Photo by Uwe Hermann

Refined sugars and high-fructose corn syrup are considered by many experts to be the biggest contributors to obesity and poor health in Western civilization.

In her book What To Eat, Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition at NYU and blogger at Food Politics suggests that any food that contains more than 15 grams of sugar per serving is closer to dessert than anything else. Though this number is arbitrary, it is a good benchmark for evaluating food products.

Obviously sugar content is not the only factor in a food’s nutritional value (and not all of these have added sugar), but it can be illuminating to see the relative amounts in the foods we consume.

Just for fun I looked up the sugar content of a few common foods and menu items. I hope you’re as horrified as I am.

Listed values are as close to a normal serving as I could approximate. Units are listed as grams of sugar.

Sugar Content of Common Food Products

1. Krispy Kreme original glazed doughnut …………………………………………………10 g

2. Luna Bar berry almond ……………………………………………………………………………11 g

3. Froot Loops breakfast cereal 3/4 cup ……………………………………………………12 g

4. Ben & Jerry’s vanilla ice cream ………………………………………………………………..16 g

5. Starbucks caffè latte grande 16 oz ………………………………………………………..17 g

6. Godiva 2 truffles ……………………………………………………………………………………….17 g

7. Subway 6″ sweet onion teriyaki chicken sandwich ……………………………….17 g

8. Ms. Field’s chocolate chip cookie …………………………………………………………….19 g

9. Tropicana 100% orange juice 8 oz …………………………………………………………25 g

10. Yoplait original yogurt ……………………………………………………………………………27 g

11. Craisins dried cranberries 1/3 cup ……………………………………………………….29 g

12. Vitamin Water 20 oz bottle ………………………………………………………………….33 g

13. Oscar Mayer Lunchables crackers, turkey & American cheese ………….36 g

14. Coca-Cola Classic 12 oz can …………………………………………………………………39 g

15. Sprinkles Cupcake red velvet ……………………………………………………………….45 g

16. California Pizza Kitchen Thai chicken salad ………………………………………….45 g

17. Jamba Juice blackberry bliss 16 oz ……………………………………………………….49 g

18. Odwalla SuperFood 450 ml bottle ………………………………………………………..50 g

19. Starbucks caffe vanilla frappuccino grande 16 oz ………………………………58 g

Take home messages:

• Foods we recognize as dessert (e.g. doughnuts, ice cream, cookies) often have far less sugar than things we consider “healthy” (e.g. juice, yogurt, dried fruit).
• Froot Loops aren’t necessarily better than doughnuts.
• Energy bars are glorified candy.
• Dessert is sometimes hidden in things like sandwiches.
• Some foods marketed to children aren’t much better than soda.
• A salad can have as much sugar as one of the biggest cupcakes I’ve ever seen.
• “Natural” foods can have lots of sugar.
• The worst offenders are drinkable.
• Starbucks is why you’re fat.

How much sugar is in your favorite foods?

If you like this story follow me on the new Digg!

Tags: high fructose corn syrup, Marion Nestle, processed foods, sugar

Photo by markhillary

Last month The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a meta-analysis of 21 studies concluding that saturated fat is not linked to heart disease–a finding that flies in the face of 20th century nutrition dogma.

Despite the tremendous impact such information would have on the field of nutrition however, the research was largely ignored by mainstream media outlets.

The meta-analysis performed by scientists at the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute was funded by the National Dairy Council and the Unilever corporation, two institutions with a vested interest in selling food products to consumers. The study was also funded by the National Institute of Health.

Technically funding source should not impact scientific outcomes, but analyses have repeatedly shown that industry sponsorship can strongly predict research conclusions that favor the source of funding.

I asked Marion Nestle, professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at NYU, about the specific impact of industry funding on a meta-analysis of this nature.

“Meta-analyses are particularly subject to investigator bias (conscious or unconscious) because of the selection criteria for inclusion.”

So while this study may provide another clue about the relationship between saturated fat and heart disease, caution should be taken when interpreting the results.

Conflict of interest is a serious concern in science that is used to guide health policy and consumer behavior. In this case the influence of industry sponsorship would be especially unfortunate since an impartial evaluation of the link between saturated fat and heart disease is greatly needed.

