Showing posts with label Scientific Study. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scientific Study. Show all posts

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Restaurant "light"? Not so much...

Increasingly, Nutrition has become a major topic of debate, becoming predominant as more science and information are brought to light and the implications and consequences of our lifestyles are becoming evident. Eating healthy seems to be the trend, and companies want to attach themselves to that image to capitalize as much as they can. Besides clearer and more easily defined nutrition label laws, a new trend which has emerged is the growing number of establishments and restaurants that are now including and revealing their nutrition labels in order to allow consumers to make informed decisions. Catering to this crowd, most have created special "light" and "healthy" menu options to entice customers to order their food. While this is certainly a step in the right direction, it is still far from perfect. Infrequent monitoring, an overzealous chef, or blatant misuse are still issues that will take time to sort out. Portion sizes are usually larger than stated and there is no fail proof "check" mechanism in place in the restaurant industry.

The USDA as well as various organizations and universities have started to monitor health and nutrition claims, often doing random testing and analysis at a food lab. Many studies have been done in the past 2 years.While most were within 10% of the claims, many were grossly inaccurate.  Researchers picked food, all with nutritional information available (either on the package or on the web), that was labelled as low calorie (<500 kcal).The researchers picked the lowest calorie meals on the menu at the restaurants on purpose. Here are a few of the results:

On the Border: chips and salsa

photocredit
Stated label: 430 calories and 22 grams of fat
Actual lab results: 1452 kcal

Error: 237%!!

FYI, their Border Sampler is a whopping 2060 calories and 142 g fat.

Outback Steakhouse: classic blue cheese wedge salad (side):
Stated nutritional information: 419 calories and 37g of fat
Actual lab results: 1025 calories
Error: 144% more calories

Hungry Howie's: Pizza Sub
1/2 sub: 606 calories 24.2g of fat; whole sub 1212 calories and 48.4g fat
Actual lab results: 1728 calories
Error: 1.42x more calorie dense, or 42.5%

Also, be very careful with misleading labelling. For example, looking at their salad information:

Large Garden4 per sld.170.30092.91.51
Large Greek4 per sld.1096.74.3255017.11.85.6
Large Chef4 per sld.9963243413.61.68.1
Large Antipasto4 per sld.1016.73.4244772.81.47.8
Small Garden2 per sld.200.200103.41.71.1
Small Greek2 per sld.1267.45295818.22.16.5
Small Chef2 per sld.1146.73.5283964.21.99.4



Notice how they label the servings differently for the large vs. small sized salads. The Greek salad stood out quite a bit. The Large salad only has 109 kcal where as the small Greek has 126kcal. This is meant to mislead you, since the large Greek Salad has FOUR servings per order, whereas the small only has 2. So in actuality, the regular sized Greek (large- who eats a small?!) is 436kcal. This isn't so bad, and I would appreciate it if they list it as an entire serving size. Who orders a whole salad, and then only eats 1/4th of it?

Don Pablos: Chili Chicken Rellenos
Their nutrition label:  686 kcal for 2.
Lab results: 1018 kcal
Error: 332calories. 48% deviation.

Bob Evan's: Cranberry Chicken Pecan Salad (no dressing)
Cranberry Pecan Chicken Salad
Their nutrition information: 618 kcal
Actual Lab results: 1274 kcal
Error: 115%
One only shudders to think what the total would have been with the dressing included. The Colonial dressing is 433kcal per small serving! The French dressing is 395kcal per small 3oz serving.
Ask for salsa and mustard instead.

DENNY'S: Toast and Grits
Their nutritional information- Dry white toast 97 calories, Grits 86 calories.
Actual lab results: Toast- 283 calories per slice .Grits served with butter -258 calories instead of the reported 86.
Error: 191% more for the toast (most likely due to added butter); Grits: 200%!!

 Splurging once in awhile and enjoying your meal is part of a healthy lifestyle. However, I don't like it when companies mislead and lie on their nutrition labels.

