Why You Should Eat Candy

• "A cup of candy corn has fewer calories than a cup of raisins.

• Some candies, such as lollipops, candy canes, gummi bears, gum drops, licorice twists and sour balls do not contain fat or cholesterol. What's more, many of these candies are relatively low in calories."

"Want more specific help on how candy can fit into your lifestyle?"

These are exact words from the National Confectioners Association (NCA) website. I am deeply moved that someone cares enough about my sweet tooth to offer help on how to fit candy back into my life. It's exactly what I need.

After reading and scrutinizing the links and information on the NCA website, I decided to share with all of you:

Click here for the Science and Nutrition web page (This page has pictures of vegetables and candy. How nice.)

Click here for the Health Professionals web page

For a really hilarious read, go the the Food Insight web page and click on "The Truth About Sugars" PDF. I found this link through the NCA website.

It absolutely blows my mind that the sugar people are getting away with trying to make a real case for sugar. That they say sugar is not linked to obesity, heart disease or cavities is truly the icing on the cake.

One last thing.....apparently candy is not associated with ill health. Oh goody gumdrops!
"New Study Finds Candy Consumption Not Associated with Negative Health Outcomes As part of a balanced diet and active lifestyle, moderate amounts of candy and confections provide enjoyment." Read more, sweet things!

Nutrients vs. Calories: The Debate Goes On

The debate continues. So far, I have not heard any support for high calories and low nutrients, except in the case of starvation (see below). Instead, people seem willing to sacrifice a few calories in the name of healthier food, which can be looked at as preventative medicine. This decision seems heavily based on nutrition education.

Earlier this week, I shared the debate with Dr. Marion Nestle in an email. Here is what I said:

"I ask my readers to choose what they would prefer: less nutrients and more calories (i.e. cheap junk food) or more nutrients and less calories (assuming there is a cap on the amount of money spent on food). What I find to be a fascinating argument is that junk food (fast foods, packaged food, frozen food, etc.) is argued to be cheaper so it has been concluded that lower income people are more overweight due to higher calories at lower prices. I'm not quite in agreement with this argument because those same lower-income people could (assuming they are educated about nutrition in this case) choose to eat healthier foods, albeit less calories for more money, but it seems like most of us could use less calories anyway.

What are your thoughts on this? If you had to choose between less calories/more nutrients or more calories/less nutrients, which would you choose?"

Dr. Nestle responded: "The choice you pose depends on the circumstances. For people who are starving, calories with some nutrients is better than not enough calories. For typical Americans who are largely overfed, cutting down on calories is a good idea."

Emma's comment about junk food is another good argument: "...1200 calories of potato chips is almost a day's calories for someone trying to lose weight but I bet those chips are eaten as a snack in one sitting. You then have to buy food for lunch, dinner, breakfast and afternoon tea."

I enjoyed reading everyone's comments and I hope to fuel the debate by sharing a story about school lunches:

I learned recently that one of the biggest problems with school lunches is that there are USDA guidelines that require a certain amount of calories per meal (1/3 of a child's daily caloric requirement must be served at each meal). The following story describes why this guideline needs to be changed to adopt a more nutrient-based requirement, and not just calorie-based:

Once, a dietitian decided to try and make school lunches healthier by taking cookies off the trays and substituting apple slices. The apple slices did not provide the required amount of calories, though, and so the apple slices were taken away and replaced with the high-fat, high-sugar cookies--all because of a caloric requirement, not a nutrient requirement. It seems that as long as the minimum number of calories are met, the quality of food doesn't matter. Fried, sugary and fattening foods seem to fly as long as the calorie requirement is met. I understand that some children get one or two meals at school and this might be the best form of nourishment they get all day. However, if the USDA guidelines would take into account nutrients, those same kids might also be participating in preventative health care, which in turn lowers annual health care costs.

Take a look at PCRM's (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) school lunch program nutrition advocacy here.

