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.

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.  

Food Group	Grams of Protein
Meat, Poultry, Fish        3 ounce cooked lean hamburger        1 turkey hot dog        3 ounce cooked chicken breast        3 ounce cooked salmon	22 6 26 19
Milk and Milk Products        1 cup nonfat milk                                     1 cup nonfat yogurt        ½ cup low-fat cottage cheese        1 ounce cheddar cheese	8 13 15 7
Whole Grains        1 slice whole wheat         1 cup cooked brown rice        1 cup cooked whole wheat pasta	4 5 7
Fruits         1 cup strawberries        1 cup cantaloupe melon        ¼ cup raisins	1 1 1
Vegetables        2 cups spinach        1 cup broccoli        1 medium tomato	2 3 1
Nuts, seeds, legumes        ¼ cup peanuts       1 cup kidney beans       1 cup chickpeas       ½ cup tofu       ¼ cup sunflower seeds	9 16 12 20 6

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.
 

Two Ways to Get your 30 Grams of Protein at Each Meal*
Omnivore** (grams of protein)	Vegan Vegetarian (grams of protein)
Breakfast        2 eggs (12 )        8-ounce glass of skim milk (8)        2 slices whole wheat toast (8)        ½ cup nonfat milk (4)	Breakfast         1 patty veggie sausage (10 )        1 cup soy milk (7)        2 slices whole wheat toast (8)        2 Tbsp. peanut butter (8)
Lunch         2 slices whole wheat bread (8)        3 ounces of turkey breast (14)        1 cup nonfat milk (8)	Lunch        2 slices whole wheat bread (8)        ¼ cup hummus (8)        ¼ cup almonds (8)        1 cup soy milk yogurt (6)
Dinner       4 oz. of meat, poultry or fish (28)       ½ cup brown rice (2)	Dinner        Veggie stir fry with 1/2 cup tofu (2)        1 cup brown rice (4)        1 cup soy milk (7)

* 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?

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.

 

 

The diet vs exercise debate for weight loss continues as TV and web sites market their weight loss programs.  A recent study¹ performed at Louisiana State University examined the benefits of losing weight by diet only and combined diet plus exercise compared to a control group.  The purpose of the study was to determine if dieting plus exercise provides more health benefits than dieting alone. 

Thirty-six healthy male and female, healthy, overweight participants (average age of 39 years) were assigned to either a control, diet, or diet and exercise group.  The diet only group reduced their caloric intake by 25%.  The combined diet and exercise group decreased caloric intake by 12.5% and burned another 12.5% of calories during supervised exercise sessions.  They were allowed to select their own exercise intensity.  Then exercise time was adjusted until they had burned the required number of calories.  The control group was placed on a diet which allowed them to maintain their current body weight.  Researchers measured fitness level, belly fat, blood pressure, cholesterol levels, insulin sensitivity and weight loss before and after 6 months of participation in the study.    

Both the diet and diet plus exercise groups lost the same amount of weight, pounds of fat, and belly fat.  The diet plus exercise group increased fitness level by 22% with no change in the diet or control groups.  Total and bad cholesterol (LDL-cholesterol) decreased significantly in the diet plus exercise group only.   Good cholesterol levels increased significantly in all three groups including the control group.  However, blood pressure and insulin sensitivity improved in the diet plus exercise group only.     
The results of this study show that losing weight through a combination of diet and exercise provides additional benefits over diet alone. 

These findings are consistent with the fact that both fitness and fatness affect cardiovascular disease risk.  Based on data from this study and a previous study², 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease was reduced by 29% in the diet group and by 38% in the diet plus exercise group.  This research suggests that losing weight through a combination of diet and exercise provides more health benefits than diet alone. 

Another important reason to include exercise as part of a weight loss program was addressed in the Stand Up and Eat blog in August, 2008.  It reported that women who lost 10% or more of their initial body weight were more likely to keep it off after two years if they exercised.  Those who exercised an average of 275 minutes per week (40-55 minutes of exercise 5 days/week) were the most successful in keeping their weight off.  Studies support the need to include both caloric restriction and exercise for optimal weight loss and weight maintenance. 

  1.  Larson-Meyer, D.E., Redman, L., Heilbronn, L.K., Martin, C.K. & Ravussin, E. (2010). Caloric Restriction with or without Exercise: The Fitness versus Fatness Debate. MSSE, 42, 152-159.
2.  Lefevre, M., Redman, L.M., Heibronn, L.K. et al. (2009). Caloric restriction alone and with exercise improves CVD risk in healthy non-obese individuals. Atherosclerosis. 203(1), 206-213.

It is well documented in the nutrition science world that most people can’t count calories correctly.  Need proof?  Take a look at this YouTube clip that we showed you in an earlier blog. 

