).
  • Sugar
  • Corn syrup
  • Water
  • High fructose corn syrup
  • Vegetable shortening – containing one or more of partially hydrogenated soybean, cottonseed or canola oil, and beef fat.  [trans fat]
  • Dextrose
  • Whole eggs
  • Modified corn starch
  • Cellulose gum
  • Whey
  • Leavenings (sodium acid pyrophosphate, baking soda, monocalcium phosphate)
  • Salt
  • Cornstarch
  • Corn flour
  • Corn syrup solids
  • Mono and diglycerides
  • Soy lecithin
  • Polysorbate 60
  • Dextrin
  • Calcium caseinate
  • Sodium stearol lactylate
  • Wheat gluten
  • Calcium sulphate
  • Natural and artificial flavours
  • Caramel colour
  • Sorbic acid (to retain freshness)
  • Colour added (yellow 5, red 40)

 

 

5 Comments

Posted in Advanced nutrition, Dietary fat, empty calories, Fructose, Sugar, Trans fat, Uncategorized

Tagged , ,

Candy in disguise, Op. 73

Posted on April 30, 2012 | 8 comments

on the chopping block:To recharge between hunting, gathering, and avoiding predation, our Paleolithic predecessors snacked on gluten-free energy bars comprised of a variety of fruits nuts, and vegetable oils all stuck together with Mother Nature’s sweet sticky honey and dates.  <end sarcasm>

For the record, I’m not a card-carrying member of the Paleo community; just looking out for a respectable nutrition movement.

“NoGii No Gluten Paleo Bars” should not be confused with anything healthy.

INGREDIENTS: Dates, Honey, Organic Cashews, Almonds, Apple Juice Sweetened Cranberries (Cranberries, Apple Juice Concentrate, Sunflower Oil), Sesame Seeds, Dried Unsweetened Tart Cherries, Sunflower Seeds, Unsulphured Dried Apples, Freeze-dried Strawberries, Strawberry Juice Concentrate, Organic Sunflower Oil. ALLERGENS: Contains Tree Nuts (Almonds and Cashews).

Full disclosure:

Case closed.

On a more positive note, NoGii No Gluten Paleo Bars have no added sugars.  Indeed, those were saved for their “NoGii Kids Bar.” 

INGREDIENTS: Soy Protein Crisps (Soy Protein Isolate, Tapioca Starch), Marshmallow Creme (Sugar, Brown Rice Syrup, Crystalline Fructose, Invert Sugar, Water, Egg Albumen, Agar, Gum Arabic, Natural Flavor), Brown Rice Syrup, Organic Brown Rice Crisps (Organic Brown Rice, Organic Brown Rice Syrup, Sea Salt), Rice Syrup Solids, Maize Dextrin (Dietary Fiber), Organic Canola Oil, Organic Agave Syrup, Whey Protein Isolate, Organic Palm Oil, Vanilla Yogurt Drizzle (Sugar, Fractionated Palm Kernel Oil, Whey Powder, Nonfat Dry Milk Powder, Cultured Whey, Soy Lecithin [emulsifier], Vanilla), Vegetable Glycerine, Natural Flavors, Sea Salt, Soy Lecithin, Mixed Tocopherols (Natural Vitamin E), Purified Stevia Extract, Lo Han Extract.

NoGii proudly advertises “NO HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP” and “ALL NATURAL,” but this is despicable, ESPECIALLY because these are targeted at children.

Divide and conquer

  1. Agave syrup has MORE fructose than high fructose corn syrup (it’s like higher fructose corn syrup).  Why brag about “no high fructose corn syrup” if you’re only going to include a higher fructose substitute?
  2. Crystalline fructose.  (yes, that would be 100% fructose).
  3. Invert sugar is chemically virtually identical to high fructose corn syrup.  This is deceitful… it wouldn’t be so bad if they didn’t advertise (in all capital letters) “NO HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP” directly on the website.
  4. Lastly, there’s nothing “Brown Rice” about “Brown Rice Syrup.”  It’s just plain syrup.  It may not have fructose, but it’s still just a blend of simple sugars.

NoGii is pulling no punches, so neither am I: they are trying to trick parents into feeding their kids something that they may not have had they known what was really in it.

