Beet this.

There are lots and lots of ergogenic aids out there which tout the ability to help enhance your athletic performance. Anjee what is an ergogenic aid?! you ask. It's basically anything that has the ability to increase your capacity for physical performance. This can be caffeine or steroids.

An article in the Summer edition of Food and Nutrition magazine had an interesting blurb about beetroot juice and its benefits for middle distance and endurance athletes.

Seems there is some research out there that indicated beetroot juice may delay time to exhaustion. Yep. Looks like our beety friends are rich in nitrate which has two effects on the body during exercise:

1. It reduces VO2max which is means it reduces the demand for oxygen during exercise. Obviously the lower the demand for O2 the more efficiently (and longer) you are able to place demands on the body before exhaustion. 
2. Increases muscle efficiency. Muscles are able to utilize O2 more efficiently thus delaying the time to fatigue. 

The acceptable daily intake of nitrate is 3.65 mg/kg/d and the amounts used in the studies are usually about twice this amount so it remains to be seen how safe it is to supplement with beetroot juice but interesting stuff nonetheless. 

Would you drink beet juice to increase your performance? I may have to try it on my next long run......

Remember me?

Hello there.

You may or may not have noticed I've been out for a bit. Well, I'm back.

Let's see. Let me just sum up the last few months here. I finished my thesis, defended my thesis much to the chagrin of my PI, faculty, staff and students of SDSU. FINALLY took surfing lessons much to the chagrin of all involved. I am no longer terrified of the ocean. That's a lie. Celebrated my 34th birthday. Oscar and I broke up. I moved out. Was placed in a dietetic internship which I start in July. I have joined a climbing group. I only go because we go out for beers at Smallbar after every Wednesday. I deleted my face book (no I didn't defriend you I just am over FB right now). And I think that about does it. Oh and I graduated last Friday.

So now that we have that out of the way, let's get updated on the nutrition world, because really, isn't that the more exciting thing here?

The American Dietetic Association is now the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. I am not sure why although I assume it's because they feel it sounds fancy to call themselves the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. I'm not sure they thought this one through however because the acronym is going to be AND. Doesn't sound fancy when you see it like that does it? Anyway, that is the new institution and that is how they will be addressed. I have been paying extra special attention to AND lately and it's position on the new health care laws; it has been very interesting watching how this whole health care reform business plays out in regards to nutrition professionals. Many of the billing codes are going to be changed to limit certain nutrition related therapies or remove them all together. Obviously this is a concern moving forward and has a lot of us wondering what exactly our careers will look like in the future. Time will tell I suppose.

But onto a little blurb from my Food and Nutrition magazine. This month had an article on juicing and I thought I'd pay it a little mind since everyone from my new roommates to my brother are juicing these days and it's something I get asked about quite a bit.

Juicing is the process of using a juicer to separate fruits and vegetables from their peels, pulp,fibrous materials, etc., into a purely liquid form. It's different than blending since the juicing process actually removes the other components of fruits and vegetable whereas blending them uses the entire fruit and/or vegetable. 

Juicing has also been getting a ton of attention lately. Many hail it THE a way to lose weight and others insist it is the best way to consume fruits and vegetables. Movies, movie stars and fitness advocates alike seem to be hopping on the latest industry trend. 

In an attempt to figure out what the fuss was about, I made a few juices of my own. Tasty, diarrhea looking things from kale, ginger, lemon, parsley and carrots. I juiced a whole bag of oranges one time and got two whole glasses of juice out of it. After a particularly rigorous week of post break up drinking I juiced for what was supposed to be ten days but was chiseled down to six after I just about got fired from my job for being so darned cranky from being so darned hungry. Don't get me wrong, my juices were tasty!! Seriously they were so good. And I actually felt pretty good too after drinking them. I didn't get the fit of hypoglycemia I assumed would follow a strict juicing diet. My main concern wasn't what was in the juice, but what wasn't in it.

After I reduced a weeks worth of produce to a glass of liquid, all the fibrous material (the stuff that contains almost ALL the fiber) was still in my juicer. One time I tried adding it back into the juice but to be honest it was pretty gross, but I digress.

I think this article from Food and Nutrition Magazine gives great tips on how to be a smart juicer and hopefully get the most benefits from juicing. A few main points:

1) There is no advantage to consuming juice over whole fruits and veggies

2) Juice-only diets which severely restrict calories may result in short term weight loss (and later to weight gain) but the lack of protein won't sustain muscle mass

3) Other deficiencies like fiber, fat soluble vitamins D and E, essential fatty acids and B vitamins may result

4) Always thoroughly wash fruits and veggies and consume juice immediately

5) Aim for a 3-to-1 vegetable to fruit ratio

And it's important to remember juicing really shouldn't be replacing meals and its hold no benefit over consuming fruits and vegetables in their raw, whole form but can be a great way to incorporate fruits and vegetables into your diet if you have a hard time doing so. 


