What sorts of cancers are affected by weight?

According to the report, presented at AICR’s annual conference, obesity accounts for:

• 20,700 cases of endometrial cancer, or 49 percent of those cancers
• 5,800 cases of esophageal cancer (35 percent)
• 11,900 cases of pancreatic cancer (28 percent)
• 13,900 cases of kidney cancer (24 percent)
• 2,000 cases of gallbladder cancer (21 percent)
• 33,000 cases of breast cancer (17 percent)
• 13,200 cases of colorectal cancer (9 percent)

“We now know that carrying excess body fat plays a central role in many of the most common cancers,” Laurence Kolonel, deputy director of the Cancer Research Center of Hawaii, said in a press release on the report. “And it’s clearer than ever that obesity’s impact is felt before, during and after cancer — it increases risk, makes treatment more difficult and shortens survival.”

The danger of excess weight

About one-third of all American adults are obese, which also increases the risk of diabetes, heart disease and other health problems. How obesity plays a role in cancer is different for each cancer, as Tim Byers, director of the University of Colorado Cancer Center in Denver, told USA Today. For instance, with breast and endometrial cancers, the increased levels of estrogen found in postmenopausal women who are overweight may lead to more cancer, while acid reflux, common in people with excess weight, could boost esophageal cancer risk.

Having too much fat also may lower immune system function and lead to oxidative stress, both of which could increase cancer risk.

Melinda Irwin, an associate professor of epidemiology at Yale, presented further research that linked higher body mass index to lower rates of cancer survival. She says it’s important for people with cancer, no matter their weight, to exercise regularly, because studies have shown that regular physical activity can positively impact survival rates regardless of a person’s body mass index.

Many people don’t know about obesity’s link to cancer

The AICR also revealed the results of its annual survey on attitudes surrounding cancer and found that while a record number of people understand there’s a link between obesity and cancer, the number of people who know that is just 51 percent. That’s compared to 94 percent of people who know that tobacco use can cause cancer, and 87 percent who see sun exposure as a potential danger.

And while AICR says up to a third of cancers could be prevented through lifestyle changes, just 20 percent of those surveyed saw cancer as a highly preventable health problem (compared to 34 percent for stroke, 45 percent for heart attack and 46 percent for diabetes).

(By Sarah E. White for CalorieLab Calorie Counter News)

From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)

Obesity linked to more than 100,000 cancers each year

I don’t suffer bullies gladly! Being skipped ahead in school during first grade, I was the smallest kid in the class, and an easy target for bullies. I don’t dwell on it, but if I search my memories, I can still feel the pain of those early years.

Standing up to a bully

During my surgical training, I had a six month rotation as an anesthesia resident. On my first day with the anesthesia service, walking along the long hallway between the many operating rooms, I was attempting to familiarize myself with the territory, and trying to find the mentor I had been assigned to.

Suddenly, from one of the rooms, a large man in surgical scrubs came running out and seeing me, focused his wide-eyed stare, and started screaming at me, “GET A BLOOD SET! GET A BLOOD SET!” Bewildered, I tried to tell him I didn’t know what he was talking about, and after his saying a few more choice words to me, he ran off!

Later that same day, in the operating room hallway, I happened across him again. I got his attention, walked up to him and said, “If you ever talk to me again like you did earlier today, I will kick the crap out of you! Matter of fact, I’m going to do it anyway, RIGHT NOW!” My karate skills were at their peak at that time, and as I said, I had a deep-seated memory of bullies. He apologized on the spot! I later found out his name was Jack, he was an ex-Marine and a nurse on the anesthesia service.

I figured I was in big trouble! The operating room area in that large hospital was far from empty, and a new resident screaming that he was going to beat up one of the personnel would not go unnoticed. I went home that night feeling that it was my last day as a guest on the anesthesia service. Funny thing was, when I nervously showed up the next day, nobody said anything about it, which was fine with me.

I really liked being an anesthesia resident. I had several wonderful teachers, and learned so much.

As it turned out, during the sixth and last month on the service, my sister decided to get married! Her wedding was to take place in California, and I was in Ohio. Because of a lucky break with the call schedule, I happened to have both weekend days off when it was happening. I went to see the head of the residency program.

“Doctor, my sister is getting married in two weeks,” I told him. “Do you think I could have one day, Friday, off, so I can fly out to California for her wedding?” (I figured fly out Friday, wedding Saturday, fly back Sunday.)

His answer really surprised me!

“J, take a whole week off for what you said to Jack on your first day on the service!” he said with a broad smile across his face!

I was not the first person Jack had bullied, and he had a reputation for being another bully that just didn’t know when to back off, so the department was actually happy I had stood up to him when I did!

The effects of being bullied

Bullying is very common in society, happening in school, the social arena, Internet bullying, the workplace and now even the Tower of London.

Most of us have had some interactions with bullies. Usually, we can move on without too much damage, but unfortunately, sometimes these interactions can have serious lasting consequences.

In the short term:

• Anger
• Depression
• Anxious avoidance of settings in which bullying may occur
• Greater incidence of illness
• Lower grades than non-bullied peers
• Suicidal thoughts, feelings and actualization

In the long term:

• Reduced occupational opportunities
• Lingering feelings of anger and bitterness, desire for revenge
• Difficulty trusting people
• Interpersonal difficulties, including fear and avoidance of new social situations
• Increased tendency to be a loner
• Perception of self as easy to victimize, overly sensitive and thin-skinned
• Self-esteem problems
• Increased incidence of continued bullying and victimization
• Becoming a bully to others

Undoing the damage

What needs to heal, and can take some time, in most cases, is not physical damage, but rather, the damage to self-identity and self-concept. Bullied people need to learn how to feel safe again in the world. They need to learn that they are acceptable people who have something to offer others. They need to feel more in control over their moods and urges. They need to feel that if they want to do something, they can accomplish it.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has been shown to be useful for overcoming the depression and anger that is secondary to having been bullied, and the resulting feelings of being worthless and incompetent.

Social withdrawal problems and social anxiety can also be addressed within the context of cognitive therapy. One of the really useful things about a therapy setting is that role playing can take place between therapist and patient to provide anxious patients with the opportunity to practice and improve how they will interact in social situations. When these basic social fears and skill deficits have been addressed, it becomes easier for socially withdrawn individuals to find the connections they need to finally feel accepted by others.

People who have been bullied have been fundamentally disempowered. Their feelings of personal safety have been violated and their belief in their own competency and adequacy has been brought into question. They may exist in a state of perpetual avoidance and paralysis.

In order to feel good about themselves, they will need to break through that paralysis and engage in something that helps them feel like they are gaining in power. Not power over others, but power over themselves. No other person can do this for them. Every person has to decide to empower themselves.

Moving forward

Anger can be productively funneled into a competitive endeavor or a creative expression. Fears can be faced down and courage can be found. Each person must find their own individual healing pathway. Picking out a goal you desire to accomplish, and then deciding to make it happen is the best practical way to move forward.

As with any self-improvement goal, it is a good idea to start small. Divide larger goals into smaller parts if you can, so that each step you take is more realistically achievable.

If you were, or are currently a victim of bullying, Bully Online is an excellent resource to help with recovery and dealing with a bully.

