This is why we read ingredients...

A Dose of Reality Mac and Cheese: The Other White Meat

A long time friend of mine had a Facebook post this week that drew a lot response. Normally this is no big deal. His posts are pretty popular. The first few words “Colin” and “school” caught my eye. I thought it was another charmingly funny post about his son Colin. I, not unlike many others, love to hear about his grade school experiences. My favorite being the picture of his butt he drew in school that the teacher didn't quite appreciate. Anyway, this time it was a note about the upcoming school year. According to Sean it read, “In order to comply with state and district nutrition policies we no longer permit celebratory snacks for birthdays or class parties.” Almost immediately the comments stated pouring in. They all had the same tone. People stated how fed up they were with the state and government stepping in to fix a problem with the wrong solution. I have to admit my views are not much different.

I remember back in the day celebrating birthdays and holidays in school. I would bring less for lunch on those days because I knew I would be eating all the yummy cookies and cakes the moms brought in. I also remember going outside for recess and running till I couldn’t run anymore. Today, recess is much more structured. Some schools feel it is necessary to organize play time in order to get all of the children moving. It is true that kids don’t get out and play enough because television and Xbox keep them occupied most of the time. Let’s face it. It is not just the kids that are occupied by the flat screens. So are the adults. The truth is we all need to move more. We all need to spend more time away from our computers, TVs, and video games, but that is only part of the problem.

We get angered when the state imposes rules on us especially when it regards our children. When it comes to kids’ health, there is no one in the world that has a child’s best interests in mind more than the parent, and we don’t need the government to step in to force rules on us. The politicians need to learn how to do their own jobs before they start telling us how to do ours. So when the school district sent that letter home regarding celebratory snack food, I felt that the government was fringing upon our rights once again.  But before I started to bash this policy, I needed to see just what the states position on nutrition was.

This is protein according to the USDA.

Reading the USDA’s policy on the school lunch and breakfast program is very taxing. It is 78 pages long, and it covers not only the dietary requirements as defined by the USDA but the cost of EVERYTHING, which is understandable. As I read past the first 10 pages, I kept thinking that nutrition doesn’t have to be this hard. Then I realized this is the government and everything really does have to be this hard. Everything needs to be worded so that maybe, just maybe, you will get tired of reading (as I did), and just give in (which I didn’t). I started to sift through the crap looking for what the USDA thought was nutritionally sound food. A few things caught my attention. I was reading the daily recommendations of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, meat and meat alternatives, fluid milk, calories, and saturated fat from calories, sodium, and trans fats. It all sounded good. Then I got to the definitions of whole grains and fruits. A whole grain was defined as whole grain rich.  It said nothing about being 100% whole grain or made with 100% whole grain flour. If you have not read our blog on White Bread vs Wheat Bread, you may find it interesting to know that if a product only says whole grain, it may as well be made with white flour.  In turn, whole grains can equal a lot less nutrients and empty calories. The same concept applies when they talk about enriched macaroni as a substitute for protein. Yes, you read that right. Enriched pasta can be used as a source of protein. But its white pasta we are taking about here, and it goes through the same process as white bread because it is made with white flour. Then they put nutrients back in to make up for what they took out. Doesn't make much sense does it? It just equals more empty calories. Then we come to the fruit requirements. Fruit doesn't always have to be fruit.  Fifty percent of the daily requirement can be in juice form. We also did a blog on that. Once you remove the juice from the rest of the fruit, you remove the sugar from the nutrients that help your body digest, utilize, and properly dispose of the sugar. This is why a diabetic can drink orange juice or eat a piece of candy when they are low in sugar. It is absorbed quickly into the blood stream. There was no mention of water intake. We did a blog on that too! Water is one of the basic things the body needs yet not one word about it in any of the 78 pages.

It seems like a good portion of the requirements are based on calories. Americans have been counting calories for at least 50 years and we have gotten fatter every since. If you go by this standard some of the healthiest breakfasts would not stand up to these requirements, but some of the crappiest breakfasts would pass. Example: the following breakfast would not be enough caloric intake even for a kindergartener

1extra large egg 2 pieces of whole wheat toast	8 oz glass of milk 15 grapes
Total 340 calories

If you take this same meal and substitute the nutrient rich whole wheat bread for the empty calories in white bread and add 1 slice of bacon (assume this could count as protein even though it is the fat of a pig) then maybe it would an acceptable breakfast for K-5. My kids would never have eaten this much for breakfast at that age. Then, we would have to add another 100 calories for the grades 6-8 and another 200 for the high school kids.

Then of course we come to the center of all the FB comments: the state’s policy on foods with minimal nutritional value. It is called Title 7. You can read the whole thing on our FB page. From what I can figure out chocolate is still ok if it doesn’t contain corn syrup. I find that strange because a lot of enriched foods like bread have corn syrup in them.  Soda is a no go but not because it contains loads of sugar but because of the carbon dioxide. Water ice is not expectable unless it contains fruit juice (I believe we covered the whole fruit juice thing) or real fruit. So I don’t know how Rita’s was allowed into the school lunch room last year.

