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.

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.

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.

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?

In last week’s blog we introduced you to the concept that eating 30 grams of protein at each meal might be a good way to help you manage your weight.  If you haven’t read the blog, check it out and come back here to learn how you can easily get your 30-30-30, even if you are a vegetarian.

Where’s the Protein?
Protein is found in all food groups.  But as you can see from the table below, meat, poultry, fish, milk products, and nuts, seeds, and legumes are the best sources.  

Complementing Proteins

Wait a minute.  What if you don’t eat meat?  You can still get plenty of protein from plant sources such as nuts and legumes.  But there is a catch.  You see protein is made up of building blocks called amino acids.  Animal proteins provide all the amino acids in the quantities your body needs.  Plant foods, except for soybeans and soy products, are low in one or more amino acids.  No worries.  You can get enough of all the important amino acids by eating a variety of plant foods (whole grains, cereals, legumes, nuts, and vegetables) each day. 

The table below shows you how easy it is for omnivores and vegan vegetarians (one doesn’t eat any animal products) to get their 30 grams of protein at each meal.  If you are a vegetarian who eats dairy products and eggs, you have many different ways to get adequate protein at every meal.
 

* These are just the primary protein sources.  Round out a healthy meal with milk, whole-grain, vegetables and fruit.

** eats animal and plant foods

How easy do you think it will be for you to get 30 grams of protein at each meal?  If you already get 90 grams per day, how do you think it helps you with your calorie balance?

Chances are you have heard news that about 2/3 of the adult U.S. population is overweight or obese.  Ever wonder where this comes from? 

The answer is The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).  This is a government run study directed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.   The purpose is to monitor the health status of the nation so the data can be used to develop health policies, programs, and services that target the least fit members of the U.S. population. 

In 1996, the Surgeon General’s report on physical activity and health stated that higher cardiorespiratory fitness, which is the body’s ability to use oxygen, decreases overall death rates and morbidity due to chronic diseases. The body’s ability to use oxygen is a strong predictor of many serious health conditions such as heart disease. But where does this statement come from?

While there has been supporting evidence to this statement, such as research from The Cooper Center Longitudinal Study, there has not been any NHANES data until recently. In 1999, a cardiorespiratory fitness component was added to the NHANES study to measure cardiorespiratory fitness using a treadmill test.

On January 15, cardiorespiratory fitness results for 3250 American adults ages 20-49 were published in the American Journal of Epidemiology.¹  The results were broken down by age, gender, ethnic group, and body weight category.

Differences in Cardiorespiratory Fitness

* Body weight categories were based on BMI as: Normal weight (BMI 18.5-24.99 kg/m²), Overweight (BMI 25-29.99 kg/m²) and obese (BMI >30 kg/m²).

Overweight and obese Black women had significantly lower cardiorespiratory fitness than their overweight and obese White and Mexican-American counterparts.  As was the case in men, obese women of all ethnic groups had lower cardiorespiratory fitness than their normal weight counterparts.

Cardiorespiratory fitness is a strong predictor of many future health problems such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes. This study is important because it provides the only source of cardiorespiratory fitness data that is based on a national random sample of the U.S. population. Because differences in cardiorespiratory fitness were seen in certain subgroups, the data can be used to develop health policies, programs, and services that target the least fit members of the U.S. population.    

So which category do you fit in and how can you change your data? You have the opportunity to change this data and beat public policy by finding a way to engage in one of the recommended activities from the Stand Up & Eat Active Living Library in hopes of changing this data for the better.

¹ CY Wang, WL Haskell, SW Farrell, MJ LaMonte, SN Blair, LR Curtin, JP Hughes, VL Burt. Cardiorespiratory fitness levels among US adults 20-49 years of age: Findings from the 1999-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. American Journal of Epidemiology, January 2010. 

In case you didn't know, the NFL Pro Bowl this Sunday.  Whether or not you love professional football, if you are interested in managing your weight you should tune in to another type of “pro” bowl.  That is, getting adequate protein in your diet.  (Be mindful that I am saying, “adequate” not “excessive” here.  More on this later.)

Weight Management Effects of Protein

An emerging body of research¹ is suggesting that protein intake may be connected to reduced hunger feelings when compared to other nutrients such as carbohydrate and fat.  It has not been determined why this is so but it may have to do with protein changing the way the different hormones involved in digestion are metabolized. 

Speaking of metabolism, another potential weight management mechanism of protein is in directly speeding up your metabolism after a protein-rich meal.  As you may know, your body burns some calories to digest food.  This is called the "thermic effect of food."  When protein is eaten, it tends to increase the number of calories burned more than when fat and carbohydrate are eaten.  Say you ate the exact same number of calories at lunch and dinner.  But your lunch was higher in protein than your dinner.  Then your body would likely burn more of the calories eaten after lunch than after dinner. 

Higher protein intake may also indirectly speed up total daily calorie expenditure by helping to maintain – or even slightly increase – muscle tissue.  Lean muscle tissue burns more calories in a 24-hour period than other body tissues.  So the more lean muscle tissue your body has, the more total calories your body burns each day.  

Protein Intake Recommendations

Now you might be thinking that this information gives you license to go out and wolf down a 12-ounce T-bone.  Think again.  Yes, the evidence seems to be pointing to recommending slightly higher intakes of protein for weight management (and for overall quality of life improvement for elderly people BTW).  But new research suggests that the body can only use a certain amount (about 30 grams) of protein at any one meal for muscle mass increase and maintenance².  Eating any more than that amount (a 12-ounce T-bone has 88 grams of protein!) does not lead to additional muscle mass.  The scientists behind this research suggest eating 30 grams of protein at each of three meals per day for a total of 90 grams per day.

So the bottom line recommendation is yes, slightly higher protein intake may help you manage your weight better.  Slightly is the key word because the average American adult already eats about 66 grams (the elderly) to about 90 grams (young adults) each day³. 

Next week I’ll show you how to turn these recommendations into a practical, everyday pro(tein) bowls for you and your family.  In the meantime, enjoy the Pro Bowl on Sunday!

¹ Paddon-Jones D et al.  Protein, weight management, and satiety.  American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.  2008;87(5):1558S-1561S.

² Symons TB et al.  A moderate serving of high-quality protein maximally stimulates skeletal muscle protein synthesis in young and elderly subjects.  Journal of the American Dietetic Association.  2009;109:1582-1586.

³ Fulgoni VL.  Current protein intake in America:  Analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003-2004.  American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.  2008;87(5):1554S-1557S.