Seattle Nutritionist, Angela Pifer writes: How do you turn high fructose corn syrup into a healthy and fresh new harmless corn sugar? You rename it. The corn refiners recently launched a new campaign to rename the one single ‘food’ that Americans consume more than any other food calorie, high fructose corn syrup. With consumption of high fructose corn syrup at a twenty year low, the corn industry is looking for a hail Mary in an attempt to save its highly profitable ingredient (Archer Daniels Midland, one of the world’s top producers had 2009 revenues topping $69 billion).

  

Corn Sugar - doesn’t this sound harmless, unprocessed and natural? In fact the corn industry has already started marketing with this term by creating a new website and has commercials saying, “High fructose corn syrup HFCS -- corn sugar -- has been used in the food supply for more than forty years to make high fiber foods palatable, maintain freshness and enhance flavors in foods and beverages. Additionally, high fructose corn syrup keeps our foods affordable." Audrae Erickson, president of the Washington-based group, says that the new name would help people understand the sweetener. Really?

 

I am not sure how renaming this product will help people better understand it. Instead the industry should take the time to educate people on the difference between HFCS and sugar. Both compounds contain two simple sugars, fructose and glucose. The difference between these two compounds is that sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. HFCS is made up of 55% fructose, 42% glucose and the remaining 3% are higher saccharides, larger sugar molecules. The fructose in HFCS is more easily absorbed and utilized because it is free and unbound (in sucrose, every fructose is bound to a glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized in the body). When fructose is quickly absorbed and metabolized, it is done independent of insulin. Though this may sound like a good thing, it is not. If insulin is not signaled and released then leptin is not signaled and released (a key signaling hormone that regulates food intake and body weight). When this signaling system is bypassed, the body will continue to crave food. Studies have shown that beverages with added sweeteners may enhance caloric overconsumption.

 

The industry should offer statistics on the amount of HFCS people consume and its availability:

¾   On average, Americans consume 60 pounds of HFCS per person per year.

¾   HFCS accounts for 40% of caloric sweeteners in the United States.

¾   The consumption of HFCS increased more than 1000% between 1970 and 1990, far exceeding the changes in intake of any other food or food group.

¾   The increased use of HFCS in the United States mirrors the rapid increase in obesity.

  

Instead of starting a new site and using the name corn sugar (prior to approval by the FDA) they should start a site that talks about recent studies published on HFCS. Until now, the majority of studies have been short term studies and the results have been mixed. A new study from Princeton researchers published in February 2010 looked at both short term and long term affects of HFCS on body weight, body fat and triglycerides. The study showed that over the course of 6-7 months mice that had 24 access to an 8% HFCS “drink” and mice chow gained significantly more body weight (specifically adipose fat in the abdominal region) and had elevated triglyceride levels. Previous studies from Princeton has firmly established that if you give rats access to a 10% table sugar "drink" in addition to their normal feed (mice chow), they do not gain additional fat. In other words, their bodies are able to metabolize the extra calories without creating more weight.

 

The take home message? Sucrose is not ‘better’ than HFCS, other than it is natural and we can metabolize it. If weight loss is your goal, keep all natural sugar intake to a minimum and remove every bit of HFCS from their diet.  Limit the intake of natural sweeteners like honey, agave nectar and real maple syrup.

 

How to Spot Added Sugar on Food Labels

 

Sugar is easy to spot on an ingredient label. Look for words ending in ‘ose’ (flucose, fructose, lactose), this indicates sugar. The following terms also indicate added sugar:

¾   white sugar

¾   brown sugar

¾   icing sugar

¾   invert sugar

¾   corn syrup

¾   high fructose corn syrup

¾   maple syrup

¾   honey

¾   molasses

¾   brown rice syrup

¾   cane juice

¾   evaporated cane juice

¾   all fruit juice concentrates, including apple and pear

  

Angela Pifer, CN, Seattle Nutrition and Health Expert offers Seattle Weight Loss Programs that in her Bellevue Clinic that get results!

 

 

 

Seattle NutritionistAngela Pifer writes:  

 

If you have high cholesterol, chances are you were instructed to reduce your intake of total fat, specifically animal fats, from your diet, become more active and to work on weight loss. What you weren’t told is that you should also address your sugar intake. A new study published in the Journal of American Medical Association looked at the blood profiles and sugar intake of more than 6,100 adults (whose demographics were representative of the American population). On average, study participants consumed 21.4 teaspoons of sugar a day (24 teaspoons equals ½ cup!). Those who took in more sugar had lower levels of HDL (‘good’) cholesterol and higher levels of triglycerides. It seems that the message is clear, added dietary sugar is connected with poor lipid profiles.