 When customers are consciously trying to make better decisions by purposely ordering healthy-menu items, when in fact they are are not what they state they are, then this is cause for concern and perhaps a re-evaluation at the way the USDA and FDA handle this issue (there is no current guideline for restaurants, while packaged foods are allowed a 20% discrepancy margin).
Federal regulations are strict about the accuracy of the net weight of a package of prepared food, which must be at least 99% of the advertised weight. When it comes to calories, the count can be a far bigger 20% off. The Federal Government plays no role in checking the calorie claims in restaurants, which means it's up to the states to handle the job — with the predictable patchwork results. 
(Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1951798,00.html#ixzz1mgBG1OVG)


When taking into consideration the fact that various chefs are making these meals and they are all handmade, it is understandable to account for these variances. They are not prepackaged, weighed items. A slip of the hand or a generous pour of oil vary from chef to chef. I can be fairly certain that the chef is not going to take the time to weigh out 3oz of the salad dressing. These things are so easy to underestimate.  “Since our food is handmade, there can be variance in calorie counts,” he said. “One sandwich may have more mustard or mayonnaise, the next may have no lettuce or tomato.” Being mindful is the best strategy, as it is with all things in life.

"On average, the researchers found the dishes contained 18 percent more calories than claimed by the restaurants. Two side dishes exceeded the restaurants’ reported calorie information by nearly 200 percent. The researchers also found that frozen meals had on average 8 percent more calories than listed."

 “If the goals of these policies are to encourage a healthier society and weight loss, inaccurate calorie content information could well hamper these efforts,” Roberts says.
Writing in the January issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, the study authors attribute the smaller 8 percent discrepancy between their results and the calorie content information from the frozen food companies to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight of nutrition fact information labels. Current FDA rules are more lenient toward underreporting calories than over-reporting them.

For the full article, please click here:  http://tuftsjournal.tufts.edu/2010/01_2/briefs/01/


Luckily, as noted in the study and article, most of the restaurants only varied by 10 calories, and were general fairly accurate. The biggest misrepresentation tended to be on the "LOW Calorie Healthy" options. It is also important to note that several of the tested items were actually lower in calories then they claimed.
  If it sounds too good to be true.....
(see study here: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/306/3/287.abstract)

"On average, the food items measured ten calories higher than the restaurants' stated calories. That's essentially accurate. However, 19% of food items contained at least 100 calories more than listed, which suggests calories for individual foods can be unreliable. One item contained 1000 calories more than listed," senior author Susan B. Roberts, Ph.D., director of the Energy Metabolism Laboratory at the USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging revealed.
The study results showed that lower calorie food items at sit-down restaurants tended to have more calories than listed. Additionally, items often viewed as healthier from both sit-down and fast food restaurants, like salads and soups, tended to have more unreliable caloric listings.
"We were pleased to see that average calories listings are accurate," Roberts said. "but we think it is very important that lower calorie foods not contain more calories than listed because such foods are purchased by people trying to control their weight. They will find that harder to do so if they are eating more than they think."
In sit-down restaurants, foods that were labeled as low calorie almost consistently contained more energy than was stated, while those shown to be high in calories actually had fewer than reported.
"Typically, the foods that were stated as low calorie on the menu contained more calories than they should, which is really bad for dieters," Roberts said in the JAMA report.(source: http://tuftsjournal.tufts.edu/2010/01_2/briefs/01/)

TIPS:
Asking for dressing on the side is one method for those who are wary of nutrition claims and trying to reduce calories--or just bring your own (Walden Farm's calorie/fat free Individual packets are fantastic, as are their bottled dressings. Most people really enjoy their Italian).

