You've probably heard that breakfast is an important meal that shouldn't be skipped - especially for those trying to lose weight. And you've probably been encouraged to fill your breakfast bowl with cereal, fruit, and low fat milk. Well, new research takes this recommendation a step further by showing that the type of cereal you fill your bowl with matters.

Canadian researchers studied the effect of low-fiber cereal vs. high-fiber cereal on appetite, calorie intake, and blood sugar in 32 healthy adults. Study participants were given 60 grams of either Fiber One (high-fiber; 120 calories) or Kellogg's Cornflakes (low-fiber; 21 7calories) cereal. Motivation to eat, physical comfort, and blood sugar was measured at baseline (before breakfast), as well as regularly before lunch and after lunch. For lunch, study subject were given pizza and told to eat until "comfortably full."

Results showed that per calorie (Fiber One had less calories than Cornflakes), the high fiber cereal suppressed appetite more than the low fiber cereal. Furthermore, while lunchtime food intake did not differ between cereals, the total calorie intake (cereal + lunch) was lower after the high fiber cereal. Additionally, participants' blood sugar levels were lower before and after lunch if they had eaten the high-fiber cereal.

Some examples of high-fiber cereal (5 or more grams of fiber per serving) are:

• Oatmeal (e.g., Quaker Weight Control, Kashi GoLean)
• Raisin Bran (e.g., Kellogg's)
• Fiber One (General Mills)
• All-Bran (Kellogg's)
• Shredded Wheat
• Grape Nuts (Post)

The current fiber recommendations (provided by the Institute of Medicine) are listed below.

Adults 50 years and younger - 38 grams/day for men and 25 grams/day for women

Adults older than 50 years - 30 grams/day for men and 21 grams/day for women

What's your favorite high-fiber cereal?

Hamedani, A (2009). Reduced energy intake at breakfast is not compensated for at lunch if a high insoluble-fiber cereal replaces a low-fiber cereal. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 89, 1343-1349.

Worried about your children gaining too much weight?

Have difficulty finding time to fit physical activity into your hectic life?

Want to spend more time doing things as a family?

There’s a single solution to all these challenges  – click off the television and move more.  According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, children ages 6-18 spend over three hours a day watching television.  As you can see from the graph at the top of this blog, children also spend a lot of time in front of other screens playing video games and using the computer.  But still, TV watching is their biggest active living time robber. 

Studies have shown a strong link between TV time and increased risk of becoming overweight or obese in children.  And excess TV time is not just a problem for your kids.  As we blogged earlier, increasing television time was associated with increased risk for obesity and diabetes in adults.  Being sedentary and eating high calorie snacks in front of the tube are the likely culprits to the negative health impacts of watching too much television.

So, let’s see.  Too much time watching TV and not enough time being physically active.  Anyone else see a possible “kill two birds with one stone” solution?  That would be turn off the TV and burn off some calories. 

Need help changing this sedentary habit?

This past week was Turn of the TV week.  Don’t worry. If you missed the official week, you can designate any week in the future as the “_______________”-family Turn It Off week.  Here’s a link to ways you can wean the family from the screen.  Plus, you can start now to plan for September’s Turnoff Week.

Rarely are there simple solutions to complex challenges.  When it comes to being sedentary and not burning enough calories, turning of the television can be a one-click fix.  Share how your will family exhange TV time for physical activity time?

According to research presented by Brian Wansink, of Cornell University, at the School Nutrition Association's Legislative Action Conference (March, 2009), kids eat more vegetables when they're given cool names. In his study, 186 four-year-olds were given regular carrots on some days and "X-Ray Vision Carrots" on other days, as part of a preschool lunch.

What did they find? Kids ate nearly twice as much when given "X-Ray Vision Carrots" than regular, unnamed carrots! Furthermore, the kids continued to eat about 50% more carrots, even on the days when they were no longer labeled.

To make vegetables tastier, researchers suggest "playing the name game" to invoke positive thoughts and make healthy eating fun. Additional fun names include:

• Tomato Bursts
• Power Peas
• Dinosaur Broccoli Trees
• Succulent Italian Seafood Filets
• Creamy Macaroni and Cheese

What catchy names can you come up with?

For many people, thinking about retirement brings visions of relaxation, sleeping in, and perhaps, gently rocking on the front porch while people who are still working hustle by.  Few retirees foresee a growing girth as another retirement outcome but that is what is in store for many  – but not all – retirees. 

Just who  are we talking about? 