  

 

This is the first study to look at the connection between how much added sugars and ‘empty’ calories people consume and the effect on blood lipid profiles. Some factors for heart disease, like family history, cannot be changed. By identifying added dietary sugars as a contributor for a poor lipid profile people at risk can now begin to address what can be changed.  

  

In addition, the study found that:

  

 

· On average, people consumed 10.6% more calories from sugar a day than they did in the 1970’s.  

· The higher the intake of added sugar, the lower the person's HDL ("good") cholesterol. Participants consuming 10% of total calories from added sugar had three times the risk of having low HDL than someone who took in half that much sugar.

· Participants with a higher intake of added sugar tended to have higher triglyceride levels as well.

· **Women who took in more added sugar also had higher LDL ("bad") cholesterol.

 

 

How much Added Sugar is Too Much Sugar?  

 

To make matters more confusing, medical and health organizations do not agree on a current recommendation. Depending on whom you ask the daily consumption of added sugars should fall below:  

 

· 25% , according to the Institute of Medicine

· 10%, according to the World Health Organization

· 6% or 7%, according to the American Heart Association

 

  

The Type of Sugar Matters 

 

Though it would seem that Americans are eating a lot more sugar now than they did forty years ago, they are not. Sugar calories are up just 10% over those consumed in the 1970’s. What is different is the type of sugar people are consuming. In the 1970’s people consumed on average 343 calories a day of refined cane and beet sugar and only 2 calories from high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). High-fructose corn syrup has now risen to 41% of Americans total sugar intake. It is also the single most consumed caloric nutrient for the American Population.  

 

  

The Cost of Calories 

 

One of the reasons Americans are eating more calories from high-fructose corn syrup today than in the 1970’s is due to government incentives on corn production and tariffs on sugar. It is simply less expensive to produce HFCS than it is to produce cane or beet sugar.

  

 

A person might expect that added sugars, along with other food groups, have increased equally over time in response to inflation. That person would be wrong. The inflation-adjusted cost of added sugars has dropped by half since 1970. This change can be credited to the steep rise of low-cost ‘foods’ containing high-fructose corn syrup over the last thirty years.

  

 

Over the past forty years, the price of added sugars has dropped significantly more than the purchase price of each food group:

  

 

· Fruit sources: 30% increase

· Vegetable sources: Unchanged

· Grain sources: 29% decrease

· Dairy sources: 38% decrease

· Fat sources: 38% decrease

· Protein sources: 50% decrease

· Sugar sources: 50% decrease

 

  

What Can You do?  

 

· Read nutrition labels and take note of how much added sugar you consume.

· Reduce or replace foods containing corn syrup, high-fructose corn syrup, cane or beet sugar or sucrose.

· Replace soda with water, sparkling water or mineral water.

· Choose whole foods whenever possible. Fruit is a perfectly healthy addition to your eating plan. Eat frequently across the day and incorporate into green salads and grain dishes.

· Be patient. As you move away from sugar added foods it will take some time for your taste receptors to lower for perceived sweetness. Whole foods may taste a little bland at first, but as your taste receptors begin to adjust you will be able to taste the sweetness in real whole foods.

  

Angela Pifer, CN, Seattle Nutrition and Health Expert offers Seattle Weight Loss Programs in her Bellevue Clinic that get results!

Seattle Nutritionist, Angela Pifer, writes:

For nearly three decades, obesity, heart disease and high cholesterol, have been linked to the fat content in the American diet. Regrettably, the low fat foods of the 80’s have not resulted in healthier weights. In fact, quite the opposite has occurred, the obesity rates for Americans have doubled in the last 20 years, coinciding with the arrival of the low-fat revolution. With all the conflicting messages in the media and policies handed down by the government, which type of diet is the right diet? Let’s explore the trends of the past few decades and take a look at the affects of lowing or increasing fat, carbohydrates and proteins on the weight loss and the American waistline and identify the right approach to eating healthy.

In 1964 Americans ate 39 percent of their calories from fat and only 13 percent were obese. Now, while most Americans get only about 33 percent of their calories from fat, two-thirds, more than 190 million Americans are overweight or obese.  New studies are showing that the type of fat consumed is more important than the total fat consumed.