Saturated fat is most commonly associated with animal products like beef and pork, and is known to raise cholesterol. Since high cholesterol is considered a biomarker of heart disease, it has long been assumed that saturated fat contributes directly to America’s number one killer.

But while this argument seems to make intuitive sense, a direct causal relationship between saturated fat and heart disease has never been established. Moreover, evidence is accumulating that cholesterol in general is not the best predictor of heart disease and that refined carbohydrates are a bigger problem.

Thus there is a real need for rigorous science regarding the role of saturated fat in heart health and other diseases.

“My take on this one is that it is one more piece of evidence that saturated fat may not be AS important a determinant of heart disease risk as is sometimes believed-at least in the kinds of studies included in the analysis.  These, of course, do not paint a complete picture of the situation.”

Saturated fat is unlikely to make or break any diet in terms of overall health, let alone heart disease in particular. General dietary patterns consistently prove to be better predictors of long-term health than any single food or nutrient, and anything we discover about saturated fat is unlikely to change this.

“In any case, this is another example of what happens when you look at single nutrients outside of their dietary context.”

While we’re waiting for science and industry to battle it out in the lab, focus on eating real, unprocessed foods most of the time and don’t get too hung up on the details.

What do you think of industry sponsorship in nutrition studies?

Update: After speaking with readers and colleagues I have made some revisions to this article to clear up my stand on this research. I do not intend to imply that the investigators of this study were influenced by their funding source, only that caution should be used when interpreting the results of any meta-analysis where there is a potential conflict of interest.

Tags: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, dietary pattern, food industry, heart disease, Marion Nestle, saturated fat

For The Love of Food

Welcome to Friday’s For The Love of Food, Summer Tomato’s weekly link roundup.

I’m pleased to inform you that I became an official blogger at The Huffington Post this week. My first article there was my interview with David Kessler, Learning to Eat Less: How Understanding Your Brain Can Make You Healthier. I hope to post many of my best articles there in the coming months, usually in the Living section.

Publication at Synapse has also resumed, though I have stepped down as the official science editor to focus on Summer Tomato and (ah hem) finish my lab work.

I’m also excited to announce the creation of the Summer Tomato monthly newsletter! The newsletter will include new content that is not posted here on the blog, and will feature Summer Tomato news, healthy eating tips and recipes. Newsletter subscribers will also have access to exclusive offers and discounts on future Summer Tomato material. Exciting, right?!

Don’t forget to confirm your subscription by clicking the link in the confirmation email.

If you are wary of entering your email address, rest assured I will never sell or exchange your information and you can unsubscribe anytime. Consider this my personal spam-free guarantee. The main purpose of the newsletter is to reward loyal readers with great tips to upgrade your healthstyle. Feel free to email me any time if you are unhappy with Summer Tomato material.

This week around the web there were some interesting articles about the cholesterol-heart disease hypothesis, which you may be surprised to hear is not particularly strong. These stories may renew your interest in my post last week on How to raise your HDL cholesterol. There are also a few pieces on the role of the brain in eating behavior, which I am becoming more and more interested in (shocking, I know).

I read many more wonderful articles than I post here each week. If you’d like to see more or just don’t want to wait until Friday, be sure to follow me on Twitter (@summertomato) or the Summer Tomato Facebook fan page. For complete reading lists join me on the social bookmarking sites StumbleUpon and Delicious. I’m very active on all these sites and would love to connect with you there. (Note: If you want a follow back on Twitter introduce yourself with an @ message).

I also invite you to submit your own best food and health articles for next week’s For The Love of Food, just drop me an email using the contact form. I am also accepting guest posts at Summer Tomato for any awesome healthstyle tips and recipes you’d like to share.

This post is an open thread. Share your thoughts, writing (links welcome!) and delicious healthy meals of the week in the comments below.