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco, have identified that those who retired from physically demanding jobs and with lower wealth were at greatest risk of gaining weight¹ and decreasing physical activity level².   Unfortunately, the double whammy of increased weight and low activity adds significantly to these people’s already elevated risk of health problems such as diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, and high blood pressure.  This may result in disproportionately adverse health outcomes compared to other population groups and should be a wake-up call for all who work in public health.

What about people retiring from sedentary jobs or who have a higher income?  According to these studies, little weight gain and for those who have a higher level of wealth, an actual increase in physical activity level.

An interesting hypothesis from these two studies is that it is not lack of time – the number one reason people give for not exercising – but possibly lack of access to physical activity resources or opportunities that contributes to physical inactivity and weight gain among retirees. 

So if you or a loved one are approaching or in your early retirement years,

• Balance your calories eaten with your calories burned to prevent weight gain during this critical time.  The Stand Up and Eat website offers many resources and tools to help you stay in calorie balance.
• Weigh yourself regularly to keep tabs on any pounds that creep in.  Modify your diet and activity accordingly.
• Take up a physically active hobby or two (dancing, dog walking, gardening, etc.) that you can carry well into retirement.
• Work with your local community to improve the walkability of your neighborhood and surrounding environment.

What will you do in retirement to stave off the retirement paunch and inactivity?

¹ Chung S, Domino ME, and Stearns SC.  The Effect of Retirement on Weight.  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2009 Apr 16. E-published ahead of print.  Downloaded on April 20, 2009.

² Chung S, Domino ME, Stearns SC, and Popkin BM.  Retirement and physical activity: Analyses by occupation and wealth.  American Journal of Preventive Medicine.  2009;35(5):422-428.

For those of us who grew up playing badminton and bocce ball, and climbing the rope during PE class, this is almost unimaginable. Skateboarding in PE class?!? When did PE become so cool? When teachers realized that kids are more likely to remain active if they are exposed to an activity they enjoy and can do at home!

In 2005, Colorado-based Skate Pass developed and piloted a skateboarding curriculum designed to engage students who may not be interested in the organized sports traditionally taught in schools. The curriculum teaches safety skills, and participating schools are required to purchase helmets, wrist guards, elbow pads and knee pads. In addition, teachers lead lessons on skate etiquette and teach students basic skateboarding tricks.

Although the Skate Pass program has successfully encouraged students to be more active, it may be cost prohibitive for some schools. For example, Hayes Elementary School in Fridley, Minnesota spent about $4,500 this year to purchase enough skateboards and equipment for 30 students. To help schools overcome the high implementation costs, Skate Pass is working to match schools with grant programs that will help offset costs.

The idea is great. Encourage kids (and adults) to find physical activities they enjoy and want to do. Whether it's dancing, rock climbing, or hopscotch, if it's getting your heart rate up and causing an increased rate of breathing, it counts!

Which physical activities do you find fun?

In the northern hemisphere, spring is on it’s way.  Depending on location, you may have buds on trees or fully fledged foliage.  No matter where you live, spring is a great time to stretch your legs (and arms and back and abs) to burn calories and gain health benefits.  Here are common springtime activities and the amount of calories each burns if done for 30 minutes*:

• Watering lawn or garden – 63 calories
• Bird watching – 104 calories
• Playing croquet – 104 calories
• Fertilizing yard – 104 calories
• Maypole dancing – 209 calories
• Frisbee – 125 calories
• Trampoline – 146 calories
• Mopping – 146 calories
• Golfing, no motorized cart – 146 calories
• Scrubbing floors – 159 calories
• Sweeping – 167 calories
• Weeding – 167 calories
• Badminton playing – 188 calories
• Planting seedlings – 188 calories
• Trimming shrubs by hand – 188 calories
• Whitewater rafting – 209 calories
• Laying sod – 209 calories
• Cleaning gutters – 209 calories
• Playing baseball (softball) – 209 calories
• Painting – 209 calories
• Mowing lawn (walk behind power mower) – 230 calories
• Double tennis – 250 calories
• Singles tennis – 334 calories

So who says that the only way to be active is to walk, jog, run, bicycle, or swim?  You can see from this list that simply moving – whether you are doing chores, working in the yard, playing a sport, or just recreating  – burns calories. 

What are your favorite springtime physical activities?

* Based on a reference person who weighs 175 pounds.  If you weigh less than this, you would burn slightly fewer calories and if you weigh more, you’d burn more.

With rates of childhood overweight/obesity skyrocketing, healthcare practitioners and parents alike are constantly searching for ways to improve kids’ calorie balance.

