childhood beverages

Study finds that girls consuming two or more 8-ounce servings of sweetened beverages a day at the age of five were “more likely to be overweight than were girls classified with lower intake over the study period.” Those drinking more than two servings of sweetened beverages at age five had a 53.9% chance of being overweight by the age of 11 [1].

The authors did not, however, find a link between milk or fruit juice consumption and weight status over this ten year data collection period [1].

Possibly of most importance was the finding of increased sweetened beverage intake over time. Those girls at the highest intake of sweetened beverages at the age of five had significantly higher intakes from age 7 to 15 compared to those drinking one serving of sweetened beverages a day or less. Consumption remained the same for those girls consuming one to two servings a day of sweetened beverages [1].

What to take away from this study is most certainly pushing water and low-calorie beverages with children. Habits and food preferences are instilled at a young age – don’t set your children up for a lifetime of weight struggles. Consider also the caffeine and sugar content of beverages as well, and how those contents can affect sleep, dental hygiene, attention span, and learning opportunities.

Did you drink soda as a kid? Juice? KoolAid? Whole milk after the age of 2? 

I think my mom did well with this, actually. We rarely drank soda, as it was not kept in the house. Dinner was typically milk (2% and later to skim), water, or Crystal Light. Possibly some juice, but it wasn't a staple from my recollection. 

Even programs such as WIC no longer support juice consumption for children and opt to provide access to the whole fruit, providing both the nutrients AND volume, thus increasing the satiety of the calories consumed.

Dinner tonight: 1/2 acorn squash with 1 1/2 Tbsp melted Smart Balance Light, 2 tsp Splenda Brown Sugar, 1/2 tsp turbinado, and 1/2 ounce pecans....mmmm!! Talk about fall comfort food! Mama N used to make these babies sans the healthy butter and reduced-calorie 
sugars...and way more pecans! She was trouble, that mama of mine!!!

P.S. It tastes WAY better than it looks!

P.P.S. My diet yesterday looked a lot like the day before so I am sparing myself and you from writing and reading it!

[1]. Thomas, Caroline. Kids’ Soft Drink Habits Predict Teenage Weight: Study. Vol. 90, No. 4, 935-942. October 12, 2009.

Simple Sugars and More Crock Pot Love...

Blog topic request: simple sugars.

My friend -- we'll call her Jenny -- is pregnant! Jenny went for her oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in her second trimester, per protocol, to check for gestational diabetes (GDM). Gestational diabetes shows up in approximately 4-5% of pregnancies and is marked by elevated blood glucose due to elevated hormone levels, affecting insulin secretion. Insulin is the hormone responsible for decreasing blood glucose (sugar) in the blood. Gestational diabetes is diagnosed when the body cannot make enough insulin to keep blood glucose levels within safe ranges for both mother and baby.

While Jenny was not diagnosed with GDM, she was told to stay away from "simple sugars" after a slightly elevated 2-hour blood glucose reading during her OGTT. So, she wants to know what carbs to include and which to exclude.

As far as "simple carbohydrates" things that come to mind include: soda, juice, sugar, syrup, candy, honey, chocolate, desserts, white flour, etc.

"Complex carbohydrate" are the "good carbs," meaning they do not as readily (and quickly) increase blood glucose in the body. When fiber is included in a food we can consider it more complex as fiber causes a "slow release" of sugar. Often, fiber-containing carbohydrates are given a "net carb" count, meaning the grams of fiber are subtracted from the total grams of carbohydrates giving the "net carbs," and thus "lowering" the actual effect of carbohydrate on blood glucose.

So, complex carbohydrates would include: whole grain cereal, pasta, and rice, oats, beans, legumes, and fruits and vegetables. So basically, anything that's not a sugar or refined : )

Because I'm a huge supporter of a diabetic meal patterns (consistent carbohydrates), I recommend to insulin resistant individuals a slightly modified diabetic meal pattern of approximately 60 grams of carbohydrates per meal with a night time snack consisting of both carbohydrates and protein (approx. 15-30 grams of carbohydrates). Adding in morning and afternoon snacks containing approximately 15 grams of carbohydrates is optimal, as well.

For our purposes, forget about "net carbs" and focus on labels and "total carbohydrates" -- grams. By controlling the amount of glucose we're putting into our bodies, we can control (the best and only way that we can) the amount of sugar going into our blood. Hence, any individual with insulin resistance, I recommend following this regimen (or a modification of this regimen).

Carbohydrates are essential and thus, the backbone of any diet. Even a diabetic diet contains mostly carbohydrates. And really, a diabetic meal pattern is simply another means of explaining a HEALTHY, BALANCED DIET! Ideally, all of our meals are comprised of carbohydrates, fats, and protein. In the case of carbohydrate control, the aim is to meet, but not exceed, the recommended carbohydrate intake and use protein and fat accordingly.