Also, there is a Childhood Obesity National Conference coming up next month, June 18-19 in Washington, D.C. where I am currently visiting and learning a lot about nutrition and politics. The issues being addressed at this conference are particularly interesting to me, including:

• PANEL: Are government and industry responsible for childhood obesity?
• The fattening of America: How the economy makes us fat, if it matters, and what to do about it.
• Global dynamics of diet and obesity
• Can a vegetarian diet protect children from obesity?
• PANEL: Should every school offer vegetarian options?
• The developmental origins of obesity in childhood and chronic disease in later life

To name a few. To find out more, go to ChildhoodObesityConference.org

Also, this just in: Dr. Nestle's post, "Strong Opinions About Obesity"

And, lastly, an article in the Washington Post giving us insight into the decision-making of the poor.

The Real Threat to Americans

Sometimes it's really good to see things in perspective.

Especially for those of you who tend to internalize information you see on the news. The media does not give a balanced perspective of what is going on in the world. If it did aim for perspective, it would perhaps show the following chart, night after night.

The fact is, information in this chart is not very entertaining and it certainly isn't what most people want to think about. It's much more exciting to talk about rare or unrealistic events because then we don't have to hold ourselves accountable for events that affect us daily. Well, here's to not passing the buck. Here's to facing reality and holding ourselves accountable:

Sugar Versus Corn Syrup

It's funny to read an article about how sugar is making a major comeback into our food products. And how that is a good thing. People are excited about this. Really? Things of this nature truly depend on which way the wind blows. Today it's blowing in favor of sugar. Almost 30 years ago corn syrup was the more favorable of the sugary choices. To researchers and doctors, there is not much difference between the two when it comes to how it affects the body.

(Though there are many health-related problems arising from our consumption of sugars, I am going to focus on obesity for this article because it is a particularly alarming national epidemic.) 

Obviously, sugar has been studied longer than high fructose corn syrup, but so far, the research shows that both have a lot to do with obesity. Obesity has a lot to do with diabetes and heart disease. And we are supposed to be excited about our old friend sugar? 

Thank you to a reader who forwarded me this article from the New York Times. "Sugar, the nutritional pariah that dentists and dietitians have long reviled, is enjoying a second act, dressed up as a natural, healthful ingredient."

It made me giggle and cringe at the same time. I feel like the point is lost on people. There are those who have a vendetta against corn syrup, and those who have a vendetta against sugar. I started my blog because I had a vendetta against sugar. But, as I wrote about earlier, I realized that sugar is not evil. Read more about that here. Corn syrup is not evil. It is the food corporations and media and advertisers and people who push for sugar in our food products who are screwing with our minds and best intentions. Best case scenario is that no matter what is in our foods, we would eat in moderation. 

The problem is Americans have a very hard time with moderation. Moderation is not a motto we live by. (I just deleted an entire paragraph about restaurant buffets...)

Sugars are found in more food products today, I will speculate, than 50 years ago. I'm guessing because it is now so cheap to add to our food, why wouldn't a company add this simple, cheap sweetness, which will make a product stand apart from another. We like things that are sweet. We love a perfect balance between sweetness and saltiness. They know this and are preying upon our senses. The sugar industry folks and corn syrup folks have something in common. Neither of them care about our health individually, or the health of our nation as a whole. Rates of obesity are at an alarming, all time high. Not only are more people considered obese, but those once considered obese are now being considered morbidly obese. The money the United States spends on obesity and overweight issues is estimated to be about $90 billion annually. Billion.

The sugar industries: cane, beet and corn continue to market and sell their products because somehow we have been convinced that "in moderation" is okay. Really? I am an expert on one thing. Going without sugar for one year. It was one of the most challenging things I have ever done. Sugar/Corn syrup was in practically everything. How do those industries propose that we eat it in moderation, when they serve a disproportionate amount of sugar in their "suggested serving size?" 

Though the pendulum swings back towards an increase in sugar consumption instead of corn syrup, I believe that we still have the same problem on our hands. That is, our addiction to sweet things and our "need" for sweets in greater and greater amounts. Since going without sugar, I've come to realize that eating too much sugar and corn syrup is a problem, but so is eating too much honey and agave and brown rice syrup and dried fruit. They are all carbohydrates which our bodies turn into glucose and if we eat more calories than we burn in a day, our glucose is stored as fat. Our bodies don't care what the source of the carbohydrate is. If it's a carb, it turns into glucose (with the exception of some fiber). Obviously, if a type of natural sweetener is less likely to spike our blood sugar, it is probably better for us for that reason, but when it comes to carbs, calories and weight, we are pretty much comparing apples to apples. 