Do you juice? If so what's your favorite recipe?

Pizza is a vegetable. Great call Congress.

I have not blogged in a very, very long time; and I know for the 4 of you who look at this blog it must have been a heartbreaking few months. This article on how corrupt and stupid our governing agencies are when it comes to food brought me out of my thesis writing stupor long enough to put up this snazzy post. Just another fine example of the almighty dollar coming before the general good of the people. I'll be back soon with more rantings and ravings, just you wait.

Chocolate: good for the soul, good for the heart

Heart Disease, Diabetes and Stroke: More Chocolate, Less Risk? - ABC News

I really liked this article from ABC that that reported on a new review of published research on chocolate.

The review looked at 7 studies and controlled for age, diet, physical activity, body mass index and smoking and discovered that chocolate consumers had reduced risk for heart disease, diabetes and stroke.

I really like this article because instead of jumping to unfounded conclusions like a lot of the media tends to do, it merely points out that habitual chocolate intake and lower disease risk are correlated; but that it doesn't necessarily mean that that chocolate is the sole cause of the lower risk. Other factors weigh in as well. For example, a there was a study that reported that people that prayed lived longer than people the didn't. But that could also be because people who pray go to church more, are more social and therefore have a social outlet and support. Or perhaps people that pray more experience less tress because of praying. So you can never really say that correlation implies causation, but the research is interesting nonetheless and seems to support past research that has implied similar benefits of chocolate.

Formula for weight gain

So with all of my close friends either having just given birth or just about to, I have suddenly become very interested in all sorts of baby stuff, because if there's one thing a new or expectant mom needs, it's unsolicited information.

As a student of nutrition, we learn all about the health benefits of breastfeeding over formula feeding but obviously breastfeeding is sometimes not an option. Many people seem to have strong opinions about both options but obviously it's pretty difficult to say unless you're the one in that situation.

One of my coworkers just completed her Lactation Education Certification and we were having a discussion about formula fed babies and weight gain. Unfortunately, babies who gain weight rapidly during the first 4 months to 1 year of life tend to struggle with being overweight or obese later in life. Coincidentally, NPR's Patti Neighmond ran a story on why formula fed babies may experience faster weight gain, so I figured it was worth a read. I found it interesting that part of the reason formula fed babies may gain weight faster (thus possibly leading to weight issues later in life) is that  babies who are breastfeeding may satiate sooner thus consuming less breast milk. Babies' stomachs are pretty tiny as newborns and thus they really can't eat very much and the colostrum that newborns consume in the early stages of breastfeeding is very low in fat. Additionally human breast milk changes in caloric density during the life stage of the baby to address changing nutritional needs which means that volume for volume the calories, fat, carbohydrate and protein will be different between breast milk and formula depending on the life stage of the baby. Isn't the human body crazy?!

While the article brings to light some new research, it is still pretty preliminary stuff and shouldn't be used to judge mom's who aren't breastfeeding. Neighmond also profiles a few different types of formulas making this article a good resource if you had formula questions.

If you're like me and have no idea how to change a diaper, there are plenty of other things out there to read.

Bread for Bread

Lester Brown, President of the Earth Policy Institute wrote an amazing article in the April edition of Foreign Policy Magazine entitled: The New Geopolitics of Food which NPR recently highlighted in an interview with Mr. Brown. The article does a fantastic job demonstrating how food insecurity and politics are inextricably linked. If you aren't up to reading the article, I've summed up some of the main points below but the full article is definitely worth a read:

Imported food items (often grains) are the most susceptible to rising prices. In countries where poverty prevails, rising prices are felt much more severely. Brown gives the example that a rising price of wheat may mean the difference between $.10-$.20 more for a loaf of bread for us but for cities/countries where grain is purchased in the raw and where 50-70% of income is spent on food, you may actually be paying double the price for your food every day. The frustration and desperation felt by people trying to feed themselves and their families with food they can no longer afford will (and has) lead to political unrest. 

Why the issue with rising prices? It's really a simple supply and demand issue. 

According to Brown, rising food prices weren't always such a big problem. This year isn't the first year entire crops have been wiped out by drought or heavy rains. It is however one year in a series of years in which supply is dwindling. Richer nations have been able to offset decreases in grain production by using grain stores or by planting on available land. Fortunately, in the past, these types of disasters were uncommon. Currently, however, we are seeing a rise in the frequency of droughts, hurricanes, and formidable weather due to rising global temperatures. Brown cites that a rule of thumb for temperature rise is the 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature will lead to a 10% decrease in grain yields.

