Slim Shots?

I get really ticked off when I see advertisements for diet products. So of course I had to snap a photo while waiting for the F train recently.

If Spain is considering banning diet commercials before 10 p.m., why can't we start taking some measures to lower the number of times a day we're bombarded by these kinds of images and ideas?

I examined the smaller print on the ad, and of course, it said that most people ate between 12.5 and 30 percent less when they took these "slim shots." Appetite suppressants and anything that claims to have "all natural" or "safe" ingredients in it freak me out. Their need to state that makes me feel like they're hiding something.

Let's take a look at the ingredients. These contain oat oil and palm oil, along with water, "natural and artificial flavors, aspartame, and beta carotene color." That's it? I don't know, something just seems off to me...

So how does it work? Here's what it says on the website: "SlimShots™ triggers the body’s natural appetite control mechanism, the ileal brake, satisfying users for long periods of time and in turn, allowing them to eat less, without sacrifice and without depriving them of their favorite foods."

What's more, I don't think appetite should be suppressed in the first place. It's important, instead, to try to understand our appetites—what is our body trying to tell us? How can we give it what it really needs? It exists for a reason! Clearly, attempting to rein our appetites in has gotten our culture nowhere. In fact, you could almost say that as a whole, we've become so out of touch with our appetites that it seems to be out of control. Scary stuff.

I wonder what it would take to get people to realize that there is no magic bullet for weight control, and that "weight control" is no way to talk about how you eat. It implies a power struggle—one we don't need to partake in. Still, I suppose healthy living and conscious eating don't sell as much ad space.

Calorie Counts are Frequently Off

Overall, as I've said many times, I tend to be a fan of calorie labeling in restaurants and other eating establishments because I think they motivate people to think a little more closely about what they want to "spend" their calories on the way we also consider what to spend our dollars on. I've also expressed that I worry that some people could become a little obsessed (who likely would look up calorie content online even if it weren't posted on a menu), and unfortunately, this bit from Time isn't going to help anyone chill out.

Susan Roberts, professor at Tufts, along with Jean Mayer of Tufts' USDA Nutrition Research Center on Aging decided to analyze an array of restaurant and frozen food items, taking care to select the ones dieters might be most likely to reach for. Sure enough, the calorie counts posted on labels and menus were off by as much as 18% for restaurant foods and 8% for frozen foods.

I think the main thing I would take away from the article is that even when an item is said to contain a certain number of calories, your best bet is really to listen to the cues your body sends you. Eating when you're hungry and stopping when you're full, for most people (myself included), sounds simpler than it is in practice, but mindful eating is something to work towards.

For a laugh, you could try practicing on a raisin. The Center for Mindful Eating is a really interesting organization, and their website is worth checking out. You might also want to read this post I wrote last summer for Five Seasons Healing, an acupuncture practice in Union Square.

The Taco Bell Diet?

Okay, have you guys heard about the Taco Bell Diet (aka Drive-Thru Diet)?

I'm serious. Taco Bell's girl Christine is to Taco Bell what Jared was to Subway. By eating from the "Fresco Menu" (a set of menu items with no cheese or sauce which come with a tomato salsa) five to eight times per week, she reportedly lost 54 pounds in two years.

These Fresco menu items are only 20 to 100 calories less than regular menu items, which makes the whole thing sound like marketing to me—a thinly-veiled ploy to get fast-food put on one of those ridiculous "Good Foods" lists.

Granted, when you're on the road and your options are limited, a soft taco is probably a better choice than an order of fries since it will give you some nutrients for your calories, but eight times a week? Oh dear.

While I'm the first to admit that I can be a bit of a food snob (why have McDonald's when I can have homemade hummus with greens and just-roasted peppers on whole wheat pita and fresh fruit on a road trip?), it can be very easy to make small tweaks at almost any eatery (or at home) that can cut calories or enhance the nutritional value of a meal, depending on your needs. Two years is a perfectly reasonable time in which to lose 54 pounds (that's about a half-pound per week), but you don't have to rely on one restaurant to make it happen for you.

Point of this post: If you're concerned about your health, consult a dietician, not a fast-food mascot. I miss that Chihuahua.

Takeout or Frozen Meal?

When it comes to lunch at your desk or dinner on a busy or late night, what's a better choice—takeout or a frozen "diet" meal? I don't know about you, but when I was first living on my own at 20, I subsisted mainly on Amy's organic meals and other heat-and-eat dishes. I was so clueless in the kitchen...

In their February 2010 issue, Consumer Reports takes a look at frozen entrees from companies such as Weight Watchers, Lean Cuisine, Kashi, and Healthy Choice.

What they mainly found was that these meals taste pretty good but tend to be too small—many clock in at 300 calories or less. However the magazine points out that this provides a good opportunity for consumers to add vegetables and fruits to balance out the dish. Another downside was that a lot of these frozen items pack a lot of sodium, with 800 mg being a pretty typical amount, though 600 mg is considered a reasonable amount for someone taking in the recommended 2,300 mg or less per day.

Still, Consumer Report considers a frozen entree a much better option than takeout because of their automatic portion control—especially a plus for people trying to monitor their weight in a healthy manner.

Welcoming 2010

It's that time again...Every January I dread going to the gym because of how crowded it gets. While I don't want to be a jerk, I have to admit that the New Years Resolution-ers bug me. While exercise is great for your mind and body and if the only time you can get motivated to get moving is January 1st, so be it, but it's, like, why can't we just take care of ourselves all year round? Why wait until January? Why not start a new regimen in, say, September? Why do we listen to the media voices that tell us to indulge like crazy (and feel guilty) all through December and then vow to "get back in shape" once the hangover clears? Oh wait, I remember—it's because balanced approaches don't sell as well.