I don't typically make generalizations like this. However, I have to make the distinction between choosing something based on morals versus choosing something based on health. When it comes to white sugar and corn syrup, I don't eat either one because of health and moral reasons. Morally, I won't eat corn syrup because most corn is grown using GMO's and pesticides. I just don't support that kind of farming. Morally, I don't eat white refined sugar because I don't support the organizations selling it. It has no place in our food supply. It is empty calories, which means that it offers no essential nutrients but is extra calories in our diet that most of us don't need. I can't support the sugar and corn industries that are fattening us to death. 

Morally and for health reasons I don't eat artificial sweeteners or the new stevia products (I eat pure stevia, but not the new products of processed stevia.) Most of these products have not been around long enough to have long-term research studies done to determine their safety. I feel good about eating natural sweeteners, but I have to be careful not to overindulge. Yes, honey is natural, but to be completely grass roots and organic about it, if I were living out in nature, the fact is that I would probably only be able to swipe a finger full of honey from a bee hive before getting chased out of the area by a swarm of territorial bees. It would not be possible to eat a large amount of honey at one time. Yet, because of the industrialization of food, I can go buy a jar of honey and sit with a spoon and eat to my heart's content. But I have not evolved to eat honey in those kinds of proportions. 

I would not have the facilities to make agave or brown rice syrup or molasses in nature. I am currently questioning my consumption of these products, as well, in an effort to be eating how I was meant to be eating, not what the media or latest fad would have me believe. In my perfect world, I would dry my own fruit, squeeze my own juice by hand and collect honey in moderate amounts before the bees got to me. These sweet items would satisfy my sweet tooth, and because of all the whole foods I would be eating, only, I wouldn't have insane cravings. In my perfect world. I am working on making this a reality, but to participate in society, I am faced with difficult food choices--eating with friends, family and going out to eat. So, in my perfect world, everyone else figures out that eating healthy is the secret to happiness and longevity and we all thrive happily. One must dream...

Childhood Obesity with Subway's Jared

I was tooting around looking at some healthy blogs this morning and came across the "Super Healthy Kids" blog. What a hoot. The second post I scrolled to was a fun surprise...an interview with Jared from Subway. The Jared. So, in honor of that man's hard work and dedication to be a healthier person and pass it on, here is the interview. Here is my favorite quote by Jared in that interview:

"If you eat out, know you control the menu! Don’t let the menu control you. Ask for things prepared your way, or things that aren’t even on the menu."

Definitely click over to the Super Healthy Kids blog to read the interview. It's short and sweet. Also, Jared has his own blog and has started his own foundation with a mission to eliminate childhood obesity. I love when people turn a negative experience (being 400 lbs) into something great! Thank you Jared!

"Genes Remember Sugar"-an interesting study

Here is another undeniably good reason to give up the white stuff: Your genes may remember the sugar it had and alter your DNA.

Not in a good way. It will not alter your DNA to look like a Sugar Disneyland. Rather, the Australian research study found that, "cells showed the effects of a one-off sugar hit for a fortnight, by switching off genetic controls designed to protect the body against diabetes and heart disease." Read more, here.

Granted, this is one study. It was done by the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute. In my opinion, it's worth taking note of until further studies confirm these findings. Trust me, I wish research studies found that white sugar was good for us. I could go back on the white stuff and never look at another food label again--it would save me several minutes at the grocery store. I could go back to eating my favorite cereals. I could stop writing to companies--or keep writing them and instead ask for more sugar in their products. I could buy a package of Oreos, confident that the sugar rush I would experience is actually good for me! This is what I would like to be the truth.

The fact is, sugar has been a problem for generations, and because it has found its way into more and more products (black beans and toothpaste...), we are ingesting more and more of it and our national health issues (especially diabetes, obesity and heart disease) have grotesquely increased.