Increasing physical activity to 60 minutes or more each day is key to increasing the ‘calories out’ side of the balance scale. But, what works for reducing ‘calories in’?

A study recently published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition shows that reducing the calorie density of kids’ foods and beverages may be the answer. Calorie density is the amount of calories per gram of food. For instance, 28 grams (1 ounce) of potato chips has about 150 calories, whereas 28 grams of grapes (5-6 grapes) has about 20 calories. Thus, potato chips are much more calorie dense. By swapping 1 ounce chips for 5-6 grapes at snack time, a child will consume 130 less calories!

While reducing calorie density seems like an obvious solution, researchers were concerned that children may compensate for reduced calorie meals and snacks by increasing their intake of foods later in the day or even the next day. But this was not the case. A group of 3- to 5-year-old children were served low calorie dense foods and beverages at breakfast, lunch, and snack time for 2 days in one week and then high calorie dense foods and beverages at breakfast, lunch, and snack time for 2 days in the next week. The children were told to each as much as they wanted.

Researchers found that the children ate a consistent weight of food/beverages regardless of the calorie density. Therefore, their calorie consumption declined by almost 400 calories with the lower calorie density 2-day menu. Furthermore, taste ratings did not differ significantly between the higher and lower calorie density versions of the foods/beverages!

What can caretakers do to reduce the calorie density of their children’s foods? Here are some suggestions:

1. Serve foods lower in sugar. Provide low sugar cereals and 100% fruit juice mixed with water.
2. Serve foods lower in fat. Buy milk, cheese, and yogurt that is 2% fat or lower; replace fat in bakery and casserole recipes with fruit (applesauce, bananas) and vegetable (zucchini, cauliflower) purees.
3. Serve more foods low in calorie density like fruits and vegetables without added syrups and sauces. If needed, provide a small cup of low-fat dressing for dipping.

Share your suggestions!

Leahy, K.E. (2008).Reducing the energy density of multiple meals decreases the energy intake of preschool-aged children. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 88, 1459-1468.

It has been well-established from many individual studies that being physically active reduces colon cancer risk.  That’s a big deal since about 100,000 Americans are diagnosed with colon cancer each year.

Scientists Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis have compiled 52 different studies to quantify the possible extent of the risk reduction gained by being an active person compared to someone who is sedentary.  It turns out to be about 24%¹.  A rough calculation is that if everyone in the U.S. became physically active, there would be about 24,000 fewer new cases of colon cancer each year.  Wow!

Now before you get off the couch and head out the door for a quick walk around the block (great!) realize that the levels of physical activity that yield this reduction are fairly significant.  While the study cited here was not able to quantify the amount of physical activity that is needed to attain this benefit, other studies have suggested that it may be close to five or six hours per week  of moderate-intensity activities (aka brisk walking).  That doesn’t mean you have to spend an hour a day trudging on a treadmill.  A thirty minute walk with the dog after dinner and three 10-minute walking breaks throughout the day can get you to this level.

Still, even if you can’t get to five to six hours of moderate activity a week (remember mowing, dancing, playing sports, golfing without a cart, and similar activities can count), doing some physical activity is better than doing none. 

¹ Wolin KY, Yan Y, Colditz GA, and Lee IM.  Physical activity and colon cancer prevention: A meta-analysis.  British Journal of Cancer.  2009;100:611-616.

The title of this blog may seem like a “duh” statement and yet, few studies have documented such an equation.  Until now.

The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study followed nearly 5,000 men and women, who at baseline were between 18 and 30 years old.  They had periodic, comprehensive assessments including dietary intake, health habits such as smoking, education attainment, and marital status so that these factors could be controlled in the walking and weight change analyses.

What the researchers found was that when they averaged the whole group together, everyone gained weight over the 15-year period.  BUT, when the scientists categorized everyone by their starting weight and their walking status, it became very apparent that those who walked, gained the least amount of weight compared to those who did not walk.  Plus, the more people walked the less weight they gained.  For example, the researchers calculated that for each additional one-half hour per week of walking that the heaviest women did, their weight gain was reduced by about a pound a year.

In fact, people who walked a lot, especially if they were among the heavier participants at the start, maintained their baseline weight or even lost weight during the study. 

So clearly, walking works to burn calories and protect against the middle-age “spare” tire.  Good news because walking is what people like to do most for physical activity.  Now, the question is, how do we get more people walking?

What are your ideas??

Gordon-Larsen P, et al.  Fifteen-year longitudinal trends in walking patterns and their impact on Weight change.  American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.  2009;89:19-26.