From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)

Dr. J on dealing with bullies

Selling Lipoban

Sarcona promoted Lipoban, a dietary supplement that was said to help people lose weight without diet and exercise. To make it seem like a legitimate product, he mailed letters to prospects asking them to be a part of an exclusive nationwide test of the product, which required participants to purchase the pills.

The literature mailed to prospects included a letter from Joseph Maya, who was supposed to be the medical director of the Lipoban Clinic, as well as information that claimed other doctors had endorsed the product and that a team of weight loss and nutrition professionals worked at the clinic.

The truth of the matter

In reality, the “clinic” was in the home of another defendant and the company had an office in an industrial park. There was no Dr. Joseph Maya, though there is a Jose Maya, who isn’t licensed to practice medicine in Florida, only in Mexico. What’s more, he never actually performed any services for the clinic.

Almost everyone contacted by Sarcona’s company was told they would be patient 731 in order to make the program look exclusive. There were no medical professionals involved in the clinic and none of the doctors named in promotional materials had actually used the product.

The jury ruled that Sarcona and others defrauded more than 100,000 consumers across the United States of more than $16 million. He also funneled money from the scheme into the bank account of a defunct corporation and used that as his personal bank account. Some of the money was used to buy property in the Virgin Islands, which has since been seized by the government.

Sarcona will be sentenced in January.

(By Sarah E. White for CalorieLab Calorie Counter News)

From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)

Man convicted in weight loss drug scheme

Getting the city to exercise

Next, Alison told them they’d be competing as individuals, and their first challenge as individuals was a pop challenge. For this challenge, they had to take to the streets of Washington to see how many people they could gather for a workout with Bob and Jillian at the Washington Monument. The individual who brought the most people to the monument won Subway for their group.

The “Biggest Loser” contestants grabbed their stickers and raced toward the streets to hand them out to as many people as they could. Some of the losers had better luck than others did. Amanda, Daniel and Rudy seemed to have a large fan base cheering for them, and Allen, being a firefighter himself, decided to head to the local firehouse.

Liz thought she hit the jackpot with a group of about 30 people, but as soon as they turned around, she noticed their pink stickers, and they were all shouting “Amanda,” Amanda,” Amanda!” Nevertheless, Liz didn’t let Amanda’s cheering squad get her down; she kept on going. Then when Amanda and Daniel bumped into one another and Amanda heard a group of people chanting her name, she was all smiles until they saw Daniel. Recognizing Daniel from last season, they chose his sticker over hers. Her smile didn’t fade too much, though. She just laughed and said, “You gotta be kidding me.”

A large crowd, along with fire trucks and firefighters, gathered at the Washington Monument. Alison joined the crowd of happy people and announced the winner, which she said came down to one vote. The top two were Liz and Allen, and Liz won the pop challenge, so her group would enjoy Subway after the workout!

After Alison announced the winner, she introduced Bob and Jillian. Bob decided he’d control the workout while Jillian did what she does best: yell and scream. She enjoyed picking on everyone.

Later, Liz treated her group to Subway, and Jillian recommended the Fresh Fit menu. After each person ordered and received his or her food, Liz walked around to meet and thank everyone who came out to support her.

Lobbying the Senate

Bob, Jillian and the “Biggest Loser” contestants got together with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Senator Robert Casey. Daniel and Rebecca told the senators what it was like to be big in school and how they struggled with obesity. They all asked the senators to help them fight obesity.

Senators Gillibrand and Casey listened intently to the contestants, thanked them for sharing their stories and promised to help as much as they could.

Racing in stages

Soon after the contestants left the senators, they gathered on the beach with Alison to find out about their first physical challenge as individuals. Alison explained that there would be four stages. In the first stage, the “Biggest Loser” contestants ran one mile (two laps) around Constitution Gardens Lake. The first six contestants to cross the finish line moved on to the second stage. Because Liz won the pop challenge, she had the option to skip the first, second or third stage of the four-part challenge. She chose to participate in the first stage.

Rebecca, Daniel, Allen, Amanda, Rudy and Liz moved on to the second stage of the physical challenge. In the second stage, contestants headed to the Watergate steps, where they saw tons of pennies on the steps. Alison told them there were 17,954 pennies, which represented the number of pounds lost on “The Biggest Loser” thus far. Contestants had to race down the steps to gather as many of those pennies as they could, and then they raced back up the steps to place the pennies in a plastic tube that had a line toward the top.

The first four to fill the tubes and reach the line with pennies moved on to the third stage. Liz figured this challenge would wear her competitors out, so she chose to use her pass to sit out of the challenge. Since Liz automatically advanced to the third stage, three more had to follow, and those three — in order — were Rudy (his big hands gave him an advantage), Daniel and Rebecca.

During the third part of the challenge Liz, Rudy, Daniel and Rebecca balanced on a ledge that was on top of a platform. As they balanced on the ledge, they held a Pilates ball over their heads. The two who balanced the longest moved on to the final stage to battle it out for immunity at the weigh-in.

Daniel started off shaky and unable to steady himself, so he was the first out. Next, Rudy and Liz became unsteady, but Liz fell off before Rudy, so Rudy and Rebecca moved on to the final stage.

In order to win immunity, Rudy and Rebecca had to use the Stair Stepper, and the first one to 206 won immunity. Two hundred and six was the total number of “Biggest Loser” contestants thus far.

Rebecca was off to a great start. She managed to keep her lead and won immunity. Although Rudy lost the challenge, he continued until he reached 206.

Visiting the White House

Before participating in another last chance workout, the Biggest Loser contestants visited the White House. They joined Sam Kass, the assistant White House chef, in the First Lady’s garden. Sam started by telling the contestants that Michelle Obama’s garden is the first White House garden since Eleanor Roosevelt’s garden, which Eleanor planted in 1943.

Bob asked what the president’s favorite vegetable was, and Sam said he loves broccoli. Next, the contestants assisted the assistant chef by picking vegetables from the garden. Then they headed to the White House kitchen where they prepared and enjoyed a huge healthy salad. Sam explained that growing the salad cost about $12, and there was a lot of it!

“If this doesn’t show people that it is affordable to eat healthy, nothing will,” Bob commented.

Jillian and Bob trained the contestants during another last chance workout. Jillian had some of the contestants working out on the stairs, and Bob had the others in the gym. As usual, the “Biggest Loser” contestants worked hard to avoid the yellow line.

• Since Rebecca had immunity, she weighed in first, having lost 4 pounds (1.79 percent).
• Shay finally emerged from the 400s. She lost 9 pounds and now weighs 393 pounds. Her total percentage of weight lost was 2.2.
• Tracey lost 3 pounds (1.52 percent).
• Last week Daniel didn’t lose any weight and the week before he gained a pound, so he was nervous as he stepped up to the scale. However, he breathed a sigh of relief when he discovered that he’d lost 11 pounds (4.04 percent).
• Allen lost 9 pounds (3.44 percent).
• Danny lost 12 pounds (3.48 percent).
• Rudy lost 9 pounds (2.64 percent).
• Liz lost 3 pounds (1.36 percent).
• Amanda lost 4 pounds (3.27 percent).

