There’s a big beverage brouhaha brewing in New York state.  It has nothing to do with coffee or beer.  A proposed tax on soda is at the center of this storm.

Local (e.g., Philadelphia) and state governments such as New York are looking to raise revenues and reduce waistlines by taxing sweetened beverages.  The proposed taxes range from 12 to 24 cents per 12-ounce container.  As expected, soda manufacturers are all afizz over this development.

We won’t opine about whether or not taxing soda is worthy public health idea.  We’ll save that for another blog on another day.   But there is recent research that suggests that manipulating the price of foods may change – in surprising ways – what people buy. 

Testing Effects of Food Prices

Scientists at the University of Buffalo used a very innovative research design to test how reducing the costs of healthy foods (i.e., subsidizing) or increasing the cost of less healthy foods (i.e., taxing)  would affect the types of foods moms selected for their families¹.  The researchers simulated a trip to the supermarket by setting up a room with photos of 68 foods and beverages.  One-half of the foods were healthy and the other one-half were less healthy.  The food photos also had the nutrition information and price for the respective food. 

Forty-two mothers with at least one child living at home each went “shopping” through the “store” five different times.  They were given a spending limit (the same amount for each time) based on the size of their family and they had to spend it all.  Each time a mom went shopping the prices were different.  During some trips the prices of healthy foods were lowered (i.e., they were subsidized).  On other trips, the food prices on less healthy foods went up (similar to being taxed).  After each trip through the simulated store, researchers calculated the nutrient composition of the foods a mom “bought.” 

Food Subsidies or Taxes – Which Works?

The results very clearly showed that taxing less healthy foods reduced the calories and fat and increased the protein in the mom’s shopping carts.  The moms purchased less of the less healthy foods AND surprisingly, increased their purchase of the healthier foods!  What did subsidizing the price of the healthier foods do?  The moms bought more of the healthy stuff as expected but they also used their “savings” on the healthier foods to purchase more of the less healthy foods!  This led to an actual INCREASE in total calories purchased.  The opposite of what most families today need to do. 

So maybe New York, Philadelphia, and other places are on to something with their budget proposals that call for taxes on sodas.  But should soda and other sweetened beverages be the only foods targeted?  Tune in next week for a continuing chapter in the soda tax saga.

¹ Epstein LH et al.  The influence of taxes and subsidies on energy purchased in an experimental purchasing study.  Psychological Science.  Published online 5 February 2010.  DOI 10.1177/0956797610361446.

You may be aware that March is Colon Cancer Awareness Month. Among cancers that affect both men and women, colorectal cancer is the third most common diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. According to the American Cancer Society, almost 150,000 new cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed and approximately 50,000 people died from the disease last year. Despite these statistics, unlike some cancers, colorectal cancer is highly preventable and can be detected early through proper screening. And what do you think one of the most important prevention tools is? That’s right—physical activity.

In 2009, a review published in the British Journal of Cancer combined the data from 52 published studies on physical activity and colon cancer1. It was determined that the most physically active participants were 24% less likely than the least active to develop colon cancer. And the good news is this pattern held true for both lifestyle and structured physical activity.

This may not be surprising to some as regular physical activity has been shown to reduce the risk of many chronic diseases. But what many may not realize is that for those diagnosed with colon cancer, regular physical activity may decrease the risk of cancer recurrence and death2,3. In the long running Nurse’s Health Study, women who engaged in moderate physical activity (i.e. brisk walking) six days per week for about an hour per day reduced their risk of colon cancer-related death by 61% and 57% for all causes of mortality, when compared with women who rarely exercised2. And maybe even more remarkable was that even if the women began exercising after their diagnosis, they reduced their risk of colon cancer-related death by 52%. So the expression “it’s never too late to start” definitely applies here. Another study, this time with both men and women who had been diagnosed with stage III colon cancer, showed similar results3. With about six hours per week of walking, just like the previous study, there was a 49% decrease in the risk of getting colon cancer again.

So once again, the evidence shows the amazing power of physical activity. The American Cancer Society recommends that adults get at least 30 minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity on 5 or more days of the week. Moderate or vigorous activity for at least 45 minutes on 5 or more days of the week may lower your risk for colorectal cancer even more. And as a reminder, screening is the most powerful tool for preventing colon cancer.

To learn more about colon cancer visit the American Cancer Society.

1KY Wolin et al. Physical activity and colon cancer prevention: a meta-analysis. British Journal of Cancer. 2009; 100(4): 611-616.

2Meyerhardt JA, Giovannucci EL, Holmes MD, et al. Physical activity and survival after colorectal cancer diagnosis. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2006; 24(22):3527–3534.