NoGii.  Worst company of the week.  No, of the month, because they are targeting children.

A superior alternative:

Quest Low Carb Gluten Free Protein Bars

calories proper

8 Comments

Posted in Advanced nutrition, empty calories, Fructose, Grains, Protein, Sugar, Uncategorized

Tagged , , ,

Non-sequiter nutrition

Posted on April 16, 2012 | 3 comments

(or another over-caffeinated soapbox rant)

Taxing junk food?  If I thought the government had a clue what constituted “junk,” maybe I’d view this more favorably.  But my gut says no.

 

 

“Bad food? Tax it, and Subsidize Vegetables”  Mr. Bittman, we subsidize the hell out of corn; what good has that done?   I don’t think controlling diet via junk food taxes is the right way to healthify America, but if I had to choose I’d say shift subsidies away from corn and soybean, and toward things like organic spinach and grass fed beef.   This would impact a lot of foods containing ingredients that are [IMO] barely suitable for human consumption like high fructose corn syrup and trans fats (and corn & soybean oils).

 

 

Denmark and Romania taxing saturated fat?  Really?  we already went through this when we traded saturated fat-rich butter for diabesogenic trans fat-rich margarine-  (“saturated fat”).  A tax on saturated fat is non-specific; it hits many healthy foods and not enough junk food.  And it is, by definition, a tax NOT on the deceptively unsaturated trans fats.  Alternatively, subsidizing corn and soybeans is just making soda and junk food cheaper.

 

 

do NOT eat at KFC in Hungary, Peru, or Poland.  or anywhere.  that’s microwave popcorn levels of trans fat.

Better nutrition education and evidence-based recommendations are far better solutions, IMHO, but we aren’t a country of philosopher’s.  I’ve touched a bench on which the sign “wet paint” was taped, and I probably also touched a red hot stove despite my mother’s warning against it.  oh well.

 

 

calories proper

 

3 Comments

Posted in Advanced nutrition, Dietary fat, empty calories, Fructose, Sugar, Trans fat

Paleo schmaleo, Op. 69

Posted on April 12, 2012 | 2 comments

Brief refresher:

Paleo: lean meat, fish, fruits, vegetables, potatoes, eggs, and nuts; NO grains or dairy

Paleo carbs: fruits, veggies, nuts, and beans… NO starches, cereals, whole grains, added sugars, etc.

Paleo is GFCF-friendly

Atkins is similar to Paleo but allows fewer carbs

Mediterranean diet (from last week): whole grains, low-fat dairy, vegetables, fruits, fish, oils, and margarines (the Paleo diet improved insulin sensitivity WAY more than the Mediterranean diet in patients with CHD).

Diabetic diet (this week; see below): vegetables, root vegetables, dietary fibre, whole-grain bread and other whole-grain cereal products, fruits and berries, and decreased intake of total fat with more unsaturated fat.

Paleo vs. the “diabetic diet” in type II diabetics (Jonsson et al., 2009 Cardiovascular Diabetology).  Lindeberg designed this particular Paleo diet with a much lower carb content (32% vs. 40%) than in the previous study with CHD patients.  A cynic, who might think that some of Paleo’s benefits are due to its low carb content, might think that since traditional Paleo and the comparison “diabetic diet” have a similar carb content (42% and 40%, respectively), Lindeberg intentionally modified Paleo for this study to make sure carbs were significantly lower than in the “diabetic diet” (stacking the deck in Paleo’s favor, according to the cynic).  I can’t find any reason to disagree with the cynic, but it didn’t work out so well for Lindeberg et al.