With the lowest percentages of weight loss, Liz and Tracey were up for elimination. Liz didn’t fight too hard to stay, and, as expected, Tracey fought to stay on “The Biggest Loser” ranch. However, Daniel reminded Tracey of her game play in the beginning, and he asked her if she was still in game-play mode or really wanted to learn how to get healthy.

She assured him and her teammates that she wanted to lose weight and stay on the ranch. In the end, though, karma bit Tracey in the butt when the majority voted to send her packing.

Home update: Throughout Tracey’s “Biggest Loser” journey — from the ranch to home — she’s lost a total of 85 pounds.

(By Misti Sandefur for CalorieLab Calorie Counter News)

From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)

Biggest Loser season 8, episode 8: Campaigning for America

Children who consume large quantities of some of the canned goods could be getting BPA at levels that have been shown to cause harm in animal studies, the group said. Some studies have linked exposure to BPA to increased risks of cancer, diabetes and other health problems, and many companies have stopped using the compound in baby bottles for that reason.

BPA levels range widely

The consumer group, which has in the past called for the elimination of BPA in containers that touch food and beverages, found a wide variety of BPA levels getting into foods.

The highest concentration of the chemical in products it tested came from Del Monte Fresh Cut Green Beans Blue Lake, which contained between 35.9 and 191 parts per billion of BPA. Progresso Vegetable Soup had BPA content in the range of 67 to 134 parts per billion, while Campbell’s Condensed Chicken Noodle Soup had between 54.5 and 102 parts per billion of the substance.

Lower levels, ranging from just a trace up to 32 parts per billion, were found in canned corn, chili, tomato sauce and many other of the products tested.

Consumers Union also looked at BPA content in some infant formula and juice drinks and found that while Similac liquid concentrate had a BPA level of 9 parts per billion, there was no measureable amount found in the powdered form of the formula. Juicy Juice samples in cans averaged 9.7 parts per billion, but no measurable amount was found in juice boxes.

The group said even at these small amounts, given the high quantity of formula or juice many kids drink, their exposure could still be pretty high.

Alternative materials

For the most part, as that last example illustrates, it can be helpful to choose products that come in plastic or paper containers rather than cans if you want to limit your BPA exposure. Campbell’s Chicken Noodle Soup in a plastic container had significantly lower BPA levels than the canned soup, for example, and StarKist tuna in a pouch had no measurable BPA, compared to an average of 3 parts per billion in the canned variety.

But that wasn’t always the case. Chef Boyardee Beef Ravioli in a plastic container with a metal peel-off lid had 1.5 times more BPA than the same food in a can.

The testing also found BPA in products whose manufacturers claimed their containers were BPA free.

Industry says BPA in cans safe

The American Chemistry Council says that the BPA levels found in food containers are “low and well within safety standards” and that 11 different regulatory agencies around the world have recently conducted studies on BPA in food containers and found the level of exposure to be safe.

The group says we should wait until the Food and Drug Administration is done with its study of BPA before any major changes in food packaging are called for. Back in 2008 the agency said the compound was safe in food contact situations.

Limiting exposure

If you don’t want to wait and think the level of exposure to BPA from food containers is too much to risk (for yourself or your kids), eat as much fresh, unprocessed food as possible, choose products that come in paper or plastic containers rather than metal cans, and use glass containers to reheat foods in the microwave rather than plastics.

(By Sarah E. White for CalorieLab Calorie Counter News)

From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)

BPA found in many canned goods

First, a minor mea culpa.

In a recent post critical of sugar-sodden breakfast cereals and how the companies that make them inundate kids with TV commercials praising the very unhealthiest of their products, I foolishly referred to Kellogg’s Froot Loops as Fruit Loops.

Ass that I am, I had somehow forgotten the rule that in order to call a product “fruit” something or “fruitful” or “fruity” something, that product must have at least a few molecules of actual fruit among its ingredients. That is why the Kellogg’s cereal was named Froot Loops.

In my dotage, I had also forgotten the recent news item about a man who went so far as to sue the company when he discovered that Froot Loops contain precisely no fruit whatsoever. (He also went after Cap’n Crunch Crunch Berries for its utter lack of berries, so the genuineness of his indignation may be questionable.)

Kellogg’s may need immunity from prosecution

Now, onto another spree of calling Kellogg’s out for its habitual sleazy, child-oriented marketing. In this case, emblazoning its Cocoa Krispies boxes with the banner line claim: NOW HELPS SUPPORT YOUR CHILD’S IMMUNITY. With the word Immunity as big as either Cocoa or Krispies.

The company justifies this claim on the basis of added “Antioxidants & Nutrients,” meaning 25 percent of the recommended daily amount of vitamins A, B, C and E. The fact is, of course, that you will get as much immunity from the flu, or anything else, by grinding a multivitamin pill into a bowl of clay and eating it. Mind you, the clay would not be 40 percent sugar by weight, giving it an advantage over the Cocoa Krispies, which are.

Kellogg’s swears that golly, no, it had no intention of exploiting parents’ fears about the swine flu, the timing of this marketing pitch is just a coincidence, we’ve been planning this campaign for over a year. If you buy that claim, I have a box of Lucky Charms that increase the human lifespan by thirty years that I’m willing to sell you.

The notion that even a vitamin-enriched cereal has any ability to ward off any cold or flu of any kind is total nonsense, and Kellogg’s is already taking critical heat from health professionals and a demand from the San Francisco city attorney that they substantiate the IMMUNITY claim or face possible false advertising charges.

It will be interesting to see whether Kellogg’s senses a possible PR fiasco in this, and cancels the campaign, or digs in its heels, and risks winding up viewed as the snake oil salesman of dry cereals.

Why get so steamed about this? Because it is easy to envision a mother of two or three spotting this cereal box and thinking Oh good, I can just give the kids this stuff and skip the shots, and to envision that happening 1,000 or 10,000 or even 100,000 times in supermarket aisles across the land.

Kellogg’s Immunity pitch goes far beyond irresponsible. Maybe as far as culpable.

(By Robert S. Wieder for CalorieLab Calorie Counter News)

From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)

Cereal update: Froot isn’t fruit, Cocoa Krispies aren’t vaccines

The meat was sold in Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia at stores such as Trader Joe’s, Wild Harvest, Price Chopper and Shaw’s. The products were packaged in September and are now between 23 and 32 days past their sell by dates, so the products should no longer be in stores.

The worry, however, is that customers who have the meat in their freezers will eat it, putting themselves at risk of getting sick. Cooking meat until it’s done kills E. coli, but there’s always a risk of contamination from juices that get on cutting boards or utensils that then contaminate other foods.

Ground beef safety

With this news of yet another E. coli outbreak linked to beef, it seems appropriate to take a look at the Ground Beef and Food Safety fact sheet from the United States Department of Agriculture.

Here you’ll learn such fun facts as that beef fat can be added to products marketed as hamburger, but not those labeled ground beef. Either way, 30 percent fat is the maximum, and while they can have seasonings added, they shouldn’t have water, binders or phosphates added.

The department notes that the sell by date is a rule of thumb for retailers to know when meat is at its freshest, but it’s not always a good guide for customers, who should aim to consume or freeze meat within two days of bringing it home, regardless of the date, because it may not have been stored properly throughout its life.