3Meyerhardt JA, Heseltine D, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Impact of physical activity on cancer recurrence and survival in patients with stage III colon cancer: findings from CALGB 89803. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2006 Aug 1; 24(22): 3517-8.

Eating on the run. Dashboard dining.  Surfing and snarfing.  Viewing and chewing.  These are all ways to describe our modern eating patterns.  Especially our snacking habits.  Research suggests we are doing a lot more of that today than 30 years ago.  I know, it doesn’t surprise you given our hectic lives.  But do you know just how much we snack?  Read on.

Studying Snacking

Researchers at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill compiled data from four very large national nutrition surveys done between 1977 and 2006¹.  I won’t go into the complicated methodology but suffice it to say the scientists took great pains to sort through the food intake of nearly 45,000 adults over the age of 18.  In so doing, they were very careful to define snacks as eating occasions separate from meals.  Thus, foods commonly thought of as “snack” foods (e.g., potato chips) that were eaten as part of a meal were counted in the meal calculations.  The end result was a data set that had information on the three main meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner) and snacks.

So how much do we snack? According to this study, a lot. Nearly all (97%) American adults eat snacks in a two-day period.  That’s up from 71% in 1977.  Daily snackers increased in the same period from 42% to 78%.  Also, we have nearly doubled the number of snacks per day (1.3 in 1977 to 2.2 in 2006).  But here is the kicker.  Each snack has increased from 144 to 226 calories and our total daily snacking calories have increased from 357 to a whopping 579 calories.  That’s a 64% increase! Today, snacking accounts for 24% of our total daily calorie intake. 

Are you ready for more bad news?  Our top 5 sources of snack calories are desserts, salty snacks, other snacks, sweetened beverages, and juices/fruit.  Low- and high-fat snacks increased the most since 1977 with, unfortunately, milk/dairy and juices/fruit dropping over the same time period.

So where did all those extra snack calories go?  Likely right to our waistlines because we have not increased our physical activity in the last 30 years to balance out the extra calories. 

Make Snacking Work

We are not likely to change our grab and go, fast-paced lives.  So you need to make snacking work to your advantage.  For example, most people don’t eat enough fruit, vegetables, and/or dairy products.  So instead of reaching for a Snickers bar, choose:

• Fresh, frozen, or dried fruit or fruit canned in fruit juices
• Fresh vegetables such as carrot sticks, cucumbers, grape tomatoes, mushrooms, etc.
• Low-fat or nonfat yogurt and cheese

You’ll satisfy your need for a snack plus boost your nutrient intake with these nutritious options.  Also, check out our earlier blog on 100 calories food portions.  Eating two to three of these 100 calorie options a day is a vast improvement over the nearly 600 calories we are currently snarfing down. 

¹ Piernas C and Popkin BM.  Snacking increased among U.S. Adults between 1977-2006.  Journal of Nutrition.  2010;140:325-332.

The 2010 Winter Olympics, in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada ended yesterday. There were fifteen sports and 85 medal events. These events were split up into three categories of ice sports, alpine skiing/snowboarding and Nordic events.

Here at The Cooper Institute in Dallas, Texas I felt a little bit more connected to the games this year...  Most due to the actual winter blasts we’ve had. During the games we had colder than normal temperatures and it even snowed.  We set a new 24 hour snowfall record at over 12.5”.

With a winter wonderland in Dallas and the winter Olympics it was impossible not to want to participate in my own winter games. I couldn’t build my own Luge track but some of the cars I saw sliding around on the highway made it look like I did. I did go sledding, shoveled snow and built a snowman.

During this fun I was a bit curious if I was getting any caloric expenditure.   Also, I wondered how much energy is burned in an event that sometimes lasts only a few seconds and looks to be just using gravity to go downhill.

You might be a bit surprised to see the expenditures:¹

• Vigorous Downhill Skiing at race pace – 8.0 METS
• Bobsledding and Luge – 7.0 METS
• Cross Country Skiing at more than 8mph (racing) – 14.0 METS
• Cross Country Skiing uphill at race pace – 16.5 METS
• Speed Skating – 15.0 METS
• Curling – 4.0 METS
• Ice Hockey – 8.0 METS
• Shoveling snow by hand – 6.0 METS

Remember a MET is a way of describing the amount of energy (calories) the body is burning relative to energy burned at complete rest. One MET is equal to 1 kcal/kg/hour or the same as rest or sitting quietly, two METs means the body is burning calories at twice the rate of rest, three METs is three times, and so on. So if you are shoveling snow by hand, you are burning six times as much energy as you would be just sitting at rest.