Studies show that Americans today consider low fat content as the most important factor when they buy food and read food labels. The actual number of fat grams consumed per day has changed little since 1971 due to the increase in overall calories consumed daily. According to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), American women increased their daily calorie consumption 22 percent between 1971 and 2000, from 1542 calories per day to 1877 calories. During the same period the calorie intake for men increased 7 percent from 2450 calories per day to 2618 calories.

Because of its prominence in fast foods and processed foods, it is now estimated that an astounding 20 percent of calories in the American diet come from a single fat source: soybean oil. In fact, refined vegetable oils, such as soy oil, are used in most of the snack foods, cookies, crackers, and sweets in the American diet as well as in fast food. These oils are sources of omega 6 fatty acids which increase inflammation. Before Americans relied so heavily on convenience foods, it is estimated that omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acid intake were roughly in balance. Today, omega 6 fatty acid intake far outweighs that of omega 3.

Omega 3 fatty acids reduce inflammation in the body. Unfortunately they are not as readily prevalent in the American diet; sources include walnuts, flax seeds, and fish.

This dietary imbalance may explain the rise of inflammatory related diseases like asthma, coronary heart disease, many forms of cancer, autoimmunity and neurodegenerative diseases, and has also been linked to depression, dyslexia and hyperactivity. Studies are now showing a strong link between the imbalance between omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, inflammation and obesity.

The low fat policy pushed in the 1980’s caused an increase in carbohydrate consumption. Women increased their carbohydrate consumption from 45.4 percent of daily calorie intake to 51.6 percent and men increased their calorie consumption of carbohydrate calories from 42.4 percent to 49 percent. During the same time, protein consumption for both men and women remained about the same. Total calories need to be addressed along with a focus on healthier fats.

Where should the blame be placed – is it portion sizes? The typical cheeseburger has more than 333 calories today than it did 20 years ago. Is it the overabundance and availability of convenience foods and overuse of soybean oil in our foods? How about government social policies, subsidizing corn, soy, wheat and rice, the main sources of processed foods, when compared to fruits and vegetables, which drives up the prices of healthy foods? What about personal responsibility?

Taking control of your health and weight is easier if you focus on gradual changes. The first recommendation offered here, ‘Balance out your calories across the day’ is the most important recommendations to help you reduce your overall calorie intake. You could simply choose to work on this recommendation for the next two weeks.

 1.       Balance out your calories across the day. Your goal is to eat ½ your calories before 1PM and the other ½ after 1PM. Work on the daily pattern: Breakfast, Snack, Lunch, Snack, Dinner. Specifically focus on eating your midmorning snack 10-10:30 and your midafternoon snack 3-3:30. (This will help you eat fewer calories in the evening, where most people tend to overeat on unhealthy options).

2.       A healthy dietary model is 30-40% healthy fat: 40-50% complex carbohydrate: 20% lean protein

3.       You will need to cut calories to lose weight. Move away from ‘diet foods’ offering low fat or non fat options and choose whole food options. If you see ‘high fructose corn syrup,’ ‘hydrogenated,’ or ‘soybean oil’ on the ingredients label, choose a different food.

4.       Focus on healthy fats, raw nuts, seeds, nut and seed butters, avocado, and healthy oils,  walnut oil, extra virgin olive oil and extra virgin coconut oil.

5.       Eat a protein at each meal or snack. The presence of a lean protein source at each meal or snack will slow down the digestion of the carbohydrates you are eating. This will help keep blood sugars and hunger swings in check. I most often see protein neglected at breakfast and snack time. Add a 5 raw walnuts to your oatmeal or switch to a healthy whole grain breakfast cereal and have 12 raw almonds or 1 T almond butter (milk does not have enough protein to balance out the meal).

6.       At snack time, pair up a carbohydrate with a protein serving: 75%: 25% visually. Snacks should be around 150-200 calories. (Example: an apple and string cheese OR 12 raw almonds OR 1 T nut butter).  Whole fruit is best here, but you can replace this with 3-4 pieces of dried fruit (no sugar added). KIND Bars, Raw Organic Bars or Lara Bars stand alone as a snack (these have a nice balance of carbohydrate and protein).

7.       Don’t replace food with coffee or other caffeinated beverages. Time and time again I see the same pattern: little to no breakfast, coffee midmorning, a late lunch and then the majority of calories come in around dinner time and into the evening. Caffeine suppresses appetite and will leave you hungrier and tired in the afternoon. If you must have your coffee, then have it along with your breakfast or snack midmorning.