What might 60 grams of carbohydrates LOOK like? Good question!

Breakfast:
2 slices of whole wheat toast
with Smart Balance or peanut butter
1 small banana
1 egg or Egg Beaters
coffee with creamer

AM snack:
apple and 1 oz. low-fat cheese

Lunch:
2 oz. turkey and cheese sandwich on whole wheat
1 Tbsp light mayonnaise
1 serving of baked chips
1 oz. of almonds
string cheese

PM snack:
low-fat yogurt with 1/4 c. granola

Dinner:
1 c. whole wheat pasta
1/2 c. marinara
3-4 1 ounce meatballs
salad with light dressing

Snack:
6-8 crackers with cheese or peanut butter

"Jenny" -- I hope this helps! I'm here to help...just ask : )

And in my crock pot last night was a winner, and rich in complex carbohydrates! Can't-Hardly-Cook Chicken Parmesan! Before work, I threw in 5 chicken breasts which I had rolled in Egg Beaters and then in a mix of bread crumbs, Italian seasoning, salt, pepper, and garlic powder (lightly brush with olive oil the bottom of your crock pot first). I then layered 2-3 slices of light mozzarella over the top, and dumped on 2 jars of Classico marinara. Cooked on low all day and added it atop a portion of whole wheat linguine. It was divine! The chicken fell apart it was so moist...delicious!

I've got tonight's dinner cookin' up now -- chicken tortilla soup! Yum! Recipe review (and pictures) later!

Study says: saccharin's alright.

After the soda tax poll, writing on this study seemed only appropriate. I am NOT justifying the partaking of ANY carbonated beverage, but for my one-a-day diet soda habit, I'll take the Splenda and leave the 160 calories for another waistline. I digress....

A study published by the Journal of Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention published a study claiming no cancer-causing effects of artificial sweeteners such as saccharin and aspartame. The study assessed the risk of stomach and pancreatic cancer incidences in 3,000+ Italians with "regular" intakes of artificial sweeteners. This particular study follows a previous study performed on rats in 2007 published in Environmental Health Perspectives, which showed cancer-causing effects of artificial sweeteners [1].

Artificial sweeteners such as saccharin and aspartame are used world-wide and they produced industry amounting $1.83 billion dollars in 2007 alone. The most common artificial sweetener world-wide is saccharin with aspartame coming in second [1].

In Milan, Christina Boselli conducted case-controlled studies between 1991 and 2004 among "users" and "non-users" of artificial sweeteners. Among the data included there were 230 people were diagnosed with stomach cancer and 547 were healthy controls. Another 326 diagnosed with pancreatic cancer were included, with another 652 health controls. And yet another 454 persons diagnosed with edometrial cancer were included with another 908 healthy controls. The results were adjusted for confounding factors. None of the data produced results showing cancer-causing effects of cancer and nor did one artificial sweetener over the others [1].

Limitations of the study should be noted. Firstly, the included data was that of Italians only. Secondly, only three types of cancer were studied [1].

Another study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute showed no significant difference between groups consuming asparatme and incidences of leukemia, lymphoma, or brain tumors. This large-scale study included 285,079 men and 188,905 women, all aged 50 to 69 years [1].

Yet another study review published in 2007 in Critical Reviews in Toxicology showed that adverse effects of artificial sweeteners had "no credible scientific basis". This particular review included a panel of 8 experts over the course of 11 months. Over 500 studies, articles, and reports completed over the 25 years prior were included. Some of the included data was unpublished, but submitted to government bodies for regulatory process approvals [1].

My take: if you have to choose one...choose diet. Artificial sweeteners, no matter how they are chemically modified to be calorie-free are NOT natural products. Just my $0.02 on soda -- anyone care to share theirs?

TGIF!!! Have a great weekend!

[1]. Daniells, Stephen. Artificial Sweeteners Not Linked to Cancer: Study. Food Navigator. August 12, 2009.

Soda Tax.

Firstly, a huge thanks to those following my blog -- I appreciate it! I get extremely giddy over new followers, so thank you! And keep the comments coming, I love the questions and commentary. :)

And on to soda tax. VERY interesting idea. I think I may like it.

Kelly Brownell, professor of psychology and director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, argues that in order to produce a real change, there needs to be a shift in the economic balance between healthful and unhealthful foods and to curtail the all-pervasive marketing of junk food. This would include a tax on soda, he states. Brownell is a go-to guy on topics surrounding the obesity debate and the media [1].

Brownell is also co-author of the book entitled, "Food Fight: The Inside Story of the Food Industry, America's Obesity Crisis, and What We Can Do About It" (Note to self: order this on amazon.com ASAP!). His suggestion of taxing sugar and high-fructose corn syrup beverages surfaced in April when it was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. While this idea isn't a new one to Brownell, he claims it's now feasible due to the economic recession in America [1].

