April is Women’s Nutrition Month, and most of the media coverage has focused on how women’s nutrition needs differ from men’s. Because of their smaller size, most adult women require fewer calories and less protein, for example. On the other hand, women need more iron (almost twice as much as men), at least until they stop menstruating.

But I found myself curious about what women do eat, as opposed to what they are supposed to be eating. After all, women are generally assumed to know (and care) more about nutrition than men. But are they putting this knowledge into practice?

For some insight, I studied the statistics gathered in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. There, I was somewhat suprised to find that women do somewhat worse in meeting their nutritional needs than men do.

For almost every nutrient reported, more women than men fail to meet the estimated average requirements. Now, you might wonder whether this simply reflects the fact that women eat less than men. But the nutrient requirements for women are lower to adjust for a woman’s lower calorie intake.

Still, women are twice as likely to fall short on folic acid, about four times more likely to fall short on zinc or iron, and more than seven times more likely not to be getting enough vitamin B6 from the foods they eat. This is not to say that men are eating that well–only that women seem to be eating a bit worse.

The survey (not to mention national obesity rates) indicates that women are meeting their calorie requirements just fine. But perhaps too many of those calories are in the form of nutrient-poor snacks and treats (100-calorie snack pack, anyone?). As a group, men do seem more likely to eat actual meals–and appear to get more actual nutrients, as a result.

So, in honor of Women’s Nutrition Month, I’m calling on all women to put their knowledge into action! It’s not enough to know how to eat healthy; you need to do it! Think your diet is healthy? Try tracking an entire day’s meals using our tracking tools and see how your nutrient intake stacks up.

blog.nutritiondata.com

A. Macular degeneration, which is the leading cause of blindness in the U.S., has several probable causes, including genetics, smoking, and exposure to UV radiation from the sun. But diet also appears to play a major role in your risk. In particular, people whose diets contain more lutein and other carotenoids have a reduced risk of developing macular degeneration. Getting more of these nutrients may help slow the progression of the disease, as well.

Good sources of lutein include leafy green vegetables like kale, spinach, and chard. Although there are many nutritional supplements marketed to people concerned about the health of their vision, it’s unclear whether taking supplements is as effective as eating foods rich in lutein. The good news? Eating more nutrient-rich vegetables has a multitude of health benefits, so you really can’t lose by adding more of them to your diet.

There is also some evidence that the mineral zinc may be protective, as well. Zinc is found in meat, dairy products, nuts, and seafoods. A word of caution, however. It is surprisingly easy to exceed the recommended upper limit for zinc intake (40 mg/day), especially if you are taking dietary supplements. Be sure that the total amount of zinc found in all of your supplements doesn’t exceed safe amounts.

Oysters are particularly high in zinc, by the way, and a serving wil put you over the recommended daily limit. You don’t need to worry about going over the limit every once in a while; but its probably best not to consume more than this amount on a daily basis, unless you’re under a doctor’s supervision.

You can use our Nutrient Search Tool to look for foods high in lutein, zinc, or any other nutrient.

For more information on the latest research and treatments for macular degeneration, please see the American Macular Degeneration Foundation.

See also this related post on the ND Blog:
Can diet protect you from losing your vision?

blog.nutritiondata.com

The authors found that those who ate the most red meat were about 20% more likely to die of cancer than those who ate the least. The risk of cardiovascular disease was also elevated in those who ate more red meat. (Eating more white meat appeared to have a protective effect.) You can access the entire article here: “Meat Intake and Mortality.”

Whenever you have big studies like this, there are always questions about whether the results are skewed by confounding variables. In this study, the researchers attempted to “adjust” for as many variables as they could. They took into account the subjects’ age, race, physical activity, vegetable intake, vitamin supplements, alcohol use, body weight, smoking habits, and family health history.

But you can never account for everything. For example, they did NOT account for things like sugar, sodium, monounsaturated fat, or trans fat intake–dietary factors that all have a strong link to either cancer, heart disease, or both. I wish we could see how adjusting for those factors affected the findings.

Seeing Red

But my main complaint with this study is not whether they accounted for enough (or the right) confounders but with the most basic aspect of the study’s design. The division of meat into “red” and “white” categories seems completely arbitrary to me.

In this study, “red” meat included anything made with beef or pork, including steaks, bacon, liver, cold cuts, burgers, ham, sausage, and hot dogs. “White” meat included anything made from chicken, turkey, or fish. Although these categories have some cultural significance, they make absolutely no sense from a nutritional, or even a zoological, perspective. How is canned tuna more nutritionally similar to turkey sausage than it is to a filet of beef?