Products are not required to have sell by dates by law, but packages of raw or partially cooked meat and poultry should have safe handling instructions and country of origin labels.

The danger zone for growth of E. coli and other potentially harmful pathogens — salmonella, Campylobacter jejuni, Listeria monocytogenes and Staphylococcus aureus are other potential baddies found in meat — is between 40 and 140 degrees, so make sure you always store meat, cooked or raw, below 40 degrees and cook it to an internal temperature of 160 degrees to ensure all pathogens have been destroyed.

(By Sarah E. White for CalorieLab Calorie Counter News)

From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)

E. coli outbreak kills at least two, plus fun facts about beef

This is why you’re fat, the game

We’ve told you before about the website called This is Why You’re Fat, a site devoted to pictures of hilariously frightening, gigantic, fatty meals and snacks, such as Twinkie Casserole, deep-fried chocolate cake and Chicken McNugget Pie.

Last week the website hosted an Eat N’ Tweet contest in New York City, which involved six different food trucks across the city that concocted diabolical fatty creations just for the contest. Participants followed the site’s Twitter feed to learn the location of the trucks, and then they raced across the city to be the first had themselves photographed with each of the heart-stopping concoctions.

Some of the foods included an ice cream sandwich made with waffles, a cinnamon roll cupcake, a gigantic burger and dessert nachos. The winner managed to visit all the sites fastest with the help of a Vespa, but amazingly the second-place finisher, competitive eater Will Millender, completed the challenge on foot, which may at least partly compensate for the huge amount of calories likely consumed by competitors (though the rules didn’t specify they had to eat the treats).

The winner of this dangerous contest will receive a party for 25 of his friends catered by one of the food trucks, as well as free copies of the website’s book.

Giant burgers in Japan

Another food trend we like to talk about is the apparent enjoyment Japanese people have for gigantic food. Late last month, Burger King introduced a new player to the giant food scene: the Windows 7 burger.

Apparently Microsoft approached the chain in Japan and wanted to do a tie-in that would alert non-techies to the fact that the company had released a new operating system. What Burger King came up with was a towering sandwich composed of seven patties (of course) and coming in at more than a pound, five inches tall and with a whopping 2,120 calories.

The first 30 burgers sold every day go for the price of 777 yen (that’s $8.45), after that, the price jumps to 1,450 yen ($15.75). Reports say the chain sold 1,700 of the sandwiches in the first two days of the promotion and were up to 6,000 two days after that. The promotion was intended to last seven days, but it’s been extended thanks to all the interest in artery-clogging meals.

(By Sarah E. White for CalorieLab Calorie Counter News)

From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)

Gigantic food gets a little crazy

That is, if you’ve undertaken one or more of the currently faddish and enormously profitable “cookie diets” now on the market. The basic pitch is alluring: eat a certain number of our “special formula” cookies each day, and watch up to 10 pounds per month melt away.

The miracle ingredients vary from one brand to another — in one case it’s amino acids, in another it’s soy pulp, which absorbs all the liquids you wash the cookies down with and leaves you feeling full. But in all cases, the cookies are priced as if they were largely platinum: $279 for a 35-day supply of Smart for Life cookies, for example.

The catch, and the reason weight is lost, is that the program limits the dieter to a handful of cookies and just one meal per day, for a total daily calorie load of 800 to 1,200. Limit yourself to that caloric intake, and it matters little what you eat — you will lose weight.

Alas, so few calories will also provide you with such scanty nutrition that you become a prime candidate for gallstones, weakened kidneys, potassium deficiency, dizziness, heart palpitations and eating disorders.

Nutritionists and dietitians are generally critical of the whole diet cookie concept, and make the following points:

• You simply can’t meet your body’s nutritional requirements with a half-dozen cookies and one meal per day, even with vitamin supplements on the side
• To maintain weight loss you must stick to a healthy long-term eating pattern, and cookies plus dinner doesn’t qualify
• Gimmick diets, especially one-word diets, have a deplorable track record over time

So, however attractive the “cookie diet” may sound, it’s almost certainly a waste of time and money. Sorry, but that’s just the way the cookie crumbles.

Think of it as the Really-chewy-cookie-that-you-never-get-around-to-swallowing Diet

Our old friend chewing gum, on the other hand, gets a thumbs-up as a possible weight-loss aid, based on a University of Rhode Island study, which found that after participants chewed sugarless gum in the morning, they reported feeling less hungry and consumed 68 fewer calories at lunch.

Moreover, the simple physical act of chewing boosted the rate at which they expended energy by approximately 5 percent. According to the test subjects, gum chewing also seemed to reduce fatigue and the effort requited to perform tasks.

The study estimates that, between the energy expended and the fact that the chewer isn’t snacking instead, the net effect of an hour of sugarless gum chewing could be a “savings” of 62 calories. Have another stick of Dentyne.

(By Robert S. Wieder for CalorieLab Calorie Counter News)

From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)

Weight-loss wise, gum is good, cookies not so much

Medical advancements are already happening at lightning speed, but as time goes on and we’re able to grow organs and use robotic engineering to help people, extreme life extension may be possible, but only for the super-rich.

That’s why Paul Saffo, a “futurologist,” says that one day those with the means to afford such enhancements may become a separate species from the rest of us who have to put up with our original parts until they wear out.

Genetic testing will enable the super-rich to know of any potential health problems they may face in the future, and they’ll be able to take drugs specifically tailored to them and their health needs. They’ll also be able to grow their own replacement organs and use robotic limbs that are actually more efficient than the ones we were born with.

Saffo isn’t the only one who sees this sort of future or who predicts it’s coming soon. Ray Kurzweil says that developments in nanotechnology are happening so quickly that immortality is only about 20 years away — for those who can afford it, of course. Saffo doesn’t go that far, but he does say that one day the rich may be able to live as much as 20 years longer than the poor thanks to the technology they can afford.

(Check out another vision of the future in which the size 0s have overtaken the planet.)

Want to save the planet? Go veg

Lord Stern, a British expert on global warming, says that if we really want to pull the planet back from the brink of utter destruction, we all need to stop eating meat. That’s because large-scale animal farming operations, particularly those that raise beef and pork, produce literally tons of methane, a greenhouse gas even more damaging than carbon dioxide.

Stern says that people will have to evolve to the point where eating meat is no longer considered socially acceptable. Stern, who isn’t a strict vegetarian himself, says people around the world, particularly in the United States, are still failing to grasp what needs to be done to halt climate change.

He doesn’t go so far as some who criticize Al Gore for talking big on global warming while still eating meat; in any case, Nicolette Hahn Niman, a lawyer and rancher, says attacking meat eaters isn’t the solution because when animals are produced sustainably, as the Nimans do, eating meat could actually be better for the planet than, say, being a vegetarian who eats a lot of soy, which is a huge factor in deforestation in Brazil.

Our skinny president

And speaking of politicians and skinny people taking over the world, the Drudge Report notes that Barak Obama is looking pretty skinny these days. Aides say he’s not chain smoking but that leading the nation takes a lot of time and energy, and occasionally he skips meals.

(By Sarah E. White for CalorieLab Calorie Counter News)

From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)

In the future, the rich can grow their own organs, plus blaming Al Gore for global warming

While most television viewing by children is of live TV, younger children in particular are viewing more television through the use of DVRs, while older children are spending more time playing video games on game consoles.