 You can also politely ask that the chef is careful with keeping it as light as possible.
 Remember to always read the ingredients. Always use the nutrition information as a guide-- never as an absolute; the same goes for all packaged foods. The difference between a tsp of oil versus a tablespoon is very fine in the hands of someone who is rushing and free-pouring: a tablespoon has roughly 121 kcal and 14 g of fat, a teaspoon has 40 kcal and 4.5 g of fat.

As for packaged foods, read the label. Remember a gram of protein and carbohydrate each have 4 calories per gram, and fat has 9 calories/gram. Do the math! If a product has 20g carbs, 5g protein, and 1g of fat, then there is no way it is under 100 calories (should be at least 109). For info on calorie counts, click here or for an previous article I wrote about this study and some interesting FDA nutrition labeling guidelines, click here.

RELATED QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION: What foods or restaurants have you been suspicious about? What product would you love to see analyzed at a food lab?

Debate: What do you think of inserting calorie counts of items right in the description of the food on the menu?
(ex: http://www.donpablos.com/pdfs/DPMenu.pdf)
Is this going to far and detracting from enjoyment, or is this a good and responsible movement toward a healthier society? Will this change consumer behavior?


For another interesting study on packaged meals click here: http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/yjada/article/S0002-8223(09)01679-4/abstract
http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/38283/1/IND44305112.pdf

 For a study on nutrition labeling, please click here: http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/20090630hermenulabeling.pdf
http://protein-girl.blogspot.com/2010/06/calorie-counts-on-food-labels-off.html

Walden Farms Italian



Monday, August 15, 2011

New Study: Stress and Eating

I am posting this study that was just published, linking stress and the propensity to overeat. There is proof that when we are stressed, the body changes chemical to trick us into thinking we are hungry, when we actually aren't:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normally, the brain produces neurotransmitters (chemicals responsible for how cells communicate in the brain) called endocannabinoids that send signals to control appetite. In this study, the researchers found that when food is not present, a stress response occurs that temporarily causes a functional re-wiring in the brain. This re-wiring may impair the endocannabinoids' ability to regulate food intake and could contribute to enhanced food drive.
The researchers also discovered that when they blocked the effects of stress hormones in the brain, the absence of food caused no change in the neural circuitry.
Researchers Jaideep Bains, Ph.D. and Quentin Pittman, Ph.D., looked specifically at nerve cells (neurons) in the region of the brain called the hypothalamus. This structure is known to have an important role in the control of appetite and metabolism and has been identified as the primary region responsible for the brain's response to stress.
Bains explains, "These findings could help explain how the cellular communication in our brains may be overridden in the absence of food. Interestingly, these changes are driven not necessarily by the lack of nutrients, but rather by the stress induced by the lack of food."
If similar changes occur in the human brain, these findings might have several implications for human health.
"For example, if we elect to pass over a meal, the brain appears to simply increase the drive in pathways leading to increased appetite," explains Pittman. "Furthermore, the fact that the lack of food causes activation of the stress response might help explain the relationship between stress and obesity."
These results lay the foundation for future studies to investigate the use of therapies that affect these systems in order to manipulate food intake. They also open the door to studies looking at whether or not the stress brought about by lack of food affects other systems where endocannabinoids are known to play a role.
"One thing we can say for sure, is that this research highlights the importance of food availability to our nervous system. The absence of food clearly brings about dramatic changes in the way our neurons communicate with each other," says Pittman.
This work was conducted jointly in the labs of Bains and Pittman and the experiments were carried out by Karen Crosby and Wataru Inoue, Ph.D. The research is supported by operating grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and Alberta Innovates- Health Solutions.

References: University of Calgary. "Scientists highlight link between stress and appetite." ScienceDaily, 12 Aug. 2011. Web. 15 Aug. 2011.

For more information on taking your self out of the situation click Here:
Being kind to yourself HERE

The effects of stress eating: http://protein-girl.blogspot.com/2010/11/short-term-over-eating-has-long-term.html

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Human Study: Sucralose does NOT promote Weight Gain- What do you believe?