I have no idea what researchers will find in the next several years as the effects of sugar will continue to be studied. My guess is that what they find will not be good. My body (and yours, too) can attest to the fact that refined sugar is not good for it. To get even more ridiculous, I will use the Garden of Eden arguement: if we were meant to eat something, it was readily available in that garden. Sugar cane, yes. White refined sugar, no. Honey, yes. Corn syrup, no. (Using this reasoning I can't help but wonder if I'm being duped by the "health food" industry in buying products like brown rice syrup, agave nectar, molasses....)

Next on my list of things to do is research universities. There is only so much I can say at my current level of education. There is only so much I can say about sugar with a Psychology degree and massage therapy license. I am willing to pay a hefty price for a Public Health degree combined with a Registered Dietitian license to earn the right to make certain statements. Especially to doctors that continue serving green Jell-O to their patients (sorry, I can't let that go.)

press release: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090116/hl_afp/healthaustraliageneticssugar;_ylt=At8juaZrV2AoHEmOvom1Hj4PLBIF
Journal of Experimental Medicine: http://jem.rupress.org/
*Full article is not published yet at the time of this post.

2009: No Sugar For Me!

No sugar for me this year, either!!!

I chose to not rent out that donut shop after all...

Last night I celebrated the incoming new year on the roof of my cousin's apartment building, in the rain, overlooking the city of Portland. There were fireworks all evening long.

My cousin made her special homemade pizza...we each had our own pizza with a dozen different topping choices. She is a natural cook and the pizzas were incredible. To top it all off, she had made brown rice flour molasses cookies for me, that are to die for. I ate three this morning for breakfast.

Sometime yesterday I decided that there were not enough convincing reasons to eat sugar again. Why be its slave? I realized that I may have control over sugar ONLY because I am not eating it; therefore I would not tempt the limits of my willpower by trying to eat just one sugary item. By now you are tired of hearing this, but I have to reiterate once more, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS JUST ONE OREO!!

Because of quitting sugar last year, I am facing 2009 with a new perspective on nutrition, my willpower, others' willpower, and the overall power that sugar has on people. Around the time I quit eating sugar last year, I thought about sugar on a much lighter note. Now that I have experienced going without it and the struggles it involves (can you say CRAVINGS and that IT IS IN EVERYTHING!?!) I do not take sugar lightly. It is a tiny, empty granule capable of so much.

If someone wanted to, a movie could be made about a tiny program inserted into each sugar granule that is used to control people......however, I did watch Tron this morning....

"Portions" My New Lifestyle, Not Diet!

In trying to figure out why I am not losing weight with the sugarless diet, I have decided that my portion sizes might have something to do with it. Also, I need to increase the amount of my daily physical activity, a huge given, but I truly believe I could lose a few if I cut down on my portion sizes.

Because I eat vegetarian, hardly any dairy and no sugar, I have assumed that I can eat everything in whatever portions I want. So when I make a batch of the most delectable gingersnaps ever, I heap them on a plate, go find a cozy spot to curl up and sit, and take my time eating each one while reading a book or doing a Japanese number puzzle. I'm in the clear, right? The cookies are healthy--no white flour or white sugar, so I am good to go, right? Obviously not!

To my dismay, I have to admit that I have been overeating. It has not even crossed my mind until recently, for some reason. Perhaps it has something to do with the year coming to a close and the one goal I was very much looking forward to, I have not attained. In searching for all the reasons why I have stayed 15 pounds over my desired weight, I have concluded that eating half a batch of cookies probably doesn't help my plight, nor does eating five bowls of quinoa, even though it is healthy!

So, the other day I decided to take into account my portion sizes. Already I feel better about myself. I don't need that super-full/sick feeling in my stomach to tell me that I'm done eating. I need to use common sense and forget relying upon my animal senses. The animal in me will gorge. But I am not an animal, and I don't need to load up on food for fear of starvation.

I am not calling this a diet, because I hope to carry this idea to fruition throughout my life. While this may sound totally obvious to you all, this has been a great revelation for me! We'll see if anything significant (weight-wise) happens over the next month.

Oh, and I thought "Portions" was quite appropriate, being that tonight is the eve of Thanksgiving! Happy Thanksgiving to you all!!