In addition, younger kids watch more commercials than older kids, even when they’re watching prerecorded television programs. The youngest kids watch about half of the television commercials shown during programs they watch on their DVRs.

Older kids are also using the Internet more than younger kids, with nearly half of kids aged 6 to 11 having used the Internet during the survey month, compared to just 20 percent of kids ages 2 to 5.

The trouble with too much TV

More and more studies are showing problems when kids watch much television, and the American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that children under the age of 2 should get no screen time at all. In older kids, limiting screen time has been shown to be a factor in limiting childhood obesity, and younger kids who watch too much television may develop language skills more slowly than children who don’t watch as much TV.

Most children’s health advocates would say that no child should be watching the more than three hours of television a day the kids in that study reported, but should be playing outside or taking part in other activities that encourage development of imagination instead.

While in the past makers of educational videos and video games for children have advocated them as helpful for both language and brain development in young children, the makers of the Baby Einstein product line have recently announced that they’ll provide refunds to parents who aren’t satisfied the products made their children smarter.

That company no longer explicitly states that its products improve a child’s brain development, but when the products first came out the company said its videos were able to increase brain capacity in children who watched them.

Regardless of the merits of children’s television and educational videos, it’s pretty clear that no child should be spending that much time watching TV or playing video games. A spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics told the Los Angeles Times that the danger lies in parents assuming the television is harmless entertainment for their children, when in fact the media and perhaps even more effective than parents are at teaching children about issues such as sex and drugs — often teaching kids things parents don’t want them to know.

(By Sarah E. White for CalorieLab Calorie Counter News)

From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)

Kids’ television viewing at an eight-year high

Let’s say that concern about your weight has convinced you to switch from butter to some non-dairy spread for your morning toast. Our first reaction is to ask how in God’s name you’ve still been able to afford butter these days. Our second is to refer you to a taste test performed by five volunteers at the behest of our intrepid friends at KIRO TV in Seattle.

The five tasters tried eight spreads on fresh, whole-wheat toast and rated them on the basis of flavor, spreadability, and “melting characteristics,” which apparently carries more weight in Seattle than it does in our domicile.

Each entry had a maximum possible score of 100. Here they are, in order of preference, with relevant nutritional stats and final scores.

• Brummel & Brown (45 calories, 5 grams fat, 0 cholesterol, 90 milligrams sodium, 0 carbs): 95
• Land O’Lakes Fresh Buttery Taste Spread (70 calories, 8 grams fat, 0 cholesterol, 80 milligrams sodium, 0 carbs): 94
• Parkay Squeeze (70 calories, 8 grams fat, 0 cholesterol, 110 milligrams sodium, 0 carbs): 87
• I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter (80 calories, 8 grams fat, 0 cholesterol, 90 milligrams sodium, 0 carbs): 85
• Shedd’s Spread Country Crock (60 calories, 7 grams fat, 0 cholesterol, 110 milligrams sodium, 0 carbs): 83
• Fleischmann’s With Olive Oil (60 calories, 7 grams fat, 0 cholesterol, 70 milligrams sodium, 0 carbs): 82
• Smart Balance (80 calories, 9 grams fat, 0 cholesterol, 90 milligrams sodium, 0 carbs): 74
• Benecol (70 calories, 8 grams fat, 0 cholesterol, 110 milligrams sodium, 0 carbs): 63

The clear winners appear to be Brummel & Brown and Land O’Lakes, with the main drawback being that they’re not sold everywhere. Yours truly, a California resident, has never even heard of Brummel & Brown, for example.

As to the scores, there’s no reason to assume that the KIRO team’s tastes are much like yours, but there’s no particular reason not to, either. As for last-place Benecol, what would you expect from something that sounds like a cough medicine?

“Snack time,” it turns out, is basically whenever we’re conscious

The question, “Do we eat too many snacks?” has largely been answered by the current soaring rates of overweight and obesity. Now comes a study by NPD’s SnackTrack to answer the question, “When do we do all this accursed snacking?”

And the answer is: Morning, Noon, Midafternoon and Evening.

According to their survey of U.S. adults, 27 percent of us snack in the morning, 13 percent at lunch, 25 percent in the afternoon and 28 percent in the evening, presumably after we’ve had dinner. And 7 percent of us, rather than play favorites, just snack throughout the day. No wonder all the bus companies need bigger seats.

Also on Johnnie’s plate: his plate

This week’s Incompletely Thought Out Idea award goes to Tiziano Vicentini, an Italian caterer who has come up with just the thing to counter the childhood obesity wave sweeping across several major continents: edible plates and bowls, made of bread dough, designed specifically for school lunches.

Tiziano, it’s hard enough calculating how many calories they’ll get just from the food, let alone having to factor in those they might get from eating the dishes.

(By Robert S. Wieder for CalorieLab Calorie Counter News)

From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)

Margarines ranked, our daily snack schedule, eating your dishware

Breaking news! Eat (fill in the blank) to stop obesity!

Yes, it’s true, almost every day you will find articles telling you what and how to eat to stop obesity!

Here are some recent examples.

Leafy greens could help fight the flab

Eating more plant-based foods, which are rich in substances called phytochemicals, could help fight obesity, according to a new study conducted by researchers at the University of Florida.

Phytochemicals prevent oxidative stress in the body, a process associated with obesity. The researchers suggest eating plant-based foods such as leafy greens, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes at the start of every meal. (My horse eats plant-based foods at the start, middle, and end of every meal, and he is very fit!)

Eating dairy products helps fight obesity

“Five helpings of dairy products every day, can help keep heart disease and diabetes at bay.” (Written by a poet from the dairy industry, no doubt.)

Crab shell extract could nip obesity

Irish scientists are experimenting with the use of extracts from crab and shrimp shells as a treatment for obesity. A compound in their shells, chitosan, has been shown to possibly help to reduce food intake. (Crabs can nip more than obesity with their claws; be careful, trust me.)

Stop obesity, eat mushrooms!

New research in the journal Appetite claims mushrooms can combat obesity. (Especially when you substitute mushrooms for any meat dish you are considering!)

Citrus nutrient may help stop obesity!

New findings in the journal Diabetes claim another fruit nutrient, naringenin, a flavonoid in citrus fruit, may halt the development of metabolic syndrome. (Oranges are the state fruit of Florida, the least obese state in the South!)

Speed of eating key to obesity!

Eating meals too fast may be enough to nearly double a person’s risk of being overweight, Japanese research suggests. (Chop sticks can slow you down until you master them.)

Of course those are all good ideas on what and how to eat, but if you really want to control your weight:

You need to eat less, not more

Society’s biggest problem with food, in my opinion, is eating too much! Our biggest nutritional problem now is one of too much food. We are overweight and obese because we eat too much!