For The Love of Food

• Why Cholesterol May Not Be the Cause Of Heart Disease <<Fascinating, in-depth look at some of the fallacies in the cholesterol-heart disease hypothesis. For an intense analysis of this issue definitely read the book Good Calories, Bad Calories. (The Huffington Post)
• Eating eggs might up your cholesterol. So what? <<Here’s some more info on cholesterol and heart disease, specifically how it relates to dietary cholesterol (as opposed to blood cholesterol). (Nutrition Data).
• Why we eat too much, and how to get control <<Really nice companion piece to my post on Learning to Eat Less, including some additional Kessler quotes. (CNN)
• A Cure For Cancer? Eating A Plant-Based Diet <<B.S. of the week You all know I am a huge fan of the plant-based diet, but this article in the Huffpo goes so far as to claim that all animal protein causes cancer, which is not at all supported by the data. Not surprisingly, this woman turns out to be a animal rights fanatic. I call conflict of interest. (The Huffington Post)
• Request for financial disclosure <<Speaking of conflict of interest, I love this piece by Marion Nestle about how she is in absolutely no way influenced by any outside funding. Oh the irony. (Food Politics)
• Successful Dieters Show Unique Brain Patterns <<I find this  info about dieting and the brain fascinating, but before you jump to any conclusions remember that this does not show cause and effect. (HealthDay)
• Low-Carb Mediterranean Diet Beats Low-Fat For Recent-Onset Type 2 Diabetes <<Just been warned by your doctor about the onset of type 2 diabetes? Your best bet is to eliminate all processed, refined carbs and avoid low-fat diets. (Advanced Mediterranean Diet)
• With Fancy Coffees, Calories Can Add Up <<Have I ever mentioned that I think Starbucks is as bad as soda, McDonald’s and Krispy Kreme? Well I do. (HealthDay)
• Homemade Tomato Soup <<Recipe I want to eat this more than anything. Anything. (Local Lemons)
• Family dinners work some kind of magic <<Again, let’s not confuse cause and effect, but I think this is a great argument for home cooking. (Los Angeles Times)

What great stuff did you read and write this week?

Tags: B.S. of the week, brain, cholesterol, David Kessler, heart disease, Huffington Post, Marion Nestle, recipe, Starbucks, type 2 diabetes

For The Love of Food

Welcome back to For The Love of Food. Thanks to everyone who sent me articles this week, I couldn’t have done it without you. We have a ton of great stuff here. I particularly love the Cheerios story, the fake “local” food from Frito-Lay and the video clip of Michael Pollan on The Colbert Report.

If you would like to see more of my favorite articles each week or just don’t want to wait until Friday, be sure to follow me on Twitter (@summertomato) or the Summer Tomato Facebook fan page.

Submissions of your own best food and health articles are also welcome, just drop me an email using the contact form.

For The Love of Food

• Killing Us Softly: Cigarettes and Industrial Food <<Wonderful essay comparing the current food industry to the old tobacco industry, from La Vida Locavore (@LocavoreBlog).

• 13 strategies for shopping a farmers market <<Great advice from the Chicago Tribune.

• The FDA is going after health claims? At last! <<Turns out Cheerios (fake whole grains) are not as effective as statins at reducing cholesterol, and the FDA is not happy about them pretending to be. Woohoo! Another gem from Marion Nestle (@marionnestle).

• When ‘Local’ Makes It Big << OH SNAP! New York Times calls out Frito-Lay and other food industry giants for pretending to sell local food. But I know you guys won’t be fooled. I love this movement because it supports the exact opposite of selling out. Big Ag would love to package, cheapen and sell “local” like they have with organic, but this time they can’t do it without looking like fools. Funny to watch them try though.

• Dietary supplements’ regulations hard to digest <<Fascinating and scary explanation of how the FDA doesn’t do enough to regulate dietary supplements, from Marion Nestle at the SF Chronicle.

• It really does help <<Great advice on how to stay inspired to cook yourself dinner when you lack motivation, from Orangette.

• Are you guilty of DWE (Driving While Eating)? <<See why it is both unhealthy and dangerous to eat and drive, from Eleanor at Make Friends With Food.

• Better Living Through Homemade Yogurt <<Who knew it could be so easy and affordable to make your own yogurt? From Good and thanks to @reverend_bunnie for the link.

• Food Companies Try, But Can’t Guarantee Safety <<Did you know frozen dinners can kill you if you do not heat them properly? From NYTimes and thanks to @sandrasay for the link.