In other words, someone who ate grass-fed beef five times a week would be in the same category as someone who ate a fast food hamburger every day. Someone who ate wild-caught salmon three times a week would be in the same category as someone who ate chicken nuggets just as often. Even if you controlled for things like saturated fat content (which they did), how much could comparing these dietary “patterns” possibly reveal about human health and disease?

I can think of several ways to analyze meat consumption that would have shed more light on connections between meat consumption, cancer, and heart disease. For example, how about categorizing meat based on the percentage of monounsaturated fat it contains? What would these groups look like?

Some meats containing more than 40% of total fat as monounsaturated fat
Beef tenderloin
Pork Roast
Sablefish

Some meats containing less than 40% of total fat as monounsaturated fat
Skinless roasted chicken breast
Canned white tuna
Steamed shrimp

Intake of omega-3 and omega-6 fats is also linked to both heart disease and cancer; specifically, it appears beneficial to increase the ratio of omega-3 to omega 6 fats in the diet. So why not categorize meats according to their omega-3/omega-6 ratios?

Some meats with a higher ratio of omega 3 to omega 6
Beef liver
Grouper
Braised shortribs

Some meats with a low ratio of omega 3 to omega 6
Ground turkey
Tuna salad
Chicken livers

Cooking meat over high or direct heat is known to promote the formation of carcinogens. So why not put hamburgers, grilled pork chops, and barbecued chicken into one group and pot roast, baked chicken, and poached fish in the other?

I could go on, but I’m sure you get my point. None of these designations is perfect but ALL of them seem more valid than “red” and “white.” At least there are actual criteria involved.

Mostly, I’m disappointed in this study because it reinforces our tendency to look at foods or nutrients (like fats, carbs, and now, so-called red meat) as “good or “bad,” without enough consideration of the context of the entire diet or the substantial differences within these groups. Despite the headlines being generated by this study, I’m not convinced that eating red meat (as opposed to white) categorically increases your risk of heart disease or cancer.

Other (better?) reasons to reduce your meat intake

Aside from the impact of red meat consumption on disease risk–which I think this week’s study does little to illuminate, there are other good reasons to consider cutting back on meat of all kinds. Many are outlined in an editorial by Barry Popkin, which appears in the same issue of the Archives:

Over-consumption of animal protein increase the global food prices (including non-meat foods)Animal crops consume up to 5 times more of our dwindling water supplies than do plant cropsLivestock production accounts for 55% of land erosion, 37% of pesiticide use, and 50% of antiobiotics consumed in the U.S.Livestock production consumes a large amount of fossil fuel and contributes to greenhouse gases

Personally, while I don’t worry that red meat per se is increasing my risk of disease, I find these very compelling reasons to eat less meat of all colors. That’s why I’m a new and enthusiastic supporter of the Meatless Monday campaign, a public (and planetary) health initiative that encourages consumers to enjoy one meatless day each week. Care to join me?

blog.nutritiondata.com

Imagine that you are a doctor. You are committed to making sure your patients have the best care possible and you are committed to upholding your Hippocratic Oath, the oath you took to uphold the ethical practice of medicine. Also imagine that you have seen many studies and read a lot of research showing the effectiveness of many natural remedies and therapies that could be helpful for your patients, but under your Hippocratic Oath you are not allowed to suggest these helpful remedies to your patients. Your hands are tied.

This is what is happening to many doctors all across America who cannot suggest complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to their patients, regardless of whether or not it could be helpful for them. It is actually against the law. These restrictions keep physicians from suggesting alternative health care, thought it still seems like they are not keeping their oath, because they are also not allowed to help their patients in every way possible.

With healthcare reform on everyone’s minds, and healthcare costs increasing at an alarming rate, many are hoping for a health care integration that would allow doctors to use conventional medicine and CAM in an integrated way that allows the maximum health care possible. This issue is discussed in Dr. Mary Zennet’s book Health Care For Us All: The Transformation of U.S. Healthcare. Dr. Zennet is just one of the many that would like to see an acceptance of natural remedies in the healthcare industry.