There are a few things we can do to help us eat less:

1. Choose smaller portions. I can’t stress portion control enough! Almost every person who achieves success with controlling their weight understands and uses strict portion control. This can be especially important when you want a high-calorie treat.
2. Minimize second helpings. Fill up your plate with a mixture of calorie-dense nutritional items and healthy fruits and vegetables. If you are going to have seconds, only have the fruit and vegetable choices. Do not leave bowls of food on the table where you may be tempted to take seconds.
3. Avoid buffets. We are doing portion control, remember? Unless you have very strict control at meal times, a buffet can be a disaster for your weight loss goals. When it comes to buffets, staying out is easier than getting out!
4. Eat at home as much as you can. Studies show that people who eat at home are much more likely to eat a healthy meal. If you must eat out, consider sharing meals, or take half of the meals home with you. Another idea I’ve considered is to only order from the appetizer menu. My concern with that, however, is although the calories may be lower than an entree, appetizers are not famous for being a healthy choice.
5. Stock your home with healthy foods. Buy fresh fruits, berries, nuts and vegetables and avoid keeping unhealthy snacks in the home. You have a better chance of avoiding those high calorie grease-fests if it’s nowhere in your home to be found.
6. Use less salt, sugar and fat. This combination is suspected to put one’s hunger into overdrive! Learn to use less in your cooking, and avoid processed foods that already contain large amounts.

Remember that this is a process. Take steps slowly, make modifications, and learn what works best for you, and you will be successful!

From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)

Dr. J’s tips on eating to stop obesity

When grocery shopping, how do you find the healthy options? Although most people claim to check food labels’ ingredient or nutrition information, surveys suggest that many aren’t sure how to interpret what they see. Now shoppers have another way to discover healthy food choices. Supermarket chains nationwide have launched systems to rate the healthfulness of specific foods by using shelf tags or on-package symbols.

You can’t go wrong by filling your cart with fresh or frozen plain vegetables and fruits, dried beans and unprocessed whole grains. Beyond that, however, when the labels get confusing or you feel time-pressed, the shelf labels may help. The only catch: You need to learn how the ratings work in the stores where you shop in order to use them effectively.

A huge range of nutrition information

Healthy Ideas is the Giant Food and Stop & Shop rating system developed by an advisory panel of physicians and nutritionists affiliated with medical research institutions. A food is awarded the “Healthy Ideas” symbol if it meets the FDA definition of “healthy” (meaning it’s low in fat and saturated fat, trans fat free, limited in cholesterol and sodium and qualifies as a good source of fiber, protein, vitamin A or C, calcium or iron) or certain other health claims.

Some foods, such as dairy products, will also need to fall within limits on sugar content. All fresh produce automatically qualifies for the symbol, and foods that are not considered important sources of nutrients (such as certain snacks, sweets and beverages) are not rated.

Nutrition iQ is used in a variety of Supervalu stores, such as Acme, Shop’n Save and Albertson’s. Developed in collaboration with registered dietitians at the Joslin Diabetes Center, it is also based on FDA nutrient label criteria.

But instead of awarding one symbol to foods that meet all criteria, foods receive color-code bars to identify those that are good sources of fiber (orange), calcium (blue), whole grain (orange) or protein (yellow); or low in sodium (green), saturated fat (red) or calories (purple). In order to carry a bar in any of these areas, a food must first meet criteria for limited saturated fat and sodium content, and some foods for sugar content. At least initially, the program targets packaged and processed foods and won’t rate fresh meat, poultry or fish, oils, sweets or most beverages.

Some stores may use their own systems of color-coded signs highlighting special benefits. For example, Trader Joe’s identifies foods with different colors and symbols that are heart-healthy or low sodium, as well as those that are gluten-free, vegan or quick to prepare.

Just keep in mind that most systems like this don’t put these tags only on foods that are low in saturated fat and sodium. So you may pick up a food tagged as fat-free or vegan that has sodium content higher than generally recommended.

Guiding Stars, found in stores including Hannaford’s, Food Lion and Blum, and NuVal, found in stores including Price Chopper and Giant-Eagle, each use privately owned scoring systems developed by researchers from several prestigious universities. Guiding Stars’ formula awards qualifying foods one (good) through three (best) stars.

NuVal analysis scores all foods from 1 to 100, with higher scores indicating higher nutrient content. Both systems use complex formulas to evaluate a host of nutrients, so scores reflect a wide range of foods’ nutritional value, but place less emphasis on some basic qualities that define overall healthy eating.

People’s nutrient needs differ, so priorities in choosing healthful food may vary. These rating systems may be some help in making smart food choices when you feel overwhelmed by food label information.

(This article was provided by the American Institute for Cancer Research in Washington, D.C. A registered dietician is available to respond to questions about diet, nutrition, and cancer at the free AICR Hotline at 1 (800) 843-8114 during business hours.)

From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)

Use the rating game when grocery shopping

The report, in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that, depending on the drug, study participants gained between 4.4 and 9.7 kilograms (that’s between 9.7 and 21.3 pounds) after a median of 10.8 weeks. That was 8 to 15 percent of their body weight and an average weight gain of one and a half pounds a week.

What’s more, the patients saw waist increases of two to three inches, and most of the drugs showed increases in metabolic markers like glucose and insulin problems and higher triglycerides and cholesterol levels, all of which could increase the kids’ risk of developing diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity.

The head of a Food and Drug Administration panel looking into the drugs last summer called the study’s findings “alarming,” and said that though the metabolic effects of the drugs were previously known, the magnitude and speed of the unhealthy developments was not previously understood.

Kids and antipsychotics

The four drugs used in the study are incredibly popular as treatments for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other psychological disorders. More and more young people are using the drugs, with one study finding that 15 percent of all users of such drugs in 2005 were under the age of 19, compared to just 7 percent in 1996. It’s estimated that more than 70 percent of the use of these drugs is what’s known as off-label use, most notably for ADHD and other nonpsychotic conditions.

The lead researcher of the study said doctors should think twice before prescribing these medications because of the potential for weight gain and metabolic changes. The drug that showed the smallest potential for weight gain, known as Abilify, is also considered to be less effective than the other drugs.

Eli Lilly, which makes Zyprexa, which caused the most weight gain in the study, said its own studies have shown the same problems. The drug has had a label warning about the potential side effects since late 2007. But the drugmaker maintains the drug’s use is a vital for helping adolescents with severe mental illness.

An editorial accompanying the study in the Journal of the American Medical Association says that the use of such drugs in young people should be considered much more carefully than it is right now because of the potential for setting drug users up for future health problems. The older generation of antipsychotic drugs is being used less frequently these days because of the potential for neurological side effects.

(By Sarah E. White for CalorieLab Calorie Counter News)

From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)

Antipsychotic drugs cause huge weight gain in teens

You’re deeply concerned about the fact that with each passing day, America’s children seem to grow more and more overweight, a problem largely due to their consumption of high-calorie, fat- and sugar-intensive junk food. And yet, here comes Halloween, an annual ritual in which we rain down just such junk food in the form of “treats” on precisely those at-risk kids.

On the one hand, you can’t in good conscience contribute to this problem by handing out such treats to boys and girls who already look like they should be costumed as sumo wrestlers or beach balls or the Poppin’ Fresh Dough Boy. But on the other hand, you don’t want to come off as miserly or a killjoy, and you also don’t want to spend the morning after Halloween dealing with the toilet paper in your tree and the dried egg yolk on your front door, to say nothing of what’s left of your mailbox.

