While cruising Food Network the other day we caught an episode of the show "My Life in Food" about adult picky eaters. And while we were familiar with the phenomenon in children, we erroneously thought people outgrew picky eating as they got older, or at least were eventually able to introduce more foods into their diet.
That's not always the case. The show profiled three adults whose diets consist of scant few items, such as bread and peanut butter, or grilled cheese and French fries. Fruits, vegetables and meat are often nonexistent in their diets. Picky eaters find most foods inedible in terms of texture, taste or temperature --tomatoes have a high slime factor, for example, and meat is too gristly and chewy. Just looking at a bowl of chili can bring on a gag reflex. Theories abound on why this is, with some linking it to obsessive-compulsive disorders, or to being a supertaster (having a heightened sense of taste) or non-taster (having a dulled sense of taste). Most adult picky eaters had similar issues with food as children, and many were traumatized by parents who force-fed them.
While picky eating may just seem odd to the rest of us omnivores, having food issues comes with a host of problems. Relationships suffer (one guy hadn't dated for years), and social occasions are fraught with anxiety, as most revolve around food. Health is often a concern, since nutritional needs aren't being met.
Some profiled on the show were seeking help via hypnotherapy or dietitians, determined to introduce a wider variety of foods into their diets. All seemed relieved to find the website Picky Eating Adults.com, which offers personal stories, a Web forum and resources. Next week Nova features a show on the science of picky eaters that explores genetic components. A 2007 study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found a strong genetic link to having an aversion to some foods, but that still didn't account for every case of picky eating.
Are you an adult picky eater, or do you live with one? How has this affected your life? Are you actively seeking help, or are you OK with the status quo? Let us know.
The stereotype of cops hanging out at donut shops may not be true (we see them more often at Starbucks these days chugging chai lattes), but some law-enforcement officers, like the rest of the planet, are fighting the battle of the bulge.
Because a leaner, fitter cop is probably a more effective crime fighter than a chubby, out-of-shape cop, some thought it a good idea to give peace officers a little boost in their efforts to lose weight. For the second year in a row, the Battle of the Badges has been waged, a friendly competition among law enforcement officers from the Santa Ana Police Department, the Anaheim Police Department, and the Orange County Sheriff's Department to see which group could lose the most weight. Ten participants from each department agreed to try to lose at least 10% of their body weight in 10 weeks, but we've heard that everyone exceeded that goal. Some teens, many of them related to the officers, also took part.
The winning team will be revealed Wednesday at a ceremony and final weigh-in at the Santa Ana Police Dept., but some results released show terrific progress: an average 11% reduction in blood sugar, a 48% decrease in triglyceride levels, a 27% reduction in LDL (bad) cholesterol and a 9% reduction in waist circumference. Blood pressure came down too, putting everyone in a normal range. Some who had been on blood pressure and cholesterol medication have been able to go off the meds.
The competition was so popular the first time around at the O.C. Sheriff’s Dept. that program coordinator Donna Muleady said she got almost 50 applications within an hour of her posting. Obesity isn't an overwhelming problem in the department, she added, but some deputies could benefit from dropping a few pounds and getting into shape.
"This isn't just about losing weight," said Cynthia Graff, chief executive of Lindora Medical Clinics, the event sponsor. "It’s about learning healthy lifestyle habits." The program seems to have many factors that can result in successful weight loss: a medical work-up, healthful eating strategies, counseling, nutrition guidelines, encouragement to exercise and accountability via weekly weigh-ins.
Winners don't receive any grand prize, buy participants do get a $50 gift card to El Pollo Loco, where the menu features a meal with a grilled chicken breast, salad and steamed vegetables that comes in at 276 calories and 8 grams of fat.
And what if an officer uses that certificate to buy something more fattening?
We recently wrote about new labels you'll be seeing in grocery stores soon that are designed to help consumers make more healthful choices. But how helpful will they be? Consider the fact that Frosted Flakes would qualify for the new industry-designed "Smart Choices" logo.