What’s the big deal about being clueless when it comes to knowing how many calories are in different foods?  If you don’t know the calorie content of the foods you eat then you will have a hard time managing your weight – balancing calories in with the calories you burn – over time. 

Now test yourself.  What do you estimate is the calorie count for each the following foods?  (answers below)
a) 2 cups Frosted Flake Cereal
b) ¾ cup 2% milk 
c) Large glass (12 ounces) orange juice 
d) 1 bagel 
e) 2 tablespoons regular cream cheese

Add up the total calories you estimated for the five foods and compare your total with the correct total shown below.  Now subtract your estimate from the correct calorie total.  Is your answer is a positive number (i.e., your answer was less than the correct answer)?  If so, you may be in danger of putting on weight because you are likely underestimating how many calories are in foods. 

If the answer is a negative number, count yourself in the minority because most people underestimate the number of calories in foods . 

Get a Clue

If you need remedial training in the calorie content of foods, give these ideas a try:

Be a calorie detective.  Search out information about the calorie content of the foods you eat. 

• Reading food labels is a good start but the calorie number on the label may not be 100% accurate as we told you in last week’s blog. 
• Get a calorie count book.  It won’t have all the foods in the world in it but depending on the resource you buy, you can get calorie information for thousands of foods. 
• Go online to places like CalorieKing.com for an easy way to look up calorie content of different foods.

Play with your food. Get out your measuring cups and spoons and find out what a ½ cup of rice or a tablespoon of butter or 2 cups of lettuce looks like.  When you are good at estimating the amounts of different foods you eat, you will be more accurate in your calorie counts for different foods. 

Write a diary. Keep a list of every (this means ALL!) foods you eat and beverages you drink for a couple of days.  Here’s a downloadable form from the Stand Up & Eat Library.  Use the calorie counting resources from “Be a calorie detective” above to look up the calorie content of each food you eat.  Once you have done this, review your diary.  What were the total calories you ate each day?  Now click here to get an estimate of how many calories your body needs.  How does this number compare to the number of calories you ate on your “diary” days?  Chances are you weren’t in perfect calorie balance but just how far off were you?  Big differences can add up to weight gain (you ate excess calories) or weight loss (you burned more calories than you ate).

True, most people don’t have a clue about how many calories they eat each day.  And their ignorance often shows up on their waistline.  But with a little information and some practice, you don’t have to be totally clueless.  

Answers:  a) 293; b) 92; c) 165; d) 360; e) 101; Total = 1,011

The saying goes that you can’t judge a book by it’s cover.  It appears that you may not be able to believe the calorie content posted on the packaging of frozen foods or the menus of some restaurant chains either.  If you do, you might find that attaining calorie balance is hard to do.  Here’s why.

In a study published last week, researchers found that on average, fast food (i.e., Taco Bell, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Domino’s, Dunkin Donuts) and family-style restaurants (such as Denny’s, Ruby Tuesday, P.F. Chang’s, Olive Garden, Applebee’s) underreported the calorie content of certain entrees by 18 percent on average¹.  Researchers very precisely analyzed the calorie content of 29 restaurant meals using a bomb calorimeter and compared the results with what the food manufacturers  stated on their menu or web sites.  Some were right on (Taco Bell Crunchy Beef Taco at about 190 calories).  Others were way – like 200 percent! – off.  For example, Denny’s grits (served with butter) were measured at 258 calories whereas the stated amount for grits was 86 calories. 

And these inaccuracies are just for the entrees.  Many of the entrees had side dishes for which the calorie content was not counted.  On average, the side dishes added nearly 500 calories to the entrée calorie level.

Did frozen dinners fare any better?  Yes, a bit.  The calorie content of frozen dinners was under reported by 8% on average. 

Before you get all steamed up about the lack of truth in advertising for food, you should know that no one regulates calorie content advertising in restaurants.   So it is kind of amazing that 11 of the 29 restaurant entrees came in at 10% or less from the stated calorie content.  As for packaged meals such as frozen dinners, the Food and Drug Administration allows food manufacturer’s 20 percent leeway on calorie content.  Only 3 of the 10 frozen dinners exceeded this amount.

Use the 20 Percent Rule

So a couple of caveats are needed.  First, this study only looked at 39 foods from 15 different restaurants or food manufacturers.  This is a tiny bite of all the commercially-prepared entrees.  Second, the researchers only purchased only one unit of each food item so it is not known if the measured error would be repeated in duplicate samples.  Obviously more research is needed to know just how far off stated calorie counts are from what is actually provided in an entrée.