8.      We should all be increasing our intake of healthy omega-3 fatty acids. Include food sources of omega 3 fatty acids: walnuts, flax seeds, and fish and purchase a high quality omega 3 fish oil (be sure that it contains only omega 3 and does not include omega 6 or omega 9 – we get plenty of these fats). Use walnut oil or flax oil to replace extra virgin olive oil in homemade salad dressings.

Angela Pifer, CN, Seattle Nutrition and Health Expert offers Seattle Weight Loss Programs in her Bellevue Clinic that get results!

Seattle Nutritionist, Angela Pifer writes: We have all heard about the health benefits of salmon and omega 3 fatty acids (heck, our eggs are now being infused with omega-3). For all the people out there trying to do the right thing, eat healthier and add cold water fish into their diet weekly, the concern over farmed vs. wild caught fish has raised nothing but confusion on how to follow through with these goals.

 

Since the majority of salmon served in restaurants and found on our grocery store shelves is farmed rather than wild our choice is greatly limited. If we are supposed to eat salmon once to twice a week because it has omega three, lowers triglyceride levels, has a protective effect on the heart and has other cardiovascular benefits, then we are being forced to choose between bettering our health and exposing ourselves to cancer causing contaminants and fish that has been treated with antibiotics and has had synthetic dye added, to give it that ‘natural’ salmon color we have all come to know and love.

 

The other issue is availability. I have the luxury of living in the Northwest where natural foods stores abound (literally six in a five mile radius), all offering wild caught fish, but many people do not have a choice where they shop or the restaurants available to them.

 

On January 26, 2010 the retail giant Target announced that it will replace all farmed fish products with wild caught sustainable fish (giving us just one more reason to love Target). This is a positive move in the right direction and will hopefully push other major retailers into making the same decision. Target does not carry fresh fish, only frozen fillets and smoked products, so this won’t satisfy the need for fresh wild caught fish, but it is a start. Foodies and environmentalists alike have been engrossed in a long debate about the effects of farmed fish on our health and on the environment.

 

Numerous studies have shown significantly higher levels of PCBs (banned in the US for use in all but completely closed areas since 1979, but they persist in the environment and end up in animal fat) dioxins, dieldrin and toxaphene and other cancer causing health related contaminants in farmed fish. Science Magazine published a study in 2004 which analyzed 700 farmed and wild salmon fillets from eight major farmed salmon producing regions around the world and purchased in 16 large cities in North America and Europe. This was really the first large scale sampling of farmed and wild salmon, offering the most realistic sampling of salmon typically available to consumers around the world.

 

This study showed that high levels of cancer causing contaminants were not specific to one geographic location but were instead a reflection of the farming practices across the industry. All geographic locations showed elevated cancer causing contaminants in farmed fish, with the highest levels found off the Northeast Coast of the US, farmed Atlantic salmon, and Europe and lower levels off the coast of Washington State and Chile. Heavy metals were found in both farmed and wild caught fish.

 

Given the overall contaminant levels found, EPA and many state consumption advisories would suggest that American consumers restrict their consumption of farmed salmon to no more than one meal per month and European consumers to one meal every two months. Though a valid recommendation, the concern is that American consumers do not know if they are purchasing farmed salmon with contaminant levels more typically found in Europe.

 

Aquafarming raises a number of environmental concerns, the most important of which may be its negative impact on wild salmon. It has now been established that sea lice from farms kill up to 95% of juvenile wild salmon that migrate past them. Antibiotics are regularly used, contributing to the rise in antibiotics in our oceans and drinking water and a possible contributor to antibiotic resistance.

 

When farmed salmon from U.S. grocery stores was tested, the farmed salmon, which contains up to twice the fat of wild salmon, was found to contain 16 times the PCBs found in wild salmon, 4 times the levels in beef, and 3.4 times the levels found in other seafood. Other studies done in Canada, Ireland and Britain have produced similar findings. (September 8, 2003)

 

The notion that farmed salmon is fattier than wild salmon may lead you to believe that there is more omega 3 present and so this would be healthier for you, but this isn’t the case. Farmed salmon has more fat, more omega 3 AND more omega 6. This change in omega 3: omega 6 ratio greatly changes the anti-inflammatory and health properties of the fish.

 

As consumers become more vocal about their choices and demand clean, sustainable, toxic free food for the families, hopefully other retail giants (and small mom and pop retailers) will rise to the occasion and say enough is enough. This will place a bigger burden on wild caught runs, but this will also drive the prices up which should balance out consumer demand. Target hopes to retain $7.99 per pound for wild caught fish. This may be doable for a company this size, but smaller retailers will surely need to raise prices further to offset wholesale costs.