Other Posts

Organic food really is healthier
Multiple Sclerosis and the Best Best Diet
Protein Burns More Energy
Weight Training for Health
Grape Seeds – the seeds themselves are a nutritional element

vitaminstuff.com

Not well enough substantiated? That’s pretty hard to fathom. The evidence linking the consumption of oily fish or fish oil supplements with improved cardiovascular and brain health is over-whelming. Compelling enough to cause the American Heart Association and the National Academies of Science (among others) to revise their nutritional guidelines to include specific recommendations for Omega-3 intake. It’s also fairly clear that plant sources of omega-3 fatty acids, while beneficial, are not as biologically active as the longer-chain fatty acids found in fish body oils.

Good for us, bad for the planet?

But what about the sustainability question? This is far muddier than the issue of whether taking fish oil is beneficial to the general population. Fisheries around the world are certainly facing great pressures due to increased demand. Questions over whether increased (or even current) production is sustainable are very real.

The race is on to develop more sustainable sources of long-chain omega-3s. We already have algae-produced DHA and algae-produced EPA is hopefully not far behind. This advance would allow us to produce vegan omega-3 supplements that contained the more potent long-chain fatty acids without using any fish.

But consider this very interesting and cogent observation made by fatty acid researcher Richard Lands: the demand for omega-3 supplements would be much lower if we were to reduce our intake of omega-6 fats, found in corn and other vegetables oils and abundant in processed and packaged foods.

Current recommendations for omega-3 intake are based on the amount of omega-3 fats needed to balance our intake of omega-6 fats. (The ratio of these two fats in the diet is at least as important as the absolute amounts.) Lands points out that, “If we just lowered the current flood of omega-6 fats, sustainable amounts of omega-3 fats could manage our health.”

If you’d like to read more about this issue, Here’s a summary and interview with the authors from Science Daily. By way of rebuttal, check out this article by Craig Weatherby. Keep in mind, however, that Craig works for Vital Seafood, a company that sells fish and fish oil (albeit with an admirable commitment to environmental sustainability).

Obviously, it’s a complex issue. I’m interested to hear your thoughts! Personally, I think Dr. Land’s advice makes a lot of sense. Sometimes, less is more.

blog.nutritiondata.com

Potatoes are good for your health because they contain fiber, vitamins B6 and C, lots of potassium, plus phytonutrients that help keep your blood pressure normal. Potatoes are also low in calories.

Visit Potato Goodness from the US Potato Board for lots of tips and recipe ideas to help you add this healthy vegetable back into your diet.

Heart Health – Potatoes and PotassiumPotatoes rank the highest for potassium content among the top 20 most frequently consumed raw vegetables and the top 20 most frequently consumed raw fruits. One medium potato with skin contains at least 18% of your daily requirement of potassium – more than a banana! The U.S. Food and Drug Administration reports that diets containing foods high in potassium may reduce the risk of high blood pressure and stroke. In addition to being a great source of potassium, potatoes are also sodium and fat-free and contain just 110 – 150 calories per serving. A serving of potatoes is just 25 cents – one of the most cost effective ways of meeting your daily potassium quota.

Daily Nutrition Tip

Photo © US Potato Board

Stay Up to Date on NutritionShereen’s Weekly Nutrition NewsletterFollow Shereen on Twitter

nutrition.about.com

A. We have a conversion tool, which you’ll find on the right hand side of the page. For example, the conversion tool will convert grams to ounces or tell you how many tablespoons are in a cup.

As handy as this is, it wouldn’t have helped you here, though. The conversion tool will only convert weight measurements to other weight measurements (such as grams to ounces) or volume measurements to other volume measurements (such as cups to gallons). But it will not convert a volume measurement (such as 1/3 of a cup) to weight (grams or ounces).

There’s no way to do that because weight and volume are not a constant relationship. A cup of water weighs 237 grams but the same volume of raisins weighs only 145 grams.

Every food in our database is analyzed by weight, so all foods are listed in 100-gram and 1-ounce serving sizes. For many foods, such as the raisins shown below, the USDA also provides a variety of volume-related meaures (and their weight equivalents), as well. This comes in very handy when analyzing recipes.

Unfortunately, the ingredient you were looking for (dried egg whites) is only listed in grams or ounces. In this case, check the nutrition facts label on the package of the food you are using. At the right, you’ll see the nutrition facts label for some dried egg whites I found, indicating that 2 tablespoons equals 14 grams. (That may vary from product to product, depending on the texture of the powder.)