Nonetheless, this small study gives us a peek at a potential problem when it comes to calorie balance.  Namely, your calorie tracking may be inaccurate if you have been relying on the calorie information provided by food manufacturers.  A 20 percent error on a 500 calorie entrée is an extra 100 calories that you may not know you are eating.  That’s about a mile of brisk walking.  And if you don’t balance out those extra calories with physical activity, it can mean added pounds or at the very least, frustration that your calorie tracking is not working.

One possible solution is to automatically add 20 percent to the total calorie content stated on the menu of restaurant entrees.  Or you can just not eat one-fifth of the entrée.  Similarly, add 10% more calories than stated on the package for frozen entrees or skip one-tenth of the frozen entrée.   Because of the wide variability in the accuracy of what is on the label and what is in the food calorie-wise, this is a rather crude way of coping with the problem.  But if you don’t take some action, you may find yourself scratching your head as why your calorie-counting efforts aren’t paying bigger dividends.

 

¹ Urban LE, Dallal GE, Robinson LM, et al.  (2009) The accuracy of stated energy content of reduced-energy commercially prepared foods.  Journal of the American Dietetic Association.  110:116-123.

January 1st is a time for making resolutions and losing weight undoubtedly will be high on many people’s goals for 2010.  If you are one of them, here’s a great diet to try:  “Eat more greens and less seeds. “  That’s it. 

This is the advice that Michael Pollan, an acclaimed journalist who specializes in exposing the unhealthy consequences of our commercial food industry, including our agribusiness way of farming.  Pollan has written several bestsellers including the “Omnivore’s Dilemma” and “In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto.”  Both are excellent books that every eater (that’s you!) should read and digest.  You can read more about Pollan, his work, and his interests at www.michaelpollan.com.

Weight management is simply the result of balancing the calories your body burns each day with the same amount of calories from food.  The problem is people who have lost control of their weight (that’s most of us as more than two-thirds of Americans are overweight) are eating more calories than they burn.   Countless diet books, plans, and programs flourish this time each year as more people try to get back in control of their calorie balance.  (Of course, the Stand Up & Eat web site stays focused on this issue all year long.)

Now back to the weight loss solution of “Eat more greens and less seeds.”  This is one of the main threads of Pollan’s “In Defense of Food” book.  Let’s first talk seeds.

Eat Less Seeds
The vision of “seeds” that probably first came to your mind was things like sunflower, pumpkin, or sesame seeds.  But these comprise just a miniscule amount of the calories we eat.  No, the biggest source of calories in our diets comes from the seeds know as corn, wheat, rice, barley, and other grains.  That is right, grains.  You see, we rarely eat anything but the seed part of the corn plant or the wheat plant.  When was the last time you dined on corn stalk or corn husk?  Eating seeds (aka grains) is not bad, in fact there is some evidence that eating whole grains contributes to weight loss and improvement of heart disease risk factors.  And they are a rich source of important nutrients such as fiber and antioxidants.

What grains/seeds should you eat less of then to lose weight?  The processed ones. 

Let’s take corn for example.  Whereas whole corn is,  well, corn, processed corn is turned into refined corn flour (a starch), corn syrup (a sweetener), corn oil (a fat), and corn gluten (a protein used in animal feed), just to name a few by-products.  These processed corn products find their way back into your diet in the form of corn flakes cereal, sweeteners for sodas, cakes, cookies, etc., cooking oils for frying French fries, and in meats such as beef and pork.  So while you don’t think you are eating a lot of seeds, you are, and to lose weight you will need to find ways to cut down on them (see “Putting the New Diet on Your Table” section below).

Eat More Leaves
Okay, so if you eat less seeds what should you eat more of?  According to Pollan, “Eat mostly plants, especially leaves.” (This is also the advice of nutrition scientists and health professionals.) Plants, in particular vegetables and fruits, are excellent sources of antioxidants and fiber.  And because vegetables and fruits are high in fiber and water and low in fat, they are naturally low in calories.  Ta da!  There is the answer to why the Eat More Greens and Less Seeds Diet will work for you!

Putting the New Diet on Your Table
If this new diet sounds complicated, it’s not.  A simple way to make sure you are following this innovative weight-loss diet is to make sure your plate at each meal resembles the one shown in the “Contem-Plate Your Meals” worksheet.  You will see that one-half of your plate should be filled with nonstarchy vegetables and/or fruits (raw, cooked, or canned), one-quarter by whole-grain pasta, bread, bread or potatoes, and only one-quarter by lean meats, poultry, fish or low-fat meat alternatives such as tofu, beans or eggs.  This healthy approach will help you lose weight, get more nutrients, and feel full in the New Year.

And don’t forget the other side of the energy balance and weight loss equation – burning calories through physical activity.  Check out last week's blog for great exercise ideas to get you started.