 

Angela Pifer, CN, Seattle Nutrition and Health Expert offers Seattle Weight Loss Programs in her Bellevue Clinic that get results!

 

Seattle Nutritionist, Angela Pifer writes: A new study, based on the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), was recently published with the finding that “women who drink moderately are less likely to gain weight over time than those who don’t.” The study did not find a causal link and only offers loose theories to explain their findings. The authors cautioned that they are not suggesting people go out and drink more alcohol as a weight-control strategy. I am wondering why this is even news. This is just one more example of a lead ‘health news’ headline that will further confuse people who are trying to make healthier decisions. My issue with this headline doesn’t stop at its ‘non-news’ status. It lies deeper into the very fabric of the study design.

 

Many recent headlines have been based on studies, based off the data collected from the Nurses’ Health Study I, II and III. The Harvard Fertility Diet among them. The NHS has had extremely large study populations, following well over 100,000 registered nurses over the past few decades. This study population is almost unheard of in the scientific community where a good majority of the studies are based on populations well below 50 participants. This makes the NHS studies particularly enticing to the scientific community. 

  

Registered nurses enrolled in the studies received questionnaires pertaining to a wide range of health topics. One of these was a food frequency questionnaire. Basically participants were asked to recollect how many servings of this food or that food they ate on average over a period of time. This method of recall is simply flawed bringing many of the studies based off the NHS data linking health conditions, labs and disease to eating patterns under question.

 

If at the end of your day, you sit down and try to recall what and how much you ate and drank, you will probably get some things wrong. You may have forgotten that you ate something or miscalculated the amount you did eat.  Would you be able to accurately identify if you had two servings of fruit and three servings of vegetables? Imagine then, going back and trying to accurately recollect how many servings of fruit or vegetables you had over a week, a month or a year. Now consider how accurately you could identify your patterns over four years, as was done with the Nurses’ Health Study II. Food frequency questionnaires were mailed to participants once every four years.

 

In my Seattle Nutrition private practice I experience daily a person’s inability to accurately recall what they eat and drink. During our first sit down consultation, my new patient is all too eager to share with me their ‘typical’ day. I obligingly write this down knowing that after they journal for me for four days eating as normally as possible and recording their intake in real time, their actual intake will differ greatly from their ‘typical’ day. My point is that no week is really ‘typical.’ People seem to believe that they eat a specific way when in reality it is often another. They may like to think they eat on average three servings of fruit each day, but in reality it may only be one.

 

The creators of this study believed that because of their training, nurses would be able to respond with a higher degree of accuracy to brief, technically worded questions. I disagree with this point specifically in regards to the food frequency questionnaires. I took the undergraduate course Nutrition and Nursing at the University of Washington. This is the only nutrition class nurses receive during their training. The class loosely covers the food pyramid, the exchange system and offers a very basic education on nutrition fundamentals. With all the amazing things that nurses’ do in their job, offering nutritional advice, specific to portions, servings and meal plans are not among them. Hospitals use dieticians and diet techs to perform this task, so the information that nurses learned in the class is not practiced, making them no more likely to recollect how many servings of fruits or vegetables they had in their diet over the last four years, than any other person.

 

These same points carry over to how this study was performed; the study looking at alcohol intake and weight involved 19,220 registered nurses from the NHS over the age of 38 who were of normal weight. Researchers asked the women (questionnaire) about their alcohol consumption over the past year and recorded how much of four different types of alcoholic beverages they consumed — beer, red wine, white wine and liquor. This group of nurses was followed for thirteen years.

 

See if you can answer these two questions: If you drink wine in the evening how many glasses do you have? In that same evening, how many servings of wine did you have? You may or may not be surprised to learn that the answer to these two questions is most likely not the same answer. Most wine glasses hold two to three servings. So you may think that you drank one glass of wine and had one serving, but it is more likely that you had one glass of wine and two servings. Most nurses may know that 3.5 ounces of wine is a serving, but do they also know how many ounces of wine their wine glass holds and how many ounces they actually pour? I have my patients pour themselves their usual serving and then pour that into a Pyrex container to measure their pour. This exercise is very enlightening and is really the only way to get an accurate measure of how much someone drinks. I would be more impressed with a study design that had participants keep a daily journal of their drink intake (after being taught how to properly measure a pour or better estimate the alcohol content in a mixed drink). This can easily be done online with a daily email reminder.