I thought this would be an interesting article for you all to read! What are your thoughts? I've come to realize that "Sweeteners" are a very personal, political and sensitive topic!

Sucralose does not promote weight gain: Human study


By Stephen Daniells, 07-May-2010



Related topics: Science & Nutrition, Sweeteners (intense, bulk, polyols)


Consumption of sucralose and sucralose-sweetened products does not affect gut hormones linked to hunger, or detrimentally affect blood sugar levels, says a new study from Australia.

Results from animal studies that indicated sucralose could modify the absorption of glucose in the intestine were not observed when the sweetener was fed to humans, according to findings published in the British Journal of Nutrition.


Researchers from the University of Adelaide and the Royal Adelaide Hospital also report that consumption of the sweetener did not affect levels of a hormone linked to hunger - glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1).


“Species differences are likely to account for the lack of effect of sucralose in human subjects,” wrote the researchers, led by Christopher Rayner.


“It has been reported that there is much lower duodenal expression of [the glucose transporter] GLUT2 in human subjects than in rats and mice, while expression of [sodium-dependent glucose transporter] SGLT1 is much greater in human subjects,” they added.


The controversy

Previous studies with animals have suggested that sweeteners may interact with glucose and enhance the absorption of glucose in the gut via GLUT2 expression.


Indeed, scientists from the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIH) recently reported that a synergistic effect between sucralose and glucose may trigger the release of the appetite-suppressing hormone glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), and therefore promote a feeling of fullness (Diabetes Care, 2010, Vol. 32, pp. 2184-2186).

“This raises the question as to whether the combination of an artificial sweetener with a carbohydrate could have a synergistic effect on glucose absorption in human subjects,” explained Rayner and his co-workers.

“The notion that consuming artificial sweeteners together with carbohydrates could enhance glucose absorption and therefore elevate postprandial blood glucose concentrations is of fundamental clinical importance,” they added.

The human test

In order to study such links in humans, the Adelaide-based researchers recruited ten health subjects with an average age of 27 and an average BMI of 23.4 kg/m2 and randomly assigned them to receive either sucralose (provided by Tate & Lyle) or a saline solution in combination with a solution containing both glucose and “its non-metabolised analogue, 3-O-methylglucose (3-OMG)” via a catheter directly into the intestine.

APPLICATION NOTE

Nutrition Age Ingredients

Following the new nutritional and health global trends, La Morella Nuts suggests four actions to be in the pole position in the New Nutrition Age. According to these actions several new product developments and innovations are presented... Click here

Results showed no differences in levels of blood glucose, GLP-1, or 3-OMG between the sucralose and control groups.

“Sucralose does not appear to modify the rate of glucose absorption or the glycaemic or incretin response to intraduodenal glucose infusion when given acutely in healthy human subjects,” concluded the researchers.


Supporting science
The findings are inline with a review by NIH scientists, which failed to find a link between intakes of artificial sweeteners and metabolic changes in children (International Journal of Pediatric Obesity, doi: 10.3109/17477160903497027).

The overall safety of sucralose was re-assessed and supported by an expert panel, made up of scientists from Rutgers University, New York Medical College, Harvard School of Public Health, Columbia University, and Duke University.

Writing in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (2009, Vol. 55, pp. 6-12) the panel concluded: “The extensive safety data of sucralose and maltodextrin have been rigorously evaluated by experts around the world, and the available evidence demonstrates that Splenda, sucralose, and maltodextrin are safe for their intended uses.”


Sucralose is reportedly used as an ingredient in over 4,000 products worldwide, according to Tate & Lyle.

Source: British Journal of Nutrition

Published online ahead of print, doi:10.1017/S0007114510001327

"Effect of the artificial sweetener, sucralose, on small intestinal glucose absorption in healthy human subjects"

Authors: J. Ma, J. Chang, H.L. Checklin, R.L. Young, K.L. Jones, M. Horowitz, C.K. Rayner