I'm not a fan of resolutions, especially weight-loss resolutions and other midnight promises that involve restrictive, unrealistic guidelines. While I do think it's perfectly sane and healthy to decide you want to take good care of yourself, I have a big problem with the way our culture pushes the whole "New Year, New You!" thing, pressuring us to buy diet products and workout gear and Finally! Lose! Those! Last! Five! Pounds! I can't open a magazine or click on a health-related website without seeing an ad promising me I can lose x pounds in y days/weeks/months.

Gag me.

That said, I do kind of like the idea that what you do on January 1st can set the stage for a year in which you stay true to yourself and your needs. Judging by my New Years Day, I suppose it's safe to say that I want my 2010 to hold a lot of yoga, ukulele-playing, roasted vegetables, and gatherings with friends.

Hope your 2010 is off to a beautiful, peaceful start!

Cookie Diet Founder is Suing Kim Kardashian

In today's hilarious news, Dr. Siegel, founder of the Cookie Diet, which I posted about several weeks ago, is reportedly suing Kim Kardashian for calling the cookies "unhealthy" on her Twitter page. Oh dear...

First, the actress sent a cease and desist letter to the company, accusing them of falsely claiming that she was endorsing the diet. Siegel and Co., in turn, are seeking damages again Kardashian. What they reportedly claim is that she had a "commercial motive" to bash the weight-loss cookies, given her work with QuickTrim, another weight loss program. You can read more here.

Yet another reason I hate quick-fix, product-based diets. It's kind of amusing, though. I mean, celebrity names aside, someone is that invested in freaking cookies that they're suing someone over negative comments about said cookies. What is our world coming to?

Cookie Diet? Seriously?

I'm sorry, I can't believe that there's anybody out there even prescribing a "cookie diet," yet it turns out there are quite a few: Dr. Siegal's Cookie Diet, Smart For Life, and the Hollywood Cookie Diet are a few of the most popular programs.

You heard me right: eat pre-packaged cookies (engineered with substances such as glycerine and protein powder) and then have a token "sensible dinner" of lean protein and veggies—all for 800-1,200 calories a day.

Duh, if you take in fewer calories than you burn, you're going to lose weight, but intakes that low can send your body into starvation mode and throw off your metabolism. I am not a fan of single-ingredient diets or diets that require you to purchase special products.

I wish there was a way to convince people that the best way to lose weight ("and keep it off!") or improve their health is by learning how to make small effective changes that can lead to the results they want. You can't get that from a flippin' cookie.

This Wall Street Journal article takes a look at this weird eating plan.

That said, a well-balanced "cookie" makes a much better snack or quick breakfast than a candy bar or pastry. Check out this recipe for a no-bake breakfast cookie you can make ahead and grab on your way out the door. Homemade almost always beats pre-packaged.

Not So Slim-Fast

Last week, the FDA issued a recall on ready-to-drink Slim-Fast diet shakes, regardless of flavor or best-by date, lot code, or UPC number. The recall is due to possible contamination with Bacillus cereus, a microorganism which can cause nausea and diarrhea, and vomiting.

I've never tried Slim-Fast, but I do know some people who drink it as a snack when they're on the go. If you know of anyone who would benefit from this information, pass it along.

Visit Slim-Fast online for more details .

What To Eat When "Healthy" Isn't An Option

Okay, so I know that women's magazines aren't exactly the best sources of dietary advice, but sometimes it's interesting to see where the rest of the world outside of a nutrition grad program is at.

On Glamour Magazine's Health and Fitness section this month, there is a piece called "What To Eat When Healthy Eating Isn't An Option," which describes various scenarios in which you might find yourself in a "nutritional wasteland," and what types of lesser-of-two-evils choices you can make to get the most nutritional bang for your buck.

Check it out here.

Here's your "No, duh" for the day!

Echoing what dieticians have been saying for years, an Australian study shows that low-carb diets can be linked to grumpiness.

According to a study of 106 obese people, those following a diet that was low in fat and allowed some carbohydrates tended to be less angry, depressed and confused after a year than those on a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet.

This study was published yesterday in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine. You can read more about it here.

I was surprised that the article I read didn't mention the fact that we need glucose for energy and that you get glucose from carbohydrates. If we don't have enough glucose in our system, our body starts to break down protein and fat for energy. That may sound like a good thing to those trying to lose weight, but some brain and nervous cells rely exclusively on glucose, so a shortage can make you feel mentally and physically sluggish. Of course you're going to feel cranky!

While it's worth noting that both diets were equally effective at reducing overall weight, wouldn't you rather, well, not be in a bad mood for a year?

Fourth Graders Dieting?

In 1986, Jeffrey Zaslow conducted interviews with 100 fourth-grade girls about their dieting habits. More than half of the girls surveyed said that they were dieting, and 75% of them—even the skinniest girls—said they weighed too much.

In this article, Zaslow reflects on that study and checks back in with the girls, who are now in their early 30's. Recent research shows that societal obsession with thinness and pressure on young girls to attain that ideal are, unfortunately but not surprisingly, even stronger.

Since the 1980's, incidence of eating disorders have risen dramatically, and between 2000 and 2006, the percentage of girls who believe they must be thin went from 48% to 60%. Between the increasingly unrealistic images of "perfect" (aka "retouched") women in ads and the concern with preventing childhood obesity, it's no surprise that more and more nine-year-olds think they need to be tiny, not realizing that depriving themselves of the nutrients they need could put them at risk for stunted growth and brain development.

While there have been some efforts to improve girls' self-esteem (books, for example), I don't think that nearly enough is being done. I understand the precarious balance of the situation—encouraging healthy eating habits and self-acceptance without going overboard in either direction. This is one key area that needs more attention. Lots more.