The details? Brownell proposes an 18% tax on soda. He states that with such a tax, fewer Americans will consume soda, and weight loss nationwide can be expected. Starting at the state-level, Brownell forecasts involvement on a federal level, much the same way as tobacco taxes [1].

The tax money can then be used to fund obesity-prevention programs and subsidize the farming of healthful fruits and vegetables, just as the government currently subsidizes corn that's processed into high-fructose corn syrup [1]. Does anyone care about the obesity epidemic enough to DO anything about it? Appears so. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) held a three-day "Weight of the Nation" conference in DC last month. The conference brought together academics, scientists, physicians, and public health officials from all over the world to discuss the current obesity epidemic in America. Specifically, research presented at the conference estimated the 2008 cost of treating obesity-related ailments in the US at $147 billion [1].

Brownell is quoted in saying [1]:
"Until healthful foods routinely cost less than unhealthful ones, getting people -- especially low-income people -- to eat them will remain a challenge." -- I agree.

"...Unless limits are placed on the marketing of unhealthful foods, the whole anti-obesity effort hardly stand a chance." -- Probably so.

"The public-health approach to fighting obesity must shift from treatment of those who are already fat to preventing others -- especially kids -- from getting that way." -- Interesting. Worth a shot, anyways.

The columnist, LaRue Huget, counters with the argument that diet and weight should be a matter of personal responsibility, not government concern [1]. While I wish I could agree, I don't. Just because something ought to be, certainly doesn't mean it's a reality. And certainly this is true for leading a healthful lifestyle and maintaining a healthy weight. If obesity weren't an epidemic, I could possibly wish on a lucky star that Medicare would be in existence in 45 years' time. Ha! Brownell goes on to say, "When people move to the U.S., they gain weight. Have they become less responsible? We have more obesity this year than last. Are we all less responsible? [1]." Hmm. Wise man, that Brownell, don't ya think?

Regina Benjamin, a highly accomplished and well-regarded physician (who happens to be overweight) has been nominated for surgeon general. What does this message send? Brownell explains that Benjamin is an "excellent role model because she does struggle with her weight. Her nomination underscores that there are better ways to judge a person than by how much she weighs." Great. But, how much is too much? At what point does a weight "struggle" turn into a weight "problem"??

[1]. LaRue Huget, Jennifer. Can We Fight Obesity by Slapping a Heavy Tax on Soda? The Washington Post. August 11, 2009.

May I have that to go?

No, not my food. My soft drink. "May I please take my soft drink to go?" ::blink:: Congratulations, on a new means of complete and utter gluttony, Oklahoma.

Oklahomans know how to do one thing right: eat and drink. I've never heard of beverage "to-go" cups before moving here...and it pains me to great lengths that my husband is a to-go cup convert. Sigh.

Mark and I were out to lunch yesterday at a local Mexican restaurant and at the end of our meal... asked the waiter for a "to-go" cup for his (diet) Coke. "Sure, no problem!" said the waiter, as he ran off for the Styrofoam cup, plastic lid, and new straw to-go (at no cost to the customer). I was in shock. That's my husband that just asked that? Disbelief! Disappointment, even. Sure, I understand the convenience factor, but I see a few issues with the whole ordeal.

Firstly, cost (and waste). It's more common than not that restaurant servers here will ask the customer, "Would you like a to-go cup?". As an establishment in search of a profit, this is a huge financial mistake. Whatever, their loss, right? Second, I'd imagine that here in Oklahoma, most restaurant patrons are taking one of two beverages to-go: Coke or sweet tea. Roll your eyes at that stereotypical comment all you want, but I can nearly guarantee that as a fact. Thus, patrons are taking home or for the road, an additional 150-350 calories...after consuming a meal and however many other servings of liquid cavities while dining-in. Clearly unnecessary, to say the least. Lastly, this whole to-go cup offer is not only at the local Mexican restaurant, but at the chains like Chili's and Olive Garden. Chain restaurants condone this? It seems so...tacky to me! I surely wouldn't go into a 4-star restaurant and ask for my water to-go, know what I mean? Again, I'm at a loss as to the logic here, Chili's. Get it together, I thought you were classier than that!

When my groom asked for that cup, I about crawled under the table in embarrassment...after shooting him a quick death stare. Oklahomans ought to learn: there's a reason they're the 5th fattest state in the US. Liquid calories to-go have no place in the diet...especially during a sedentary drive to their next destination. And this could be yet another reason Oklahoma is ranked #50 in terms of fruit and vegetable consumption, as well. You know what they say...high-fructose corn syrup is nearly crack.

Man, there's work to be done in the OK! Sign me up for the challenge!

Disclaimer: While other regions may be guilty, I can only judge based on what I know of Oklahoma.