I could sift through this policy for hours and find more problems with it, but the bottom line is that the state doesn’t need to tell us how to feed our kids. The government loves to put band-aids over bleeding wounds. The reason the government changed the policy on the school lunch programs is because they wanted to make fruits and vegetables more available in school meals and to help fight the obesity problem that plagues America. So they make it appear like they care by imposing regulations on schools (who are already stretched by budget cutbacks) about what they can or cannot serve and what parents can or cannot bring in to the classroom. Meanwhile big business gets to brainwash our kids by constantly bombarding them with ads and images everywhere you look.  It’s not just enough to limit the TV and computer time. You would have to keep them isolated from them completely. How about a drive down the road just passing a fast food joint? You can’t escape the oversized advertisements. And forget about taking them to the super market. The focus on kids is ridiculous with movie characters on the box, toys inside, chances to win computers or an Xbox, etc. Then they hit you with the 1/3 less sugar or no sugar added so you feel good about buying it. But what you may not know is that a favorite trick of the trade is to make the portion size smaller so the 1/3 less sugar refers to sugar per serving size and the no added sugar means they added a new kind of chemical sugar to keep the taste sweet. The snack food today is nothing like it was 20-30 years ago. The food today is grown from seeds that are genetically engineered with things that don’t have to be proven safe for human consumption. The meat that is served in fast food restaurant and big restaurant chains, even the meat we buy in the super markets, is loaded with hormones. It won’t say so on any food label or warning because the corporations responsible for this food don’t have to tell you if they inject their meat with hormones. The government agencies that are supposed to regulate what goes into our food are run by the same big business that make and grow the food. The same people who run corporations that grow genetically modified foods in this country are the same people who run government agencies like the FDA and the USDA. Each year they change jobs and bounce back and forth from the corporations to the government positions. It is like a game of musical chairs only no one is left standing. They all have a seat at a new job: different position; same crap.

So you are right, all you angry posts on Sean’s FB comment, the state should not be poking their nose in what we feed our kids.  We need to protect our children from the government. I urge everyone to become an avid label reader and find out what is really in that food you are feeding your family. It may take time, but it is time well spent. Nothing is more important than the health of your family. When things break, like your car or something in your house, they can be replaced or fixed. It may cost money, but it can be replaced. It is not so easy to replace good health. Once it is gone it can be very hard to retrieve. You may need the help of a professional. With all the pitfalls and food traps on the market today, it is understandable that the average person would need help with such an important issue. Let us know if you have any question. We are more than happy to offer our assistance!

Written by Joan Agoglia

Edited by Robert Marshall

A Nugget of Nutrition Irresponsible "Health Food"

Nothing bugs me more than when a "health food" company purposefully takes advantage of misinformed people. One of the first times I noticed this gross abuse was when I researched Blue Agave. The first time I saw blue agave was at Whole Foods, which is renowned for its health-conscious products and information. Automatically, I was impressed that there was an alternative sweetener that would not spike blood-glucose levels and still tasted so sweet. That was until I saw one small post on the internet ridiculing agave syrup for pretending to be a health food. So I investigated, and what I found was upsetting. Agave syrup has a higher percentage of fructose than many HFCS products; sometimes reaching 70/30.

Now, there are other companies pulling the same trick. Due to the huge uproar against HFCS, some smaller companies have started producing HFCS free sodas. Instead of HFCS, they use cane syrup and, get this, agave syrup. If you have not read it yet, read this article, and find out how sugar and agave can damage your liver just like HFCS.

Unfortunately, the media has already jumped on the band wagon. KitchenDaily.com has posted an article that promotes these so-called healthy sodas as alternatives to the mainstream soda companies (please take in to account that many companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi have already removed HFCS from some of their products and are now selling them under the "all-natural" context). KitchenDaily.com would have you believe that a soda is all-natural if it does not contain HFCS, but when sugar is removed from its original source it can hardly be considered natural, anymore. It's natural form is not syrup. I will revoke this statement when soda companies start putting sugar cane in their drinks.

This kind of misinformation is all over the health industry. How do you avoid being taken advantage of? Look it up! Create a knowledge base that will help you choose healthy foods without getting suckered. Never take a product at face value. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. What is popular is not always the best choice. And last, but certainly not least, don't let the media take you for a spin! A product isn't always right just because it is in the news, on a billboard, on TV, or the internet.


Written by Robert Marshall

Edited by Joann Agoglia

High Fructose Corn Syrup

High Fructose Corn Syrup. Here we go. The mother load of sweeteners. The sugar ninja. The undercover low-glycemic brother. Corn's crazy cousin. You've probably heard of it. I would be surprised if you haven't; it is in almost every processed food that we eat from bread to soda, and America has been scarfing it down for years. It is super sweet and cheap, and the tongue loves every second of it. So what's wrong with that?