• Michael Pollan on The Colbert Report

Tags: Cheerios, Chicago Tribune, dietary supplements, eat and drive, food industry, Marion Nestle, Michael Pollan, motivation, San Francisco Chronicle, The Colbert Report, yogurt

3D Brain MRI

Last time I gave you a list of 10 people you can’t trust for diet advice, but many of you were left wondering who can you trust? As I alluded to before, it is extremely difficult to give a generic answer to this question because, frankly, there is no single group of people I can point to and say, “These people always do it right.” This is never true.

Where To Start

In the comments on Wednesday, reader Steve Parker M.D. (blogger and author of The Advanced Mediterranean Diet – visit his new Diabetic Mediterranean Diet Blog) said he mostly relies on primary scientific literature for his information. “Primary” literature is the original study where the actual scientific data is published and analyzed. This is very different from a newspaper article or press release (what a newspaper article is based on).

Without a doubt going straight to the source is the best way to get the facts regarding food, health and nutrition, and this is exactly what I do.

The Catch

It would be wonderful if we could all read the science directly and decide for ourselves how to eat for health and weight loss. But unfortunately, most people do not have access to these studies unless you are on a university campus or pay the exorbitant subscription fees (hundreds of dollars) for each individual scientific journal (there are thousands).

Moreover, unless you have extensive training in biological sciences (more than a bachelors degree), these papers will make no sense to you anyway. Some people try to get around this by reading only the abstracts, but reading an abstract to comprehend a scientific paper is like trying to understand a Seinfeld episode by reading the TV Guide (only more irresponsible).

This is the root of the problem.

Scientific experimentation and analysis is incredibly complex and requires decades of training. Therefore the general public needs the data translated into plain English and explained in simplified concepts. It is tempting to believe that anyone with the appropriate education and a knack for writing can provide this service, however the nuances of data interpretation make this very tricky business. It is frighteningly easy to spin ideas and make claims the data does not really support. This is even scarier when you think of health and how many lives are at stake.

The difficulties that arise from this issue are far reaching. At the most extreme, we have seen that research funded by industry is biased toward a favorable result for the company conducting the research.

Another potentially dangerous scenario is the misinterpretation of data by press rooms and journalists, who then translate these false ideas to a wide audience. Finally there are well-meaning people who do their best to alert the public to important health concerns, but simply misinterpret the science for one reason or another.

Who Is Qualified?

Scientists Although I myself may be biased, I am inclined to trust the opinions of well-respected (highly published) scientists in the field of food and nutrition. Luckily, several of these people have written wonderful books clearly explaining the basics of food and health. Although I am probably the only person under 50 to have ever read these books, they are wonderful resources that I recommend whole-heartedly.

Here are my favorites:

Eat, Drink and Be Healthy by Dr. Walter Willett

Mindless Eating by Brian Wansink

What To Eat by Marion Nestle

Smart journalists Despite my tirade above, scientists are not the only ones with good diet advice. Some journalists have the intelligence and tenacity to uncover all the necessary information and convey it to their readers. To know if you have found this kind of journalist you must read their work and make critical judgments about the logic and conclusions drawn from the data provided.

I have read more bad than good books by journalists, so please be skeptical of what you find. Note: extended book reviews are on the future agenda at Summer Tomato (for short summaries please read the captions under the books in the Summer Tomato Shop).

So far the most thorough analyses I have read from any journalist are the works of Michael Pollan. I also think the work of Gary Taubes is essential reading.

These are the best books on food and health ever written:

The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan

In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan

Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes

Trained nutritionists and dietitians I have also been impressed by many of the nutritionists I have encountered (especially Dinneen at Eat Without Guilt – find her on Twitter @EatWithoutGuilt). Nutritionists and registered dietitians are specialized in nutrition, food and eating. These professionals are skilled at working closely with an individual to develop personal eating plans. Although they are not specifically trained to read and interpret scientific studies, their education ensures substantial familiarity with the literature on nutrition, putting them ahead of most medical doctors.

Conclusion

In general you should be more skeptical than accepting of diet advice–particularly if the recommendations sound very strange or unnatural to you. However there are many good resources if you are careful to choose them wisely.

I am always looking for more book recommendations. See what I have read in the Shop and leave your additions in the comments.

Thanks to everyone who has participated in this lively conversation!

Tags: advice, dietician, Gary Taubes, journalism, Marion Nestle, Michael Pollan, nutritionist, recommendations, scientist, Walter Willett