As detailed in a series of posts about crossover studies (part I and part II), this one was botched due to: 1) what appears to be improper randomization (baseline glucose values were 7.1 and 8.6 mM); and 2) a washout period that was too short to allow one of the primary endpoint variables (HbA1C) to return to baseline.  As such, data presentation was convoluted, which said cynic might think was intentional.  But if we take it at face value, Paleo still fails.  For example, according to this figure (which is NOT crossover data), although Paleo has a lower final HbA1C, the HbA1C reduction is much greater on the diabetic diet.Paleo: 0

Diabetic diet: 1

AND weight loss was similar despite Paleo dieters consuming significantly less food (1581 vs. 1878 kcal/d):So yes, in accord with the Jonsson study (above), Paleo may have been more satiating (i.e., spontaneously lower food intake), but no, this didn’t translate to greater weight loss.  Someone needs to measure energy expenditure in Paleo dieters because it looks like this pattern of food intake either lowers basal metabolic rate or simply makes people tired (though this conclusion would be vehemently denied by Paleo loyalists).  The reduced leptin levels (Jonsson study) may have caused lower energy expenditure, but this would not entirely align with my lower-leptin-equals-higher-leptin-sensitivity hypothesis and thus cannot POSSIBLY be true :/   Alternatively, perhaps the Paleo diet really does lower energy expenditure; this would’ve been irrelevant and possibly even beneficial in Paleolithic times because: 1) they would’ve conserved more energy for “hunting” (hunter-gathers) or fleeing; and 2) weight loss was much less a concern compared to starving or being predated.

The Paleo diet is interesting in that it eludes low-carb status by selectively excluding grains, and I’m pleased that high quality studies (randomized crossover) are at least being attempted, but data thus far suggest we haven’t found anything magical about Paleo (yet)… just need better studies, especially those controlling for total carb content.

Paleo:

+1 for excluding grains, but not much else

 

calories proper

2 Comments

Posted in Advanced nutrition, Dietary fat, empty calories, Energy balance, Grains, Leptin, Uncategorized

Paleo vs. carbs (per se), Op. 68

Posted on April 6, 2012 | Leave a comment

The Paleo diet:

A)     the next big thing

B)      Atkins-lite

C)      Fail

D)     None of the above

While proponents of the Paleo diet take a page out of nutritionism‘s book and argue it’s about food choices, not macronutrients, my reductionism mandates inclusion of a comparative breakdown by protein, fat, and carbs.  In a recent publication, Lindeberg (a Paleo pioneer) compared Paleo to the Mediterranean diet in a cohort of CHD patients (Lindeberg et al., 2007 Diabetologia).  To make a long story short, Paleo came out on top in a variety of endpoint measures after 12 weeks.

Divide and conquer

The Paleo diet consisted of lean meat, fish, fruits, vegetables, potatoes, eggs, and nuts; grains and dairy were off-limits (Paleo is GFCF-friendly).  Paleo carbs include fruits, veggies, nuts, and beans… no starches, cereals, whole grains, added sugars, etc… FYI Atkins is very similar to Paleo but includes a lower absolute amount of Paleo carbs.  The Mediterranean dieters ate whole grains, low-fat dairy, vegetables, fruits, fish, oils, and margarines.  Both diets exclude processed junk food and both are relatively healthy diets.  

As such, both groups lost weight; slightly more on Paleo but this was probably due to reduced caloric intake (not uncommon for Paleo dieters; see below and also Osterdahl et al., 2008 EJCN):But the benefits of Paleo were much more robust WRT insulin sensitivity, which was markedly improved on Paleo but not Mediterranean.

Paleo: 1

Mediterranean: 0

With a 4% weight loss, why didn’t glucose tolerance improve in the Mediterranean dieters?  … weight loss is almost always accompanied by improved glycemic control…   The biggest difference in “foods” consumed by the two groups was cereals: 18 grams per day on Paleo vs. 268 on the Mediterranean diet… over 14 times more!  As I’ve discussed at length with gravitas, a high intake of cereals (aka grains aka fibre [in the figure below]) does not bode well for insulin sensitivity, inflammation, and outright all-cause mortality:

As such, Paleo does well to exclude grains.  Furthermore, Paleo is higher in protein and fat and lower in carbs- all good things.  A more interesting analysis showed that waist circumference (visceral fat) was associated with grain intake even when controlled for carbohydrates.  In other words, the detrimental impact of whole grains goes beyond their intrinsic carbohydrate content. (whole grains … insulin resistance … visceral fat)

Back to those calorie data for a moment, given that they were probably just as important as cereal exclusion in determining the results.  Why did Paleo dieters spontaneously eat so much less?  In a follow-up publication, Jonsson and colleagues assessed leptin and satiety in both groups (2010 Nutrition & Metabolism) and showed that despite eating less and losing more weight (things that should increase hunger and decrease satiety), Paleo actually did the opposite (hint: something to do with whole grains, perhaps?).