Wouldn't you like to know? The problem with HFCS isn't just that it doesn't occur naturally in our environment; it's the complexity of HFCS itself. Explaining HFCS outside of a conversation is like explaining your favorite Harry Potter book while including every piece of information that's relevant to the story line from every other book. It just goes on and on. In an effort to keep it short and sweet, I will include links to extra information if you want to get familiar.

The History of HFCS
This part is for history buffs. Even though our history effects our present, we need information for today. In short, HFCS was first made available for mass production in 1970 in Japan. It was then introduced in to the US food market in 1975. For more information on that, check out Wikipedia's page: HFCS.

What is HFCS?
This is where it gets juicy! Let's break down the word itself: High-Fructose Corn Syrup. What is Fructose? Fructose is the sugar that naturally appears in fruit! So how is something high fructose? The normal sugar (sucrose) compound is 50% Fructose and 50% Glucose. If Fructose is the mooching friend that's been crashing on your couch since 2008, Glucose would be the guy who pays the bills. It can be used by any living organism in the world from the lowly amoeba to your brain cells. You get high-fructose when you get more couch-crashers than money makers.

Let's move on to corn. Mmm. Corn. Unfortunately, this isn't the same corn you and I are on good terms with. Cheap, modified corn is often used to make this sweet treat. HFCS uses corn starch. The corn starch goes through a process to become corn syrup (That would be the last word in our breakdown)! Enzymes are added to the syrup to turn part of it's glucose into fructose creating a 45% - 55% fructose to glucose ratio. 45% doesn't necessarily seem high enough, does it? Good news! The syrup is purified to 90% fructose! Fructose 90 doesn't usually appear on shelves. Fructose 90 and fructose 45 are mixed to create fructose 55 (%) which is the main form of HFCS in our processed foods.

Why even make HFCS?
Oh the irony! Despite the process of making HFCS, it is actually cheaper to process than any other sweetener! Here's the double-whammy: it is also sweeter. Fructose is sweet. Really sweet. Check the sweetness scale here. Glucose rates 75 on average. Fructose rates 140, nearly twice as sweet. For a food company, HFCS is the Holy Grail of sweeteners. If you read our earlier blog Is Sugar Addictive, you may agree that sweetness has addictive qualities.

Let's role play for a moment. Let's say you are on the Board of Directors for Coca-Cola and sales are fine, but, well, you and your friends like money. Suddenly, there is a product that is cheaper than the one you are using, and it's better tasting! You would have to be crazy to pass up on this game changer. Would you use it? After all, you can save money even by using a little less of it (since it's sweeter), but you can make more by adding in more. Ah, the refreshing sound of profit.

What's wrong with HFCS?

Coke drinks sold per day! Picture from CNBC

Let's continue with the role play. So now you're making tons of cash. Sales are up and up. However, a few decades later, a couple of people start complaining about things like insulin resistance, obesity, liver damage, and so on. Somehow, they've linked it to your soda. Specifically this new HFCS you've been using. You put a team on it to investigate, but what do you do in the meantime? Do you keep it in the product, or do you go "retro." Of course! Switch back to regular sugar! If they think this new HFCS is bad, they'll think the old sugar is "good!" Brilliant!

While Coca-Cola and the other guys go back to their sugar cane "roots," let's visit the problems behind HFCS that gave rise to public discontent. Unfortunately, the problem is biological. The human body has a hard time processing unnatural fructose. "Hold up. You said fructose was in fruit. Is fruit bad for you?" No, of course not. Fruit contains "free fructose," or fructose with fiber, which is absorbed in the large intestine. Through a little biological magic, the fructose is fermented by colonic flora (bacteria) and removed from the body. Processed fructose (sucrose, HFCS) is absorbed in the small intestine and sent to the liver. This is where the trouble begins.

To make a long story short, the fructose is turned into fat and stored in the liver causing it to look much like cirrhosis. Diets high in fructose are also linked with gout, cardiovascular disease, and insulin resistance, also known as metabolic syndrome. Additionally, HFCS doesn't trigger a "full" feeling. I will not go into detail about these issues because they are rather complex. However, DR. Robert Lustig will. You can view his lecture on Youtube.

Where is HFCS?

That would be the million dollar question. What are you eating that has HFCS in it? Well, if it is bread, soda, sports drinks, candy, or even cereal, you're probably eating HFCS. How can you know for sure? Refer back to "Dextran, Maltose, Turbinado, Galactose, and Sorbitol" Could these be the new Transformers? Read the labels! A product with HFCS in it will usually refer to it by name. However, it may also be referred to as just "corn syrup." Refer to this list for some specific products that contain HFCS: www.accidentalhedonist.com. Keep in mind that this list stopped keeping track in 2008 because the number of products was overwhelming. And, as always, your best bet to avoid these products is to educate yourself and eat local, organic, unprocessed foods! If you have questions about this topic, please post in our comment section!

PS. Blue Agave is not a health food. It can sometimes contain 75% fructose. Sorry.

Written by Robert Marshall