Anyway, like I said, I'm excited about learning all of this great stuff and figuring out if I know as much as I thought I did. I came across this bit in my text book the other day and it makes so much sense that I want to share it:
"To eat well without overeating, select nutrient-dense foods - that is, foods that deliver the most nutrients for the least food energy... Just as a financially responsible person pays for rent, food, clothes, and tuition on a limited budget, healthy people obtain iron, calcium, and all the other essential nutrients on a limited energy (calorie) allowance. Success depends on getting many nutrients for each calorie "dollar." For example, a can of cola and a handful of grapes may both provide about the same number of calories, but the grapes deliver many more nutrients." -Understanding Nutrition, 12th Edition by Whitney and Rolfes
When I read this I couldn't help but think of those 100-calorie snack packs. I've always had an issue with them and this is basically why: sure there is 100 calories worth of food in each tiny bag. But you can extract 100 calories from just about anything and put it into a bag; that doesn't make it healthy. I don't suggest that people who use these as a substitute for junk food go back to the full size. They do serve a purpose in that way, just not a nutritional one.
If you're counting calories to try to lose weight, keep in mind what those calories are providing you - if the answer is either "nothing" or "oils and fats and refined white flour" maybe you want to reconsider your plan. Sure, you might shed some pounds by cutting calories dramatically while only eating junk (like this nutrition professor did when he went on a twinkie diet) but you'd be doing yourself more harm than good. Think nutrient density instead and opt for a piece of fruit, low-fat yogurt, handful of almonds, glass of vegetable juice, carrot sticks with hummus, whole-grain cereal bar, sweet potato chips... you get the picture!
Does the Twinkie diet really do you more harm than good? The subject's health metrics seemed to improve on the diet. I guess we don't really know about the long term effects though.
ReplyDeleteOk, so I know we've discussed this before but now I've had some more time to think about it. First of all, based on the information that I can find, the only part of his health that improved was his cholesterol. This is not a big surprise since he wasn't eating any meat. Also, he doesn't mention what this diet (which was either completely void of, or at least severely lacking in, fiber) did to his digestive system. I'm guessing he didn't feel like telling CNN about his toilet habits (or lack there of) while scarfing twinkies.
ReplyDeleteAlso, as this woman from the Telegraph points out in her article, your health will improve when you lose weight regardless of how you do it because your body doesn't have to work as hard: http://www.telegram.com/article/20101214/NEWS/12140386
I know he apparently tried eating right and didn't lose weight, but he should've tried eating something healthy (and nutrient dense!) every three hours instead. I bet he would have gotten similar results and wouldn't have caused some people to think that it's OK to eat nothing but twinkies and a multivitamin!
Hey Kat- Nice post! Recently for school I read an article about the health benefits of Calorie Restriction with Optimum Nutrition, or CRON. The basic premise is eat as few calories as possible while obtaining 100% of the necessary nutrients. Practitioners routinely eat about 25% fewer (or even less) calories than the average person but structure the diet so that every essential amino acid, fatty acid, mineral, vitamin, etc is taken in at least 100% of the recommended value every day. They are the extreme of nutrient dense eating, since there is little room to spare when you're only eating 1200 calories a day. Not that I would recommend this to people, but if people are looking to see what a nutrient-packed meal is, they could check out CRON recipes. And then add some whole wheat pasta or other grain since CRON peeps apparently don't eat many carbs. Just a thought!
ReplyDeleteWow Stephanie, thanks so much for telling me about that! It sounds really interesting and a good way to pack a lot of nutrients into a small amount of calories. Like you said it wouldn't be for everyone, especially athletic people, but the concept could easily be the base for a healthy diet!
ReplyDelete