While the Paleo meals were smaller (5th and 6th rows) and contained fewer calories (3rd and 4th rows), they were just as satiating as Mediterranean diet meals (7th through 9th rows), leading the authors to conclude Paleo is more satiating calorie-for-calorie and pound-for-pound.  And if that isn’t enough, Paleo dieters also experienced a significantly greater reduction in leptin! (probably caused by their reduced food intake and body weight loss)  While the general consensus is that such a change in leptin should enhance hunger, as discussed previously I think lower leptin in this context reflects enhanced leptin sensitivity, which also helps to explain the improved insulin sensitivity.  Last but not least, WRT the Mediterranean diet I suspect reduced calories explains the weight loss, but the abundance of whole grains explains the blunted glycemic improvements.  (hint: whole grains … leptin resistance … insulin resistance) … (whole grain exclusion … leptin sensitivity … insulin sensitivity)

Paleo, the next big thing?  I’m holding out for a one-on-one with low-carb proper to exclude the role of Paleo’s lower carb content.  The whole grains issue requires no further confirmation IMO (e.g., Burr et al., 1989 Lancet, Jenkins et al., 2008 JAMA, etc.).

The Paleo diet:

A)     the next big thing

B)      Atkins-lite

C)      Fail

D)     None of the above

might be considered “Atkins-lite,” probably not “the next big thing,” definitely not “fail.”

+1 for excluding grains

 

calories proper

Leave a comment

Posted in Advanced nutrition, empty calories, Energy balance, Grains, Leptin, Protein, Sugar

the other liquor, Op. 67

Posted on March 30, 2012 | 1 comment

First pizza became a vegetable, now chocolate cures obesity, what’s next, cigarettes are the fountain of youth?

The publication that spawned the recent news flurry:  Association between more frequent chocolate consumption and lower body mass index (Golomb et al., 2012 JAMA)

The humble title doesn’t come close to the media’s interpretation, which included such deluded phrases as “A chocolate a day to get slimmer?” and  “Is chocolate the secret to a skinny waistline?”

While a chocolate bar isn’t the most nutritionally offensive dessert, it is neither a panacea of health nor a cure for obesity.  Chocolate 101: milk chocolate is loaded with sugar; dark chocolate usually has a little less sugar, it’s “dark” because it has less milk and more chocolate liquor (no, not that kind of liquor); unsweetened chocolate has no added sugar and is usually reserved for baking.  If you think you’re having a genuine chocolate craving, you, like many others, may have been beguiled by the serpent sugar. want proof? next time you’re in the mood, try some high-cocoa unsweetened chocolate; it’s the purest chocolate that chocolate can be.   While it can be rich and delicious in its own unique way, even the fanciest stuff tastes little like “chocolate”

And this “high-cocoa unsweetened chocolate” (shown on the bottom of the figure below) is probably the only kind that can be remotely called “healthy.”  The chocolate mentioned in this study was probably a blend of this, milk, and a ton of sugar (aka “milk chocolate”).

High-cocoa unsweetened chocolate is less sweet, higher in fat, and has more health-promoting compounds than any other type.

Back to the groundbreaking study for a moment:The third line of the results says that people who ate more chocolate were more depressed and ate more calories, both of which were associated with higher body weight.  But two lines later, we are told increased frequency of chocolate consumption by itself was linked with lower body weight…  let me get this straight: the people who ate more chocolate were fatter because they were depressed and ate more calories, not because they were eating more chocolate …? sounds like statistical sorcery of the highest degree.