 

I do acknowledge that it is very difficult to have controlled studies with human participants. Let’s face it; it would be hard to find 100 people who want to stay in a science lab for one week let alone a month. We do need to rely on other means of collecting data. I respect the work that my fellow colleagues are doing. I simply feel we should place less emphasis on these types of studies and not create a media frenzy around unfounded, uncorrelated findings that lead to further confusing people trying to make healthier choices.

 

Angela Pifer, MSN, CN Seattle Nutritionist offers programs in her Bellevue Clinic that get results!

Seattle Nutritionist Angela Pifer Writes:

The first step to cooking healthy is to stock your pantry with a variety of foods that you can use as a base for a healthy meal. If your pantry needs a healthy makeover, the first thing you’ll want to do is toss the junk and start thinking about which healthy foods you like to eat. To start out, go through your pantry and group foods according to type. As you do this, read labels and pull any food that lists ‘high fructose corn syrup’ or ‘hydrogenated’ on the label. These foods contain subpar ingredients and are not part of a healthy diet. Look through the Healthy Pantry List below to see if this food needs to be replaced with its whole food counterpart and if so, add it to your shopping list.

For example, if you find spaghetti sauce that contains high fructose corn syrup in your pantry you will need to remove it and find a healthier replacement at your store. If you find mixed nuts that have ‘hydrogenated’ on the label you will add these to your list and replace them with a variety of raw or dry roasted nuts.  You can either donate these foods to a charity or begin to replace them over time. The following checklists can be used in taking inventory of what you need in order to stock a healthy pantry.

Look for my latest video and article on how to makeover a pantry to go live on MSN Health and Kashi.com February 15!

Healthy Pantry List

· Whole wheat pasta, quinoa pasta, soy pasta

· Whole grains such as quinoa and oatmeal

· Popcorn (not packaged, to be used with an air popper)

· Other grains such as couscous, orzo, and bulgar

· Brown rice

· Box rice mixes (no ‘hydrogenated’ on the label and if sodium is a concern, use half the seasoning packet in the recipe)

· Dry or canned beans (black beans, kidney beans, lentils)

· Potatoes and onions

· Canned tomatoes (no salt added)

· Jar spaghetti sauce

· Jar pesto sauce

· Jar sun dried tomatoes

· Canned, unprocessed meats (tuna, salmon, chicken in water)

· Natural peanut butter (no sugar added) or almond butter

· Raw nuts (almonds, cashews, peanuts, pecans, pine nuts, walnuts)

· Vinegar (red wine, apple cider)

· Aged balsamic vinegar (sweeter and blends beautifully with olive oil for dressing)

· Extra virgin olive oil, canola oil (high smoke point), extra virgin coconut oil (higher smoke point, can sauté at higher heat and add exotic flavor)

· Soups (not cream base; Healthy Choice brand tasted great & is low in sodium)

· Whole grain breakfast cereals (oatmeal, 5-9 grain hot cereal or cold cereal that has more than 3 grams of both protein and fiber per serving)

· Herbs and spices (include a few seasoning collections, such as Montreal Steak Seasoning, Lemon Pepper Seasoning and Rub with Love Seasonings – if sodium is a concern, choose those made with sea salt and use sparingly)

· Baking soda and baking powder

· Honey, real maple syrup and agave nectar

· Whole wheat flour, white flour (use 1:1 ratio whole wheat to white flour in baking recipes which call for 100% white flour)

· Canned broth (low sodium beef, chicken, and vegetable broth)

· Sparkling water and herbal tea

· Ketchup, barbeque sauce, marinades, soy sauce, teriyaki sauce (these foods notoriously contain high fructose corn syrup)

· Jar applesauce and variety of dried fruit (no sugar added)

· Energy bars: Raw Organic (brand) energy bars or Lara bars

· Whole wheat pretzels (dip in hummus)

· Whole wheat crackers and sesame thin crackers

  

What you will not see on this list is:

· Canned vegetables. Frozen vegetables are always a healthy choice than canned.

· Boxed pasta mix (like macaroni and cheese or pasta) or instant potatoes. These are full of sodium, and fat. It takes approximately 10 minutes to boil a package of pasta and add 2 T of jarred pesto. This is a quick meal that does not warrant a ‘short cut’ that takes the same amount of time and has less sodium, fat and calories.

· Chips. Only purchase chips when you have a meal in mind (you are having chips and salsa as an appetizer to a meal or for game night) but don’t keep them on hand.

 

Angela Pifer, MSN CN Seattle Nutritionist

Seattle Weight Loss Programs in her Bellevue Clinic that get results!

I work locally as well as nationally through Skype.