To meet the current recommendations for adults one should do at least 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity physical activity or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity physical activity per week (or some combo of the two). As was discussed in the past blog “Moderate Means What,” 3.0-5.9 METS equals moderate intensity.

So I was doing pretty well when shoving my sidewalks!

¹Ainsworth BE. (2002, January) The Compendium of Physical Activities Tracking Guide. Prevention Research Center, Norman J. Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina. Retrieved [02/25/10] from the World Wide Web. http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/docs/documents_compendium.pdf

Too many calories eaten and not enough calories burned.  You know the result – weight gain.  And you likely know that an increase in weight may lead to health problems such as diabetes, arthritis, and heart disease.  But did you know that packing on the pounds may also contribute to problems in your head?  Specifically, a decline in your ability to process information as you get older.

According to a new study¹ from Sweden, men and women who had high a body mass index (BMI) – a measure of body fatness based on height and weight – in midlife (average age 42) were more likely to have lower cognitive scores 20 to 40 years later in life than adults who had lower BMI at midlife.  In addition, the cognitive function of those with high BMIs at midlife declined faster than men and women with a lower BMI.  The researchers accounted for age, alcohol use, smoking, and cardiovascular disease risk in the analyses so the study results seem to be independent of certain known risk factors.   Still, the exact mechanism for why this might be happening has yet to be determined.  For example, what, if any, role might dietary or physical activity differences played in this association between BMI and cognitive health?

Nonetheless, it makes sense to prevent weight gain in early, middle, and older age.   How?  Through calorie balance.  Also, in our “Flex Your Brain Muscle” blog we touched on how regular physical activity is showing promise in reducing cognitive decline with age. 

Our advice?  Keep your brain nimble by maintaining a healthy weight and being physically active.  

¹ Dahl A et al. Being overweight in midlife is associated with lower cognitive ability and steeper cognitive decline in adults. Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences.  2010;65A(1):57-62.

Whether you are making an effort to become a regular exerciser or you’ve noticed a decrease in your motivation to maintain a routine, take the following self assessment and see if your current exercise choices are really the "Best Fit" according to your schedule, likes and dislikes, social goals, and fitness goals.

Directions: Read the following statements and circle or select yes (Y) or no (N) regarding your agreement with the statement.

1. Y N I have well defined fitness goals.

2. Y N I know how to reach my fitness goals.

3. Y N My fitness program includes all 3 elements of fitness: cardiovascular, strength training and flexibility.

4. Y N I have access to the equipment, gym, or the classes I need.

5. Y N Time is always an issue regarding making time for exercise.

6. Y N I travel regularly and I find it difficult to work out.

7. Y N My job requires that I have lots of interaction with people daily.

8. Y N I am bored with my work out.

9. Y N I feel like exercising is "work" and not much fun.

10.Y N I have been exercising regularly for less than 3 months.

Now read the following paragraphs to get insights, and suggestions to attain a "Best Fit" exercise routine that fits your current lifestyle, attitudes, responsibilities, time demands, likes and dislikes, and social needs.

Sign up for group exercise classes if your assessment revealed any of the following: boredom, time crunch, lack of a balanced work out, and/or a job that lacks much people interaction Here is why: Group Exercise Classes provide a stimulating atmosphere with music and high energy leadership that puts some fun into the work out. Also, many classes offer a total body work out, so your time is effectively used and every component of fitness is addressed. Furthermore, you can benefit from new moves or experience new exercises. You may use fitness machines or apparatus that you otherwise wouldn’t have tried. You will be challenged afresh mentally, physically, and emotionally. Lastly, you will have a social network that supports your efforts and motivates you to keep exercising.

If your assessment revealed a big demand from others due to the nature of your work, consider choosing exercises that allow for "me time". For example for the cardiovascular segment of your workout, select a machine with a built in TV and get lost in a favorite show, sports programming, or relaxing comedy. Or you can opt to listen to your i-tunes while doing cardio, strength training and flexibility. Run, walk, or cycle outside and enjoy the quiet of nature and get refreshed, revitalized.

Lastly, if your assessment revealed a lack of well defined fitness goals, how to reach those fitness goals, travel concerns, and/or you have been exercising regularly but for less than 3 months, consider hiring a qualified personal trainer for 6-12 sessions. The trainer can assess your current level of fitness, accelerate your progress towards goals, address weaknesses you might otherwise ignore, and make sure you are on track. With their help you have a connection with a professional that you may consult from time to time to keep you motivated, safe, and moving forward.

Prochaska, J, Norcross, J, and DiClemente, C. Changing For Good: A Revolutionary Six-Stage Program for Overcoming Bad Habits and Moving Your Life Positively, Avon Books, Inc. NY. 1994.