On the other hand, a much more convincing study specifically on dark chocolate:  Short-term administration of dark chocolate is followed by a significant increase in insulin sensitivity and a decrease in blood pressure in healthy persons (Grassi et al., 2005 AJCN)

These lean (~140 lbs) healthy subjects were given, in a randomized crossover study, 100 grams (~3.5 ounces, 480 kcal) of dark or white chocolate for 2 weeks.  Dark chocolate contains all the health-promoting compounds (e.g., flavonoids, like those found in red wine and green tea); white chocolate has none.  The subjects were apparently prescribed a 1,400 kcal/d diet (semi-starvation) but didn’t lose any weight over the entire period.  So unless they were bedridden, this is probably not true.  But I’ll admit, the effect on insulin sensitivity was quite remarkable:White chocolate (open circles) was health neutral or even slightly modestly detrimental (all of the sugar, none of the flavonoids).  But dark chocolate profoundly enhanced insulin sensitivity-

Flavonoids: 1

Sugar: 0

(granted, this was probably the healthiest dark chocolate in the world…)Although this was a high quality study design (randomized crossover), I will [stubbornly] wait for independent confirmation before making any heretical paradigm shifts.

… uh-oh

High-cocoa polyphenol-rich chocolate improves HDL cholesterol in Type 2 diabetes patients (Mellor et al., 2010 Diabetes Medicine)

In contrast to the first study, this study didn’t use chocolate per se, but rather polyphenol-rich high-cocoa solids which is probably more similar in flavonoids to high-cocoa unsweetened chocolate.

Again, the results were fairly outstanding:Flavanoids: 2

Sugar: 0

Consumption of the regular (low-polyphenol) chocolate induced a pro-diabetic phenotype (increased glucose & insulin; decreased HDL), while the super-chocolate was potently anti-inflammatory (reduced CRP and increased HDL).  While these findings are indeed impressive, sorry, but the inconsistent effects on insulin sensitivity still give me pause (markedly effective in the Grassi study with dark chocolate vs. no effect at all in the Mellor study with polyphenol-rich cocoa solids).

In conclusion: milk chocolate candy bars are still on the list of “clearly unhealthy foods,” especially for anyone with metabolic syndrome or excess body fat; rare European dark chocolate is temporarily classified as “probably not harmful;” and high-cocoa unsweetened chocolate is upgraded to “possibly beneficial.”

unless it explodes(Weinzirl, 1922 Journal of Bacteriology)

calories proper

1 Comment

Posted in Advanced nutrition, Dietary fat, empty calories, Energy balance, Sugar

Yogurt black belt test, Op. 65

Posted on March 17, 2012 | 2 comments

Proper yogurt can serve as a delicious and healthy addition to any meal of the day.  It contains probiotics, whose role in promoting a healthy gut flora and overall well-being is widely appreciated.  As such, yogurt can be considered an acceptable source of a little bit of sugar in your diet.  (I don’t say that very often… actually, that was probably the first time.)

BUT (you had to know there was a “but”) there are a lot of caveats.  First and foremost is selecting the best yogurt product, since not many people are down with DIY fermentation (which is unfortunate given its tremendous ease).  The yogurt with the most gravitas on the market: FAGE.  It’s supposedly Greek, but I’d say given it’s macronutrient composition, it’s more Spartan.  There are considerable differences between the plain and fruity varieties worth considering.  For example, one serving of plain contains 190 kcal, 10g fat, 8g sugar, and 19g protein, whereas one serving of the blueberry-flavored variety contains 170 kcal, 6g fat, 16g sugar, and 11g protein.  twice the sugar! This is unacceptable, primarily because while I’m not really clear what’s in the “blueberry fruit preparation” that’s listed in the ingredients, I’m sure it’s not real blueberries.  Since real blueberries have negligible protein, we can assume the total protein content of the final product is entirely from the yogurt; therefore, their ambiguously named “blueberry fruit preparation” contributes about 27 grams to the entire 150 gram serving.  This adds 12 grams of sugar, whereas 27 grams of real blueberries would provide only 3 grams of sugar (and some fiber and phytonutrients).

And pass on the 0% fat version; one serving contains all of the sugar but none of  the healthy fats that slow down sugar absorption and contribute to satiation.