Check out the Chicago Tribune's story about these new labeling schemes and what various nutrition experts think of them.
The involvement of industry in developing Smart Choices "is a classic case of the fox guarding the hen house," comments Dr. David Katz, director of the Yale Prevention Research Center, in the article. Katz helped put together a different system, NuVal, which rates foods on a scale of 1 to 100 based on nutritional content and was developed without industry involvement. (Frosted Flakes scored only 22 on that scale.)
The food industry isn't the only organization to get dinged in the article. As the article makes clear, the American Heart Assn. has long been criticized for its endorsement of products through the heart-check mark program. The association gets paid for those heart-check marks, and not all of the foods that can qualify are ones you'd necessarily consider healthful, even if they are low in saturated fat and cholesterol. One example from the Tribune article is Kellogg's Smart Start Strong Heart Antioxidants cereal, which has the association's heart-check mark but contains 14 grams of sugar per serving.
Read more about the American Heart Assn. heart-check mark controversy in an online exerpt from NYU nutrition professor Marion Nestle's 2003 book, "Food Politics."
Few people go to fast-food places for low-fat, healthful foods, so it's no surprise that a new study finds that customers accumulate copious calories when they eat a fast-food lunch.
Researchers from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Bureau of Chronic Disease Prevention and Control, surveyed 7,750 customers at 167 fast-food restaurants in New York City (before fast-food calorie-labeling regulations began) to see on average how many calories they consumed at lunch. Results were broken down into several categories, including restaurants, foods and what meals consisted of.
Those who ate at fast-food chicken chains averaged the highest number of calories per meal -- 931. Customers of sandwich joints averaged the lowest calories, at 734. Overall, average lunchtime calories came in at 827, but when researchers excluded single-item purchases, that average rose to 961 calories.
Although lunch is only one meal, 34% of all people surveyed ordered meals that averaged 1,000 calories or more. For the three hamburger chains surveyed -- McDonald's, Burger King and Wendy's -- more than 70% of all orders were combination meals or dollar meals. Those dollar or value meals averaged more than 800 calories at the three hamburger chains. Not surprisingly, the combination meals (usually consisting of a sandwich, side order and drink) averaged more than 1,100 calories at the hamburger chains.
The study, in the July issue of the journal Obesity, is timely for Californians, since a law went into effect last week requiring chain restaurants with 20 or more locations to give nutrition information (including calorie counts) via brochures, menu inserts or table tents. But next year, calorie information has to be on menus and indoor menu boards.
In the study, the authors wrote, "Posting calorie information on menus and menu boards, a requirement for New York City fast-food chains since April 2008, may help guide consumers to healthier choices and increase demand for lower calorie items. It may also encourage companies to reduce portion sizes and increase the availability of lower calorie options, especially in the popular combination meal and value categories."
Living together or being married might have some health benefits, but losing weight may not be one of them.
Couples who marry or cohabit are more likely than their single-and-dating counterparts to be obese, according to a new study in the July issue of the journal Obesity. Those living together for two years or more are also less apt to be physically active, part of the recipe for obesity.
Researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill looked at data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a large study tracking students from Grade 7 through adulthood to age 27. The data also included a couples sample, which included the study participants' heterosexual romantic partners.
Here's the breakdown of their romantic life: about 41% transitioned from single-and-dating to dating, 29% transitioned to single, 17% transitioned to living with someone, and 13% transitioned to marriage. Men and women who shifted from single-and-dating to married were more likely to become obese than those who made the transition from single-and-dating to dating. And women who went from single-and-dating to single, or single-and-dating to cohabiting, were more likely to become obese.
Living with a romantic partner for one year or more increased women's chances of becoming obese. Men who lived with a romantic partner for one to two years were twice as likely to become obese compared to men not living with a significant other.