So, if you added 6 tablespoons of these dried egg whites (which is a little more than a third of a cup) to your recipe, you would add 42 grams (or 1.5 ounces) to your recipe analysis!

blog.nutritiondata.com

Vegetarianism is on the rise. Whether people are choosing to forgo eating animals for health reasons or for animal cruelty or environmental reasons, they are certainly choosing to do so in high numbers, including America’s youth.

A recent study tried to capture the amount of children that are vegetarians. The study was done by the government and was their first attempt at a ‘vegetarian youth’ estimate. They determined that nearly 400,000 kids were vegetarians, which would be about 1 in every 200 kids. This number was determined by speaking with 9,000 American parents and other adults guardians that were speaking for those under 18 years of age.

While this is the first study by the government, it is not the first study ever done. Other studies show that the number of vegetarian youths may be as high as six times more in older teens. The reason is that they have more control over their eating habits than younger children.

Although many parents that grew up in a meat and potatoes, hamburger and fries culture do not want their children to forgo meat, some are joining their children in the pursuit of vegetarianism. Children are now way more informed than they’ve ever been, due to the Internet, and can easily find information on animal cruelty, health choices, environmental responsibility, and other reasons to forgo meat. Many are educating their parents, being smart about their choices by taking B vitamins, and making sure to consume essential vitamins and minerals.

The estimate on young vegetarians was done by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It was a study done on alternative medicine. When they asked about the reasons for vegetarianism, most parents cited that their children were choosing to eat vegetarian due to animal welfare more than health; compassion for animals and a refusal to eat a living, breathing being was the most important.

While it is impossible to know how many young people are vegetarian, due to the number growing so rapidly, at least the first steps have been made by the government to assess this change in eating habits.

Other Posts

Vitamin B-12 for vegetarians
Omega-3 Fatty Acids – its not hype
Spirulina is a better source of protein than either beef or soybeans
Niacin, or vitamin B3, combines with other B vitamins to release energy in the cells
The Mediterranean Diet: A Heart Healthy Choice

vitaminstuff.com

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) is a Federal agency that funds projects, conducts research, trains researchers, and shares findings and information with the public about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Under this agency CAM is defined as health care that is not regarded as a component of conventional medicine. This can include products such as herbs and teas, practices such as meditation and yoga, and systems such as Acupuncture and Reiki energy healing. The four major categories of CAM study are: Manipulative (Body-Based) Practices, Biologically Based Practices, Mind Body Medicine, and Energy Medicine.

To find out how much CAM is growing in the United States NCCAM conducted a study as part of the annual National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), involving over 23,000 adults and over 9,000 children. The study found that CAM is on the rise; 38.3 percent of adults polled have used some form of CAM, up from 36 percent in 2002. This was the first time the study involved children under the age of 17. They found that 12 percent had used some form of CAM.

Many in the medical profession are starting to incorporate CAM into their practices, due to the high amount of people who are experimenting with these forms of healing. If you are using a form of CAM, inform your doctor so they can be aware of your overall health.

Other Posts

Organic food really is healthier
What is policosinol?
Fish Oil is a healthy source of good fat
The New Superfood for Reducing Heart Disease – Tart Cherries
Most people do not get enough chromium in their diet

vitaminstuff.com

It’s taken quite a long time, but conventional medical doctors are starting to take notice of, and even incorporate, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) into their treatments. They pretty much have to – their patients are using it with or without them. A recent study found that nearly 40 percent of adults and 12 percent of children polled were using some form of CAM. Whether patients are taking certain herbs for their ailments, going to an acupuncturist or chiropractor for pain, or meditating for stress and anxiety, they are involving these mind-body-spirit therapies into their lives.

This is a definite case of the public changing the way a system works. So many people are incorporating CAM into their lives; doctors need to educate themselves so they can help their patients stay healthy. Many are reporting that these therapies are helping their clients, not as the only method, but used in addition to conventional medicine. This integrative style of medicine (for instance, a doctor prescribing prescription asthma inhalants, as well as meditation, deep breathing exercises, and the herb mullein) is becoming mainstream. In addition, more studies are being done to determine the safety of these alternative healing therapies, and more influential medical schools are teaching an integrative approach.

Other Posts

Organic food really is healthier
Depression, Social Interaction, Endorphins, and Exercise
Nutritious olive oil
Endorphins – the Body’s Natural Opiate and Pain Killer
Ginger: A Natural Healer?
Chiropractic Medicine – History, Treatment, and Benefits

vitaminstuff.com