We don’t do this too often in the Stand Up & Eat blog but I am going to ask you to click on the link below and read the article that it leads to, especially the last four paragraphs.  Then come back to this blog entry because I want to pose some questions to you.

Candy Maker Cut the Calories, by Cutting the Size

OK.  So the article is an in-depth story about Hershey’s new line of mini versions of some of their favorite branded candies.  Apparently, York Peppermint Patties, Almond Joy, and Hershey’s Special Dark chocolate have gone to “pieces.”   The marketing analyst quoted at the end of the article implied that people who are interested in controlling their portions of candy may be interested in these smaller pieces.

But my question is this, “Just because the candy is smaller, does it mean people will eat less?”  In fact, the only size bag of the “Pieces” candy line I have seen is one that contains multiple servings.   And research has shown that people eat more from bigger packages.¹  So, will (to borrow from an old Lay’s potato chip slogan) “Bet you can’t eat just one” (serving) come into play for many Pieces eaters?

Is this a case of “right sizing” candy or manipulating consumer demand (and capitalizing on major brand awareness) by creating a new product (and more calories) that consumer’s didn’t ask for – and don’t really need?  Do you think this new product will help or hinder consumers' effort to balance calories?

¹ Wansink B.  Can package size accelerate usage volume?  Journal of Marketing. 1996.  60;3:1-14.

As most individuals recognize, physical inactivity has been shown to increase the number of deaths from all-causes, as well as from heart disease and cancer. But what about individuals who meet the physical activity recommendations but spend most of the day sitting?  Does all that sitting have a negative impact on health?

A study performed by Dr. Katzmarzyk¹ and his associates (2009) examined the effects of prolonged sitting on all-cause and cardiovascular death rates in individuals who exercised and those who did not.  The researchers collected information about daily activities including time spent sitting in over 17,000 individuals.  They followed the subjects for an average of 12 years measuring the number of deaths and the cause.

Not surprising, researchers reported the highest death rates in persons who spent most of the day sitting.  However, all-cause and heart disease death rates were also higher in persons who spent more time sitting even if they met the recommended physical activity requirements.  In fact, death rates were similar in exercisers and nonexercisers who spent most of their day sitting.  

Researchers are studying the effects of excessive sitting on the body.  Some of the negative effects include Type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, obesity and cardiovascular disease.  Scientists believe that an active lifestyle may provide different health benefits than occur with exercise alone, providing further protection against heart disease.    

This research highlights the need to reduce sedentary behaviors by spending more time standing, walking, and climbing the stairs.  Low intensity activities like cleaning, ironing, walking the dog and yard work are excellent ways to add activity to your day while completing chores on your ”to-do" list.  For additional health benefits, focus on increasing lifestyle activities over and above structured moderate to vigorous intensity exercise bouts. 

1.  Katzmarzyk, P.T., Church, T.S., Craig, C.L., & Bouchard, C. (2009). Sitting time and Mortality from All Causes, Cardiovascular Disease, and Cancer. MSSE, 41(5),998-1005.

My cousin told me this week that her five-year old son had learned to count to 100 recently.  One of the ways he learned what 100 looked like was to put 100 Legos on a board.  When he finished he exclaimed, “That’s 100??  Wow!”

So I thought it would be fun to see what you would say if I showed you what 100 calories looks like for different foods.  Here goes:

¼ of a large bagel
2 slices American cheese
1 ounce pretzels
¼ cup premium ice cream
¾ can of regular soda
2/3 of single serving bag of potato chips
2/5 of small bag of regular M&Ms
1/32 of an apple pie (or ¼ of a regular slice)
4 ounce glass of wine
1.4 ounces of hard liquor
¾ bottle of beer
2 regular Oreo cookies

2 cups strawberries
4 cups cherry tomatoes
2 cups chopped peppers
2 cups diced watermelon
7 cups celery
1 medium apple
4 cups cauliflower
3 cups air-popped popcorn

So, did you exclaim, “That’s 100 calories?!?!”  You were probably surprised how little 100 calories is of each of the top list foods and how much 100 calories is for the foods in the bottom list.  The top list is of foods that are high in fat, sugar and/or alcohol – and relatively few nutrients.  The bottom list shows foods that are high in fiber, water, and nutrients.

Why does 100 calories matter?  Eating just 100 calories more than you burn each day can add up to more than 10 pounds of extra weight in one year.   These lists show that you need to be especially careful to keep your portions in check when eating most snack foods.   (Check out our earlier blog posting about the downside to the 100-calorie snack packs.)  But you can eat lots of the good stuff – vegetables and many fruits – for just 100 calories. 

Which list will you be eating from more often?