Coca-Cola's New Stevia Product: "Truvia"

You won't believe this. The Coca-Cola Company has come out with a "healthy" sweetener that is now available to consumers. It is a stevia-derived sweetener that has no calories, and is now being marketed as "Truvia: A healthy alternative to artificial sweeteners." "Rebiana" is the trade name for this sweetener, probably named after the compound Rebaudioside A, which they isolated from the stevia plant. The reason they have isolated this compound is because it is apparently the sweet part of the plant separated from its usual bitter aftertaste. I do not know how much processing is involved in turning the stevia leaf into "Truvia", but I am guessing from the tiny, pure white granules that there is quite a bit of processing involved. Could we be looking at the same sort of processing that goes on with sugar cane and sugar beets? These are healthy plants--until they have been processed to death!

What I find highly amusing is that stevia has been used as a sweetener for years (for centuries in some countries) and has health benefits including: treating obesity, high-blood pressure, glucose intolerance and diabetes, to name a few. The amusing part is that despite stevia's health benefits and ability to be used as an alternative sweetener, in 1991 it was ousted by the FDA. The FDA labeled stevia "unsafe" and banned it until 1994 when the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act got the FDA to revise their stance. Even then, however, it was only considered safe to be used as a dietary supplement, not a food additive!

Here is what has happened over the years: Coca-Cola comes out with soda in the late 1800's. It is loaded with sugar and two main ingredients: cocaine and caffeine. They reconfigure the ingredients after 1904. The company is under the constant watch of nutritionists because of the links between its soda and diabetes, obesity, caffeine addiction and other health issues. In 1985 Coca-Cola switches its formula again. They now no longer use white refined sugar. It is now cheaper to use high fructose corn syrup. They are still under careful watch because corn syrup has its own list of negative side effects. The company is still under careful watch for using other controversial ingredients like sodium benzoate. In 2005 they come out with a soda containing Splenda and aspartame. Artificial sweeteners. Coca-Cola is currently working on phasing out the ingredient sodium benzoate, which has been linked directly to DNA damage and hyperactivity in children. They say they will phase it out as soon as they find an alternative ingredient to use in its place. Now, it's 2008 and they have produced Truvia, which sounds like a nice, natural sweetener to get the health nuts out there to lay off. But, not so fast! How is this processed? What are the effects of consuming this product, short term and long term? Is it still capable of being a health tool and treating obesity and diabetes? Or have those constiuents been left out because of the mildly bitter aftertaste?

What has happened is that Coca-Cola can not last without revamping their product model. It is common knowledge that their ingredients are less than desirable, have been studied to show health risks, and they don't want to be sued! They are going to jump on the "natural sweetener" gravy train, if you will, and offer a product to people who will believe they now have unprecedented rights to consume all they want without any risk. Imagine the FDA banning stevia now. It's never going to happen now that the giant, multi-billion dollar Coke company has begun using it. How they have been using it is still in question.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia -http://truvia.com/

American Diabetes Association Accepts Money from Soft Drink Company

Check out this article about the American Diabetes Association accepting a multi-million dollar alliance with Cadbury Schweppes Americas Beverages. This beverage company "is still the third-largest soft drink manufacturer in the world and a major producer of sugary candy."
"In exchange for that sum of money, Cadbury-Schweppes can put the ADA's [American Diabetes Assocation] label on all of its diet soda products."
The American Diabetes Association chief medical and scientific officer, "Khan", denied that there is a link between sugar and diabetes. "Khan's statements denying that sugar can cause diabetes came in the same week that the Journal of Pediatrics published a study blaming much of childhood obesity and type 2 diabetes on over-consumption of sugary sodas."

The article mentions the tobacco industry and it's denial of nicotine causing certain diseases. It makes you wonder where people stop caring about health, and begin caring about money.

Keep in mind, this article is from 2005, but still very interesting.
http://www.naturalnews.com/008164.html

To validate this article, I went to the Cadbury Schweppes website and searched for the American Diabetes Assocation alliance. True enough, they have this agreement through 2008. Here is the link to see for yourself: http://www.cadburyschweppes.com/NR/rdonlyres/941D94D0-73F0-4F6B-A519-2AB92A6CC22D/0/Programmes_and_Partnerships.pdf

UPDATE! I just found this video (April 21, 2008).
"Control Your Diabetes By Simply Limiting Your Carbohydrates"
by, askyourholisticdoctor.com