On to more pressing, or ‘popular,’ matters.  Dannon is the most widely purchased yogurt on the market.  One serving of plain Dannon yogurt contains 160 kcal, 8g fat, 12g sugar, and 9 grams of protein (less protein and healthy fats, and more sugar than its Spartan counterpart).  Their vanilla-flavored variety has a whopping 25 grams of sugar (and it’s certainly not natural dairy sugar…).  One serving of blueberry-flavored Fruit-on-the-Bottom contains 140 kcal, 1.5g fat, 26g sugar, and 6g protein.  If you added real blueberries to the plain variety this would only yield 15 grams of sugar (still more than FAGE, FTR).  Again, this additional sugar is not coming from real blueberries; unlike FAGE, who disguises their mystery flavor as “blueberry fruit preparation,” Dannon doesn’t even try to hide it.  Right in the ingredients list you’ll find strike 1: sugar, strike 2: fructose syrup, and strike 3: high fructose corn syrup (I honestly don’t know why that’s listed as three separate ingredients.  It’s like they’re trying to boast about it).  I feel pre-diabetic just reading it.  Yoplait is just as bad (high sugar and low protein); come on, Trix -flavored yogurt?  Really?

With regard to promoting a healthy gut flora:  Dannon contains only 1 probiotic strain: L. acidophilus; Yoplait has 2: L. bulgaricus and S. thermophiles; FAGE has 5, L. acidophilus, L. bulgaricus, S. thermophiles, Bifidus, and L. casei.

FAGE: winner.

 

calories proper

2 Comments

Posted in Advanced nutrition, Dietary fat, empty calories, Protein, Sugar, Uncategorized

Volumetrics II

Posted on March 12, 2012 | 1 comment

Volumetrics, take II, Op. 64

Greatest dietary predictors of 2-year weight loss success: increased intake of vegetables and meat and reduced intake of empty calories   (sugars and starchy carbs).

Proponents of the low-fat diet cite the high energy density of fat (9 kcal/g) relative to carbohydrate (4 kcal/g) and claim you can eat more carbs than fat without exceeding your daily calorie budget: 100 grams of carbs = 400 kcal; 100 grams of fat = 900 kcal.  And by extension, you will: 1) feel fuller after a high carb meal; 2) eat fewer calories; and 3) lose weight.  Bollocks, bollocks, and bollocks.  Diet studies that compare low-fat to low-carb impose strict calorie restrictions on the former and unlimited consumption of the latter.

The “energy density of food” theory is about as valuable for weight loss as “eat less, move more,” and “a calorie is a calorie.”  

Fiber  and water, the great filler-uppers, have done nothing in the battle of the bulge.

The figure above is from the now famous (or infamous, in certain crowds) Shai study.  A manuscript was recently published that tried to figure out which foods were most (or least) associated with successful body weight management at two distinct time points: 1) weight loss at 6 months; and 2) weight maintenance after 2 years.

Effects of changes in the intake of weight of specific food groups on successful body weight loss during a multi-dietary strategy intervention trial (Canfi et al., 2011 JACN)

The reduction in food consumed was ~24% on the low fat diet and ~33% on the low carb diet, despite a similar reduction in calories (~22%) in both groups.  The low fat diet was not “more satiating;” both groups were eating the same amount of calories.  Yet the low carb dieters lost more weight.  But the point of the new study was about which foods were the best predictors of success in all of the groups.  Ample information about the dietary intervention, cute food pyramids (see below), and sample meal plans are available in the online supplement.

By and large, the results were similar for weight loss (at 6 months) and weight maintenance (24 months); IOW, whatever helps you lose weight also helps keep it off.  But there some interesting differences. For example, increasing vegetable intake assisted weight loss but was less important in the long-term.  Conversely, reducing starchy carbs (bread, pasta, cereals and potatoes) was moderately important for weight loss but universally important for maintenance of a reduced body weight.  Increased meat intake was one of the best predictors of successful long-term weight loss independent from background diet (it was equally true for low carb and low fat dieters).  In other words, increasing vegetable intake can help jumpstart a weight loss diet, but reducing starchy carbs increasing meat intake need to be permanent lifestyle changes.

And surprise surprise, reducing “sweets and cakes” was also a major factor across all diets.  With regard to weight loss, reducing sweets and cakes was statistically more important than increasing vegetables.  In fact, it was the most important change of all.

In sum, long-term weight loss success includes a diet with more meat and vegetables and fewer empty calories (starchy carbs, sweets and cakes, etc.).

 

calories proper

 

Become a Patron!

 

 

1 Comment

Posted in Advanced nutrition, Dietary fat, empty calories, Energy balance, Protein, Sugar