Marriage didn't seem to have much of a slimming effect. Overall, couples who lived together or were married had less healthy habits for obesity, exercise and screen time than dating couples. Married couples also tended to have one or two fewer active partners in them than those who were dating, and cohabiting couples were more likely to have two sedentary partners in them. Couples who lived together for two years or more were considerably more likely to have one or two partners in them who were obese, less physically active, and more sedentary.
As for the whys of all this, researchers speculate that a couple's living conditions may contribute to the added poundage. The actions of one partner -- eating fattier foods, for example -- could influence the other, perhaps with bad results. But knowing that, they add, may also lead to more effective interventions.
So maybe registering for a Wii Fit for your wedding isn't such a bad idea after all.
County fairs offer a whole lot of wholesome family fun, as well as some of the most heinously unhealthful food you'll ever encounter in your life: deep fried candy bars, deep fried Oreos, deep fried soda. If it can be battered and submerged in oil, people will probably eat it.
But with many of us trying to curtail our cholesterol, indulging at the fair isn't the guiltless free-for-all it once was. That's why you'll find more healthful choices at concession stands, a change that's been happening for the last several years, and a trend also at stadiums, ballparks and theme parks.
This year's Orange County Fair (July 10 through Aug. 9) introduces a few new foods that aren't as hazardous as the fried stuff: a grilled fish bowl, smoked albacore and a tofu veggie bowl. The new kids on the block join such established healthful fair foods as fresh berries, roasted corn on the cob (minus the butter, of course), steamed artichokes, and a baked potato with broccoli and grilled chicken breast. The Los Angeles County Fair has its share of funnel cakes and the like, but also offers grilled vegetables, salads and fresh fruit.
So is it wrong to associate fairs with only fatty, artery-clogging, calorie-laden foods?
"I will claim that the fair has to take some responsibility for that," says Steve Beazley, president and chief executive of the OC Fair & Event Center. "We push the new, novelty food -- that's by design. We like to entice people with something they've never had before. But the second message is, try a bite of that, and then try an ear of corn. Everything in moderation."
We have to say we couldn't agree more with his philosophy. A few years ago we attended a county fair, and high on the agenda was stuffing our face with forbidden foods because, when in Rome, right? Let's just say it wasn't the best decision we've ever made.
Beazley says the fair also sponsors two 5K runs, which ups the healthy factor even more. When choosing concessions for the fair, he adds, "we try to do a mix and a blend, and present an overall balanced menu for the fair."
Which is why there will always be yin to the yang. In this case, at the Orange County Fair those tofu veggie bowls will be offset by -- are you sitting down? -- chocolate-covered bacon. Better sign up for those 5K runs.
-Jeannine Stein
Photo of fresh fruit from Terri's Berries courtesy of the Orange County Fair.
If those low-carb diets are too meat-reliant -- or if you're worried about your LDL cholesterol levels -- consider the Eco-Atkins. It's similar to the traditional Atkins diet, but minus the animal products. Yep -- vegetarian.
All that meat in the typical low-carb, high-protein diet still makes some doctors leery, as it turns out. So although Atkins-like diets have been found to reduce insulin resistance and raise HDL, or good, cholesterol, the diets cause some concern because they haven't done much for LDL, or bad, cholesterol levels. At the same time, doctors have been hard-pressed to deny such diets' effectiveness for weight loss, at least in the short term.
So researchers in a new study decided to replace the animal proteins in a low-carb, high-protein diet with vegetable proteins.
In a study of 47 overweight people, researchers at St. Michael's Hospital in Canada put half of the participants on a variation of the Atkins diet (i.e. the Eco-Atkins) and some on a more traditional vegetarian regimen.
Like its forebear, the Eco-Atkins diet was low-carb, but the specifics vary dramatically. In the newer version:
* 31% of calories came from vegetable protein (in order of reliance: gluten, soy, fruits and vegetables, nuts and cereals).
* 43% of calories came from fats (again, in order of reliance: nuts, vegetable oils, soy products, avocado, cereals, fruits and vegetables and seitan products).
* 26% of the calories came from carbs.
