Give it up for the apple. It not only keeps the doctor away. It also keeps calories away.

A new Pennsylvania State University study shows that the consumption of apples in different forms affects calorie intake. Specifically, people who ate an apple about 15 minutes before lunch consumed almost 190 fewer calories than when they didn't have the apple.

This study of 59 normal-weight men and women suggests that eating something like a low-calories piece of fruit versus something like fruit juice before a meal might be a great strategy for reducing calorie intake.

"It looks like solid fruit is more filling than fruit juice, and people perceive them differently," says one researcher. People look at an apple and look at fruit juice, and they think the apple will fill them up. And it does. And they eat less as a result. And this is why the apple deserves a round of applause.

Source

Having been an avid dieter for years (before I discovered that a lifestyle change was really the answer to weight loss), I can attest to caloric restriction as an answer to weight loss.

It's not the easiest answer, as irritability and hungry feelings come along with the ride for many of us. But it does work, and when you combine that outlook with exercise, keeping the pounds off for the longer term really does work, according to a review of many clinical trials on the subject.

Keeping lost weight off for four years (or more) was found most effective when the diet approach involved cutting calories (as opposed to just exercise). The results did not change with or without exercise. In a sense, food gives your body the fuel it needs, while exercise keeps the repair man (or woman) away.

Source

Nutrition labels may have been useful 15 years ago, but researchers say now that the "recommended daily allowance" figure commonly quoted on nutrition labels makes it hard for many consumers to translate that information into nutrient quantities.

For example, if a product has calcium, and perhaps contains 15 percent of the RDA of that ingredient, how much is that quality, specifically? Since many of us have custom nutrition needs, the bare-bones information on most processed foods can be somewhat meaningless, not to mention misleading.

If you're a female at risk for osteoporosis, can you determine from all the foods you eat exactly what your calcium intake is for a normal day? My guess is no. Did you know that there are many forms of calcium as well, each with a different level of bio-availability? As in, calcium carbonate or calcium citrate? The devil, as always, is in the details.

Source

In another effect of a harebrained media in the U.S. (probably) a new survey shows that half of teenage girls are eating fewer calories than suggested under current nutritional guidelines.

It's hard to imagine that 45 percent of 14- to 18-year-old girls surveyed were eating less than 1,200 calories a day, but over 33 percent of that same group stated they had just finished a diet or were still on one.

By contrast, just 14 percent of teenage boys in the same age group admitted to dieting, but 25 percent of those surveyed said they are 800 calories a day or fewer. That's crazy, but I have to wonder if that age group even knows the definition of "calorie" and how to measure it. Less than 1,500 calories per day seems like a dangerous situation to me for anyone in that age bracket.

Source

instead of holding back on eating fish and taking fish oil supplements, pregnant women should actually eat more fish in order to get those healthy oils in their system, according to a new recommendation from a coalition of nutrition experts and groups this past week.

Several federal agencies joined the coalition's suggestion that came to challenge government warnings about fish consumption by pregnant women due to mercury contamination in most volume-processed fish.

While that may be true (to a point), the health benefits of eating about 12 ounces of fish per week outweigh possible exposure to small amounts of mercury. A report from 2004 put out by the FDA and EPA is being criticized in the process here as well.

Source

New research out of Germany this week concluded that the elimination of sweets and vitamins could help most people live longer lives. Vitamins, they say?

I've heard of vitamins (when taken in some kind of synergistic methodology) are fantastic for longevity, so this surprises me. Sweets, though? Not so much, and especially when there's refined sugars and nasty high-fructose corn syrup involved.

Restricting glucose was also found to be integral to certain bodily processes that extended life spans up to 25 percent -- but the result looked at worms, not humans.

In an odd twist to the research, the creation of more free radicals was key to longevity and was noticed when glucose restriction was present. Result: the worms under observance then built up long-lasting anti-oxidant defenses against the onslaught of new free radical molecules, which then lingered in their bodies long afterward.

Source

The vegetarian lifestyle is a very healthy way to live from many viewpoints (including mine), although vegetarians must make it a priority to consumer foods with all the needed daily components: vitamins, minerals, proteins and good fats.

Protein intake is of particular concern, as there are many who think meat is the best way to consume it. This is false, as many vegetable and non-meat sources are filled with protein. But for those that miss meat products (as in, converted vegetarians), soy-based meat replacement products are surprisingly popular.

The good news is that protein is easy to find in a vegetarian lifestyle with some research. The hard part is finding good sources of plant-based protein when traveling or eating outside of your comfort zone. Just remember that a vegetarian diet must be balanced as well, just like a meat diet.

Source

I've read and read about the daily ritual of caloric restriction and have been fascinated by what I read. In the case of many people with an ultra-conscious habit about monitoring what they eat, the reduction of calories (but not nutrients) is supposed to be a ticket to a longer life.

A new study confirms that, and scientists say they now know what caloric reduction prolongs lives. The conclusion: that the link between food restriction and longevity may stem from being a molecular response to the stress from cutting back calories.

In effect, the stress from cutting back on calories preserves cellular function in our cells, which gives us the enhanced ability to fight off age-related diseases. Who knew stress could be so useful?

Source

Mark over at Mark's Daily Apple recently posted a picture of his carb pyramid -- meaning he illustrated what kind of carbs he eats and how often. I really like the idea so I did my own. As you can see, I am no artist, but this should get across my carb intake in a typical week.

I think I'm doing pretty well -- I avoid the bad carbs, but I'm human so I haven't cut them out altogether. I stick to whole wheat carbs, except when I go for sushi -- my favourite place doesn't offer the choice of brown rice. And I try to get most of my carb intake from fruits and veggies.

What does your carb pyramid look like?

Source

Next time you're out to eat don't automatically dismiss the waitress when she goes to tell you the "soup of the day" -- having a cup of soup before your meal may actually help you eat less overall, instead of more. A study coming out of Penn State looked at low-calorie soup containing the following ingredients: chicken broth, broccoli, potato, cauliflower, carrots and butter and and found that regardless of how the soup was prepared (smooth, chunky, etc) the individuals who ate soup as a first course cut their over-all meal intake by 20%, compared to those who did not have soup.

I often avoid ordering soup before my meal, thinking it's just going to be extra calories thrown on top of the grand total. Maybe I need to rethink that theory!

Source