We have planted on almost all of the land that is available and much of the land which is vacant is barren. Production is low from poor growing conditions due to global warming, reserves are low or non-existent due to years of increasing frequency of grain shortages and vacant land is either unusable or unviable. Supply is falling short of demand, the latter of which is rising at a rapid rate. 

Rising demand is fueled by a few things: increasing population, affluence and biofuels. 219,000 extra mouths to feed every day globally puts a massive strain on global grain production – particularly since most of us consume grains either directly or indirectly as food for animals as a large part of our daily diet. As  affluence increases, so does the consumption of cattle and other grain intensive animals as people feel more inclined to eat further up the food chain. Biofuels also increase demand. Brown states that last year we produced 400 billion tons of grain and 125 million was used for ethanol production.  Demand has put an intense stain on grain supplies and little to no attention has been given as to how to properly address remedying the situation.

To tackle some of these issues, the article suggests stabilizing the world population through family planning. 215 million women stated they would like to plan families but do not have access to family planning; most of these women represent the poorest populations. Additionally, focusing on raising water productivity will also help sustain grain production. We have tripled our grain production but paid title attention to how to sustainably provide water for the crops. 

Brown warns that failing to take climate change and the food crises seriously will result in increasing shortages and rising prices-and we have already had glimpses at what this will mean on a global scale: runaway food prices and riots. 

I appreciate Brown’s attempt at taking food insecurity seriously and addressing its underlying causes when it comes to grain production. His well thought out causes of the issue and suggestions for solutions demonstrates the real need for action in this area.

I believe it is also imperative the international community finally get serious about food production/consumption and reassess our food chain and how it is broken. Thanks to Lester Brown for garnering attention to such an important issue. 

Peace out Pyramid.

 Today marks the long-awaited and much-needed retirement of the 20 year old symbol of a healthy diet: The Food Guide Pyramid.

  MyPyramid.gov was the updated, snazzier version of the Food Guide Pyramid, the weird, 70's style guide for healthy eating that seems to somehow incorporate triangle shaped confetti as part of a healthy diet.

Problems with the Food Guide Pyramid were mostly that is was extremely confusing to most ordinary folks, so the USDA came up with MyPyramid.gov to show just how awesome healthy eating can be.

The idea was to promote healthful eating by designating the larger bars on the pyramid as grains (orange), veggies (green), fruits (reds) and dairy (blue) while the slimmer bars were meats and beans (purple) and fats and oils (yellow). The androgenous person climbing the stairs to the pyramid is supposed to promote physical activity; but how your average person is supposed to deduce this from a stick figure walking up the side of the pyramid is beyond me.

 Mypyramid.gov was the United States Department of Agriculture's way of conveying healthful eating and exercise for the average American. Once on mypyramid.gov there was all sorts of helpful info about eating right and you could even get a personalized diet by entering your age, gender and height. The website itself is pretty useful and easy to navigate but many nutrition professionals felt the pyramid was difficult to understand and did not address one very important issue: portion sizes.

 That is why the brand new MyPlate.gov guide is so fantastic.

  

The new feature replaces the pyramid with a plate and emphasizes vegetables and fruits as the more important groups while decreasing the amount of protein-a good message for the post-Atkins, protein-crazed American. Additionally there is no place for fats and oils and the dairy group is represented by glass-implying milk instead of cheese and fattier dairy items.

 When you click on each area of the plate the website takes you to a description of appropriate foods form that group.

Why it's better:

• emphasizes portions
• easier to understand
• eliminates fats and oils 
• emphasizes dairy from milk instead of cheese, ice cream, etc.,

 Why it isn't better:

• physical activity is gone
• while myplate emphasizes portions, it doesn’t really give an estimate or suggested amount unless you enter your info for a personalized plan.

 All in all the USDA did a good job recognizing the need for a change from mypyramid. It has been suggested by some that mypyramid has always been a giant billboard for whichever industry can afford to pay the highest price. For example, I know a few RDs feel the reason the dairy group is as large as it is (was) on the pyramid was because the dairy council was a big contributor to the USDA and that the dairy industry as a whole would like us to believe we are getting a lot more calcium from dairy products than we actually are. I can't comment on that because I haven't researched it enough but as we all know, pretty much every industry is influenced by money, so I wouldn’t be surprised.

However, for now the new MyPlate.gov guideline for healthful eating helps calls attention to the out of control portion size issue currently plaguing our country and its citizens. For a gander at how other countries define healthy eating, peep these dietary guidelines form around the world.