The other diet was a high-carbohydrate, low-fat, lacto-ovo diet (dairy and eggs allowed). Carbs made up 58% of the calories, with fats accounting for 25% and protein 16%.
Both diets provided significantly fewer calories than its participants likely would have preferred -- 60% of estimated calorie requirements.
So, not surprisingly, both groups lost weight.
But the folks on the Eco-Atkins diet had greater reductions in LDL and total cholesterol than did the folks in the higher-carb diet.
The abstract of the study, published June 8 in the Archives of Internal Medicine, reaches this conclusion:
A low-carbohydrate plant-based diet has lipid-lowering advantages over a high-carbohydrate, low-fat weight-loss diet in improving heart disease risk factors not seen with conventional low-fat diets with animal products.
Fairly enough, the Low Carb Diets Blog takes issue with the diet used as a comparison:
They could have compared a regular mixed low-carb diet to a vegan or vegetarian low-carb diet. Or compare a high-carb vegan diet to a low-carb vegan diet, where the food sources for the various macronutrients were similar, and only the proportions varied. As it is, the reasons for the results are already being questioned in various media ("It's the soy!" "No, it's the fiber!") as well as in the conclusions written by the authors themselves.
I love that vegetarianism is becoming more mainstream, but I wish that people would just call it what it is and stop trying to put cute names on it to mask it.
But it seems hard to deny there's some potential in this eating plan...
--Tami Dennis
Photo: Soybeans are the friend of vegan dieters. In this study, however, gluten was a better friend. Credit: Kari Goodnough / Bloomberg News
People who eat more dairy products have lower weights and seem to lose weight more easily, several observational studies published in recent year have suggested. But new research -- perhaps the best study to date on the issue -- shows calcium supplements have no effect on weight.
The study involved 340 obese or overweight adults, most of whom were women. They were assigned to take either 1,500 milligrams of calcium or a placebo with meals for two years. After the two years, there were no differences between the two groups in total body weight or body fat mass.
The dairy diet has been an especially popular topic in recent years, promoted by the dairy industry. Some scientists suggested that calcium can combine with fatty acids in the intestine to form insoluable soaps that are not absorbed. Others theorized that low calcium intake in the diet leads to more fat deposits. But the new study, by researchers at the Office of Dietary Supplements and Intramural Research at the National Institutes of Health, cast serious doubt on those theories.
"Even though there may be other important reasons, such as fracture prevention ... calcium supplementation is unlikely to have clinically significant efficacy as a preventive measure against weight gain in persons who are already overweight or obese," the authors wrote. It's still possible that increasing one's intake of dairy products, however, may effect weight.
The movie "Food, Inc." opens in several cities, including Los Angeles, on Friday. It's a critical look at the way food in the United States is produced. ("You'll never want to eat again," commented a colleague who's seen the movie already.)
Food, Inc. decries our processed-food diets, industrial farming, hormone-fed animals, cloned meat, genetic engineering and more.
A Reuters story describes how the food industry is fighting back against the movie, partly via websites of its own, such as one called safefoodinc.com, run by meat and poultry producers. You can see movies there too, with riveting titles such as "Turkey Production and Processing."
In an Associated Press story, director Robert Kenner suggests small ways in which individuals can change their habits to make a difference: "Go to a farmers market whenever you can. Eat a little less meat. Read labels when you go into a store. Shop the outer rows of the supermarket. Cook at home. Buy less processed food."
Adds author Michael Pollan, "Get involved in your school lunch program. Get junk food out of the whole school. Sign up with a listserv for one of the many groups that’s tracking this. Your congressman/woman needs to hear from you."
Clearly, we're eating in terrible ways in this country, and there are so many things that facilitate that, starting with our genetic predisposition to love high-calorie foods and to revel in variety, plus an industry that caters very efficiently to those desires: There are 47,000 products in a modern supermarket, according to the movie. Such temptation! And because of the way food prices are structured, some of the least healthful, most caloric choices are the cheapest.