You want to hand out something to the youngsters, but something that won’t contribute to their weight. Allow us to offer a few helpful suggestions.

• Sugar-free gum. Stores sell it right alongside the candy, so it qualifies as such, but with zero calories or fat.
• Tums. They look enough like rolls of Lifesavers to pass, and after the kid has eaten the first pound or so of Milky Ways and Kit-Kats and Gummi Bears, they might actually come in handy.
• Popcorn balls. Unbuttered popcorn has the same approximate caloric, sugar and fat content (not to mention taste) as styrofoam. The trick here is not to form it into balls using the traditional melted caramel, but to substitute library paste, which in itself is one of your first and second grader’s favorite snacks already.
• Rye-Krisp. It’s as devoid of sugar and trans fats as it is of flavor, and if you run out, just cut some cardboard into strips, salt lightly and distribute.
• Cocktail olives. In the dark, the kids will probably just take them for jawbreakers or milk chocolate balls.
• Eggplant pate on melba toast. Low-cal, nutritious, and a guarantee that the kids won’t bother stopping at your house next Halloween.
• Shares of GM stock. As handouts go, they’re actually cheaper than most Hershey products these days.

(By Robert S. Wieder for CalorieLab Calorie Counter News)

From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)

Halloween treats that won’t contribute to the childhood obesity epidemic

Q: Is it true that celery is high in sodium and should be limited by those with high blood pressure?

Increased blood pressure from celery is only likely if you dip it in salt or high-sodium dip. Two medium stalks of celery contain about 64 milligrams of sodium, which is higher than the 2 to 20 milligrams found in a serving of most unseasoned raw vegetables. But that doesn’t make it high-sodium.

That’s still only a fraction of the recommended limit. The place to be cautious is with vegetables like pickles, another choice known for its low calories, that typically contain about 570 millligrams of sodium in a similar portion — that’s one-fourth of a day’s worth of sodium.

Although not as high in vitamins and phytochemicals as other fruits and vegetables, celery is one of the top dietary sources of a particular flavonoid phytochemical called apigenin. Apigenin is currently under study for a possible role in the self-destruction of damaged cells (such as cancer cells).

And celery provides compounds called phthalides that may contribute to blood vessel health and cancer prevention. Besides, reaching and maintaining a healthy weight plays a huge role in blood pressure control. Weight control is easier when you can serve hearty portions of mixed dishes by including vegetables like celery, since a whole cup of chopped celery adds just 16 calories.

Q: If I order vegetable-topped pizza, do a couple slices count as a serving of vegetables?

Vegetable pizzas are a great choice, but most take-out or frozen pizzas don’t supply enough vegetables to provide a full serving, even with tomato sauce. If you order a combination of several different veggies, the entire pizza usually contains only a cup or so.

However, it’s easy to add a few veggies of your own to get a half-cup serving on two slices of pizza. While waiting for pizza delivery, microwave, steam or sauté some vegetables like mushrooms, bell peppers, broccoli or artichoke hearts. You can also use fresh, pre-washed spinach and microwave it right in the bag. Sprinkle any of these with a dash of Parmesan for extra flavor as you add them to the pizza.

Another option is to make pizza at home, starting with either pre-made crust or dough to save time, if you like. Then you can load the pizza with lots of vegetables, making it healthier, tastier and more filling.

Q: How much more fattening are crab cakes compared to plain crab?

The nutritional value of crab cakes varies with how they are made, but since most recipes add mayonnaise and bread or cracker crumbs to the plain lean crab, calories certainly increase. On the other hand, if you serve plain crab smothered with cream sauce or cream soup, or dipped in a pot of butter, the calories aren’t so lean either.

Crab cakes served in restaurants or prepared ahead in your grocery store often contain 150 to 360 calories per serving, with fat content ranging from 4 to 22 grams. That’s quite an increase from about 80 calories and just over 1 gram of fat in a three-ounce serving of plain cooked crab.

If you have a crab cake as your main dish and round out your meal with vegetables and salad with little added fat, and perhaps a roll or small serving of rice, that can still work. But if you use these crab cakes as an appetizer, or are also choosing other dishes somewhat higher in fat, the calorie load from your meal will probably be pretty high.

If you like crab cakes, check the Internet for recipes to make crab cakes at home. They’re easy to make and you can stick with leaner versions with less added fat and little or no refined-grain crumbs. And experiment with ways to enjoy the delicious sweet taste of small amounts of crab in lean dishes that don’t smother it in added fat.

(This article was provided by the American Institute for Cancer Research in Washington, D.C. A registered dietician is available to respond to questions about diet, nutrition, and cancer at the free AICR Hotline at 1 (800) 843-8114 during business hours.)

From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)

On celery, sodium, getting veggies from pizza and unhealthy crab cakes

During the pop challenge, the teams raced back and forth between two counters. They had to run under a bar to get to each counter, and then they reached above their heads to touch the counters. The team who reached 500 points first decided who would be paired up with whom at the weigh-in.

The black team took the lead at the start of the pop challenge until Allen took his turn and put the blue team ahead. The black team regained its lead when Liz stepped up for the blue team. Toward the end of the challenge, it came down to Daniel and Rebecca. Both stayed consistent until Rebecca picked up her pace and won the pop challenge for the blue team.

Alison gave the blue team 10 minutes to decide who would go head-to-head with whom at the weigh-in. After a short discussion, the blue team revealed the results: Rebecca vs. Amanda, Tracey vs. Abby, Allen vs. Danny, Rudy vs. Shay and Liz vs. Daniel.

More workout problems

The “Biggest Loser” contestants prepared for another workout. Jillian’s team headed to the gym, and Bob decided his team would participate in a pool workout. While Bob instructed his team during their pool workout, Jillian encountered problems with Amanda. Amanda wasn’t giving it her all on the treadmill. She began crying and was ready to call it quits. Despite Jillian’s best effort to encourage Amanda to keep going, Amanda stormed out of the gym.

“Why are these contestants so freakin’ difficult this season?” Jillian sighed.

Knocking out the competition

Later, the contestants met Alison at a baseball field. Each of the contestants sported a jersey with their total amount of weight loss. Alison introduced them to Dereck Jeter. From a live video screen, Derrick offered a few words of encouragement, and then he explained the challenge. He began by telling the “Biggest Loser” contestants that the 2,535 balls scattered about the field represented all the hits he’d accumulated throughout his first 13 seasons in the majors.

He then told them they’d have to gather as many of the balls as they could, run over to the life-sized portrait of the opponent of their choice, and throw the balls at their opponent’s portrait. They had to hit their opponent’s portrait 316 times to knock them out of the challenge. The first team to knock out everyone from the other team won some cooking time with Chef Curtis Stone and a two-pound advantage to split between two players or give to one player at the weigh-in.

Right off the bat the black team went after Allen and Rebecca, because they saw them as the biggest threats. The black team knocked Allen out first, and then they pitched balls at Rebecca’s portrait and knocked her out. The black team’s strategy gave them the win, so they enjoyed a backyard barbecue with Curtis Stone.

Heart-to-hearts before the weigh-in

Before the “Biggest Loser” contestants made their way to the gym for their last chance workout, Amanda apologized to Jillian for her earlier outburst. Jillian accepted Amanda’s apology but knew nothing would change if Amanda didn’t let go of “the old idea of being the fat girl.”