And so many questions. It would be great if a local-food, everyone-eats-organic, no-pesticide way of farming could still get everyone on the planet fed. Maybe it could, but has anyone done the math? And does the movie mix in legitimate concerns with fears that aren't grounded in science? For example, a lot of data suggest that so-called cloned meat -- actually, meat from regular cattle whose fathers were clones -- is no different than "normal" meat. So, leaving aside the "yuck" factor and animal welfare issues for a moment, is there a food safety issue with cloning? And are organic farms less -- or more -- likely to give us E.coli or salmonella? I'd really like to know.
Restaurant groups, nutrition and disease-prevention advocates and Washington lawmakers from both sides of the partisan divide on Wednesday announced they have hammered out an agreement that will put calorie contents on the menus of chain restaurants and other nutritional information within easy reach of consumers.
Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)*, Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said Wednesday that a draft compromise would oblige any establishment that is part of a chain of 20 or more restaurants operating under the same name to post the calorie content of all of its regular offerings and, upon request, to provide written information about menu items' fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sodium, sugars, dietary fiber and protein.
The draft language is to be included in an omnibus health reform bill under assembly on Capitol Hill. It would create a single national standard for nutritional disclosure by chain restaurants and eateries, preempting provisions adopted by some localities that have been stricter.
Predicting its ultimate passage, Harkin called the provision critical to the development of a society focused on disease prevention and health promotion. The broad political base of Wednesday's accord means its adoption is likely.
There are some exemptions from the provision: Chain restaurants need not provide calorie or other nutritional information on items that are daily specials, temporary offerings on the menu for fewer than 60 days or foods that are being market-tested for fewer than 90 days.
-- Melissa Healy
* An earlier version of this story referred to Tom Harkin as being from Arkansas.
Tami Dennis, who takes the word "skeptic" to previously uncharted territory, is the Times' Health and Science editor. She's adamant that pitches promoting awareness days, weeks or months are, by their nature, non-stories. And, because she's an adult, she refuses to use words like "veggies," "tummy" and "yummy."
Rosie Mestel, deputy Health and Science editor, studied genetics before abandoning flies, fungi and DNA for health/medical writing. Her hero is the biologist Ernst Haeckel, whose jellyfish paintings inspired snazzy chandeliers. Her favorite toast-spread is Marmite, a British delicacy made of yeast extract. Her least-favorite word is "millenniums."
Melissa Healy is a staff writer for the Health section reporting from Washington D.C. Healy's a veteran of The Times' National staff, having covered the Pentagon, Congress, poverty and social welfare, the environment, and the White House before shifting to Health in 2003. She writes frequently about mental health and human behavior, about federal health policy, prescription medication and ethics in medicine. More wonk than wellness freak, Healy chooses to believe in the health benefits of coffee and wine, and considers water a better work-out medium than beverage.
Karen Kaplan covers genetics, stem cells and cloning. She and colleague Thomas H. Maugh II comprise about 25% of the unofficial MIT-Alumni-in-Journalism Club, and she is proud to have taken more math (5) than English (0) courses in college. Her contributions to Booster Shots will, she hopes, appear more frequently than postings to her mommy blog.
Thomas H. Maugh II has been a science and medical writer at the Times for 23 years. Before that, he was on the staff of the journal Science for 13 years.
He has bachelor's degrees in English and chemistry from MIT and a doctorate in chemistry from UC Santa Barbara.
After a brief stint as a sports writer, Shari Roan turned to health journalism and has covered the topic for The Times for 18 years. She is the author of three books and the mother of two daughters, both teenagers who refer to her as a "health freak." She likes to jog, watch baseball and is very happy that dark chocolate contains some health benefit.
Jeannine Stein writes about fitness, sports medicine and obesity for the Health section. She’s a gym rat from way back and never met an elliptical trainer she didn’t like. Well, maybe one or two. She tempers exercise with a steady diet of reality television because she believes it’s all about balance.