During last chance workout, it was nice to see Bob and Jillian coach their teams without using profanity. In fact, there seemed to be less anger from the contestants throughout their workout as well.

Although Bob and Jillian weren’t as harsh with their encouraging words, Jillian’s heart-to-heart with Abby was emotional. Abby admitted that after she lost her beloved family in the auto accident, she turned to food to ease the pain of the loss; however, she felt ready to move on to a joyful and healthier life. The moment that Jillian and Abby shared had to be the most emotional one-on-one I’ve ever seen on “The Biggest Loser.” It was so emotional that I reached for the tissues.

Teams headed to the scales for their face-off weigh-in. Before Alison started the weigh-in, she asked the black team how they decided to use their two-pound advantage, and they told her they were giving the whole two pounds to Amanda.

Amanda vs. Rebecca

Amanda lost 4 pounds, and her two-pound advantage gave her a total percentage of 2.75 percent.

Rebecca lost 9 pounds, which beat Amanda’s weight loss and gave the blue team the first point.

Abby vs. Tracey

Abby lost 3 pounds.

Tracey lost 5 pounds, which gave the blue team another point.

Danny vs. Allen

Danny lost 12 pounds.

Allen lost 8 pounds, so Danny’s weight loss gave the black team their first point.

Daniel vs. Liz

Daniel needed a big number to keep his team out of the elimination room, but 5 pounds just wasn’t enough.

Liz needed to lose more than 4 pounds to beat Daniel and give her team the win. Liz lost 7 pounds.

Although the blue team had already won, immunity was up for grabs, so Shay and Rudy were the last to weigh in. Shay needed to lose more than 13 pounds to win immunity, but if she didn’t lose 14 pounds, Danny would win immunity.

In addition to immunity, Rudy hoped he could set a new “Biggest Loser” record. Last season Dane lost 100 pounds in eight weeks and became the quickest contestant to lose 100 pounds. Now Rudy hoped he could lose at least 13 pounds to set a new record, and Dane entered the room to cheer him on.

Shay vs. Rudy

Shay lost 9 pounds.

Rudy lost 14 pounds. Rudy set a new record and celebrated a total weight loss of 101 pounds!

The black team had a few minutes to decide who they’d send home. Instead of asking her teammates to keep her on the ranch, Abby did the opposite and asked them to send her home.

At elimination, Danny felt Daniel had already been given a second chance, and he thought it was Abby’s turn for a second chance, so he voted to send Daniel home, but the rest of the team honored Abby’s wishes, so Abby left the ranch with a new outlook on life.

Home update: Since Abby’s time on “The Biggest Loser: ranch, she’s lost more than 80 pounds.

(By Misti Sandefur for CalorieLab Calorie Counter News)

From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)

Biggest Loser season 8 episode 7: Facing off

When it comes to the breakfast cereal industry and your kids, there is good news and bad news. The good news is, the cereal makers don’t actually just shoot your kids for sport. The bad news is that they still brainwash the kids into craving appallingly unhealthy products, for money.

Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity just released a smoldering report. The center’s director summed up its conclusion: “The worst cereals are being marketed very heavily to children.”

A few numbers for American parents to chew on:

• Although cereal companies have reduced the sugar content of their kids’ products, they still average three full teaspoons per serving.
• Cereals marketed specifically to kids have 85 percent more sugar, 60 percent more sodium, and 65 percent less fiber than those marketed to adults.
• Kids who eat high-sugar cereal tend to eat two servings, about two cups, or twice as much as kids who eat low-sugar cereals.
• The average preschooler is hit with 642 cereal commercials on TV each year, mostly for the nutritionally poorest cereals.

And here is the Rudd Center’s list of the 10 nutritionally lowest-rated cereals that are pitched to your kids: Reese’s Puffs, Corn Pops, Lucky Charms, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, Cap’n Crunch, Trix, Froot Loops, Fruity and Cocoa Pebbles, Cocoa Puffs, Cookie Crisp.

You want a really smart choice, try oatmeal

Not only do the cereal makers promote these products to children, they advertise some of them as nutritionally beneficial, or even superior. Or at least, they were doing so, through a “Smart Choices” program that nine major food companies, including General Mills and Kellogg’s, created in August to designate their products as downright healthy for kids.

The problem is that “Smart Choice” products included such nutritional affronts as Froot Loops. And for that matter, Cracker Jack.

The idea that the likes of Cap’n Crunch and Cocoa Puffs might be labeled as certifiably healthy for kids moved the Food and Drug Administration to threaten to penalize companies that engaged in inaccurate labeling. At which point the “Smart Choices” program came to a sudden halt.

The FDA said that “healthy” labels created by the food industry could be misleading. Which evidently was the whole idea.

The Moral: ignore labels; read the ingredients.

(By Robert S. Wieder for CalorieLab Calorie Counter News)

From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)

Kids’ cereals: Think of them as child abuse in a bowl

What D does

Most of us know of vitamin D as a friend of calcium that helps build and maintain strong bones. But lately D has been implicated in a lot of studies as helpful for preventing diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and some types of cancer.

It’s also thought to affect weight control, fertility and memory, among other vital bodily functions. In kids it may help prevent respiratory infections and wheezing as well as wintertime eczema.

It’s pretty clear that we all need vitamin D, and it’s clear as well that most people — kids and adults alike — aren’t getting enough. The National Center for Health Statistics says as many as 36 percent of adults are vitamin D deficient, and most don’t know it.

Why we aren’t getting enough

There aren’t a lot of good food sources of vitamin D (fatty fish, cod liver oil, eggs and beef liver are all sources, as well as fortified foods like milk) and while most people know that your body can make vitamin D from the sun, that doesn’t work if you’re wearing sunscreen.

More than half of the United States does not have powerful enough sunshine in the winter to provide the body with the D it needs, and people of color may have trouble processing D from the sun. The study in kids found that in particular Hispanic and African American kids were at greater risk of being deficient in the vitamin.

Moreover, experts are divided on how much D is enough both for adults and kids. It’s not known how much of the vitamin would be needed to prevent against disease. For its part, the American Academy of Pediatrics late last year doubled its recommended D level for kids from 200 IU a day to 400.

How to get enough

Most people, particularly children, aren’t eating enough fatty fish or drinking enough milk fortified with vitamin D to meet the requirements through diet alone, especially now that cod liver oil is out of vogue.

Getting sun is helpful in the summertime and in southern climates; experts say 10 minutes every few days while exposing lots of skin and not wearing sunscreen is plenty to keep D levels in check. But of course there’s always a worry of promoting skin cancer if people are too enthusiastically encouraged to take sun without sunscreen.

The answer for almost everyone, it seems, is vitamin supplements. This is particularly important for babies and children, who need D even more than the rest of us as they are growing.

And this is one case where breast milk is not as good as formula, because so many moms are deficient in the vitamin themselves they don’t make enough to pass on to their kids. Formulas are fortified with enough D that further supplementation isn’t necessary for kids exclusively formula fed, but breastfed babies do need a supplement.

(By Sarah E. White for CalorieLab Calorie Counter News)

From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)

Most kids need more D, here’s how to get it